mms_user_decla_non_usa.docx

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

In the Matter Re:

Daniel Smith, Project GreenLife, MMS and alleged violations of The Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.

§§§§§§§§§

FILE ON DEMAND

Case No. CV-11-317-EFS, andCase No. CV-11-340-RMP

VERIFIED DECLARATION OF A MMS USER.

NAME:Radojka Della Zotta

VERIFIED DECLARATION OF A MMS USER

1. I, _Radojka Della Zotta_, being over the age of 18, having firsthand knowledge of the

facts contained herein, and being competent to testify to these matters, declare as

follows:

2. I am a user of the product known as “MMS”. MMS is an acronym for “Master Mineral

Solution” or “Miracle Mineral Solution” named for its many useful applications.

3. MMS is comprised of a natural (non-synthetic), non-patentable chemical known as

Sodium Chlorite and water.

4. Sodium Chlorite is a lawful chemical that, according to online research, appears to have

been available for over half a century and is predominantly sold for use in water

purification. It is used by everyday campers and backpackers in pill or liquid form to

make water potable.

5. Sodium Chlorite may be combined with any food-grade acid (i.e. Citric Acid) in the

privacy of one’s own home to create an entirely different and lawful chemical known as

Chlorine Dioxide, which is also a water purifier but with many other uses.

6. Chlorine Dioxide is NOT Sodium Chlorite or MMS.

VERIFIED DECLARATION OF AN MMS USER (w/o U.S.) – Pg 1

7. In my experience, the use of MMS (Sodium Chlorite) to create Chlorine Dioxide for

private use, when done reasonably and sensibly, is both safe and lawful. Neither I nor

anyone I know have ever been harmed or injured by a reasonable and proper use of

MMS or Chlorine Dioxide.

8. Chlorine Dioxide is NOT the same as elemental chlorine or household chlorine bleach

and should not be mistaken for either.

9. I am aware of the FDA’s claims that MMS produces a “dangerous and potent bleach”.

Not only do I find this to be half true and intentionally misleading, but I am alarmed by

the FDA’s continued policy to support the manufacture of dangerous drugs and

chemicals on one hand while spreading harmful propaganda about safe and natural

products on the other. This is a policy that appears to lean towards corporate interests

and should be purged from American government once and for all.

10. In “Burzinski the Movie” (www.burzynskimovie.com), a documentary that shows the

lengths at which the FDA will go to keep legitimate products from the public, the FDA

Bureau of Drugs Director, Richard Crout (1976) said “when anyone other than large

institutions ask permission to conduct clinical trials, you want harsh regulations,

sometimes we say it is proper to hinder research – and once these guidelines were

adopted, the FDA would consider itself bound by them.” Also in Burzinski, Crout was

cited as saying in 1982, “I never have and never will approve a new drug to an

individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances.” See The

Spotlight, January 18, 1982. These statements reveal the FDA’s longstanding policy to

deny products and solutions, however effective and relevant, when brought by We the

People and not Big Pharma.

11. Chlorine Dioxide, which is not sellable or patentable, has many household uses which

contribute to the general well-being of mankind. This includes eradicating yeast, mold,

bacteria, fungus, including bad smells, airborne pathogens, and the like. It can be used

in basements, closets, cellars, automobiles, ventilation ducts, and bathrooms (i.e. sinks,

showers, toilets, for bathing, toothpaste, and mouthwash), kitchens (i.e. sinks, counters,


http://www.burzynskimovie.com/

and refrigerators), on food (i.e. meat and vegetables), and may also be mixed and

diluted with water or juice for topical and internal use. Chlorine Dioxide is regarded as

one of the safest and most effective pathogen killers known to man.

12. Chlorine Dioxide is used in many municipal water systems and is believed to be safer

than its predecessor, chlorine, because it does not leave behind dangerous carcinogens

known as trihalomethanes (THMs). Chlorine Dioxide was used in the decontamination

of buildings after the U.S. Anthrax attacks (2001). Chlorine Dioxide was used after

Hurricane Katrina (2005) to eradicate dangerous mold from houses inundated by water

from massive flooding. Chlorine Dioxide may be safely used to disinfect blood prior to

transfusion. See U.S. Patent No. 4944920.

13. “Environmental Health Perspectives” is a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research

and news on the impact of the environment on human health. In Vol. 46, pp. 57-62,

(1982) a study was released entitled: “Controlled Clinical Evaluations of Chlorine

Dioxide, Chlorite and Chlorate in Man”. In summary it says, “[B]y the absence of

detrimental physiological responses within the limits of the study, the relative safety of

oral ingestion of Chlorine Dioxide and its metabolites, chlorite and chlorate, was

demonstrated”.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/pdf/envhper00463-0059.pdf

14. I use Sodium Chlorite (MMS) to create my own Chlorine Dioxide in the privacy of my

own home. I believe this is a fundamental and unalienable Right endowed by the

Creator upon all mankind, guaranteed by the laws of my country and by the Organic

Laws of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution

for the United States of America, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and

the Herbalist Charter of Henry the VIII under the General Laws of the Colonies taken over

by the United States of America, still in force, and never repealed.

15. The Chlorine Dioxide I create and use in my own home is not bought, sold, or otherwise

transferred in intra-state or interstate commerce. I have never been harmed or injured


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569027/pdf/envhper00463-0059.pdf

by my use of MMS, Sodium Chlorite, or Chlorine Dioxide. It is my personal experience

that these chemicals are safe when reasonably and sensibly used.

16. I understand the U.S. Government is attempting to charge, indict, or convict Daniel

Smith of Project GreenLife in connection with the sale of MMS (Sodium Chlorite), which

it (the FDA) declares to be “a drug” and seeks to regulate.

17. However, based upon my firsthand knowledge, experience and research, MMS cannot

be a drug as Sodium Chlorite has no therapeutic value of itself. MMS (Sodium Chlorite)

is good for water purification and is properly labeled as such. While it may be used by

private individuals in the privacy of their own homes to create a completely different

and lawful chemical with many other uses, this does not make MMS or Sodium Chlorite

a “drug”. If it did, the law would be unjust or mistaken.

18. Both Sodium Chlorite and Citric Acid are approved by the FDA as “Generally Recognized

as Safe” (“GRAS”) and are listed under indirect and direct food substances affirmed as

GRAS in 21 CFR § 186.1750 and 21 CFR § 184.1033 respectively.

19. The FDA has no legal or constitutional right to prohibit the availability of natural lawful

chemicals like Sodium Chlorite and Citric Acid and no legal or constitutional right to tell

people what they can do with lawful chemicals in the privacy of their own home.

20. If the Jury were to charge, indict, or convict Mr. Smith, this would be a grave miscarriage

of justice and a testimony of the increasingly gross abuse of governmental power that

ceaselessly aims to encroach upon the natural and unalienable rights of the good People

of the United States of America.

21. If we were to follow the FDA’s logic to its inevitable end, the use of cucumbers to

remove the “bags” around one’s eyes would violate the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Water sold for “hydration” would violate the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Modern

plumbing, including sinks and toilets, which help society cut down on germs and

mitigate disease, would be “devices” under the control of the FDA, all by vague and

overreaching definitions employed by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Any reasonable


man or woman can see such an advancing policy would be absurd and should be

stopped.

22. John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the first President

after the American Revolution in 1789. He said: “The Jury has a right to judge both the

law as well as the fact in controversy.”

23. Samuel Chase, who was a signatory to the Declaration of Independence and Associate

Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1796 said: “The jury has the right to determine both

the law and the facts.”

24. Oliver Wendell Holmes, another U.S. Supreme Court Justice in 1902 said: “The jury has

the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact .” See Homing v. District of

Columbia, 138 (1920).

25. Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1941 said: “The law itself

is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.”

26. Justice Stone also said: “If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is

unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or

constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no

law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an

unjust law.”

27. The Supreme Court said in Marbury v. Madison (5US137, 176; 1803): “All laws which are

repugnant to [in conflict with] the Constitution are null and void.”

28. In U.S. v Moylan (1969), the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said “If the jury feels the law is

unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is

contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence.”

29. Lysander Spooner said in The Right of Juries: "For more than six hundred years – that is,

since Magna Carta, in 1215 – there has been no clearer principle of English or American

constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries

to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the

accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge


the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or

oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such law."

30. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, delivering the opinion of the Supreme

Court in United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), said: “it [the Grand Jury] belongs

to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee

between the Government and the people.”

31. In the Introduction to the Report of Commission to Reform the Federal Grand Jury, May

2000, Kyle O'Dowd, Legislative Director, wrote: “House Judiciary Committee Chairman

Henry Hyde (R-IL) recently noted that the federal grand jury, originally established by

the Founding Fathers as a means of protecting American citizens against government

excess, is today a captive of federal prosecutors. The prosecutor exercises enormous

power, unrestrained by law or judicial supervision. The grand jury process itself is largely

devoid of legal rules. The process has become one that wholly fails to protect ordinary

American citizens. The balance has shifted so dramatically in favor of the prosecution

that it has been noted, time and again, that “A good prosecutor could get a grand jury to

indict a ham sandwich.”

32. The Fully Informed Jury Association says regarding the Grand Jury: “The Supreme Court

states that the independent grand jury’s purpose is not only to investigate possible

criminal conduct, but to act as a “protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive

governmental action,” and to perform its functions, the independent grand jury

“deliberates in secret and may determine alone the course of its inquiry” (United

States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)) [meaning it should not be directed solely by the

prosecution]. An independent grand jury is to “stand between the prosecutor and the

accused,” and to determine whether a charge is legitimate, or is “dictated by malice or

personal ill will” (Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)). “The grand jury is to protect

citizens against “hasty, malicious and oppressive persecution” and to insure that

prosecutions are not “dictated by an intimidating power or by malice and personal ill

will” (Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962)). The independent grand jury is described


as “a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is

not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result

of the investigation” (Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)). “Without thorough and

effective investigation, the grand jury would be unable either to ferret out crimes

deserving of prosecution, or to screen out charges not warranting prosecution.” (U.S. v.

Sells Engineering, 463 U.S. 418 (1983)) Our founders intended that our independent

grand juries protect people from ambitious or tyrannical government employees and

laws. You, as a grand juror, stand as the first bulwark against government tyranny.

While you must protect us all from dangerous people who harm others, you must

always be aware that your first job is to protect harmless people from unfair, unjust

and unreasonable government laws. When laws encroach on private individual rights,

you cannot be required to enforce them by returning an indictment. When you refuse

to indict harmless people, you help to protect us all, you included, from out-of-control

government actions. As an independent grand jury, you also have the right to initiate

your own investigations on evidence presented to you, and to indict anyone if you feel

they are guilty of wrongdoing, including those government employees and elected

officials who are not upholding an oath of public office.” You may even ask a prosecutor

to leave the room and question a witness without the prosecution present.

33. Thomas Jefferson is attributed to saying "If people let the government decide what foods

they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are

the souls of those who live under tyranny."

34. MMS is NOT a drug and the FDA has NO jurisdiction over what I do in my home or

kitchen! See: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=4752

35. I believe the government’s prosecution of Mr. Smith is malicious and vindictive and

represents yet another oppressive attempt by government to limit the availability of a

perfectly lawful, inexpensive, and relevant product, and to chill the exercise of natural

and unalienable rights.


http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=4752

36. Based upon the foregoing, the jury should exercise its right NOT to charge, indict or

convict Daniel Smith, and should effectively return an acquittal - or a NO TRUE BILL OF

INDICTMENT. The Jury should use its unique and unequivocal Power to ferret out real

crimes committed by real criminals beginning with government agencies like the FDA

who seem to be perpetually engaged in the intentional abrogation of these, our God-

given, natural, and unalienable rights.

VERIFICATION

I, _______________________Radojka Della Zotta_________, hereby verify, under

penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America (without the United

States) that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the

best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1746(1).

Dated this ___21______ Day of ______February_______, 2013 A.D.

Signed Name: ______Radojka Della Zotta______

Printed Name: _______________________________________

Address: _________Croatia, 21000 Split__


mms_user_decla_non_usa.docx

Documents