From: Gary Hunt at the Outpost of Freedom
Date: July 1, 1997
Let me tell you about a man named "Quigley"
I had returned to Central Florida in December, 1994. Just a few months later, July 27, 1995, the Central Florida Committee of Safety had its organizational meeting. One of the attendees was Robert Chapman.
Bob was a decent sort, in his thirties. He drove a beat up old Corvette and was always willing to help. He became a regular at the Committee of Safety meetings. He was present when the Committee of Safety recognized the ratification of the Thirteenth (Titles of Nobility) Amendment to the Constitution, and determined that anyone who had, by their own actions, in violation of said Amendment, given up their Citizenship in the United States could not participate, being a foreigner, in any Committee of Safety activities.
The Committee of Safety developed a "Request to be considered a participant" which everybody in attendance had to execute. When I say "execute", I mean that at the bottom of the form, where the signature was required, and just to the right, was the word "(SEAL)". Now, the significance of this "SEAL" is that it means "to attest" or "to bear witness". In other words, it means that you swear that what you have attested to is true. If you attest, seal or swear falsely, that is perjury.
Well, the first line of the application says,
"Name:_____(is this your real name? Yes__ No__)"
Further down, it asks,
"Are you aware that there are at least two classes of citizen in this nation?"
Down below that, it queries,
"Are you now, or have you ever been:
1. a banker (officer of any financial institution)? Yes No
2. a bar attorney (member of the ABA)? Yes No
3. a law enforcement officer (federal, state or local)? Yes No
(Note: if you have answered YES to any of the above three questions, you are not able to attend or participate in the Committee of Safety as a result of your willful revocation of your citizenship in this country.)"One of these forms was executed by Robert Chapman. That means that he attested, swore that he was Robert Chapman, and that Robert Chapman was his real name. This same man is testifying against ten defendants in a Tampa, Florida federal courtroom, today. Only, today, he is Bob Quigley, IRS undercover agent.
Let's go a bit further. In June, 1995, Gene Schroder and others, held a common law grand jury in Wichita Falls, Kansas. Among the attendees was one Robert Chapman. Now, as an undercover agent, Chapman, er, Quigley, is an observer (and recorder) of information he is supposed to be gathering. But, what happens when the agent becomes a player in the game — someone who has decision making powers, as much as any other person in the event, or proceedings? Is this person then an "agent provocateur"? Well, our friend, Mr. Robert Chapman, IRS undercover agent, was sworn in as an "Alternate Jurat" for the proceedings that were conducted in Kansas. I've spoken with Gene Schroder (when I did a story on the grand jury) and with Darrel Frech (just a few days ago) and both state, unequivocally, that all of the jurats were sworn in, much like any other court. This constitutes criminal perjury, by definition.
You know, this reminds me of the prosecution team in the Randy Weaver — Kevin Harris trial. The prosecution was seeking the death penalty. Two members of the team falsified (created) evidence. They were caught, but had they not been, they would have successfully accomplished the crime of the century. They would have MURDERED Kevin and Randy. When caught, however, they were fined two thousand dollars, and the taxpayers of the United States were fined 13 million dollars (in the award given to Weaver for the loss of his wife and son).
So, the government can perjure themselves, falsify evidence, attempt murder, act with a morality that is unconscionable and all with impunity. But you try lying on a government form and see how many years that will get you as a guest of the government. Attempt to murder someone and daylight will become very scarce to you.
James Madison, in Federalist Paper #57, said:
"If it be asked, what is to restrain the [government] from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the [government], as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty."
Are we willing to tolerate anything but liberty?
Return to Florida Common Law Court