What is important. What is real. What you need to know to survive the 21st Century. How to live a million years and want more.
How Evil Triumphs
Published on August 29, 2004 By Phil Osborn In Philosophy
Note: (June 25th, 2005) please check the comment section, tenth comment, for Anthony Hargis's response to this article. This link should also take you directly there.

Follow-up: January 31st, 2005: Well, now the receiver's office has taken possession of ALH&Co.'s website at Click here, and Anthony and his associates are essentially both under a gag order as to defending their position publically - which the court has already decided constitutes fraudulent behavior, if I understand their document correctly - and are also required to notify all AHL&Co. account holders of the error of their ways. See for yourself at the site. Also, a list of "List of Potential ALH Account Holders" is provided in pdf format. So much for privacy. The latest wrinkles for me was discovering that such people as I had not gotten around to giving my new address were being notified by the receiver to send mail to their address - apparently without any details as to why. Plus, I got the newest form from the receiver with a message that if I had already submitted a claim against ALH&Co., then all they needed was my tax ID # or SS#, which I'm sure will either scare many potential claimants right out of filing a claim, or pursuing one, or will cause them to refuse on principle, as many of them have revoked or denied the validity of these #'s, and giving one to the receiver (and likely right on to the IRS for sure) would in their minds constitute lying and participating in a fraud. So it goes...

Follow-up: December 13th, 2004. The IRS wants to take everything - and some more.

Surprise, surprise. According to Craig Collins of the receiver's office which was assigned to gather up and preserve, sell, distribute or whatever the judge decides to order with regard to the assets of the former Anthony L. Hargis & Company, the IRS is attempting to assess fines of $1,100 each against about 800 or so identified customers of ALH&Co., on the basis of their participation in an allegedly illegal alleged "Warehouse Bank." (See the reasonably accurate coverage of this matter in the Orange County Register of Friday, the 10th of December, Front page of Business section.)

A "Warehouse Bank" is loosely defined as an operation designed to conceal individual transactions by means of paying out or depositing to accounts held by the bank in other banking institutions, from which accounts checks may be written to pay bills, etc., for the warehouse bank members. Note that the concealment part is essential to the criminality, and the concealment has to be for the purpose of committing some crime, such as tax evasion, for example, which is what the IRS is alleging.

So, all these people were thoroughly investigated by the IRS and, after such investigation, were deemed to have committed such illegal acts, and so naturally they have the perfect right to assess these fines.... NOT! First off, although I personally have not been contacted by the IRS, given my own casual knowledge of the other customers of ALH&Co., I'm guessing that I am on that list, along with them, simply on the assumption that we are criminals. Please note that many of ALH&Co.'s customers were attracted to his business on the basis of an easy way to invest in gold, without the risks of personal storage and with lower premiums than the coin shops charged. No matter. To get our money, we have to apparently PROVE our innocense.

Breaking news: September 4th, 2004. Anthony Hargis has reportedly been released from prison, after spending over six months without being charged with anything. Hargis was incarcerated by order of the Federal Court Judge because he refused to turn over customer records to the feds for their fishing expedition. Meanwhile, ALH&Co. is essentially dead and gone into receivership, by order of the judge, meaning that probably several hundred productive people have lost about ten million dollars, including the life savings of a number, very likely, as a consequence of Anthony's decision to act as though he had the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as well as natural law. Details follow:

In several of my previous articles, I mentioned the ongoing legal problems connected with ALH&Co.. Here's a few other links the reader may find enlightenling:

A recent report and
Another later one from the same author' blog.

A brief background: Anthony L. Hargis & Co. was a "Massachusetts Trust," (also sometimes referred to as a "free market trust" to emphasize that it is a purely contractual relationship, owing no part of its existence or any privileged status to the state) which only has historical connection with the state of MA. This kind of trust was popular before businesses were forced into the corporate mold by excessive risk. That risk level was in turn engendered by the corruption of the legal system from being focused on equity to being focused on punishment. As the potential for devastating punitive damages became realized in the late 19th century, the legal cap on liability provided via state fiat in the mechanism of the corporation became the fix. Anthony rebelled against this trend successfully for about 25 years, as AHL&Co. started in the late '70's.

ALH&Co. provided a means for investment in shares in itself as well as customer accounts denominated in either gold or Federal Reserve Units ("dollars"). Customers could and did use his company as their bank and as a means of maintaining a market position in gold. They could write "transfer orders," which functioned like bank checks among the various businesses that recognized them, or submit them to AHL&Co. and recieve FDIC bank checks in return, or have ALH&Co. pay their regular bills, such as power and water, or make scheduled mortgage payments, etc., which was a convenience for those who were working or living abroad for extended periods.

Hargis was completely up front about the fact that the funds were at risk, as he intended to invest the money in productive enterprises, similar to what any FDIC bank does when it receives funds. He also invested in various political causes, such as attempts to legally sieze and then sue for damages* freighters in U.S. ports belonging to Soviet Block nations. (I personally did not take these efforts all that seriously but saw them more as promotional efforts. Not that Anthony's positions weren't legally/morally valid, but just that they stood the snowball's chance in Hell of actually working in the current legal climate.) Anthony also provided kits and consultation to others interested in forming similar Trusts.

*On behalf of the victims of the Gulag and innumerable other attrocities.

While Anthony was adamant about what he considered the illegality of much of the U.S. tax codes, he did not, so far as I am aware, claim that he could shield anyone from paying taxes. Some people may have nevertheless chosen to attempt to use his services for this purpose. One of the other trusts that Anthony helped to sponsor in the 1980's was in fact shut down by the trustee when he realized that he could not get any substantial protections of that sort. As to the more general question raised by the feds in their current fishing expedition, I can't speak from personal knowledge, although I suspect that this was the case, given all the anti-tax sentiment surrounding Anthony's business, and the anti-tax pamphlets, etc. from various organizations which one could typically find in his lobby.

Anthony also wrote and sold as part of his business various books and other writings on history, legal systems and political philosophy. When I first began dealing with ALH&Co. in the late '70's, my impression was that Anthony was pretty much a libertarian, possibly of the "anarcho-capitalist" school, with strong influences from Ayn Rand. Socially, however, he was very conservative, belied by his typical casual attair - jeans, floppy hat - and appearance - tall, very slender, shoulder length wispy blond hair.

Hargis researched, wrote and gave seminars on a host of topics, including alternatives to the corporate business model. His ideal business model was the trust, in which the shareholders are shielded from liability by the fact that, unlike the corporation, they have no direct control over the actions of the business. The trustees have sole authority, and thus also sole liability. He also dealt with the problems of the corporate wage serfs, who find themselves at odds with the interests of their employers, who want infinite work for zero wages, of course.

Anthony saw a problem in the lack of self-interest tie to corporate success, which could potentially be solved by using only contract workers who would be required to purchase a percentage of shares in order to qualify for a work contract. This would directly tie their self-interest to that of the employing trust. If businesses throughout society were organized by this model, then there would emerge a natural infrastructure of mutual interest, as everyone would be invested in the long-term success of everyone else.

Although he innovated this line of thought himself, so far as I know, at some point he became aware of the enormously successful Mondragon Cooperative, which grew out of the cooperative / anarcho-syndicalist movement centered in the Basque heartland of Spain. Anthony found much to admire in the Mondragon Cooperative, although he apparently also had some disagreements with their structure as well, especially practices originating from their socialist background, such as their cap on the ratio of highest wages to lowest, which I believe is now at 20 to 1.

I had been personally working on a similar business model, starting in the early '70's, but related to family structure and modern child-rearing, and it was this mutual interest which brought me together with Anthony in the late '70's, when I discovered that he had been working on the same basic issues. I suspect that in part it was my continued intellectual pressure on Anthony that gave him incentive to extend his own thinking in this direction. Ultimately, Anthony presented me with a model similar to the highly popular "Nanocorp," but based on the trust concept.

Under his model, a child would be made the trustee of a personal trust from the time of birth. The parents would function as nominal trustees until the child was legally competent. Meanwhile, they could negotiate sale of shares in the personal trust to raise funds for education, medical, etc. The child, of course, could reject the whole thing at the point they reached legal competence, but doing so would cut them off from the assets, including especially the interest that others in society, such as potential investors, would have in their life success. This model could work anywhere in the world, potentialy allowing businesses such as mutual funds to invest in the futures of millions of kids in 3rd World countries, for example, who otherwise faced grueling challenges and a high liklihood of failure.

(The highly successful and widely copied Grameen Bank, has demonstrated with its microloans programs that small scale investments targetted directly to people who can turn them into high investment returns can work even in a 3rd World village in Bangladesh. The problems in any such enterprise are largely related to overhead costs - monitoring, handling, records, etc. - and risk, but Grameen has shown ways that these costs can be minimalized.)

Note that our traditional approaches that depend upon charities often evolve to perpetuate the very problems they allegedly exist to solve, or alternatively state welfare tends to put money into whatever fails. All these approaches pay off on need, thus creating an evolutionary pressure for more need. The approach that Anthony and I worked on instead paid off on success, thus creating the same selection pressure in reverse.

The initial investors would naturally buy into kids who showed exceptional promise, from family circumstances, testing scores, whatever, and lower risk. However, the investors would be in competition over whose shares to buy, and so there would be an inherent incentive to find ways to improve the odds. Thus, mutual funds might set up family counselling services where needed covering health and education issues for uneducated 3rd World families, making sure the kids got good nutrition and medical intervention as necessary. They might offer low-cost kits on various subjects, designed to offset poor local facilities. Training for local family counsellors might be funded by a mutual fund that had made a reputation and thus captured a large portion of the market in a given locale.

Kids with high market-share values in their nanotrust, just like adults today with nanocorps, could parley that equity into college or technical training, musical instuments, business start-ups, etc. This would provide a radically new way for low-income people anywhere in the world to bootstrap themselves into prosperity. The parents would naturally be paid for their efforts in shares as well, which would give them a major new incentive to ensure that their child had a succesful life.

Note that this is simply an modern extension of the traditional family model that has served mankind for a milllion years or so. In that model, children were an asset to the parents, grandparents and other family members, as they would be expected to take over the farm, business, whatever, and take care of the parents in old age. Anthony's trust concept puts that model back into play, but on a thoroughly modern financial basis.

From a philosophical start that rested solidly on moral principle and free-market economics, however, Anthony became more and more involved in what I considered arcane legal and political theory as he drifted from the libertarian fold toward the ranks of the right wing "Patriots." This unfortunate process took a period of decades, and, even up to the present, Anthony's positions* on most issues would still fit in the libertarian mainstream. The exceptions I will briefly mention for purposes of completeness, objectivity and clarity.

(I don't like to spring the kind of surprises on my readers that involve failing to mention information of a kind that could be seen as damaging to my arguments. An argument becomes much stronger, in fact, when one goes out of the way to find the best possible objections to it and gives them every benefit of doubt.)

*(as I understand it, as none of this discussion is based on recent information directly from Anthony himself, but rather on my 25 years of observations, and attending his seminars, and reading his publications.)

Anthony's focus then and up to the present was on the dishonesty and fraud, as he viewed it, perpetrated by the Federal Reserve System, which he viewed as a giant scam and Ponzi scheme supported by the armed might of the U.S. and its international cabal, which had shifted financial burdens from their irresponsible originators to the backs of the least able to pay, including coming generations of Americans as well as the unfortunate victims of U.S.-supported 3rd World Dictators. (I note that Anthony's positions on these issues was hardly radical, as some of the more prominent Swiss banks' own customer journals have echoed similar sentiments about U.S. banking practices.)

What was radical was that Anthony did something about it and succeeded, for a long time. Anthony's answer to the Fed was his Trust and the accounts in gold. He gave regular seminars for many years on the need for capital preservation and the use of gold accounting to accomplish this. For about a decade, ending in the late '80's, ALH&Co. was also a social hotbed for local libertarians and "patriots." He held monthly pot luck house parties at his business, at which local libertarian luminaries such as Bob Lefevre, Jeff Riggenback, Sam Konkin and many others were often seen playing the board game Risk - of which Anthony was an addict - or holding audience on libertarian theory and history. I met some of the most valuable and interesting people in my life through Anthony's parties, many of whom have risen to national prominence since.

At his business, Anthony offered dollar and gold accounts, investment counselling, trust documents and set-up assistance and various books by himself and other libertarian-related authors, such as Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard. If you were a libertarian or patriot, then ALH&Co. was a place to look forward to visiting, a rare opportunity to see like individuals working together for a common dream of the future.

Anthony's then wife, Jane McLaughlin, also played a prominent role in his ongoing business and political adventures. Jane started Morningrise Printing, in Costa Mesa, CA, in the same industrial mini-park that housed ALH&Co. When the City of Costa Mesa went after her for failing to get permission for her two modest and tasteful signs advertising her business, she fought them to a standstill for about fifteen years, and, after costing the City - by its reported estimates - over $15,000 in prosecutorial costs and substantial damage to its reputation, when she was finally defeated in court (after the prosecution claimed they had received threats from someone), she was sentenced to three days in jail, which she spent in the court - a few hours each day - and a couple hundred dollars in fines.

And, she still refused to file for a permit, altho the entire time she had agreed to pay the fee. The problem was not the permit itself or the fee, as she saw it, but the fact that in applying for it you had to sign a statement that had nothing whatsoever to do with the permit or the signs, in which you agreed to let the City come into your business at any time under any pretext and investigate any aspect of your business for whatever reason or lack thereof they chose. This she refused to do, and Morningrise Printing - with which Jane is no longer actively involved as far as I know - still has no permit, although they do still have their signs, last time I checked.

At the court hearings on the Morningrise signs, the courtroom was typically filled with supporters of Jane, who herself put on quite a show, asking the City to explain why her signs were a problem, and why they couldn't simply take her money, or the permit application in which she crossed out the offending passages. Of course they couldn't answer her, and this made for high comedy in the courtroom, which the audience was well cued to enjoy.

Anthony and his supporters and customers and friends would often do little guerilla theater things, like picket the IRS wearing wooden barrels to emphasize the role of the tax system in impoverishing everyone. At any point during the late '70's and through the late '80's, there were always things going on at ALH&Co. in which one could participate for recreation, if nothing else.

I don't know the extent of ALH&Co. holdings or the number of customers, but I'm willing to accept for the time being the estimates of the feds of perhaps something under ten million dollars and a few hundred customers, as well as quite a few shareholders. While other similar efforts by libertarians or "patriots" ran aground due to bad management or legal troubles, Anthony spent half his time at the large local law library and managed to fend off many reputed attempts by the feds or other authorities to shut him down, including a dread "seizure" around 1992.

(At one point, a customer of ALH&Co. requested that a large sum of money be mailed to her in Florida. This lady was having some personal difficulties, I've been told, and needed to distance herself from some people for a little while to collect her thoughts. Unfortunately, she got pulled over for a traffic violation wearing a disguise (a wig) and using her sister's ID and the officer (naturally) became suspicious and searched her vehicle, finding ten grand or so in cash, which is automatically assumed then and nowadays to be drug money. So, the cash was siezed, and documents in the lady's possesion made it traceable back to ALH&Co. here in Fountain Valley, CA (the OC).

As you might guess, next the federal joint swat team showed up at ALH&Co. with the machine guns, etc., and stormed Anthony's office, where the doors were open for regular business, and proceeded to sieze everything in sight, still operating on pure suspicion, without any specific crime or criminals having been named. Typically, this would leave the victim without recourse, as they would have no money to fight the siezure and would thus have to crawl hat in hand into court to beg for a portion of their assets.

Note that no actual proof of a crime is necessary in seizures, as the legal theory goes that property does not have civil rights, and the seizure is based on this bizarre legal premise that it is the property that has committed the crime. Yes, people, this is real. And very convenient for grabbing cars, bank accounts, land, buildings, businesses and just about anything else, after which the victim has to prove the property's innocence. No, I'm not making this up or exagerating - at all. According to the "Orange County Register," around the mid-90's over half of the budget of OC police departments came from such seizures, and the total nationwide at that point was into the billions of dollars.

However, Anthony was more than prepared for such moves by the authorities and went into court and got everything back - although it did take a year, and no damages or apology was forthcoming. I, as one of ALH&Co.'s customers suddenly found myself shorn of my savings, right on the day that I was scheduled to leave to cover an important conference in San Jose for an international computer magazine. For a few days, I thought that I had lost my entire savings. However, Anthony turned it all around and was open for business within a couple of days, and thus I concluded that ALH&Co. could probably take care of itself. Afterwards, however, I made sure that I had most of my assets elsewhere. Just in case. Which turned out to be a good plan. I just wish I had followed it a bit more consistently.

And, just for the record, I never saw any evidence of any involvement by Anthony or AHL&Co. in drugs or in advocating any kind of violence. Anthony informed his customers right from the beginning that illegal drugs were absolutely verbotten at his business along with any transaction involving them. In fact, he related at one meeting how the Mafia had politely approached him at one point, all dressed in their three-piece pin-stripe suits - which is a dead giveaway in casual California, desiring to use his service for money laundering, and he politely declined. End of story. Also, one of his contract workers (Anthony hired out all work on a contract basis) failed to inform him that he had been a member of some East Coast tax-resistance organization that had advocated violent resistence to the IRS. When Anthony discovered this, he immediately terminated the contract with the man.)

I personally had a long and somewhat tumultuous relationship with Anthony. On one occasion in the late '70's, I took a vacation from my day job to see if I could handle running his office. I found his triple-entry gold/dollars accounting system unfathomable, however, and finally gave up after a couple weeks as an intern. On several occasions during the '80's, I also rented space in the rear or his large office unit for my own purposes, and, almost inevitably, this ran aground on Anthony's personality quirks, for which he was somewhat notorious.

In one such incident, I recall asking Anthony if I could put insulation up on the rear (East facing) sliding door that the sun beat unmercifully on every morning, turning the office into an oven, especially my rear area. He would not allow me to do so, because his lease indicated that any such improvements became property of the building owner, who he despised with a passion. So, he was willing to spite himself and make me miserable in order to spite the owner, who would certainly have torn out the insulation anyway when Anthony moved. I could relate many similar incidents, but they would serve no purpose except to rub in that Anthony was one stubborn person, and he clearly relished that part of his personality.

In the mid '90's, however, I began to notice an ominous trend in Anthony's philosophy. Starting with a legal position relative to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, with which former slaves were made full citizens, Anthony followed the research which had become popular among the extreme right "patriots," in which a stong thread of racism lurks (only to frequently burst forth once one has become trusted in such circles). According to this political philosophy, there are "White Citizens" who have natural rights, as versus "Black Citizens" or 14th Amendment citizens (who may actually be caucasian) who have only provisional rights granted by the state - or such is my limited understanding.

(I haven't taken the time to track down "representative" links on this issue, and any link I post will probably draw hate mail or worse from somebody and get me labeled either as a racist or a commie, but here's just one that illustrates the charged atmosphere surrounding the topic. Readers who want to post what they consider better sources are thus invited to do so, and I will try to move them from their comment into the text, as I see reasonable.)

Anthony had meanwhile gone thru a divorce from Jane, mainly, I gather, over child-rearing issues with respect to their daughter, Aurelia, born around 1989. I and most of their friends considered that they both - but especially Anthony - were psychologically among the worst candidates for parenthood that one could imagine and that they were about to embark on total disaster. Anthony, in particular, had always been extremely closed emotionally. We were right, unfortunately. As far as I know, none of Anthony's glorious plans for making Aurelia the perfect example of his theories ended up being implemented, except in name, due to both his own emotionally closed nature and also Jane's resistance, based on a blatantly obvious extreme emotional dependancy on Aurelia on her part that precluded any kind of rationality. Everything I saw at the time pointed to post-partum depression, but that's only my layman's speculation.

With Jane, who had been an anchor of sanity and ever-cheerful practicality in Anthony's life, out of the picture, Anthony began to drift more and more into this phase of extreme legalism. I no longer heard or read from him about how to revolutionize the world and create a libertarian utopia. Instead, the focus became more and more on who to blame for everything.

In particular, Anthony had spent endless hours tracking down the documentation on California State as well as local city government investments in corporate stocks. The amounts were staggering. I forget these kind of details easilly, but I know that Anthony said something to the effect that the return on investment for the tens, if not hundreds, of billions in various stocks owned by California could easilly entirely wipe out all taxes for the state, and, if anything, that applied double for many cities in the state. Yet very few people have any idea of these gargantuan holdings, and the information is buried in ways that only long and tedious research and Freedom of Information requests may finally uncover.

Other reasons why you might not easilly come by this information apparently have something to do with what the actual stocks are. Clearly there is a huge potential for conflict of interest when a state agency is pouring millions or billions of dollars into a particular business. If that stock drops in price, then there is the liklihood, at minimum, that whoever made the choice of investing in it may find themselves on the hot seat. So, you find situations such as the public school computer purchasing mandates issued by school boards.

OK, what follows for the next several paragraphs is actually relevant to the theme and is based on my personal experience and needs to be said for a lot of reasons, and I really want to say it, but the reader may want to skip it to follow the main line of argument.

For years, in one major example, Apple II computers completely dominated the public schools. Since this is in my area of expertise, I can state unequivacably that the Apple II was perhaps the worst computer, by far, on the market at the time as far as the needs of these schools. Not only were the Apple II's three times as expensive as the popular and technically superior Commodore 64, but also very few students had Apple II's at home.

The majority of kids who did have a home computer - about 40% by around '84 - had Commdore 64's. The software as well as the disk formats were totally incompatible, which meant that virtually no students could take their Apple II work home or bring their reports, etc., to school, except as printouts. And, the C64 was easilly ten times as easy to use and program. And, there was plenty of educational as well as professional level business/school software, such as word-processors, spreadsheets, databases, and a multitude of programming languages and utilities for the C64, which dominated the educational market in many major countries of the world.

But, Apple had figured out the secret in dealing with an ignorant market: "Reality doesn't matter. Only marketing counts."

So, the "OC Register" ran a little piece profiling the local education rep for Apple, who was taking down $50,000 as he drove around in his BMW to give each school - or, more accurately, the person most likely to influence purchasing decisions - its one free Apple II. Meanwhile, the private schools with whom I consulted for free or for $16 for two hours had typically already bought either Apple II's or C64's. Most private schools have nowhere near the budget per pupil of the public school, so the yuppie schools proudly displayed their 30 Apple II's, restricted to a computer lab, of course, which the schools that had purchased C64's would show them to me with all kinds of expressions of embarrassment or regret, as they were only "home computers," not "educational computers," but that was all they could afford. I noted that the kids - excepting the 3% of hackers - had to be dragged into the Apple II labs, while the kids had to be locked out of the C64 labs.

When IBM began encroaching on Apple's educational territory, both companies were faced with the uncomfortable fact that both products were crap. The IBM PC was a kludge from the start, put together in a desperate hurry with amazingly awful compromises in both the basic hardware and the software from Microsoft, which had been written years before as a grad student project. Meanwhile, the Apple II was simply way, way, way out of date technically. Competing directly with them were the FAR superior Atari ST and the even better Amiga computers. The ST was what the IBM PC had originally been intended to be, before IBM blew it and had to run with the abysmally bad Intel chip - because Motorolla was late with the 68000, and a crudely scaled up and very limited 16-bit version of the excellent (for the '70's) OS called CP/M.

Either the ST or the Amiga could literally run rings around anything that IBM or Apple could engineer. Both machines offered outstanding graphics, sound, animation, and general multimedia capabilities that the PC only began to approach ten years later. The Amiga also offered the first truly modern OS on a personal computer, with full high-speed multitasking that worked far better in 1985 than any PC running Windows can offer today in 2004. Both machines had the mouse controlled iconic interface that Xerox PARC invented and Apple introduced on the Mac. I suppose, since I've gotten this far into this digression - which is germaine to my point, which is coming, trust me - that I should mention that the lowly C64, as well as Commodore's business machine, the SuperPet, also had a mouse/icon GUI from about 1984.

Both the Amiga and the ST could also run both most Mac programs and most PC programs under software emulators as well, so the general compatibility for either machine was higher than either the PC or Mac. And, both machines were a LOT cheaper than a PC or Mac.

So, naturally since the schools are in the information business and have highly trained and intelligent, forward looking staff, they all switched to Amigas or ST's... NOT! The Apple/IBM/Microsoft answer to a much better product at a lower price was to convince the OC School Board to issue a mandate that ONLY IBM PC compatible or Mac compatible computers could be purchased for school use in the OC. Never mind that both Amiga and ST offered pretty good emulations of both PC and Mac, and they worked ten or a hundred times - for real! - better than either machine in their native modes. Reality does not matter! Not when you're dealing with an ignorant market, and that goes double for the school market, which has the most incompetent personnel, especially in management, of any market I've ever seen.

So, imagine that it's not just a free Apple for the principal or whoever makes purchasing decisions to play with. Imagine that your career is on the line. If there's some little thing you can do to make sure that the stock your career is riding on will make money, how far are you likely to resist. Now consider that tens or hundreds of billions of dollars are involved, as Anthony uncovered. So, do you think that the companies involved aren't going to let their lobbiests know the score?

Can you say "facism?"

One interesting thing that various crtiques of the corporation have mentioned in passing, but which Anthony focussed upon, was that corporations are generally required to agree that their operations will always be "in the public interest." This is definitely the case in California, but I'll let you try to guess just how many times a California corporation has ever bee shut down, or even threatened by the California State Attorney General, in whom that authority is vested.

Would you believe ZERO, NEVER, NADA, NOT ONCE AT ALL?

There were many other aspects to Anthony's research in this area, and I am only aware of some of the central themes, but, however excellent Anthony's research in the history of corporate abuse, his other research started looking rather suspect. Jane, during the process of disengaging from Anthony, had become involved with Judaism through her sister, as I recall, and her Israeli husband and, I believe, ultimately converted and finally married a Jewish man. I remember her gleefully describing learning the traditional Jewish dances, well before her split with Anthony.

As a consequence of this experience, I suspect, Anthony began moving more and more in the direction of anti-semitism, starting with a denial of the holocaust in part, and then, in full, claiming that it was just a hoax. (See his exerpts from his "Fires that Cry" for a minor taste of this.) I attempted to reason with Anthony on several occasions and brought him books to counter the claims of the "revisionists," but when he told me that after careful research, he understood that Hitler was not a monster, I realized that I needed to start disconnecting. I think that without Jane, Anthony was slowly losing it, and the last couple of years, in which he apparently made some incredibly bad investments - with MY money! - as well as clearly some bad legal decisions were simply the natural extension of a disconnect with reality.

(Anthony has always had some major blind spots. For example, I saw very clearly what was coming with personal computers and the internet by 1981. I even wrote up a set of proposals for then Editor of the Orange County Register, John Yench, around 1983, detailing the changes that would occur by the turn of the century, including MUDDS, Meet-Up, search engines, web pages, blogs and even "agents," a term I coined a decade or so before Apple, with the same meaning. Anthony invariably responded to my attempts to explain this future and its implications with a condescending smile. When he finally got a PC, he refused to buy a mouse, insisting on using Windows with keyboard commands only.

When, around 1993, the feds descended upon ALH&Co. because of the woman in Florida who was arrested while carrying thousands of dollars in cash and a receipt from AHL&Co. - of course, they must! be drug lords!!! (Or, we like to pretend that they must be, since that allows us to sieze money and cars and homes and businesses without a trial or even a warrant) - Anthony was discovered to have not used any kind of encryption. Thus, all his customer records were available to the feds on the computers they siezed. Even though he was able to prevail legally and get everything back, I can be fairly certain that the feds did not throw out the list of customers they gleaned from that search. I recall that everyone was appalled at Anthony's failure to exercise normal due dilligence at the time, and he lost a lot of customers reportedly. I think that the present situation is more of the same. )

(Similar to the 14th Amendment issue, I have not personally spent the time trying to verify the historical authenticity of the "showa." Here is one anti-revisionist site. As in the 14th Amendment case, I don't want to make my blog into a forum on the issue, but if people want to submit links that illustrate positions, I will certainly try to consider them. Or, just put them in your comment. My own position is that regardless of the specific numbers of Jews, Gypsies, mental retards, physically deformed or politically inconvenient people who were enslaved and/or slaughtered by the NAZIs, it is clearly wrong. And, it is clear that the NAZI philosophy was perverse and fundamentally evil, and enormously destructive of everything good in practice.

I highly recomment Joseph C. Harsch's "Pattern of Conflict" for an objective view of the NAZI's in practice prior to 1941. Harsch was for many years the "Christian Science Monitor's" foreign correspondent in Berlin, and followed the Wehrmacht into the various countries Germany invaded. He pointed out that Germany could easily have created a Europpean Union. There was a strong sentiment throughout Europe for such a political move, and the Wehrmacht was itself exemplary in its conduct, making every effort to avoid creating animousity among the conquered peoples. Often the Germans probably behaved better toward their new subjects than their own corrupt governments had been doing.

However, the NAZI's utterly blew their great opportunity, as the SS and Gestapo followed behind the Wehrmacht within a month and immediately, via their monstrous conduct, created a rabidly anti-NAZI resistance where none had existed before. And, the NAZI's had already bankrupted Germany anyway, which is why they needed the war. They were sticklers for following the letter of international law, but they cleverly used it to take control of the banking systems of the invaded countries and establish things like rates of currency exchange that allowed them to steal everything valuable in sight.

One example was the regular trainloads of German "tourists" (generally low-level state bureaucrats) who went straight to Paris and simply cleaned the stores out with their artificially valuable DeutschMarks. This did not make friends of the Parisians.

(Hey, can you spell Halliburton?)

Because of the concerns discussed above, which I felt tended to besmirch my character by association, by the beginning of this past year 2004, I had been taking gold out of my modest account in a steady draw down for some time. However, then gold started spiking, and I found myself succumbing to the temptation to put off a final separation, which would also have involved difficulties with my mail, as I had used a mail box at ALH&Co for over two decades. So, I hesitated and the result is that I personally am probably out about $8,000, due to the feds. I am probably one of the smaller losers in this, but that still hurts, especially as my income has fallen in the meantime, and inflation is on the rise. I had hoped, in fact, to take a year off to finish a major book I've been working on for over ten years, but that will have to go on hold now.

The current situation in brief is this:

As of late August, Hargis is still in jail - from mid-March. (Finally reported released August 31st.) Up until very recently he had still not been charged with anything other than refusing to turn over confidential customer records. As of last information, the feds have still not been able to name either specific criminals or specific crimes that he or his cusomers might be involved in, and have stated so in front of the federal judge of the case. I.e., this is a pure fishing expedition.

However, the judge has now apparently ruled that Hargis is in violation of something or other; after six months he had to come up with something, as the federal statutes require that incarceration must serve some purpose, and the ALH&Co. records were reportedly only kept for a few months anyway, and then recycled for privacy purposes. Thus, Anthony should have been kept at most for a couple of months, beyond which his incarceration served no judicial purpose. But, since he was in fact imprisoned for over six months, the judge reportedly ruled that he had violated some prior court order telling him that he could not exercise his right to political speech on his commercial website, where he sold books and other materials related to his political/historical research and the related projects that his business was involved in.

This is interesting. If you can make money promoting your ideas, then you aren't free to discuss them? That is what I've been able to glean from witnesses of the court proceedings, and Anthony is still in prison as far as I know, as of August 31st, 2004, guilty of promoting his ideas. I suppose that authors of politically sensitive books may want to take note, as potentially this decision could hit them, as well, if they make money on those books. The same would logically apply to talk radio shows on commercial radio, right?

However, no matter how good an appeal this could generate, it is questionable whether anything will come of it, as ALH&Co. is now gone, due to a series of federal siezures of the assets, especially a host of bank accounts, again on pure suspicion, without any specific allegations, grand juries, warrants, or any of that pre-patriot Act nonsense about the Constitution, and, most recently, the turning over of whatever remains of ALH&Co. to a receiver, by order of the judge. Thus, the question becomes where will Anthony get the money for the appeal?

And, should it appear that he might succeed in such an appeal, the opposing feds will predictably simply fold and pay him, rather than set a precedent, so that any political value of his appeal will be mute. The IRS has done this for decades. If they run into an argument they don't know how to answer, they fold and drop the prosecution, and meanwhile work out a strategy for dealing with that argument the next time. The defendant, of course, usually has no similar option in reality.

It used to be that in this great land we call the U.S. that if you were going to be incarcerated and/or have your property seized, then a few niceties had to be observed by the authorities in charge. For one, there had to be allegations of a specific crime, and witnesses to this crime and/or evidence had to be provided to a grand jury, who alone could determine that there was sufficient cause to have an indictment prepared listing the crimes, the criminals, etc. The police could arrest you on suspicion of a serious crime, based on their own information or knowledge, but they could only hold you for a limited number of days before going before a judge and presenting their evidence, again alleging a specific crime and specific criminals... How far have we fallen...

The objectivity that this process was designed to provide, to prevent any usurption of power from the people to some privileged elite, has been largely lost. Today, you can be incarcerated indefinitely and secretly on the word of a single man - the president, or whatever functionary he designates - without recourse or access to counsel - in the name of protecting our freedom. You can have your property seized on pure suspicion (or alleged suspicion disguizing malice) and be required to prove that your property was not involved in anything illegal or lose it - in the name of protecting you against drugs.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of professional paid informants have learned how to turn their criminal skills into a lucrative racket aimed at blackmail and/or seizure, of which they receive a large percentage - in the name of protecting you against crime. And whatever wealth you do manage to earn and keep is subject to the manipulations of a banking system whose stability is only guaranteed by overwhelming military threat. And should you dare to suggest that this system - The Federal Reserve - is in fact unstable and could actually crash, then you can be jailed for simply making that suggestion - in the name of financial stability.

Welcome to Amerika, the land of freedom, opportunity and choice. What ID number would you like on your free(!) slave collar?

The steps by which this has been accomplished are easilly available from common historical sources, but not often spelled out. I will attempt, as an amateur legal historian to lay out some of the basics below, and any useful related links, of which there are tens or hundreds of thousands, which the reader has found exceptionally valuable would be appreciated. I plan to create a table of them for those readers who find the subject of their freedom and survival a matter of concern.

"When there is not justice, there cannot be peace."

What is justice? Justice is when you control your own life - your body and the values that you have brought into existence by your actions. Injustice is when some other person has interfered or violated your control over what is rightfully yours - your life and the consequences of your actions in that life. Rape, murder, torture, incarceration are all violations of your control over your life. Theft, fraud, vandalism are violations of the right you have to receive the results of your labor, the consequences of your actions.

The common law, as it evolved through much of Northern Europe, especially Ireland, Anglo-Saxon England and much of Scandinavia was fundamentally focussed on siimple justice. There was no criminal law. There were no punishments. What ruled was equity - to each person his or her own. Only if a person rejected the common law itself was the element of violent sanctions invoked. That person could be declared an "outlaw," literally "outside the law." Then the courts, which were organized and paid for on a local subscription basis, would not protect that person's life or property, and anyone was free to agress against him with legal impunity - although the outlaw still retained his personal right of self-defense.

The common law court did not make the law. Rather, it identified it. It looked to the existing recognized agreements, covenants, and social norms to identify the equity of a case, and then arrived at a decision aimed at simply restoring that equity. Each case decision was recorded for reference and would typically serve as a precedent when a similar issue was being decided. All cases were tort cases, aimed at recovering damages or identifying and/or verifying a property claim.

Unfortunately, the common law does not work well for invaders, as the invadees could then sue them for damages. So the Normans in England, the English in Ireland, etc., all found it necessary to pervert the common law to protect their own interests. In the case of the Normans, this may even have been an immediate substantive improvement, as the English Common Law was truly primitive. However, the immediate gains from introducing a more sophisticated Roman Law have to be set against the fact that the Roman "Positive" Law both removed the law from the rule of the people and put it firmly into the hands of a predatory elite, and also created a mechanism by which any group - noble, king or democratic coalition - could then use the law to enforce its own prejudices and to systematically plunder the rest of society, exactly the opposite of the aim and practice of the common law.

That perverted Common Law is what we inherited here in the U.S. Instead of aimed solely at restoring equity, the various U.S. jurisdictions have moved ever more in the direction of enforcing the will of concentrated interests on their victims, in a Hobbesian war of all against all.

One of the most pernicious and disasterous of these steps in the evolution of law from enforcing justice to acting as the agent of injustice was the introduction of punitive damages. Not only is this a clear case of the court being employed to hurt those with whom a particular jury dislikes, for whatever reason - racial, ethnic, religious, or personal - but it creates such a risk factor for those who have resources worth stealing, such as business enterprises, that it created the need for a legal fix, which we call the "corporation."

(For an awesomely researched history of the corporation, go here. This is, in fact, as far as I know, the only conprehensive history of the rise of the corporation, its legal foundations, etc. And, for an equally awesome example of an alternative to the corporation, go

on Sep 18, 2004
Have had gold account with ALH for many years, when he was on MacArthur. I remember seeing him with his baby daughter: I thought she was an extraordinary child, not the usual expressionless baby, and that Anthony's behavior to her was exemplary.
My only objection to the above is the use of the polarized term "anti-Semitic." One does not have to be prejudiced against Jews and Arabs to recognize that the survivors of the "Holocaust" are attempting to wring material recompense from people today who are in no way responsible for anything that happened sixty years ago. Also, there are wide-spread attempts to obstruct scholarly research into the records.
on Sep 21, 2004
I was renting the back area of that unit at the time for an office - totally unconnected to ALH&Co.'s business, and living out of it as well, so you probably saw me there. I got to see quite a lot of Aurelia, although I had little to do with her myself. Anthony had all kinds of grandiose dreams for making Aurelia a "perfect human," which he published to anyone who would listen, and he set up a free-market trust for Aurelia, and, most of the time, he behaved like a patient, exemplary father. There were exceptions, however.

I recall one incident in which Aurelia crawled back to my area, where there was a fair collection of toxic chemicals - automotive solvents, etc., as well as heavy stuff on shelves that could tumble if tugged on. NOT a baby-safe area at all. I called Anthony's attention to the peril and he completely ignored me, and I repeated my attempt to get Anthony to do something several times, with growing urgency, and he just silently stared blankly out into space. Finally I got Jane on the phone at Morningrise and she rushed down and took Aurelia. I don't know what was going on there, but if that sort of thing happened more than once or twice, then I could see why Jane might decide to walk.

Also, even though quite a few of Anthony's customers were home-schoolers, and I was very knowledgeable about home-schooling, having been a primary organizer of the first non-sectarian home-schooling conference on the West Coast, as well as having provided computers and training to home-schoolers, as far as I know, neither Anthony nor Jane ever seriously considered that possibility for Aurelia, which I would have thought was a no-brainer, given their radical libertarianism.

They certainly never asked me anything about it, even though I would have been more than delighted to have put them in touch with all the people and resources I had access to. I was also quite knowledgeable about Montessori, having been on the Board of Directors of the first Montessori school in Columbia, S. Carolina, having taken a course in it from a Montessori organization, and having worked in that Environment for Discovery as a director briefly, but they completely spaced on that as well. Aurelia ultimately ended up in a regular private school. Most of the infrequent times I saw her at the Los Cab location of ALH&Co., frankly, she behaved like a spoiled brat.

Also, Anthony, after all the years of preaching about raising a child in a "Trust," and not giving unearned presents, etc., apparently just abandoned all that, although I suspect that it was Jane's opposition that was the proximate cause in that case.

Because I very much wanted Anthony and Jane to suceed in their personal lives as well as Anthony's research and financial/political endeavors, I offered to provide free help in setting up a computer-based or enhanced learning environment for Aurelia, and Jane even bought an Amiga 500, with all the multi-media capability, for that express purpose, but she never followed through on that, either. I was profoundly saddened and depressed by the whole experience, as were a number of their closer friends, some of whom told me that they no longer considered them to be friends at all, because of this whole sad episode and what they considered the overall irrationality of it.

With regards to the term "anti-Semetic," a look at Anthony's more recent published writings, such as "Fires that Cry," cannot but leave one with a real suspicion of racism. Blaming the "tribe of Levi" for virtually all the troubles of the world? A two-thousand year old conspiracy to rule the world? I asked Anthony at one point something like this:

"OK, let's assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that all the most extreme revisionist positions are true and the holacaust was a complete hoax, and there is an ancient international cabal of Jews running the news media and the worldwide banking cartels. You're still talking about a small number of people, a small percentage of a large population of Jews in general, many of whom, I'm sure you will admit, have not a clue as to all that."

Anthony's response was to the effect that they were still part of it and implicitly supported it.

"But," I asked, "what about all the Jews, like the ones in Africa, who never had any connnections with this, at least not for many centuries. And what about the kids? What about the ones who disavow their Judiasm - which is quite a few in each generation? Are THEY still responsible for all this evil? Are you saying that a child has to take responsibility for the actions of parents or grandparents or distant relatives?"

Anthony indicated that, yes, even the children were to be held responsible. After all, they only existed because of the evil that paid for their food at the expense of the victims.

So, if you're Jewish, no matter how pure your heart and rational your mind, you're evil anyway, because of the actions of your ancestors - or other Jews, anyway. That's what I got from Anthony. Could there be a clearer case of anti-semitism?

I agree that there is a lot of evidence, apparently - as I'm certainly not an expert on this, for the "Showa show," as I think some Jewish critics have termed it. I.e., a profession has arisen around damage claims resulting from the holacaust, and the money recovered, at least until recently, has largely gone somewhere other than direct compensation to the actual victims. There are companies, however, very much still in existence both in Germany and in the U.S., who participated in the Holocaust, with pretty good knowledge as to what was happening. I don't see anything illegitimate about going after them for damages.

As far as obstruction, I do agree completely on that issue. The stupidest thing one can do is make a public attempt to shut up ones critics by force, which is exactly what has happened. This keeps the revisionists alive, if nothing else. The right to freedom of speech is not subject to any court's decision as to whether something is historically true or not. Yet, both here in the U.S. and in Germany and in France and, I suspect, elsewhere, the Anti-defamation League and their ilk - who have done good work in tracking down many of the major NAZI criminals, to give credit where due - have managed to install state sanctions against a whole set of historical claims. This is both wrong and unbelievably stupid on their part. Any time someone tries to shut someone up, I immediately think that the other side must have the truthe. The truthe does not need that kind of assistance.

However, people are not necessarily consistent or rational all of the time. Bottom line, I don't think that everyone who doubts the holocaust, or the figure of six million cited, is anti-semetic. I know Jews who doubt the holocaust. I don't hate Jews, personally, although I consider religions in general to be evil and I don't blame kids for their parents, but I keep an open mind as to issues like whether the numbers of victims were inflated, for example, if only because of the efforts to shut down anyone who says anything in that direction. What I've found, over the years, however, is that people who are in that camp are usually anti-semetic.
on Oct 04, 2004
Thanks for taking the time to bring the Hargis tale up to date. Having supported the ALH database system on and off for several years (the one written by Jim Gallagher) and seen all the numbers, I'd dispute the amount of funds that customers are allegedly out. Assuming that all funds were being tracked through customer accounts in that system the combined total of FRU and Gold accounts is probably only 35-40% of the number the Feds are citing. Unless vast sums came into ALH within the last 18 months (since I last had fingers in the code). While I think Anthony was his own worst enemy, getting off into head scratching tangents of research, and getting mired in bits of antiquated law, I regard my long association with him and his company to be valuable. I will always treasure the collection of his essays in my possession -- even the more goofy ones. Numerous books are now in my library because of knowing him. Whether Anthony had slid to the right or not to a non-libertarian degree is moot. He certainly had become a more closed individual than the one I first met. What is beyond doubt is that he got hosed royally without ever being criminally charged with anything. Disgraceful, and absolutely un-American. The moral here is that it is very dangerous to stand up for principle if the principle places you at odds with any kind of power-bloc juggernaut. The power to detain indefinitely without bringing criminal charges guarantees the destruction of the targeted individual. The fact that Anthony Hargis spent six months in jail without being charged, and his company is gone for good testifies to that.
on Oct 04, 2004
What is the latest? I understand customer names were turned over and the company handling the receivership mailed out notices to many?
Does this mean it's over and that apparently the main goal was to shut ALH down?
What if someone didn't get a letter from the receivership company?
Apparently they are wanting to account for who had what? Why didn't all the past "customers" get statements? Are they ignoring the small frys?
Also, If they have the list of "customers" don't they also have a list of the amount of gold or fru's customer's might have had? What is the chance that anybody will get anything? Or is the receivership letter some are getting (to be signed under penalty of perjury) just a fishing expedition? How does the irs figure that deposits are income, what about those who had savings and had funds there with the idea that they could hold the funds in gold or convert them to gold quickly?
As far as alh assets, I heard at one point there wasn't much of anything, that anthony had totally mismanaged funds. And what is this???.... that he was using the money for his own ventures?? and political view?? Some of us appreciate the research of the constitution but why does anthony dismiss the holocaust,... was he being drugged or poisoned? For those out there who did get letters, Will claims be made with the recievership company? Or Is the IRS, now out to destroy every misled "customer" as well ?
on Oct 05, 2004
Here's the receiver's number: 714-432-0800 - Good Luck. You might ask for Craig Cowns. That's who I've talked to repeatedly and I call him every week or so to see if any more of my mail has come through. I do notice that most of the mail, such as the birthday card from my mother in Georgia, has been opened, and for a couple of weeks apparently someone was holding it, as Craig couldn't get it from the Post Office for that period. I imagine there are multiple investigations going on by various bureaurats trying to sniff out money or siezable assets.

The receiver's job is supposedly to find all the creditors, debtors, etc. connected with the company and try to get the moneys from liquidation to people according to the legal priority of their claim. Naturally, I would guess that the IRS wants to come first in line, like the rest of us, but they have a big club to wield.

I can pretty well document that I had something under ten grand in frus (Federal Reserve Units - i.e., $) from the last several months of statements and reciepts from ALH&Co. I was not using my account to write checks, but simply as a cheap and easy way to buy gold as the price was going up.

What the IRS will do is anybody's guess. I'm certainly not an expert in that area. I have tried to think thru exactly how an account with ALH&Co. should be viewed legally, as Anthony never claimed to hold the actual funds or actual gold. So, was the account a loan? An investment? Perhaps there are financial/legal terms that I, a layman, am simply not aware of. Credit unions also take and hold money in accounts and loan it out, so maybe there are models that apply.

As for Anthony's mismanagement, there seems to be a general concensus among all the people who worked at ALH&Co., as well as the more knowledgeable customers who I would run into there, that Anthony really screwed up badly these last couple of years, pouring perhaps a couple million bucks into some bottle labeling venture. What I overheard from Anthony's contract workers in his office was that allegedly at least one of the principals in that venture was skimming ten grand a month into his own pocket without Anthony noticing.

Perhaps Anthony was getting desperate and taking a gamble. One customer told me that he had had a couple of large - $50,000 to $100,000 - bank accounts seized by the IRS even before all this mess came down. I don't know, personally. I do know that everyone agreed that he had not exercized due diligence regarding the financing of the alleged bottle labeling business.

I personally had always assumed, given Anthony's very conservative nature, that he had put the money I deposited with him into things like land and property. That appears to be partially true. So, there are some assets out there. Also, I find it hard to believe that the IRS is going to be able to simply keep all the money they siezed without actually showing specific crimes and criminals that would give them legal justification under their own rules. So far, as far as I know, they have not been able to do so, altho Craig at the receiver's said that he understood that they were preparing 20 or so indictments. That was weeks ago, and no further word on that issue. I can't think of anything that they might conceivably try to use on the typical ALH&Co. customer, such as myself, but who knows. They put Anthony away for six months without specifying any specific crime.

One of the saddest things in my mind is that not only is Anthony probably wiped out financially, but that his publication of material that can be used forever to brand him as an anti-semite and racist will also serve to discredit his excellent work on researching the network of corporate ties and hidden investments and blatant conflicts of interest between the state and local governments and a host of major corporations. That information is virtually priceless and needs to get out.
on Dec 06, 2004
Just wondering what the latest news concerning A L h? I heard that Anthnoy and his legal help were tryin to get back all that was put into receivership. I heard that nothing has been distributed from the receivership. Someone in that area said that anthony is having meetings again. Has anyone been? If so, is there a chance that anybody will recover anything?
on Dec 11, 2004
Well, I talked with Craig Cowns (sp?) at the receiver's office yesterday, as I recalled that there was supposed to have been a hearing on the 6th. Craig informed me that the IRS is now attempting to claim everything, partially on the basis of assessing an $1100 fine on all 800 of the account holders identified so far. The fine, according to Craig, was based on the premise that all these people were participating in an "illegal" "warehouse bank." It is my understanding that a "warehouse bank" is specifically illegal because its purpose is to hide transactions by paying bills, etc. from independent bank accounts, thereby blocking any trail back to the bill payer, his address, etc., should the IRS want to investigate possible tax fraud.

All the other issues of the illegality of the IRS, the illegality of prosecuting a group of people and seizing assets without a Grand Jury or trial, etc., etc., etc., aside, the plain fact is that many people, such as myself, used ALH&Co. primarily as a means of either (a) investing in gold for capital preservation against a risky dollar and/or ( avoiding use of the FDIC banking system, on the basis that it is inherently immoral. I personally generally put my own private contact information on any checks that I got from ALH&Co. over the years, so it would be really difficult for anyone with access to those cancelled checks to make a case that I was trying to hide the transaction from anyone. I also had, since the early '90's, a regular FDIC bank account, and paid most of my bills from it, keeping ALH&Co. only as a back-up system - and to invest in gold.

However, the IRS, staying in character as a bunch of thugs, is not apparently concerned with personal details of the people it is fining, or whether or not they are actually guilty of anything. For them, $1100 is chump change in itself. But I'm reasonably sure that they DO want to make ALH&Co. serve as a lesson to anyone who might be tempted to invest in anything similar.

So, welcome to the new Amerika.

Craig said that they had managed to find just about enough assets to cover the IRS claims, surprise, surprise, and that it will be up to the federal judge as to whether to allow them to procede. As to any meetings with Anthony, I ran into another of his people the other day, by pure chance, who told me that he is having some kind of regular meetings, but I don't recall details.

I am not very happy with Anthony. I showed him a copy of a little report on the pending federal legislation that reguired virtually any business to turn over its records, without a Grand Jury, subpoena, etc., back in November of '03, before it was signed into law, and warned him about the possible use against him, and I don't know of any action he took in response. This is not the first time that he has failed to prepare properly, and I will not be caught in the position of depending upon his idea of security again.
on Apr 15, 2005
haven't heard any recent news on the alh situation. Did the court make any determination yet concerning alh's assets? what is happening with anthony?
on May 18, 2005
I've just learned about the messages on this site about my case. Since I was released from jail eight months ago, I've been rather handicapped; and had neither time nor resources to look for these messages.
Since the government seized all assets held by the Company - and I personally had nothing outside the Company, I had some major obstacles to overcome when I stepped out of jail. For example, for the first three months, I slept in a supporter's backyard, and set up a worktable on her back porch. Initially, I had to decide whether to abandon the case and search for a "nine to five" job to support myself or try to make some effort to recover our losses and depend on book sales and loans from supporters for survival. Everyone I talked to insisted on the second option.
Many people don't seem to realize why the government seized the Company. It had no money budgeted to investigate my customers or me; it didn't even have such money to pay banks for records demanded by the IRS. Consequently, the government got very few of such bank records. So, the government seized Company property mainly for the purpose of financing its investigation of our affairs; and the Receiver is conducting this investigation at an average rate of something like two hundred dollars per hour.
For example, one of the Receiver's creatures loitered around the jail for one and a half hours while jail personnel prepared a list of all people who visited me, and voice recordings of all my phone calls: my customers paid a total of 317.50 for this service (222.50 for his time while he waited, 87.50 for travel time and 7.92 for mileage).
Since then, Receiver's creatures have been visiting and interviewing everyone on the list trying to find evidence of a crime, eating away at customers' money at the rate of 175.00 per hour, plus travel time and mileage.
Another expense: one customer called who just wanted to chat; he disagreed with my "position on rascism": fifteen minutes and 52.50 down the rat hole.
Another customer called and said I was a "jerk": 17.50.
These are some of the more interesting tidbits from the invoice sheets that detail the Receiver's expenses; such sheets ran to more than seventy pages, and covered the first six weeks of occupation.
Some people think the government will allow the Receiver's creatures to chat with my customers until all their money is transferred into such creatures’ pockets. It's not likely; for, while I was in jail, the IRS totaled all deposits made into fifteen bank accounts for six years and attributed the grand total to me as my personal income; then fabricated a fairy-tale tax liability against me: 33,000,000, and growing. The IRS has acknowledged many times that the money in these accounts belonged to customers. So this fairy-tale liability against me is based on customers' property; and the IRS has declared an intent to take this customers' property to apply it against my fairy-tale liability.
Another, and major, reason for seizing Company property : it deprived us of resources needed to defend against the government’s predation. The government wanted to make the fight as fair as possible. You know, tie our hands, gag our mouths, break our pens, terrorize our friends. I’ve said for years that this country is occupied by thieves : they proved it in spades.
There is a constitutional violation hidden in this seizure and investigation. The essence of justice is balance. There can be no balance in a legal contest between government and citizen : on one side there are the resources of a nation available for litigation; the accumulated knowledge of centuries. On the other side, the citizen has only his resources and knowledge he might be able to accumulate at the rate of thirty minutes a day. Where government edicts operate against citizens, it is impossible that justice be done – that rights be secure. It is institutionalized injustice. And so, since the government seized our money to investigate us, I suppose balance requires that we be allowed to seize a portion of government property to investigate them. Does anybody want me to do this? I need help.
Enough of this; I have many more details of this case in my sixteen-(plus)-pages article, 'Anthony in Wonderland.' Let me know if you want a copy, for eight U. S. first-class stamps or four dollars.
My main reason for taking part in this discussion group is to respond to some of the remarks made about me; I can't respond to all of them; for, I just don't have the time.
First, I have known Phil for more than twenty years; and we seem to have a fair amount of mutual respect for each other. I certainly appreciate the supportive remarks he has made about me; but, I feel like I should respond to some of his negative remarks; I’ll try to be gentle.
Phil imagines that I am a racist; let me remove all doubts: I am. I prefer my own race - just like everyone else, who is not emotionally damaged.
In fact, I am proud of being a member of the white race; no other has been more innovative, more productive or more fierce in pursuit of liberty.
Yes, there have been certain members of the white race who have committed enormous crimes; and, where they have been brought to account, it has been done by - guess who - other members of the white race.
I am proud of that also - even inspired by it. Consequently, I like to classify myself as one of those "other members of the white race." And I try to conduct myself accordingly.
After examining our history books, and the present face of the earth, I think a reasonable man would have to come to the conclusion that, if it had not been for the white race, human beings would still be living in caves and using stone utensils.
So, in my book, it is a part of human nature - it is proper - for every man to be a racist. Just as it is proper for every man to breathe. A man will experience enormous conflicts if he does neither: ethical for the first failure; and physical for the second.
Only when racism crosses over to the realm of bigotry-intolerance does it become wrong; that is, the denial of rights to others based on belief or appearance.
I guess I would call my kind of racism, rational racism. Phil probably means to call me a ‘racist-bigot’ because I have written or spoken the term "white citizen." I found this term in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was later raised to constitutional status by the so-called fourteenth amendment. The language in question is now codified at Title 42 of the U. S. code, section 1982; it is, "Every citizen of the United States shall have the same right as is enjoyed by white citizens..."
If all it takes to become a racist-bigot is to use the term "white citizen," so is Congress - so is Phil.
If there is only one motive that animated the government to jail me, confiscate my customers' property and seek my annihilation, it is my research based on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, or the term, "white citizen."
I found that there is a constitutional distinction between "white citizen" and "U. S. citizen"; that the former has full standing and all rights relative to American constitutions and bills of rights; that the latter has neither; that a "white citizen" surrenders his standing and all rights when he applies for a Social Security card.
I organized and filed a lawsuit against the Social Security Administration to settle a question of law, "Do we surrender any rights when we apply for an SS card?"
Is this a fair question? If we surrender no such rights or standing, there is no harm in answering. If we do surrender such rights, there is a major treason to redress.
I put the court in a position where it had to commit a gigantic fraud or expose a centuries-long treason: if application for an SS card involves a surrender of rights, it constitutes the political genocide of the American people.
To answer my question could not be allowed to happen. I was jailed, all my resources confiscated. All because I never helped people organize "abusive tax shelters." In other words, I was not jailed for anything related to "abusive tax shelters." This was a fabrication to conceal the real reason.
I never had an opportunity to examine my accuser, no resources to appeal. Still, my lawyers attempted an appeal. Beginning in February of 2004, they requested a total of nine transcripts and paid some 2700.00 for them. Some fifteen months later, only one non-essential transcript has been delivered, and the judge has indicated that we won't get any more. A transcript is an essential part of an appeal; no transcript, no appeal.
This judge's action indicates that it is certain that, if we can get our case to the appeal level, his judgment will be reversed. The legality of my jail time and confiscation of the Company would then become of very doubtful, to put it modestly.
It cannot be allowed to happen. The government, and I, have produced a situation where an appeal court would have to commit a gigantic fraud, or expose a centuries-long treason.
The government is trying to tell you something: I have come to close to the truth.
Personal matters. Phil frequently displays a lack of common sense; I'm not sure whether he or I am better at this.
A case in point is his set of observations about my relationship with Jane, my former wife, and Aurelia, my daughter. My failure to act when Aurelia explored Phil's "baby-unfriendly" area is probably true, I don't remember. Nevertheless, please be assured, it was not my only thoughtless act regarding Aurelia. I am truly sorry that I am the only parent who does so; and, I'm not inclined to tell of my other such acts.
As to his remarks about my separation from Jane, Phil does not seem to understand there are two, and usually, three sides to every story: yours, mine, and, sometimes, the truth. Until all three sides are impartially examined, a civilized man will keep his mouth shut, his pen still; for, a falsehood is so easy to launch, so difficult to recall. Phil has never asked for my side of the story - and I don't think I would tell him if he asked; for, I have come to the conclusion - probably too late - that, when you damage a parent, you also damage a child.
And this puts me in quite a dilemma: when people spread falsehoods about me, do I remain silent, and let my child dislike or hate me? Or, do I tell my side of the story, and cause damage to my child?
Somebody, please tell me.
Either way I am deprived of the only companionship I ever valued in this life.
Aurelia has suffered enough : she has a father who has spent time in jail; the government propaganda department (news media) makes me look like a fool and cheat; her friends think the same of me. She is embarrassed – and will no longer talk to me. I understand the reasons for the military-Star-Chamber operation against me; Aurelia doesn’t; it has punished her more than me; it’s time to leave her alone.
It seems I have been in this situation before; in one case, I am not permitted to defend myself by operation of a usurped power; in the other, by a timeless power (the bond between parent and child). One is imposed by ignorance; the other by care.
Taxes and abuse of children. When we apply this principle to the issue of taxes, we reach the conclusion that taxes drive men to abandon, abuse or neglect their children. Edward Gibbon reports that taxes became so oppressive in Rome that the empire was slightly embarrassed by the high incidence of exposure; a practice whereby parents who knew they could not support a new-born child would take it into a field and abandon it – where the wind and rain, sun and cold, dogs and wolves would eventually put an end to its screams and shrieks. It is a timeless principle. Take money from a man; he is less able to support his child; he must work longer hours to replace his loss, which leaves him with less companionship with his child. He is angry because of his unjust loss; and the near impossibility of earning an honest pay; he does not know how or against whom to discharge this anger; he holds it inside – where it smolders. One day, at meal time, a child makes a childish remark; hinges on a psychological door snaps; a table is overturned, dishes and food fall to the floor, a child is beaten senseless. This is the brutality that children must suffer because of the ravenous maw of the tax taker; and weakness, and ignorance, of parents.
Ah, but I must move on, it is not manly to show a tear, nor courteous to disturb slumber.
The book where I discussed these consequences of taxes (thus, making them unconstitutional) was used as the basis for judgments against me. This book would have been the "star witness" at the trial we expected - but it was not to be; my trial was short-circuited by a summary judgment : no discovery, no examination of witness(es)-accuser(s), no jury, nothing. Again, it could not be allowed to happen; I came too close to the truth. It is not legal to defend against lawful bandits – nor to speak for the defenseless.
The Jewish question. Phil calls me "anti-Semitic." Prior to going to jail, I think I can say that I was safely neutral on this topic. But I met an Egyptian there that persuaded me to take up the position that Phil attributes to me. The Egyptian had been arrested on terrorist charges; you see, government wanted to persuade us that Palestinians, Egyptians and other Moslems – that is, other Semites – hated America and wanted to destroy us. So, the government arrested a large number of Semites. The government, however, was horrified to learn that this particular Egyptian had converted to Christianity some twenty years ago; and moved to America a few years later to avoid the hostility directed against him by other Semites (Egyptians) because of his conversion.
What to do? What to do? The government, in its zeal to terrorize Americans with fabricated enemies, made a blunder. What to do? What to do? Do we release this victim and confess our mistake? Of course not. Of course not. That would reveal our fallibility, and would tarnish our image as all knowing, and all good.
So the government kept this Egyptian in jail while it searched for a plausible reason to keep him there. He was studying to become a lawyer, and had made arrangements for certain marriages that allowed immigrants to obtain U. S. citizenship; at least, that’s what the government said. Illegal cupid he was.
He was reading a book written by a Saudi princess. It was written in some Semitic language, so I couldn’t read it. It was banned in most or all Moslem (Semitic) countries. It told of the practice of rich Semitic men who traveled thru-out Moslem countries for the purpose of buying eight-years-old orphan girls. These men use these little girls for sexual purposes; and leave not an orifice unused. According to this Saudi princess (who suffered the same acts she described), a little girl doesn’t have to be an orphan to be so used. In the Semitic world, little girls, starting at seven or eight, get it from anyone who has a penis – brothers, fathers, uncles, nephews, strangers: you may add as many nouns as you please.
Ordinary news media confirm this practice. After the tsunami devastated shorelines of the Indian Ocean, reports began to appear in newspapers of the traffic in children orphaned by the tsunami. Buyers certainly were not interested in such childrens’ work capacities.
This Saudi princess reported that the practice of using eight-years-old girls for sexual sleaze is regarded in the Semitic world as a holy practice.
Yes, Phil, I am now a confirmed "anti-Semite." I hope you become one also.
It is possible that Phil confuses "anti-Semite" with its contrary, "anti-Jew." Would you believe it? Twenty years ago, I was sympathetic towards Jews. I was so sympathetic that I decided to research their history - as written by themselves, so I could better defend them. A very dangerous enterprise indeed if you do not want to disturb your carefully brainwashed mind; for, the facts I found built a bridge to conclusions I never expected. For the past three thousand years, Jews have been the favored tax collectors wherever they go. The Jewish religion was designed to be xenophobic, nationless, and hostile to productive labor; it was designed, in other words, to recruit and train tax collectors. Xenophobic, to prevent them from becoming friendly with their victims (this would make them ineffective as legal thieves); nationless, because a nation of thieves would cannibalize itself; hostile to productive labor in order to drive them into tax-collecting professions. There are, of course, some Jews who just don’t get the message; they are friendly toward non-Jews, prefer their own nation-state, or engage in useful work. These kinds of Jews are regarded as self-haters, or asses, by other Jews. Their religion sends them into every nation where they insinuate themselves into tax-collecting professions; loot the country to an economic Stone Age; commit a mass genocide of their victims and witnesses (to conceal their crime and give little warning to future victims); and then exit the country. I assembled my findings in my book, Fires that Cry. I let facts of reality guide my sympathies : I am no longer sympathetic towards Jews.
A very tiny sample of my findings: between 1989 and 1991, upwards of two millions of Jews fled the crumbling Soviet Union. Why? What invariably happens when a dictatorship falls? People rush into the streets to celebrate and hasten the destruction of an oppressive regime. Some of them will search out - and hack to pieces - bureaucrats who formerly oppressed them.
With freedom on the morrow, why would Jews flee almost in a panic? Have I given you too many clues?
Now, what about the Jews of Africa? Thank you for asking. The few days surrounding May 26, 1991, the Marxist dictatorship of Ethiopia fell apart. Israeli Jews bragged that they had safely evacuated 14,000 Jews in thirty-three hours, "the fastest human airlift" in history. Again, why?
If Jews had been numbered as victims of this dictatorship, Ethiopia would have been one of the safest places in the world for these Jews to remain; they could have recovered some of their losses, and remained among familiar places and faces. Instead, they fled in a panic, and established a world record.
Verification of these events lies at your fingertips : go to any major newspaper; search for "USSR" (or "Soviet") and "emigration"; limit your search to the years 1989 to 1992. You’ll get any number from fifty to three hundred articles detailing these two exoduses. And every article will pertain to Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. You should make copies of them, before they are erased from the newspapers’ files; they may be worth money after that.
Be careful; don't ask too many questions. This nation of bandits and cutthroats will not like you - and will attempt to silence you.
With this perspective, we now have to re-examine the exoduses of the Bible out of Egypt and Babylon. All you have to do is read their accounts in the Bible; that's all - just read them. Again, be careful.
More on the Jewish question. Phil says that I hold that Jewish children should be held responsible for crimes of their ancestors. How monstrous. Can Phil quote any passage I have written where I make such a suggestion? Of course he can’t. There may be a passage or two that sloppy minds can misconstrue. If there are such passages, I ask Phil, or anyone else, to point them out to me so I can correct them, so it will take a really, really sloppy mind to misconstrue them.
The only time when it is appropriate to hold children responsible for crimes of their parents is when such children ratify, conceal or benefit from such crimes.
If Phil is concerned about holding one generation responsible for crimes of previous ones, he should look to Jews – and ask why they do so. Apart from World-War-II war crimes trials, the Allies murdered some one million ordinary Germans by starvation and exposure while they rotted in prison camps.
The point is: most, and perhaps all, Germans who comprised the German government during World War II were exterminated by 1948. Only some of their children survived.
The point is: the German government has been paying enormous reparations to Jews for sixty years. Jews have no problem with holding several generations of posterity responsible for crimes of a previous generation – especially when such posterity does not ratify, does not conceal or does not benefit from such crimes.
Tell me, somebody, when will it end?
Wait. Crimes? What crimes? Phil says that I do not believe in the Holocaust. I’m sorry, I do believe in it. Jews captured control of the communist movement in 1869, and by 1917, Jews comprised 70% to 85% of its membership. From 1917 to the present, Judeo-communists have, directly or indirectly, slaughtered and plundered at least a hundred million people. An ordinary mind cannot imagine the enormity of this crime – a crime that had to be committed by a nation of people; owing to its magnitude, this nation had to exist hundreds, maybe thousands, of years prior to such crime.
I have proposed building a memorial for these victims of Judeo-communists similar to the one built for Americans killed during the Vietnam War.
If built with similar dimensions, it would run for three hundred and twenty miles.
Three hundred and twenty miles.
Some say Judeo-communists have slaughtered and plundered upwards of two hundred millions over ninety years – six hundred and forty miles.
Who should pay for it Phil?
Now, as to the imaginary holocaust. Two simple facts should point a reasonable mind in the direction of truth. In 1943, the German army discovered a mass grave in the Katyn Forest containing bodies of fifteen thousand Polish army officers; they were murdered by Judeo-communists.
Okay, the real point is – not who murdered them or why, but – that the bodies were found.
You cannot hide fifteen thousand bodies.
You cannot hide five hundred – or even fifty – bodies.
These are two parts of a syllogism: the conclusion of which is : you cannot hide six million bodies.
Gee, why hasn’t someone constructed this syllogism before?
Oh well; maybe the bodies were burned. Several facts object to this. One, it requires an unusual amount of energy to burn one human body; something like thirty-two hundred (3200) degrees Fahrenheit for thirty (30) minutes. Two, Germany experienced constant fuel shortages during the war: little or none would have been available to burn bodies (in fact, there probably would not have been enough fuel in all of Europe to do so). Three, a kiln, with 1960’s technology, requires six hours to heat from room temperature to only one thousand degrees Fahrenheit; and an equal number of hours to cool it – so it could be reloaded. Various researchers have found from zero to four kilns that Germans could have used to burn bodies; some claim they were built after the war. Let us be very generous and assume there were four such kilns, and that each could burn one body every twelve hours. At eight bodies per day, we need seven hundred and fifty thousand (750,000) days to burn six million bodies; that’s two thousand years.
I hate to ask stupid questions; but, can we do this without fuel?
Or, am I just slow?
Company matters. The main question here seems to be, "Is there any possibility to recover assets?"
Yes, and no. In reverse order : if we depend only on legal arguments, we have no chance to recover anything. If we work on generating exposure of our situation, we will recover everything plus damages equal to two or three times our losses – at least.
To elaborate : if the government can operate in total darkness – or total control of publicity, it will violate every rule, procedure and right that gets in its way; as it has done so far. Remember, the government is trying to silence me, and to destroy the memory (a) of the technology I developed regarding a gold-backed currency and ( some of the findings in my writings. It certainly did not want to shut down the Company because we helped organize "abusive tax shelters, plans or arrangement"; this fairy tale was just a pretext to silence me.
To repeat, with enough publicity, we can create a major publicity nightmare for the government, and recover our losses, at least. And something seems to be happening in this regard. A few days after I was arrested, a customer did a search on the web for my name and found four hits / sites / pages. Four months ago, he did the same search and found over nineteen thousand; a few days ago, the number was over twenty-eight thousand (of these large numbers, maybe fifty percent pertain to me).
If customers and supporters (those who invest in our case) want to recover their losses, the very least that they can do is to visit those sites that carry our story and patronize their products when convenient. The next level of involvement would require supporters to make sure that such sites have our side of the story; we have several files that we can send to them.
The government has committed numerous grievances against us; but we need wide-spread exposure to obtain redress. A small sample : I received a letter from the IRS detailing a "tax assessment" against me. The IRS had totaled deposits made to fifteen bank accounts used by the Company over a six-years period and attributed the grand total to me as personal income; and fabricated a tax liability of thirty-three millions (33,000,000); because of additional penalties (related to organizing "tax shelters") and interest, the total now approaches forty millions. The government has acknowledged several times that the property in such accounts belonged to my customers; still, this customers’ property was used as a basis to assess taxes and penalties against me. The IRS letter further declared an intent to take customers’ property to apply it against my fairy-tale liability.
There is a law that forbids tax liabilities to be transferred from one "taxpayer" to another; but a provision of this law permits the IRS to dispense with this law if a "taxpayer" comes too close to the truth.
Now, pay close attention to dates here. My office, mail address and website were confiscated on August 9 of last year. The letter in question was dated August 27. The law requires the letter to be sent to my last known address; I was still in jail – and the IRS knew it; the letter was sent to my office; that is, to the IRS. The letter declared that the IRS had decided to make a jeopardy assessment against me because customers’ property was subject to flight (it was in the hands of the IRS-appointed Receiver, you see). The letter explained that I could appeal the jeopardy determination within thirty days of the date of the letter (August 27). The letter was sent to my IRS-occupied office and post marked October 28; I eventually received it about November 10 – some seventy-five days after the date of the letter.
Enough of such small things.
I’ve written an eighteen-pages article, ‘Anthony in Wonderland,’ that gives many more details; it’s available for five dollars.
Appeal. The judgment that set this all in motion occurred in November of 2003. We appealed it. Now, an appeal requires a transcript of the hearing in question : with no transcript, appeal judges have nothing to examine. Accordingly, my lawyer requested the transcript in question; and, after fifteen months, it remains undelivered. After repeated inquiries as to the status of producing the transcript, the court reporter explained that we’ll never get the transcript; the judge had ordered her to quit working on it. This seems to indicate that the trial judge, David O. Carter, is fairly well convinced that, if our case can be put before appeal judges, Carter’s ruling will be reversed. This would make everything that happened thereafter legally questionable – to put it modestly; my jail time, confiscation of Company assets, jeopardy assessment.
Do you see the wonders that are possible with publicity?
Our appeal brief makes for interesting reading; it’s available for ten dollars.
Management of funds. I’ve been accused of mismanaging Company funds; I won’t contest that accusation; I’ve learned that I simply don’t have the mentality to work in a situation that requires intensive attention on a day-to-day basis. I tried to find people to help me in that regard starting four and five years before going to jail; but no one came forward.
I’ve also been accused of losing all the assets. I will contest this one. There were two major borrowers that caused major concerns by those interested in the Company. In both cases, money lent to them was regarded as totally lost by some; however, one of the borrowers had paid down on his loan by at least one hundred and fifty thousand during the two-years period before my arrest; still those who had classified this money as lost refused to change their assessment of its status. And, to this day, they can’t accept that this was a performing loan; and they falsely tell people that I lost this money.
The other borrower simply defrauded us. We were lending money to him so he could establish a china and glass decorating plant in California; I saw half-million dollar purchase orders, and similar deliveries that well justified this investment. However, at the same time that this borrower was using our money to establish a California plant, he was borrowing money from Red Chinese sources to establish an identical plant in Red China. When the latter became functional, he took "our" customers with him.
Had it not been for the star-chamber proceedings against us, we would still be functioning; and collecting money from the first borrower, and pursuing legal recourse against the second. Now, we will have to recover these losses from the government. But, what do we need for this?
Criminal fairy tales. The government is really desperate to silence me. When I was released from jail, the government began to interview everyone who was willing to soil their hands in an attempt to find evidence that would justify a criminal prosecution against me so they could give me two or three consecutive life sentences. They first tired to find evidence of money laundering; but found none, or not enough. Then they tried ‘hiding assets or income from tax bandits’; a dead end. Now they are trying to build a case that I ordered the destruction of records while I sat in jail. Here, they will have to attribute magical powers to me to sustain this charge : all phone calls from jail are tape recorded; all mail is read; and everyone assumes that all visits are video and audio recorded. And I knew it all, and acted accordingly.
If any one ordered the destruction of records, it was the judge, David O. Carter. When reasonable men witness the blatant disregard for due process exhibited by this judge, they will have no confidence whatsoever in any decision or promise he might make. Such men will regard him as a classic judicial assassin – and act accordingly. There is a law of nature that says, he who provokes an action is responsible for it. We should aim to enforce this law – and publicity will do it.
Meetings. For those who want to communicate with me, I appear every Sunday at the Souplantation in Costa Mesa from 2:00 to 4:00.
My mail address is 2427 N. Tustin Av. Ste B; Santa Ana, Cal. 92705.