UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 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, and Case 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 ones 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 FDAs 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 FDAs 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 FDAs 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,
VERIFIED DECLARATION OF AN MMS USER (w/o U.S.) Pg 2

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 UNs 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

VERIFIED DECLARATION OF AN MMS USER (w/o U.S.) Pg 3

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 FDAs logic to its inevitable end, the use of cucumbers to remove the bags around ones 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

VERIFIED DECLARATION OF AN MMS USER (w/o U.S.) Pg 4

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
VERIFIED DECLARATION OF AN MMS USER (w/o U.S.) Pg 5

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 jurys 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
VERIFIED DECLARATION OF AN MMS USER (w/o U.S.) Pg 6

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 governments 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.

VERIFIED DECLARATION OF AN MMS USER (w/o U.S.) Pg 7

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 Godgiven, 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__

VERIFIED DECLARATION OF AN MMS USER (w/o U.S.) Pg 8