The Occult Matrix
Recently Updated as of 2017 - This Website is Completely AD FREE - Please Support Me Via Paypal, Promoted Products and Bitcoin, Etherium Or Ripple

Welcome Page About Me Announcements Personal Writings Knowledge Base News Articles
Video Links Digital Downloads Shop Store Suggested Reading Links Page Contact Me

Credo Mutwa Reptilians


December 13, 2002 - Transcript of conversation with Roger Elvick
 Few tidbit conversations before faxing on Dec. 12th.  

R:    Okay I’ve got another form for you to file.  That means the Tort Claim, Form 95.
**    I found that on the internet from that address you gave me earlier but it doesn’t say Form 95.  It doesn’t look like the right form from the Court of Claims.  The Dept of Justice looks like what you were reading to me instead of the Court of Claims.  I read that web site information and it sounds good.
**:    A little tidbit on the gal in Idaho…  They had been holding her saying she was a flight risk and all but did set her bail very low.  Anyway this morning was her hearing and going to the court I guess all the media, TV, newspapers etc. was there and lots of people were going to the hearing.  They had some guy, maybe it was the prosecutor, but he was saying that they are not having the hearing until next week.  Then this guy, who the person who told me about this didn’t know who he was but he was somebody important.  He had this wire like a cell phone or tape recorder coming out of his ear and he made the announcement that the hearing was going to take place but in another room and it was closed to the public.  Well the night before they told her they assigned an attorney to her so she wrote this letter to the attorney to accept or dishonor if she was going to be working for her so at this hearing the attorney, the guy with the wire in his ear, court reporter and judge and I’m not sure if the prosecutor was in the room or not.  But apparently the attorney read the letter with a brief explanation that it was prepared by my client and that she was not in dispute and that she wanted the appearance bond to enable to plead to the charges etc.  Anyway they asked her to plead to the lesser of all the charges and she would have an appearance bond and then it was rescheduled for her to appear next week.    I guess the prosecutor was saying something to the news or someone said it that there are always those that want to disobey the law and find the loopholes.   (chuckles)
R:    Okay when she pleas to the charge then you see is when she can force them to produce the voucher.  
**    That’s why we think they wanted her to plead guilty on the lesser charge.
R:    Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!  Is she released from custody?
**    I’m pretty sure she is.
R:    Well that’s good.  It looks like she’s got a pretty good handle on how to handle it.
**    Oh yeah!  She’s got a very nice manner, speaks very firm but not forceful.   
R:    Okay another thing on these tort claims…   Now I talked to a guy who had something to do with these some years ago, but he said the way they work, when you file them you’ve got about six (6) months before they do the investigation.  Now if they don’t settle with you within the six months that is when they look into it.  The judge from DC will call and make arrangements for those people to be deposed in your home county or someplace closer to you.  
**    How far back do they go do you know?
R:    Well I read on there 2 years but that’s two years from the time you know about it.  It’s not a statutory thing here, this is fraud.
**    Okay I did read some of it but I’ll go over it a little more thorough.   I’d like to do some of this on my house but that was back in 1993 and the bank is now part of Wells Fargo…. Course being part of Wells Fargo maybe E* will have them trained.  (chuckle)
R:    Yeah!  Yeah!…  The thing about it is, is request the claim now and if they refuse to settle now then that’s when the time starts running.  
**    Well I certainly have nothing to loose in trying.  Okay I’m going to fax these to you and get back to you tomorrow.

December 13, 2002      Early in the morning!  

R:    I went over these papers you faxed me yesterday and I’ve written it out just my suggestion of what E* can do.  (regarding the judgment on her house)  She probably isn’t going to use everything the way I said it because this is just a first draft.  I think the general idea is there and she can use whatever she needs.  What it is, is just an acceptance and return of judgment for lack of subject matter in exchange and then I just summed it all up.  Went through it, but you see this is going to warn them that if they refuse to do the settlement, pursuant to what I’ve summed up in here that they are going to be subject to this action be removed to a Federal forum, the Federal Court for the purpose of being able to use the federal tort claim.
**    Oh yeah we did find another tort claim on the Dept of Justice that sounds like the one you were reading to me.   We did find some other forms also.
R:    Good we need to get as many as we can.  At least the one that I’ve got it states right on the number 1 to submit to appropriate federal agency.  
**    Right!  We were thinking that this might not work because of her being in a state court unless there is some way to move it to the federal court and wasn’t sure how.  
R:    Yeah but you see as soon as the diversity of citizenship is determined then you see that’s cause for removal as a civil matter.   If you take your law dictionary and look up ‘diversity’.  You will see that’s where the separation of the two people is being made.   
**    And it says it there?
R:    It’s short… here I’ll read it to you.  It says:  for Slander… I was talking about it being slander of title but just a minute I’ll find it here.  Okay here is Diversity:  DIVERSITY in all capital letters is the first definition, the 2nd one is hist so that would be abbreviation for history in upper and lower case.  A plea that a prisoner to be executed is not the one that was accused and found guilty at which point a jury is immediately impaneled to try the issue of the prisoner’s identity.  
**    That obviously identifies the strawman!
R:    Yeah!!  
**    Interesting.
R:    See what they’re doing, they’re trying to charge a claim but they are trying to get a lot of BS in between there so nobody can determine if they have an assessment or not.   Then they’re going to move for the criminal charge, otherwise you see the judge is negligent because he has in his finding of fact and conclusion of law he has not stated that condition of insolvency.   So if he hasn’t done that when you remove to federal court he’s subject to being listed on the tort claim.  That means criminal charges as well because liable and slander come into effect in the tort.  
**    Okay.
R:    That is what I was going to show you-- The diversity of citizenship.  Because they’re coming from a foreign jurisdiction or they’re foreigners trying to diversify or they are dividing the citizenship.  
**    Oh did you include the license in there in how they are looting and plundering the local community?
R:    Well not exactly but I’m writing it so you can add those to it where you see the opportunity.
**    Oh okay…
R:    I wanted to give this thing some punch and then those things can be added.  I wanted to get it to you as fast as I could.   I understand what you’re saying and you’re right on target with that.  Okay now we read diversity.  Now I’m going to read to you what it means under ‘slander’:   It’s slander of title and it’s a slander of person.  Here it says:  Slander: a noun, a defamatory statement expressed in a transitory form especially speech.  Damages for slander unlike those for liable are not presumed and are thus must be proved by the plaintiff unless the defamation is slander per se.  Then it says, the act of making such a statement.   So you see they have actually done the act of slandering her title to her property, so you see we have slander that is actual.  Now it goes on to say:  Although liable and slander for the most part governed by the same principals there are two important differences. 1.  Liable is not merrily an actionable tort, but also a criminal offense whereas slander is a civil injury only.  So that’s why I think you want to claim in the form 95 injury and property damage and personal injury both.  Okay No. 2.  Liable in all cases is actionable per se but slander is say in special cases actionable only on proof of actual damage.   **    This could also be done in addition to the bar complaint cause this guy told us that the bar does investigate and recognize when he filed a complaint.  When I did mine and sent it in they thought we were frivolous and rejected it.  
R:    Okay!  Well I don’t know.  I don’t know how this is going to take effect but at least the same issues are involved here you see so they are both going to get the claim.  See slander is damage to the property.  Liable is personal injury, its criminal.  ‘This distinction has been severely criticized as productive as great injustice.’  I’m reading this out of Black’s 7th Edition.  With that in mind, I think, I probably haven’t summed this up to the greatest degree but I think you have the other little things…
**    Right but that would still do a lot of slander on a person because of how the screw up your credit report which is very crippling when you try to get on with your life.  After they took my house I couldn’t even find an apt because my credit was so messed up…. Plus if you try to find a job they run a credit report and sometimes that makes a difference.  That’s injury.
R:    Yeah.  Well see I just ran this across so it’s got the main thrust on it and you females are much better at critiquing the details.   Like my house here, I can probably clean it and have windows but it takes you females to put the curtains up and do the finishing touches in and fluff it up, so that’s what you’ll have to do with what I wrote up…
**    Chuckles…  Okay.
R:    Yeah you do that by nature.  Here why don’t I just read it to you.   Then I’ll fax it just in case you spot something then I’ll fax.  
**    Okay.  Also regarding that form you are talking about can you fax that too.  I think we may have two different forms.  We have one from the Dept. of Justice and then there is a form without a number from the Court of Claims.  The website on the Court of Claims sounds like what you were telling me but the form doesn’t match.
R:    Okay I’ll just fax the one I have.   All right I titled this: In Superior Court
             ******  THIS LETTER ETC ARE SEPARATE ALSO.  *******     
    The Notice of Entry of Judgment and Judgment as Exhibit A are hereby Accepted and Returned for settlement and taking possession of property described as:  You know when they are using exhibits there is a difference between exhibits and attachments.   I don’t remember exactly the definition that was given to me by who ever it was that took notice to that.  So we may want to, when putting stuff forward we may want to refer to it as an exhibit.
**    I think and exhibit is where it is used as evidence and an attachment is its inclusive.  Something like that.  One shows evidence and one makes it a part of…  
R:    Oh so the exhibit is the evidence or attachment could be a part of the information then we could list it as an attachment.  Okay so…  
    (Name of accused) hereby takes title and possession in settlement as said above, having returned the offer, signed by Leon Kaplan, as equitable consideration in set-off to G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., to complete its purpose by awarding attorney fees and costs to itself in exchange as said in the Judgment signed by Leon Kaplan December 9, 2002.
    In the event Glenn H. Wechsler and/or G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. continue to engage in litigation, beyond this settlement event, the purpose is thus identified as beyond, and foreign, and vexatious to (Name of accused’s) agreement, and requires a voucher of sufficient integrity to be cashed by (Name of accused) at a bank of her choosing.  Otherwise Glenn H. Wechsler is identified as an insolvent foreigner traveling in the local community in a disguise as:  G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. and practicing law without a license in an attempt to obtain an assessment to charge a claim (which is a felony to charge the claim without the assessment.)
    Additionally, the judgment authored by Leon Kaplan requires his Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law to conclude the insolvent fact of: Glenn H. Wechsler having not posted any recognizable surety/security to overcome his insolvent disability, and that insolvent condition is cause for Name of accused to remove this case to a Federal Forum for the cause of Diversity of Citizenship and for which Name of accused can submit a tort claim to the United States Marshal Service via Standard Form 95 prescribed by Department of Justice 28 CFR 14.2 for the aforesaid reasons (whereby G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., and Glenn H. Wechsler have not come to equity with clean hands and thereby surrender their alleged claim due to this fact.  That Name of accused who is threatened by being forced out of her home and property is not-in-fact-the same person whom G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., and Glenn H. Wechsler, State Bar #118456 have slandered.  G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., and Glenn H. Wechsler, State Bar #118456 have slandered the real Ethel R. Barnes and if this slander of her person and property continue as said above, then the libel aspect of this matter will also prove actionable in tort.  
    Notice is hereby given, that:  Leon Kaplan having not filed the Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law that shows the insolvent condition of G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., and Glenn H. Wechsler #118456 and the obvious absence of an agreeable settlement due to claims made by them against Name of accused without the sufficient security, has by omission, aided and abetted G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. and Wechsler in the racketeer influence and corrupt business organization slandered Full Name of accused and her property and thereby authorizes (surrenders his equity) discovery of his personal property for the purpose of liquidating the same for settlement of the damages incurred thereby and committed to the tort claim, unless:  the Order be given by Leon Kaplan to give Full Name of accused title and possession of the said property without any restraints whatsoever to possess at her pleasure.

    By: ___________________________________
    (Authorized Representative)

**    Perfect!  I don’t think that will need any curtains.  (chuckles)
R:    Okay and then I have another little addition addressed to you:  it says:

 Additional Comments:

She might also prepare an Order for Kaplan to sign in response to her suggesting he do something to settle this matter in Superior Court and then not being necessary to remove to Federal Court by reason of diversity etc.  She might end the foregoing acceptance etc, by specifically requesting the Order – and Preparing the same for his signature.  His failure to sign thereby results in removal to Federal Court and the Tort Claim to follow.
  Title it:  This Order is presented for signature and NOT negotiation.   The moral rot that has undermined the purpose the organization serves.   

**    Oh that’s good to give him a time limit so this gets resolved.  Did you notice there was nothing in there that gave her a time limit did you notice that?
R:    Yeah.  Yes I know.  They are skating right around the very fringes boy.
**    I know and that one little diddie where the judge put in there where she was testifying and she used the word Wells Fargo ‘inadvertently’ reconveyed the trust deed and that is marked out and written ‘based on fraudulent (something)’.  That must have been when the judge was practicing law from the bench or putting words in the accusers mouth.  
R:    Okay well you see, this again, by her preparing an Order for the judge to sign and add whatever you want to add in there.  You got the idea.  See the reason for this idea here, I was reading a history on the occupation of France and this came up in there where they were talking about when they were going to negotiate the Armistice and where it stated that Hitler and his men were not there to negotiate.  The presented the terms:  for signature – not negotiation.   
**    Yeah I do like that.  Lets them know who’s the captain of the ship.
R:    Yeah I thought that was okay.  The French probably deserve what they got for their loose moral habits that corrupted the government.   And there is another statement that I picked out of there:  The moral rot that has undermined the purpose the organization serves.
**    Boy that’s for sure.
R:    You can insert that or not insert that.
**    See I see Kaplan as the biggest culprit for failing to prevent.
R:    Yes!
**    And we’d like to know when this is a private agreement how did the judge happen into the case when GE Capitol made and offer to E* and she accepted then they try to bring another party in.  Kaplan just wedged his way in by him continuing to move on a private contract.
R:    See there’s other things here we can attack him on.   You can also attack him on that if he continues with this reign of terror this is also going to be cause for her to attach the personal property held by the local Bishop.  This would be a good time to do this with Bishop Law resigning in Boston.   He might be clued in that he has more head aches to come by his decisions.  You got enough info…
**    Oh yes we’ve got some wonderful tools here.  We hate to give them our last big growl without holding something back just in case.
R:    Yeah…  (chuckling)  save some for later.
**    Yeah… don’t show all your teeth at one time.  (chuckling)  Oh by the way I had a nice talk with J*C* last night.  I was going to give her a call today and find out how she made out with the Marshals serving those papers but she said she hadn’t heard yet.  
R:    Oh…  Well maybe the better way is to go with the Tort Claims because once we remove the case to Federal Court.  On a removal, I don’t know if there is a fee that has to be paid.
**    The fees for Fed’l court are much less and they are so much easier to work with versus state court.  At least here.   As a matter of fact I paid for my appeal regarding my house using a check from LeRoy Switzer or Elizabeth B. and they took it and they never said a word.   State courts here are like $195 and the Federal is $140 and the defendant doesn’t pay where in state both have to pay so if you don’t have the funds to defend you’re up the creek.  
R:    I think the Feds take those without any fuss.  That’s a set off.  Just write right on it:  SET-OFF, EFT only.  That’s a bankruptcy as a matter of fact.
**    You know I really wonder who that guy was that was with P*, the gal in Idaho.  Do you think it would be Secret Service coming to a court action?
R:    I don’t know unless there is something from that Homeland Security.  
**    I hope she’ll write something up for us to share because I know many are curious and are learning from this whole process and she did such a good job.  
R:    She could adopt this method too.  She could move for settlement and a settlement order and if they fail it’s removable to US Federal Court and if we remove and I don’t think you would have to pay the fees.  The fees have already been paid.
**    Well if you want to appeal you have to pay a fee.  
R:    I don’t think it would have to be paid though because it’s a removable action and well maybe you could call the clerk of the court and ask if there are any costs or fees to remove an action that’s already been determined but is now proving to be insolvent so it’s removable to Federal court to commence a Tort Action.   From that basis see because of the bankruptcy.   Because of the insolvent condition of the State Courts.  It’s a prepaid set-off.  And you see its questionable whether you want to use in forma pauperous because that’s a confession of a sort of being the debtor being bankrupt when in fact it is the creditor that’s bankrupt.  
**    Right!  Good idea.  We can do that.
R:    Maybe if they recognize the state filing as a pre-paid fee for action why then you see the pre-payment comes with the removal.   So just tell the clerk, “by the virtue of the removal the fee comes with the action.  It’s a pre-paid actionable fee from the state court.”  
**    Okay we can try that.   Once we have the right ideas and understanding talking to these people is easy.  You know when I took my case out of state court into federal using a title 42, they kept trying to get it dismissed by using res judicata.   I had all different characters and everything in there and used the state case as the exhibits.  They can’t throw it out but they use some BS about how you failed to make your case or prove your case so after your original hearing from then on it is all them acting behind closed doors.  
R:    Well this is Tort.  They can’t argue res judicata because they’re insolvent.  
**    Yes this is much better.   I was coming at it from a complete different angle.  I was using the angle that they didn’t loan me anything.
R:    Yeah well we just got to tell them they can’t get anything into evidence Buddy… post your bond.  I’ll take it and see if I can cash it at the bank.  
**    What’s so interesting is E* will be doing to him exactly what Judge Kaplan is trying to do to her.  He blocked her responses because she paid the court fees with her set-off account.  He is giving the bank their default request because she didn’t respond according to him.  
R:    Yep!  Yep!
**    This is looking like it is all coming together.
R:    And he’s surrendering his equity because he is now being accused of corrupt influence and racketeering.  
**    Okay just give him the choice of overturning his Order and everyone will go their separate way or else going into Fed’l court with the Tort complaint.  So in other words she will also forgetting about getting a voucher?
R:    Well no she should get a voucher and not agree to settlement until she goes down to the bank and cashes it.  
**    So the bank will have to carry on just as they should of before the judge entered the agreement?
R:    Right.  They gave her the reconveyance before and it didn’t hold so that ain’t good enough this time.  She’s going to have the money and the clean up of the complaint.  She can tell them, “No I’m not going to take that this time because you people reneged last time we did this.”  
**    Hold that against them then and make them produce or the claims get filed?
R:    Yep! Yep! Yep!  It’s racketeer influence and corrupt organization.   They’re using it to fund terrorist organizations.  
**    Oh there is a guy that wrote a paper about the corruption of police and IRS seizure.  It was written in such a way that you take my car and you don’t put it back I’m going to tell your gang leader.  He’s written it in such a way that the government operations is not different then the gangs operation.   
The government being the gang leaders.
R:    Well the government isn’t the gang leader.  It’s the guys that are in disguise of the government.  There’s where he bits off more then he can chew because he is taking on the government and the government is me.   So you know what happens?
**    What?
R:    They take my 8300 forms and they go against him collecting my taxes and I’ve authorized them to do it.  He’s protesting the tax.   So you see now they have a claim in fact that they can pursue against him.  That’s what happens to those guys that take on that kind of a posture that the government is corrupt.  It isn’t the government that’s corrupt it’s the guy that comes in disguise of the government.  Using a government disguise.  
**    Good point.  
R:    And of course that’s what we’re telling Kaplan.  The attorney is coming in, in a disguise as GE Capital Mortgage and Kaplan is providing them with another layer of disguise of the court.
**    Oh that really clears up Public Policy.  We’re the ones privately operating and legislating them and their law.   Lot of people challenge or get confused by Public Policy they mix it up with Public Opinion.
R:    Yeah!  But you see Opinion there is no substance so it’s not public policy.  But you see I know that we got a guy at the farm here was the last sheriff of this county.  He comes out and works with us and he was asking me some questions as to why I take a position that I do and bla bla bla and I just tell him, because when you get into the exchange where there is no money, I said that’s public policy.  You know what his comment to me was?
**    No!
R:    Well he said, “Public policy doesn’t exist.”  What he’s doing from his perspective as a sheriff is anything in public policy didn’t exist in his eyesight.
**    They’re governed by the laws in print.
R:    Yeah, well the states attorney tells them what to do.  It’s the state subject matter.  And if he can’t see the subject matter he can’t see how or the debt instruments that they recognize, he can’t see how payment is effected.  “Well”, I said, “It’s public policy.”  But you see it’s no sense in trying to hammer anything through with these guys.  His wife is an attorney who has represented people who have gotten their property ripped off in this county and now the people, even that people that I’m at the farm with here have these people as friends and now they can see what I’m doing is going to bring threats to her because she’s going to eventually be called upon for the frauds that were committed because we’re going to start yanking property from the people that looted and plundered these homeowners property.  So it’s going to do the reputation of the attorney in.  
**    I can see where the education of this is going to have an affect.   I was listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday and he was quoting some politician made a statement that “this country is one nation under law.”  Rush was making the comments how this guy was so confused he doesn’t even know it’s “this country is one nation under God.”   See how they’re trying to sneak that kind of brain washing in.  So subtle that people pretty soon won’t realize which one is correct