From: ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel)
Subject: IRS Suffers major defeat!
Message-ID: <1993Apr1.154516.20329@colorado.edu>
Organization: Universtiy of Coloardo, Boulder
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 15:45:16 GMT
Lines: 457

Hello All:
	Here is a definitive anti-tax package. This article proves many
recently contested (on Internet) contentions regarding the legality of
the income tax. There is no statute in the IRC that states that one
is liable to file a return or liable to pay tax. It is a VOLUNTARY
system. Thanks to certain naysayers who have attempted to get my Internet
access suspended, I cannot post the last few lines of the article as
they might be considered an "ad" as the article mentions where and for how
much this package may be obtained. I will be happy to email it to anyone
who is interested. This is HOT STUFF especially with april 15 approaching
fast. Very informative and to the point. I have spoken with the group
by phone as well as others who have used this technology. It is bullet-
proof. Enjoy!

With Explicit Reservation Of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207)
Regards, -A. J. Teel-, Sui Juris (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)

[START OF DOCUMENT: hawaii.txt.lis ]

       FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
       The IRS suffers a major defeat in Hawaii.

       On Wednesday August 8th, 1992 a Federal Jury acquitted Royal  Lamarr
Hardy  and  Mike  Harada  of  a  seven  count indictment which consisted of
conspiracy to launder drug money and structuring currency  transactions  to
avoid income reporting requirements.
       This acquittal is a major victory for the entire "Patriot Movement,"
and  a serious blow to the I.R.S. who tried to frame Lamarr Hardy into this
hideous money laundering scheme (Danny Hashimotoi, National  Commodity  and
Barter Association, NCBA, Director for Hawaii).
       Alexander Silvert, Hardy's Federal Public Defender,  said  that  the
evidence  in  this  case showed that the I.R.S. created the crime, supplied
the means to commit the crime, and even laundered the money themselves, and
by  insistence  and  strong  handed persuasion tried to induce Mr. Hardy to
become involved in this crime simply to be able to charge Mr. Hardy with  a
hideous  crime that the I.R.S. knew he had never committed in the past, nor
would he ever commit in the future if it wasn't for the  government  agents
pushing Hardy into the criminal actions.
       The jury in this case made a tough decision. It was a tough case but
the  jury  saw  the  truth  and set Mr. Hardy free on all counts. This is a
major loss for the I.R.S. and it  will  send  shock  waves  clear  back  to
Washington  to  let  them  know  individuals will not tolerate this kind of
action by the government or government representatives.

       Historical background.
       Lamarr Hardy is the Executive Director  and  Co_Founder  of  "Corner
Stones  to  Freedom", and Unincorporated Research Foundation. Hardy is best
known in the "Patriot  Movement"  for  the  development  of  the  "Reliance
Defense."  His  program  became so successful that the I.R.S., according to
court documents, gave Hardy the coveted title of "one of the most dangerous
tax  protesters  in  the  country."  Over 4,000 people are already building
their personal foundations. Is it any  wonder  that  the  I.R.S.  considers
Hardy's   "Reliance  Defense"  program  as  extremely  dangerous  to  their
survival!
       The "Reliance Defense", or Personal Foundation as Hardy calls it, is
based upon negating the "willfulness" portion in a 7203 "willful failure to
file"  charge.  The  key  in  this  case  is  if  there's  no  evidence  of
willfulness,  there  can  be no criminal conviction. To accomplish this the
Research Foundation assists its members to acquire competent  legal  advice
on income tax issues. Over the last twelve years Hardy has built one of the
most powerful personal legal foundations ever put together in  the  Patriot
Movement.
       In 1985 it was the prestigious Barrister Inn  of  Boise,  Idaho  who
first recognized this advanced technology. Later that year they published a
front page article in  the  October  "Alert"  newspaper  entitled  "Willful
Failure  to File" is dead. The article went into depth to explain about the
"reliance Defense" technology and  how  important  this  strategy  was  for
certain types of individuals who choose not to file income tax returns.
       Quoting from paragraph 11, they said "every patriot has to know that
intent  is an element of the offense, but in the majority of cases patriots
have been unable to make use of that  knowledge  as  a  matter  of  law  to
convince  a  jury. In the past, patriots have relief on their own knowledge
as a basis for their arguments---only to lose.
       However, utilizing the "Reliance Defense" technology and not  filing
because you sought and received sound legal professional advice is entirely
another matter.,  No  one  in  the  case  of  statutes  requiring  specific
performance  can be held criminally liable because of legal advice provided
by counsel.
       John Voss, Head of the NCBA, wrote to Hardy in 1989 and told him, "I
consider your position letters to the I.R.S. to be one of the best and most
comprehensive that I've seen to date! It is  further  strong  testimony  to
your continued research and commitment to education of all concerned." John
Voss used this same technology in his own "willful failure  to  file"  case
and  he  was  found not guilty on all counts in his case largely because of
using this strategy.
       Bob Minarik, club leader of Patriots for Liberty, recommended to his
members  to  explore  setting  up  their  own  "Reliance Defense." In their
November  1989  newsletter,  Minarik  said,  "Lamarr  Hardy  has  developed
position  letters  and  a  defense  that  is excellent in quality, superbly
researched, and well  documented.  In  my  opinion,  the  strength  of  his
strategy  is that he establishes his position on the professional advice of
experts in the fields of tax law, and then shifts the burden of proof  back
to the I.R.S. Further, our research confirmed his findings."
       Martin Larson of the  "Spotlight"  also  wrote  an  article  in  the
November  1989  issue  about  Hardy  and  his  "Reliance Defense." He said,
"Lamarr Hardy of Honolulu, Hawaii has carried  his  research  further  than
anyone  else  I  know  of." Is it any wonder after all this that the I.R.S.
considered Mr. Hardy one of the "most dangerous" tax protesters, "the  most
dangerous to them!"
       For 10 years the Criminal Investigations Divisions (C.I.D.)  of  the
I.R.S.  was  unable  to  find  a  crack  in  Mr. Hardy's "Reliance Defense"
program. Then in 1987 the I.R.S. and the U.S. Attorney's office launched  a
massive  Grand  Jury  investigation into Hardy's activities which after two
full years resulted, interestingly, in no indictments.
       At this point the I.R.S. was exasperated, so early in 1990 the local
I.R.S.  office  obtained permission from the Justice Department to set up a
"STING OPERATION" on Mr. Hardy, The I.R.S. brought in Special  Agent  Ralph
Jacoby  to be the #1 drug money laundering specialist to come to Hawaii and
take Mr. Hardy out.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
       ROYAL LAMARR HARDY was arrested on August 16, 1990, and released  on
bail.  He was arraigned on an Indictment on September 28, 1990. On December
7,  1990,  Hardy  was  Re-indicted  and  Arraigned  on  a  new  seven-count
Superseding  Indictment  which was pending before the court and was set for
trial on August 18, 1992.
       On January 18, 1991, Hardy filed a motion to have  all  the  charges
against  him  dismissed  based  upon  outrageous  government  conduct. Oral
arguments and hearings of evidence were held on this motion on  March  18th
and  19th,  and  April  10th  and  11th of 91. On August 2, 1992, the Court
issued a written order denying this motion.
       Meanwhile, the court granted Hardy's motion to  continue  the  trial
based  upon  the  fact  that  the case of Jacobson v United States, Federal
Public Defender Alexander Silvert, counsel for Hardy ordered transcripts of
all  pertinent  hearings  bearing  on  the  issue  of outrageous government
conduct. Having received this material, Hardy respectfully asked the  court
again  to  reconsider  its previous order denying Hardy's motion to dismiss
the charges pending against Hardy. Again, the court issued a written  order
denying Hardy's motion.

II FACTS OF THE CASE.
       The testimony and facts introduced in  the  case  demonstrated  that
prior  to  the  "sting  operation," the I.R.S. had labeled Hardy one of the
most dangerous tax protesters of the country due to his prominent  role  as
the  main leader of the tax protester movement in Hawaii. {Stip.#1. Stip. #
refers to the numbered stipulation of fact reached by the parties which was
lodged with the Court on April 2, 1991, and which is attached as Exhibit B.
"Tr." refers to the transcript of the various hearings held on this  motion
by date.} There had been I.R.S./C.I.D. investigations since 1981 and formal
grand jury proceedings into Hardy's "tax activities" since 1988. {Stip. #2.
The court granted, over defense objection, the government's request to seal
all the government papers which authorized the  "sting  operation"  on  the
basis  that they did not constitute Brady material. However, independent of
the  Brady  issue,  these  materials  are  material  and  relevant   to   a
determination  of  the  issue pending before the court and thus should have
been  unsealed  and  made  part  of  this  record}.  This  information  was
specifically  mentioned  in  the papers filed by the local I.R.S. office to
their Washington office in order to gain approval  to  conduct  the  "sting
operation."  {Tr.  4/10/91  at  p.  60}  Prior  to  conducting  the  "sting
operation" which was directed specifically against Hardy, the I.R.S. had no
information  whatsoever that Hardy had ever laundered "drug monies." {Stip.
#11; Tr. 4/10/91 at pp. 60-61}  In  fact  the  very  idea  Hardy  would  be
targeted  for  a  "sting"  involving  "drug money" was entirely made up and
designed by Special Agent Ralph Jacoby (an I.R.S./C.I.D. Sting  Specialist)
just  so  the  "crime"  would  fit under the more severe umbrella of the 18
U.S.C. (1956). {Tr. 4/10/91 at p. 64}
       The only information the  government  possessed  about  Hardy  being
involved  in  simple  "money  laundering" was in Count 5 of the indictment.
However, this allegation was dismissed as a matter of law by Judge Pence on
March 19, 1991. {Tr. 4/10/91 at pp. 61-62}
       The government claims and  contends  anyone  involved  in  the  "tax
protester"  movement  is per se guilty of "money laundering", but there was
no evidence provided  to  support  this  "argument,  other  than  what  was
contained  in Count 5. Based upon the above information the I.R.S. launched
this hideous "sting" operation against Hardy in March of 1990  and  brought
in  the  #1 I.R.S./C.I.D. Special Agent (Ralph Jacoby), who had 45 "stings"
to his credit, from California to implement and run the operation.
       The evidence is clear at least two undercover  I.R.S./C.I.D.  agents
initiated contact with Hardy by phone on a number of occasions in April and
May of 1990. {Stip.#3; Tr. 4/10/91 at pp.49-50}  The  agents  continued  to
make  a number of phone contacts with Hardy until Hardy finally agreed to a
meeting on May 3, 1991. It was a direct result of  the  insistence  of  the
I.R.S./C.I.D.  undercover  agents that the May 3rd meeting was held. {Stip.
$5}
       The evidence shows Hardy was never informed prior to May 3, 1991, of
any  illegal  purpose  for  the  meeting.  {Tr.  4/10/91  at p. 52} At this
meeting, it was the I.R.S./C.I.D. agents who initiated the discussion  abut
the  possibility of "laundering money." It was the undercover I.R.S./C.I.D.
agents who wanted to "launder the money" by utilizing cashiers' checks  and
not by any other means!
       Hardy of course refused! {Stip. #7; Tr. 4/10/92  at  p.88}  Finally,
Special Agent Jacoby admitted that at this meeting, and every other meeting
when the issue of payment for Hardy's alleged service was mentioned, it was
always the agent's who brought it up, not Hardy.

Court hearing:
       Special agent Jacoby: "I believe there was conversation
about remuneration for services, yes."
       Federal  Public  Defender  Alexander  Silvert:  "And  weren't  those
conver-
sations always, in every instance, begun by you?"
       Special Agent  Jacoby:  "Probably  in  all  likelihood,  yes."  {Tr.
4/10/92 at p. 48}

       Special   Agent   Jacoby's   testimony   demonstrated   that   Hardy
consistently
rejected  all  offers  of  payment  until   finally,   in   an   unrecorded
conversation,  Agent  Jacoby  threw money down on Hardy's desk and strongly
suggested he take it! Despite Hardy's continued refusal to  cooperate  with
the  undercover  special  agents  on  May 3, 1991, the I.R.S./C.I.D. agents
continued to phone him throughout May of 1991  and  continued  to  "modify"
their  plans  to see if they could suck Hardy into their trap! {Tr. 4/10/91
at pp. 49-50} Each time, Hardy politely rejected their invitations.
       Nevertheless, in June of 1991, agents of the  I.R.S.,  knowing  full
well  that Hardy had refused to help them over and over to launder money by
using illegal means, the I.R.S./C.I.D. agents contacted the D.E.A.  Special
Agent  who  they knew from first hand experience to have a D.E.A. informant
who ran a check cashing business in Honolulu (Mike  Harada)  to  help  them
such Hardy into their trap!

Court hearing:
       Attorney: "In June of 1991, did you have a discussion with a Special
Agent of the I.R.S. regarding money laundering in the State of Hawaii?"
       D.E.A.Special Agent: "Yes, I did."
       Attorney: "And what was the extent of that conversation?"
       D.E.A. Special Agent: "It was, as you say, in the month of June 1991
when  the  Special  Agent  of  the I.R.S. requested that I contact Mr. Mike
Harada of the Hawaii Check Cashing Company, to ascertain whether or not  he
had a specific number of check cashing stores here in the State."
       Attorney: "Do you know why the I.R.S. Special Agent asked you that?"
       D.E.A. Special Agent: "For two reasons. I believe he asked me,  one,
because  he knew that I had a personal relationship with Mr. Harada and his
friends; and also because he knew Mr. Harada personally as well."  He  also
told  me that I.R.S./C.I.D. was conducting a financial "sting operation" on
money laundering with the State; and that there was a ......it had come  up
where  someone was going to, a suspect was attempting or would be utilizing
a check cashing company to  launder  money:  and  the  information  further
indicated  that  it  was going to be the largest check cashing chain in the
State." {Rt. 4/10/91 at pp. 12-13}

       The D.E.A. Special Agent did as requested and  informed  Harada  (to
act  as  D.E.A. informant) and keep an eye out and report back if he became
aware of any suspicious activity. {Tr. 4/10/92 at p. 14}
       Special Agent Jacoby testified he was  aware  of  I.R.S./C.I.D.  and
D.E.A.  Special  Agents  directly  involved  in the "sting operation" being
conducted against Hardy. {Tr. 4/10/91 at pp. 46-47}
       Finally, it was  Harada  (the  D.E.A.  informant)  who  set  up  and
initiated  the  first meeting with Hardy. During that meeting it was Harada
who brought up the idea of wanting to buy money in exchange  for  cashier's
checks  to  hardy  during their July 1991 meeting, not Hardy.{Stip. #15 and
#16}
       Only after these events did Hardy become sucked  into  and  involved
with   the   unlawful   activities  hoisted  upon  him  by  the  undercover
I.R.S./C.I.D. agents and the D.E.A. Special Agent informant.

III. ARGUMENT:
        The question of whether the actions of  government  special  agents
amount  to  outrageous  government  conduct  which  arises  to the level of
violation of a defendant's due process rights is a question of law for  the
court  to  determine.United  States  v  Bogart,  (1986) and United States v
Ramirez, (1983)
       Fundamental fairness will not permit any defendant to  be  convicted
of  a crime in which police conduct is deemed "outrageous." United States v
Twigg. (1978)
       The question whether police conduct sufficiently rises to the  level
warranting dismissal of charges is examined in light of the totality of the
circumstances. United States v Twigg, (1978)
       In  Jacobson  v  United  States  (1992)  the  Court  held  that  the
government had failed, as a matter of law, to give as a reason of proof any
evidence to  support  the  jury's  verdict  that  Jacobson  was  likely  to
(independent of the government's acts) violate the law.
       Hardy readily acknowledges Jacobson was "framed" as an  "entrapment"
case. However, the nature of the decision and the analysis employed clearly
applies to this case and certainly to the issue  of  outrageous  government
conduct.
       In Jacobson the court acknowledged sting operations were still valid
investigative   tools.  However,  the  court  made  the  following  general
conclusion regarding catching those defendants who were already engaged  in
illegal  activity.  Specifically, the Court states: "Likewise, there can be
no dispute that the Government may use undercover  agents  to  enforce  the
law.  It  is  well  settled that the fact that officers or employees of the
Government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission  of
the  offense does not defeat the prosecution. Artifice and stratagem may be
employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises.
       Immediately upon the heels of this statement, the Court stated:  "In
their zeal to enforce the law, however, Government agents may not originate
a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition  to
commit  a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the
Government may prosecute."
       The court held the government must  prove  beyond  reasonable  doubt
"that  the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first
being approached by Government agents." Of significance is the court  said,
"THE  criminal  act,"  not  A  criminal  act." Finally, the court stated in
conclusion: "When the Government's  quest  for  convictions  leads  to  the
apprehension  of  an  otherwise law abiding citizen who, if left to his own
devices, likely would have never run afoul of the law,  the  courts  should
intervene."
       Thus, the Court's analysis in Jacobson, although worded in terms  of
an  "entrapment"  case,  leaves little doubt the legal issue of "outrageous
government conduct" is alive and well and should itself be  analyzed  under
the dictates of Jacobson.
       In Jacobson the Supreme court has sent a clear message to the  lower
courts  that  overreaching and illegal conduct by the government cannot and
should not be tolerated by any court.
       The evidence could not be clearer in this case that  the  government
targeted Hardy, solely because the I.R.S. did not like how Hardy has chosen
to exercise  his  First  Amendment  right  of  free  speech  and  political
expression.  Indeed,  the  government  is  frighteningly brazen about their
reasons for going after Hardy.
       The testimony in this case shows there was no evidence whatsoever to
support  the  fact  that  Hardy had previously been involved in "drug money
laundering" or even simple "money laundering"  prior  to  the  government's
operation.  The  only prior claim of "money laundering' which could be made
against Hardy was  contained  in  Count  5  of  the  Indictment  which  was
dismissed.
       In an act which rally shows the government's illegal intent  Special
Agent  Jacoby  testified,  simply  to  have  the sting "fit" a more serious
criminal statute than the one  applicable  to  simply  money  laundering,he
created  the idea of drug money laundering out of his own head, even though
the I.R.S. in all the  years  of  investigating  Hardy  had  absolutely  no
evidence  to  suggest  Hardy had ever previously committed any sort of drug
crime in his entire life. This was not an "investigation" that  the  I.R.S.
was conducting, rather it was an exercise in 1990's McCarthyism!
       The evidence also demonstrates over a period of months  it  was  the
I.R.S./C.I.D. Special Agents who consistently contacted Hardy and gradually
turned the conversation to  drug  money  laundering,  not  Hardy.  Although
confronted  with  vague innuendoes the undercover agents wanted to "launder
monies from drug sources,: Hardy kept insisting he  could  only  set  up  a
system of legitimate trusts so they could do it legally.
       It was the special Agents who kept insisting the monies be converted
into  cashier's  checks. Special Agent Jacoby's testimony about the May 3rd
meeting clearly show it was the undercover I.R.S./C.I.D.  agents  who  kept
demanding  some  sort  of  illegal,  clandestine  operation be established,
specifically using cashier's checks,  not  Hardy.  Despite  these  repeated
attempts by the undercover agents to such Hardy into their trap, Hardy over
and over declined their overtures for several months.
       However, it was in July  of  1991,  Hardy  was  approached  by  one,
Michael  Harada,  who  ironically  is  a co-defendant in this case,who just
happened to own the largest check cashing business in Hawaii, and who  just
happened to be a part-time D.E.A. informant and just happened to be working
with the same D.E.A. Special Agent whom the  I.R.S.  was  working  on  this
sting operation.
       As the evidence shows, it was Harada who searched out and set  up  a
meeting  with  Hardy  for  a  discussion  concerning the establishment of a
legitimate trust system for Harada by Hardy. Frankly,  it  was  Harada  who
brought  up  the  subject  whether  Hardy  knew  anyone  who had extra cash
available to help him in his check cashing business. Only and only at  this
point  did  Hardy  mention  anything about exotic pawn dealers having extra
amounts of cash from their business who needed to exchange their  cash  for
cashier's checks.
       Thus, even if Harada was not clearly working for the  D.E.A.  during
this  time  in  terms  of being under contract, although Hardy maintains he
was, Harada was acting in an agency capacity for the D.E.A and on behalf of
the I.R.S./C.I.D. covert sting operation. The D.E.A. Special Agent directly
involved in the sting operation had specifically gone to the D.E.A. Special
Agent  to  have  him  contact  Harada,  who just happened to have access to
hundreds of thousands of dollars of cashier's checks, in order  to  launder
the  money  of  the  undercover I.R.S./C.I.D. agents and make the operation
work.
       The I.R.S./C.I.D. Agent did as testified in  this  case  inform  the
D.E.A.   Special   Agent  there  was  a  sting  operation  being  conducted
specifically dealing with the need for cashier's checks.
       The record shows this discussion took place after Hardy had declined
over and over again to get involved in any money laundering cashier's check
cashing scheme!
       The evidence in this case clearly shows Hardy did  introduce  Harada
to  the Special Agents and Hardy was present at the meetings between Harada
and the undercover agents when the arrangements were made  as  to  how  the
alleged  drug  money  was to be laundered. But, Hardy made it very clear he
was simply hooking up two interested parties as a business favor and  Hardy
was  not  interested  in  receiving  any  monies for helping the undercover
I.R.S./C.I.D. agents for putting the two "businessmen" together .
       The evidence in this case proves it was the undercover I.R.S./C.I.D.
agents  who  insisted,  time  and  time  again, Hardy receive money for his
"part" in the scheme. Again, the evidence clearly  shows  Hardy  again  and
again  kept  refusing  to  take  any money despite repeated attempts by the
undercover I.R.S./C.I.D. agents to force him to take a "cut."
       Thus, the evidence shows the government created the crime,  supplied
the  means  to  commit  the  crime,  even committed the crime themselves by
laundering over $300,000 in cash just because they couldn't get Hardy to do
it,  and  by  insistence  and  strong handed persuasion tried over and over
again to induce Hardy to become somehow involved in this crime simply to be
able to charge him with a hideous crime they knew he had never committed in
the past nor would ever commit, if it wasn't for the  I.R.S./C.I.D.  agents
pushing him into their criminal activities.
       On the point the Supreme Court has said: "In their zeal  to  enforce
the  law,  however,  the  Government  agents  may  not originate a criminal
design, implant in an innocent person'[s mind the disposition to  commit  a
criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so the government may
prosecute." Jacobson, 1992.
       The evidence in this case is  clear  this  happened  and  "Jacobson"
dictates  the  result.  This  court  or  any  court should not stand by and
condone the outrageous  conduct  committed  by  the  I.R.S./C.I.D.  Special
Agents  in  this  case.  The  conduct by the I.R.S. and D.E.A. is even more
offensive than most cases because, as the government brazenly admits,  this
entire  "sting"  operation  was  conceived  of  and  conducted specifically
because the I.R.S. wanted to silence Mr. Lamarr Hardy  for  the  technology
Hardy developed and in the way which Hardy has chosen to exercise his First
Amendment right, which was to  speak  out  against  the  I.R.S.  and  their
criminal activities!
       As the record shows the I.R.S./C.I.D. Special Agents  even  went  so
far  as  to  fabricate a drug money laundering scheme and "structure" their
"sting operation" so it would fall under the dictates of  the  "drug  money
laundering"  statute  rather than the less serious criminal statute related
to evading I.R.S. reporting requirements (failing to file  reports  related
to  monetary  transactions  over  $10,000  in  cash)  because they knew the
punishment for drug money laundering is so much more  severe.  Again,  such
behavior  by  agents  of the government who have taken an oath and sworn to
catch criminals, not create them. should not be acceptable in a society  of
supporting free men!
       Under "Jacobson", the Supreme court recognized the  government  must
show a defendant was predisposed to commit "the crime," not "a crime."
       Based on these facts, the  court  was  requested  to  grant  Hardy's
motion  to  reconsider  and  dismiss  all  or part of the charges presented
against him, even after all this the court denied his motion to dismiss and
set  the  case  for  trial  on  August 27, 1992. After two weeks of hearing
government agents tell their hideous story of how they  framed  and  sucked
Hardy  into  their  drug  money laundering scheme---for the sole purpose of
silencing him---the jury on Thursday morning September 8th acquitted him of
all counts.
       After the trial the members of the jury all came up to Lamarr  Hardy
and shook his hand, some of the jury even hugged him. What a joyous moment!
The jury couldn't believe the government would  go  so  far,  just  to  get
someone.  They  felt  the I.R.S./C.I.D./D.E.A. Special Agents were the ones
who committed the crime. In this case and tried every  way  they  could  to
induce Hardy into their scheme for the sole purpose of trying to induce and
honest citizen to commit a crime. "We weren't going to let that  happen  in
America.  We  made  the right decision. We acquitted Lamarr Hardy and we're
proud of it."
       We must also give a special thanks  to  Alexander  Silvert,  Hardy's
Federal  Public  Defender,  and  the  whole  staff at the Public Defender's
Office for their hard work fighting for justice in this case. They  did  an
awesome job.
       Finally, I'd like to thank my  precious  Yahweh,  our  Creator,  for
being  with me throughout my trials and tribulations and finally setting me
free to continue to teach the truth about the  crime  that  the  I.R.S.  is
perpetrating on his people.
       If you'd like to contact Lamarr Hardy personally, you can reach  him
by phone by calling (800).............
       If you'd like to get more information about how you can set  up your
own  "Reliance Defense" to protect yourself against the I.R.S., please send
your full legal name, address and phone number plus .........to  P.O.Box
............................... Ask for the "Reliance Defense Packet." The
packet will explain in detail every thing you need to know about setting up
your   own   personal  "Reliance  Defense."  Remember,  this  is  the  same
information the I.R.S. spent millions trying to  stamp  out--obviously  for
some  very good reason---they don't want you to have it. Why?! Because they
know it works! Hurry, order your packet today before it's too late!

[END OF DOCUMENT: hawaii.txt.lis ]


+=============================================================================+
|                D    I    S    C    L    A    I    M    E    R               |
+------------------------------------oooOooo----------------------------------+
| The sender of this message is not responsible for and does not necessarily  |
| agree with the content or opinions contained herein. Mail will be forwarded |
| to the source identified, if any. This is for "information purposes only",  |
| has not necessarily been verified or tested in any way, and "should not be  |
| construed as legal advise". Your comments and responses are encouraged.     |
| Please Email to "ajteel@dendrite.cs.colorado.EDU" instead of replying here. |
| With Explicit Reservation of All Rights, UCC 1-207, A. J. Teel, Sui Juris.  |
+=============================================================================+
| The American's Bulletin, Mr. Robert Kelly, Sui Juris, Editor (503) 779-7709 |
| c/o 3434 North Pacific Highway, Medford, Oregon, U.S.A. Postal Zone: 97501  |
+=============================================================================+