From: Bill Vance Subject: Surprise discovered in local divorce cases (fwd) Date: 01 Aug 2002 11:26:02 -0700 (PDT) ------------------------ begin forwarded message from Bruce Chesley ----------------------- Peachy 8:((((( Bruce Chesley Truth is a terrible cross to bear. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.". Thomas Paine Treason for $$$: ALL "pro 2A" orgs. --------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.thetimesonline.com/index.pl/articlesubpc?id=25152511 Surprise discovered in local divorce cases Agreements could strip away the right to own a gun BY BOB KASARDA Times Staff Writer Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 VALPARAISO -- Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber dug around his desk and pulled out a single-page notice likely to come as a surprise to some recently divorced individuals and their attorneys. The official-looking document announces in capital letters and bold type that as a result of specific wording used in divorce agreements to protect one or both parties from harm, the federal Brady Act has been invoked. The result is the potential offender loses his or her right to possess a firearm and is required to turn over all weapons. This triggering of the federal law only recently was discovered by Webber and Porter County Magistrate Katherine Forbes while they were implementing state-mandated changes involving the use of protective orders. The changes, which took effect July 1, limit the use of protective orders to cases involving domestic and family violence, sexual assault and stalking. The Brady Act is triggered by specific language and conditions commonly made part of divorce agreements in Porter County, said Webber. The first of the three triggers occurs when the person is subject to a court order that restrains him from "harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner," according to the notice prepared by Webber. The final two triggers occur when there is an order prohibiting the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force, and the order is issued after the person has had an opportunity to be heard. While some attorneys intentionally may seek to trigger the Brady Act, Webber said others likely are to be surprised by the news. It is on behalf of this latter group, Webber has decided to attach notice of the act to applicable divorce agreements. He also is including a suggestion for alternative language that can be used in the agreement without triggering the Brady Act. "We are now suggesting lawyers take a closer look at standard language," he said. A different approach has been taken by Christina Miller, a Lake County Circuit Court magistrate who served on the Protective Order Committee, which recommended the changes to the state's protective order law. When those rules took effect July 1, she began separating protective orders from divorce agreements. Now, each is handled as its own order, she said. It is important to be careful when triggering the Brady Act, she said, particularly when it involves police officers, security guards or others who must carry a gun for a living. "We've seen it," Miller said. The use of two separate orders is the recommended approach in divorce and paternity cases, said Jeffrey Bercovitz, director of juvenile and family law at the Indiana Judicial Center and staff attorney for the center's Protective Order Committee. "We think it's cleaner," he said. Porter County's decision to continue including the protective language within the divorce agreement, however, is a valid approach, said Bercovitz. Webber was aware of the recommendation for separate orders, but said it has not been pursued in Porter County because it would create too much additional work for the county clerk's office and there would be no financial reimbursement. Filing fees cannot be charged for protective orders, he said. While the concern about the Brady Act is coming to light only in Porter County, Bercovitz said the threat was around long before the July 1 changes to the protective order law. Counties have just been responding at different speeds. Bob Kasarda can be reached at bkasarda@howpubs.com or (219) 462-5151, Ext. 345. ----------------------- end forwarded message from Bruce Chesley ----------------------- -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** 4-19! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: Surprise discovered in local divorce cases (fwd) Date: 01 Aug 2002 13:30:20 -0700 In case anyone doubted that our gov is completely outside of the Constitution: According to an article in today's Mercury (from an AP wire report): Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that "suspected Taliban and Al-Qaida fighters held in Cuba do not have a right to U.S. court hearings, allowing the military to hold them indefinitely without filing charges." My favorite bit from the article: "The judge pointed out that the men have not been charged with any legal offenses, and thus, are not being deprived of due process." Isn't that great? You can't be deprived of due process until you're charged! From a document our judges don't recognize: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This doesn't seem to limit the Rights acknowledged to be inherent in every human to US citizens. The next stage of evolution of government requires acknowledging this. If enforced, it would have avoided most wars in US history. Of course, mere adherence to the Constitutional requirement that Congress shall declare war would do the same in our times. Lew - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: Life Without PCA. Death Of Freedom. (fwd) Date: 03 Aug 2002 13:46:16 -0700 (PDT) ----------------------- begin forwarded message from Brad3000 --------------------- FYI... Interesting - worth the reads. The Posse Comitatus Act: Can we maintain American freedom without it? By C. T. Rossi - web posted July 29, 2002 http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0802/0802posse.htm Excerpt: "Had the Biden initiative to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act passed in 1995, Bill Clinton would have been free to deploy troops to Florida to ensure the validity of the presidential election recount. Need anyone say more? " It seems an odd first step. Why would the head of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, recommend a repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act as a first measure towards fighting terrorism? The Posse Comitatus Act was approved by Congress on June 18, 1878. The measure was in response to the disputed election of 1876 where Rutherford B. Hayes went to bed the loser, but eventually found his way into the Oval Office. The troops who President Grant had stationed at polling places may have had an undue influence over the ballot boxes and stolen a victory for Hayes. Whether the election was actually fraudulent or not, Congress thought it wise to avoid the appearance of impropriety by seeing to it that federal troops would never again be stationed next to the polls - hence the advent of the Posse Comitatus Act. What the act essentially did was render the use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement illegal. In a sense, the Posse Comitatus Act was a revolt against the federal central- ization which had been conducted under the Lincoln and Grant administrations. States and local communities had the right to police themselves; they weren't to be subjected to federal intimidation (remember, this was before the IRS). Not eager to deny himself the power to intimidate that had been enjoyed by his recent predecessors, Hayes vetoed the act citing the "right of the United States government to use force... to protect these elections from violence and fraud." One can easily determine from this that Hayes adhered to a theory of rights that would be quite at home on the modern Supreme Court. Congress overrode the veto. The Posse Comitatus Act was not an absolutist measure; it does contain exceptions for the use of federal troops "in such cases and under such circumstance as such employment of said force may be authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." (This exception clause has been used several times; most recently when the Truman administration, in response to a rail workers' strike, nationalized the railroads under the control of the Army Corps of Engineers.) In short, Posse Comitatus provides a barrier against the pell- mell deployment of troops by the President against the American people. It may be one of the most common-sense-laden pieces of legislation ever to come out of Washington. While Tom Ridge may seem overly eager to tamper with this safeguard, Sen. Joseph Biden's recent comments were even more concerning. In a recent interview, Biden recalled that he was ready to modify the Posse Comitatus after the Oklahoma City bombing. At that time, Biden and former senator, Sam Nunn, "introduced legislation that would moderately alter the posse comitatus." Biden's desire to alter the Act - after a single act of terrorism in Oklahoma City -seemed a radical step and his effort failed. He now laments that under the current provisions "when you call in the military, the military would not be allowed to shoot to kill, if in fact [the military] were approaching the weapon [of mass destruction]." But Biden is assuring that alterations which Congress might make to the Posse Comitatus would not mean radical changes to civil liberties: "... we're not talking about general police power . . . [only the] idea that you could have your local National Guard, you know, with arrest power like your local policemen." But herein lies the rub. What Biden didn't disclose is that the Posse Comitatus Act does not directly apply to National Guard units because they are under the control of the governors of their respective states - not under the control of the president. Under the type of hypothetical emergency scenarios that Ridge and Biden are fond of constructing, state governors could (and most assuredly would) deploy the National Guard in full cooperat- ion with federal authorities - however, governors would also be free to recall their guardsmen should they feel that military actions were unduly impinging on the rights of state citizens. While Ridge and Biden fabulize about Schwarzenegger -esque domestic shootouts between U.S. military forces and dirty-bomb-toting terrorists in an Amtrak tunnel, the truth is much more sobering. The federal government has yet to prove that it can properly interpret the intelligence that leads them to deploy the anti-terrorist commandos in the right place at the right time. While a modification of Posse Comitatus makes Americans practically no safer, it would open the door to old abuses. Had the Biden initiative to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act passed in 1995, Bill Clinton would have been free to deploy troops to Florida to ensure the validity of the presidential election recount. Need anyone say more? C.T. Rossi comments on contemporary politics and culture for the Free Congress Foundation. [Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed By The Sender - A.K. Pritchard] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 12:16 AM THE GREAT AMERICAN EXECUTION - DEATH OF FREEDOM By: Al Cronkrite http://www.etherzone.com/2002/cron080602.shtml Excerpt: "Americans that are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties for the privilege of maintaining an Empire, or for the implementation of a New World Order, are not really citizens of the America designed by its founders as a free and independent Nation. They are traitors to that vision and inimical to the health of the American Republic. Sanguine as their intentions might be, they are misdirected, illegal, and treasonous." In the Fascistic insanity of 9/11, President Bush seeks to ride the mammoth Homeland Security Department into the realm of dictatorial power threatening to rob Americans of their rights and freedoms. Homeland Security was written and waiting in the wings for the World Trade Center attack. In spite of prior warning, several thousand innocent individuals were killed in this senseless action. To make matters worse, this grave adversity is now being used as an excuse to solidify imperialistic procedures in America and over large portions of the world. Nine/eleven should have created no more than a police response designed to quietly pursue the perpetrators and bring them to justice. It is impossible to wage war against an invisible enemy. If it were not for the brain twisting denigration of our military forces by infusing their ranks with supposedly amazon women and clandestine homosexual men, the insanity of mobilizing an entire nation to accompl- ish this impossible task would have been shocking. (???!) The target of the so called war on terrorism is none other than the American people. Procedures going on in airports throughout the formerly free world would be ludicrous were they not so tragic. Massive futile search efforts requiring law abiding private citizens to forgo all privacy are routine. We are being condit- ioned to acquiesce to police state tactics which have little effect on potential terrorism but pernicious effects on individual freedom. A number of states have passed Gestapo legislation that allows check points at the borders, and confiscation of private property. Several have legislated the authority to force vaccinations on citizens. There is talk of allowing the use of the military against our own people in violation of the Posse Comitatis Act and the use of torture on recalcitrant suspects and witnesses. The federal government is in the process of consolidating control of local law enforcement and marginalizing patriots and militias. While the Christian foundations of America are being torn down and the followers of the Savior demonized, the right of citizens to protect themselves is being eroded with a plethora of restrictions on the use of firearms. As private citizens assent to this assault on their freedoms it becomes glaringly apparent that stripping America of its status as a Republic by ignoring the law and renaming it as a Democracy has helped open the door to imperialism. We in America need to be reminded that we are responsible for our own protection. Police officers are in our midst to enforce the law and are only activated when the law has been breached. They, themselves, become a threat when the laws they enforce are illegal and unconstitutional. Homeland Security is another massive government agency which is designed to be controlled by the American Emperor himself. It is not accountable to the people. It is secretive, invasive, and has little direct over- sight. Departments of government once created never go away. We have allowed the creation of a monstrosity that will severely restrict the freedom and control of the American people. Federalizing airport security personnel is another affront to freedom. It extends the Fascist control arm of government into the airports of the nation, increases the cost of an already worthless procedure, and adds another group of bureaucrats to the government payroll. These draconian measures are a frontal assault on civility and freedom. Americans that are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties for the privilege of maintaining an Empire, or for the implementation of a New World Order, are not really citizens of the America designed by its founders as a free and independent Nation. They are traitors to that vision and inimical to the health of the American Republic. Sanguine as their intentions might be, they are misdirected, illegal, and treasonous. It is doubtful that the election process can be used to alleviate freedom's impending death. Warnings to neo-cons and their followers went unheeded in the last election and the majority of America's voters are still enamored with the two party system in spite of its consistent failure to turn the tide against pagan, imperialistic, world government. Few are willing to face the truth. Congressmen sell their integrity and the best interests of the Nation for power and money. They tinker and dally with half truths, pontificate on trifles, and pander to both sides of issues. Erstwhile congressman Jim Traficant was railroaded out of congress by a group of elected officials whose pusi- llanimous evasion of truth is analogous to the military generals who assented to the deterioration of our defensive ability. Statesmanship has either been purposely killed or has died of incurable avarice. "Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact." [Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed By The Sender - A.K. Pritchard] A.K. Pritchard The Republican Web pages and email list "And to the Republic for which it stands" http://members.ll.net/chiliast/ God, Guns, Government & History http://members.ll.net/chiliast/GGGH/index2.html Republic USA http://www.republicusa.org/ -------------------------------------------------- The PILOT is the last & final line of defense. Wake up & smell reality - ARM them or wait for a news report of the next "WTC" disaster! -------------------------------------------------- Any other views expressed herein, are my own, not bought or sponsored in any shape or form, by or for any organization, currently existing or not. It should be noted: the URL posted is very likely to suddenly expire & if the reader wants to read the full article, they should should visit the copyright holders listed site very promptly. References & partial texts are given for EDUCATIONAL & INFORMATIONAL purposes only as per the "Fair Use" as described in Title-17, Sect 107 below. ---------------------------------------------------------------- **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research & educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml] ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- end forwarded message from Brad3000 --------------------- -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** 4-19! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: BUFFALO WEST SIDE (fwd) Date: 03 Aug 2002 15:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Signs of things to come? Bill ----------------------- begin forwarded message from Rich Martin, Editor = Slick eZine ----------------------- Henry Hudson would roll over in his grave,=20 if he knew about this. Rich Martin Editor, Slick eZine http://slickplus.spunge.org/list/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BUFFALO WEST SIDE =20 =20 Clean Sweep gets praise and criticism =20 =20 By GARY CHANDLER=20 News Staff Reporter 8/1/2002 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20020801/1013124.asp Alice Russell's granddaughter roused her from bed at 9 a.m. Wednesday, sh= outing, "Nana, something terrible's happening, the police are all here." = And it wasn't just the police.=20 More than 50 fire inspectors, animal control officers, social service wor= kers, cleanup workers, even U.S. marshals rumbled into a West Side neighb= orhood Wednesday morning for the second Clean Sweep, a citywide initiativ= e to crack down on quality-of-life problems.=20 Supporters, including the mayor and some residents, say the initiative im= proves troubled neighborhoods. But critics and other residents say the ef= fort is intrusive and ineffective.=20 Federal, state and local officials all contributed to the three-hour effo= rt, held on 19th Street between Rhode Island and Hampshire streets. It wa= s the second such sweep. The first was held June 26 on West Avenue, also = on the West Side.=20 While cleanup crews mowed lawns and cleaned vacant lots, teams of officia= ls went door to door, checking houses for working smoke detectors, unlice= nsed dogs, illegal cable television hookups and social services concerns.= Organizers of Wednesday's effort said they installed 40 smoke detectors,= replaced batteries in 30 others, issued 15 summons for unlicensed dogs, = uncovered 20 illegal cable hookups and made more than a dozen referrals t= o social services and housing agencies.=20 Mayor Anthony M. Masiello, who arrived at the conclusion of the event, sa= id residents were "happy to see us here."=20 "It's the little things that count," said Masiello. "Small quality-of-lif= e issues mean an awful lot to people in this neighborhood."=20 Residents welcomed help in improving their neighborhood. But they were fa= r from satisfied with the way Wednesday's sweep was conducted. They were = given no prior notice of the action. A police officer knocked on each doo= r and asked the resident if the house could be inspected. If they consent= ed - most did - up to 10 people might enter, according to residents.=20 "I think they should clean the neighborhood up," said Alice Russell, "but= because we're poor, they don't have to do it the right way."=20 Jeanne-Noel Mahoney, director of the western regional office of the New Y= ork Civil Liberties Union, came to the neighborhood after receiving phone= calls from residents. She said her office received 26 complaints about t= he first sweep, many saying the effort was intrusive. She scoffed at swee= p organizers' assurances that the inspections were voluntary.=20 "You can say you have the right to say no, but I think a lot of people wo= uld be afraid to," she said, noting the number of uniformed officers and = officials present.=20 She said the program would be more effective if residents had been notifi= ed so they could be sure to be home and had time to list their complaints= . Organizers said that would ruin "the element of surprise."=20 Council Member Dominic J. Bonifacio Jr., who sponsored the initiative, sa= id results from the sweep justified "a little inconvenience for three hou= rs." He championed the case of one resident whom inspectors discovered ha= d no water or electricity. But the resident, who declined to be named, sa= id she thought only the house itself would be inspected. She said before = she knew it, she was being grilled by a social services representative.=20 "I felt violated," she said, adding that the inspectors left without tell= ing her if or when her utilities would be turned on.=20 e-mail: gchandler@buffnews.com Copyright =A9 1999 - 2002 The Buffalo NewsTM=20 ----------------------- end forwarded message from Rich Martin, Editor Sl= ick eZine ----------------------- -- --- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** 4-= 19! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+------------------= --- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath n= o weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand =3D Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy= a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Chr= ist ----------------+----------+--------------------------+------------------= --- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! --- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: a change in forfeiture law (fwd) Date: 07 Aug 2002 16:28:20 -0700 (PDT) ----------------------- begin forwarded message from Swftl@aol.com ------= ----------------- *********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE *********** On 8/6/2002 at 10:27 PM John Paff wrote: >Leon: > >The following article is in this week's NJ Law Journal:=20 >http://www5.law.com/lawcom/displayid.cfm?statename=3DNJ&docnum=3D140925& table=3Dnews&flag=3Dfull > >John >---------------- >August 6, 2002 >Crriminal Law > >Appellate Division Punches Hole in Asset Forfeiture Statute > >Court adopts a multifactor approach and seemingly turns a legal remedy >into=20 >an equitable one > >By Ernest Hemschot III >New Jersey Law Journal > > >In State v. One House, Personalty and Realty Known as 232 Mullica Hill=20 >Road, 346 N.J. Super. 247 (App. Div. 2001), the Appellate Division >departed=20 >from mainstream case law and affirmed an equitable remedy fashioned by a= =20 >trial court. The court's holding has the potential to change the landsca= pe=20 >of asset-forfeiture law and hand the defense a potent weapon in a battle= =20 >that is usually lopsided heavily in favor of the state. >Although courts have consistently noted that forfeiture statutes are=20 >disfavored in the law, (see State v. 1979 Pontiac Trans Am, 98 N.J. 474=20 >(1985) and State v. Seven Thousand Dollars, 136 N.J. 223 (1994)), defens= e=20 >attorneys have always had an uphill battle in the forfeiture arena. It c= an=20 >now be argued that forfeiture actions should be mitigated by equitable=20 >principles. The breadth and scope of such an argument should not be=20 >underestimated. >Historically, fairness, the hallmark of equity, has never been a defense >to=20 >an asset-forfeiture action. Judges have frequently lamented their >inability=20 >to temper the application of forfeiture statutes that have often been=20 >regarded as unduly harsh. >Indeed, both state and federal forfeiture statutes even permit forfeitur= e=20 >of property belonging to persons who are completely innocent of criminal= =20 >activity; See Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663=20 >(1974) and State v. One 1979 Pontiac Sunbird, 191 N.J. Super. 578 (App.=20 >Div. 1983). >Furthermore, as seen in State v. One 1988 Honda Prelude, 252 N.J. Super.= =20 >312 (App. Div. 1991), one need not even be charged with a crime to trigg= er=20 >application of the statute. >Forfeiture complaints are presently litigated in the Law Division of the= =20 >Superior Court upon the filing of a civil complaint within 90 days of th= e=20 >seizure of an asset. A complaint for forfeiture is an action in rem, (Ne= w=20 >Jersey's in rem asset forfeiture statute is N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 et seq.), a= nd=20 >is against the property itself, which is treated as the real offender. T= he=20 >owner of the property is merely a claimant. >Facilitating Property >Two types of contraband property are subject to forfeiture in New Jersey= ;=20 >prima facie contraband and derivative contraband. The former refers to=20 >items such as illegal gambling devices, untaxed cigarettes and controlle= d=20 >dangerous substances. Derivative contraband, on the other hand, is lawfu= l=20 >property put to an unlawful use. >Cash proceeds from the sale of drugs, for example, would be subject to=20 >forfeiture as derivative contraband. Also included in this category is=20 >"property which has become or is intended to become an integral part of=20 >illegal activity," and "property which has been, or is intended to be,=20 >utilized in furtherance of an unlawful activity." >The state most often uses this last category of property, often referred >to=20 >as facilitating property, to justify the forfeiture of tangible property= =20 >such as automobiles and real estate. The state's burden of proof in a=20 >forfeiture case is by a preponderance of the evidence, and it need only=20 >show a "direct causal relationship between the use of the property and t= he=20 >unlawful activity" to justify the forfeiture. See State v. One 1986 >Subaru,=20 >120 N.J. 310 (1990). >The burden then shifts to the claimant to prove that the property is not= =20 >sufficiently connected to the illegal activity and therefore did not=20 >facilitate it. Most claimants cannot overcome this burden. >Partial Forfeiture >In 232 Mullica Hill Road, a three-judge panel unanimously agreed with a=20 >trial judge's holding that a nondivisible asset such as a house can be=20 >partially forfeited. >The facts of the case are not in dispute. Police responded to a shooting >at=20 >the defendant's residence. Upon arrival, they learned the defendant, Fra= nk=20 >Jones, had been shot by a burglar. >After they attended to his medical needs, the police noticed he had 30=20 >marijuana plants growing in an aquarium tank in a bedroom closet. What >they=20 >were doing in the closet is not clear, but a full-scale search of the >house=20 >turned up additional plants in the attic with a complete hydroponic >growing=20 >system. In all, police recovered 144.8 grams of marijuana, forty-eight=20 >plants and the growing system. >Criminal complaints were signed, and a civil complaint seeking forfeitur= e=20 >of the house was filed in a timely manner. >The criminal case went to trial and Jones was convicted of manufacturing= =20 >marijuana. He was acquitted of a charge of possession with the intent to= =20 >distribute marijuana, presumably based on his testimony that he grew the= =20 >marijuana solely to support his own habit. He received two years probati= on=20 >and all mandatory penalties. >The state then moved for summary judgment on the forfeiture complaint. I= t=20 >was here that things went awry for the state. >Jones argued quite simply that since only a small portion of the house w= as=20 >used to grow the marijuana, then only a small portion should be subject = to=20 >forfeiture. >The motion judge accepted the argument and held that a total forfeiture=20 >would be grossly unfair and "confiscatory." The problem the court faced >was=20 >how to forfeit a small portion of an indivisible asset. >Using the testimony of the state's own investigators, the court calculat= ed=20 >how much square footage was used in the illegal activity. The court then= =20 >divided this amount by the total square footage in the entire house,=20 >multiplied that figure by the equity in the property (estimated at >$40,000)=20 >and came up with a figure of $6,000, which it then ordered forfeited to >the=20 >state. It is unclear if the house was to be sold to raise the money, or = if=20 >Jones was to pay with cash. >The Appellate Division affirmed. It grounded its opinion in a case that >has=20 >vexed prosecutors, defense attorneys and courts for several years, Austi= n=20 >v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993). >Eighth Amendment >Austin was a case of first impression and addressed the question of >whether=20 >or not the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United=20 >States Constitution =E2=80=94 up until now applied only to criminal proc= eedings =E2=80=94=20 >also applied to in rem civil forfeiture proceedings. The Supreme Court >held=20 >that it did. >In that case, a police informant met with Richard Lyle Austin at his bod= y=20 >shop, wherein arrangements were made for Austin to sell two grams of=20 >cocaine to the informant. Austin left the body shop, went to his mobile=20 >home and then returned to the shop with the cocaine. >The following day, police executed a warrant at the body shop and mobile= =20 >home, wherein they recovered a small amount of marijuana and cocaine, a >.22=20 >caliber revolver, drug paraphernalia and approximately $4,700.00 in=20 >currency. A civil complaint was filed seeking the forfeiture of the body= =20 >shop and mobile home. Upon his conviction, the government moved for >summary=20 >judgment, which was granted. >Austin argued on appeal that a forfeiture of all the property violated t= he=20 >Eighth Amendment, which provides: "Excessive bail shall not be required,= =20 >nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted= =20 >(emphasis added)." >A review of this clause is oftentimes referred to in criminal proceeding= s=20 >as a proportionality review. Austin argued that such a review was=20 >appropriate in his case notwithstanding the fact that the case was civil= =20 >and not criminal. >The Supreme Court accepted his argument and rejected the government's=20 >contention that the clause should be limited to criminal proceedings. Th= e=20 >Court held that although forfeiture statutes are intended to serve a=20 >remedial purpose, they can be punitive in their effect and therefore=20 >warrant the protections afforded by the Eighth Amendment. >The Court expressly declined, however, to set forth a test for determini= ng=20 >whether a forfeiture is constitutionally excessive, noting that "prudenc= e=20 >dictates we allow the lower courts to consider that question in the firs= t=20 >instance." >Instrumentality Approach >Justice Scalia, perhaps sensing the difficulty lower courts might have i= n=20 >applying the ruling, wrote a concurring opinion in which he set forth an= =20 >inquiry courts might take in examining whether or not a particular=20 >forfeiture is excessive. He noted that the inquiry is different from a=20 >traditional Eighth Amendment analysis; rather, courts should consider th= e=20 >connection between the property and the unlawful use: >Unlike monetary fines, statutory in rem forfeitures have traditionally >been=20 >fixed, not by determining the appropriate value of the penalty in relati= on=20 >to the committed offense, but by determining what property has been=20 >'tainted' by unlawful use, to which issue the value of the property is=20 >irrelevant. . . . in rem forfeiture goes beyond the traditional limits >that=20 >the Eighth Amendment permits if it applies to property that cannot >properly=20 >be regarded as an instrumentality of the offense . . . The question is n= ot=20 >how much the confiscated property is worth, but whether the confiscated=20 >property has a close enough relationship to the offense. >In Seven Thousand Dollars, the New Jersey Supreme Court accepted Justice= =20 >Scalia's reasoning =E2=80=94 often referred to as the instrumentality ap= proach =E2=80=94 >as=20 >the test to be applied by New Jersey courts when reviewing excessive=20 >forfeitures. >One needs to look at the larger question of exactly what a house does th= at=20 >subjects it to forfeiture. A house provides the necessary cover to condu= ct=20 >illegal activity beyond the purview of the police thereby making detecti= on=20 >more difficult and the crime easier to commit. As our Supreme Court note= d=20 >in Seven Thousand Dollars: >We have determined that the words of the statute require a direct causal= =20 >connection between the use of the property and the crime. . . . The=20 >connection connotes a sense of dependency; a merely casual relationship=20 >will not suffice. The State's burden requires that it prove that the=20 >connection is proximate and substantial. >Context Is Critical >The terms "facilitate" and "furtherance" are straightforward and=20 >unambiguous. The record seems to indicate that the house was used to=20 >conceal the unlawful activity of marijuana manufacturing, a second-degre= e=20 >crime (N.J.S.A. 2C: 35-5(a)1 and 5(b)10(b)). The permissible statutory >fine=20 >for that offense is $150,000. The total assessed value of the house was=20 >$77,000, $40,000 of which was equity. How then can a forfeiture/fine of=20 >$40,000 be excessive or disproportionate? >The answer to the riddle is simple. The court applied additional factors >to=20 >be considered once the connection had been established. It looked at a=20 >combination of the gravity of the offense, the value of the object sough= t=20 >to be forfeited and the extent of the unlawful use, and determined that >the=20 >penalty sought would be grossly unfair and confiscatory. >This type of analysis has often been referred to as the multifactor=20 >approach, and is rapidly being adopted by the federal courts, including >the=20 >Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. See United States v. Premises Known >as=20 >R.R. No 1, Box 224, 14 F.3d 864 (3d Cir. 1994). >Proving merely that a connection exists between the object and the crime >no=20 >longer ends the inquiry; 232 Mullica Hill Road has given the state a muc= h=20 >more difficult burden. >Courts in New Jersey must now do a two-prong analysis. First, they must=20 >look at the connection between the crime and the property sought to be=20 >forfeited. The connection must be proximate and substantial, not unlike >the=20 >but-for test in negligence law. >Second, if the instrumentality or connection test is met, an inquiry mus= t=20 >then be made into the value of the property, the gravity of the offense >and=20 >the extent of the unlawful use. And the forfeiture must be proportionate. >The U.S. Supreme Court took a similar approach in a recent criminal=20 >forfeiture case, United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998). Wheth= er=20 >or not the holding in Bajakajian also applies now to civil forfeiture >cases=20 >is unclear. See Sheily, Note, "United States v. Bajakajian: Will a New=20 >Standard for Applying the Excessive Fines Clause to Criminal Forfeitures= =20 >Affect Civil Forfeiture Analysis?" 77 N.C.L. Rev. 1595 (1999). >In cases where the connection is very strong, such as the forfeiture of = a=20 >scale or other paraphernalia used to weigh and package illegal drugs, th= e=20 >application of the second prong might be diminished. In cases where the=20 >connection is weak, such as a house where an isolated drug sale happens = to=20 >occur, the application of the second prong might be overriding. >Courts have always had the power to punish by a fine, incarceration or a= ny=20 >combination thereof. In 232 Mullica Hill Road, the court effectively=20 >sentenced the defendant to two years probation and a $5,000 fine. The=20 >approach taken by the trial court by dividing the property is clearly=20 >permissible under Austin, and as the Appellate Division noted, is not=20 >without precedent. See Commonwealth v. 5043 Anderson Road, 728 A.2d 907=20 >(Pa. 1999) and State v. Boyd, 238 Wis.2d 693 (Ct. App. 2000) (an >automobile=20 >was apportioned). >Just how 232 Mullica Hill Road will affect the future course of=20 >asset-forfeiture litigation in New Jersey remains to be seen, but clearl= y >a=20 >large hole has been punched in the statute. If courts can fashion >equitable=20 >remedies in forfeiture cases, it is likely that the pace of forfeiture=20 >cases in the state will taper off considerably. >No longer is a car automatically subject to forfeiture simply because th= e=20 >owner used it to buy drugs. Arguably the court must now also take into=20 >account the punishment the defendant received on the criminal side of th= e=20 >case in determining what the overall fair punishment should be. >Forfeiture-case results will vary from county to county, and from judge = to=20 >judge. Even the venue might change from Law Division to Chancery. Total=20 >forfeiture of residential property should rarely occur, as seldom will=20 >criminal activity be conducted in every room of a house. >The landscape has indeed been altered. Stay tuned. > >The author is in private practice in Branchville and was formerly the he= ad=20 >of the Passaic County Asset Forfeiture Unit and the Warren County >Narcotics=20 >Task Force. > >Date Received: August 05, 2002 > > *********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE *********** ****************************************************** FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=3Dunsubscribe Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=3Ddigest ****************************************************** ----------------------- end forwarded message from Swftl@aol.com --------= --------------- -- --- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** 4-= 19! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+------------------= --- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath n= o weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand =3D Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy= a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Chr= ist ----------------+----------+--------------------------+------------------= --- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! --- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: West Nile Q&A (fwd) Date: 07 Aug 2002 16:29:34 -0700 (PDT) Hi folks; Some good info in this one. Bill ----------------------- begin forwarded message from Bruce Chesley ------= ----------------- Thanks, Glenn. I've forwarded to a survivalism list, asking for comments. Especially, if they have found a better product than OFF. Bruce Chesley Truth is a terrible cross to bear. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.". Thomas Paine Treason for $$$: ALL "pro 2A" orgs. On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:05:34 -0500 Glenn Wolf writes: > Gee, sounds like this might be advertising. Here is an abstract from=20 > the New > England Journal of Medicine on the efficacy of various insect=20 > repellant > products. >=20 > Product |Active Ingredient|Mean Time to First Bite, minute > OFF! Deep Woods (SC Johnson) |DEET, 23.8%| 301.5=B137.6 > Sawyer Controlled Release (Sawyer) |DEET, 20%| 234.4=B131.8 > OFF! Skintastic (SC Johnson) |DEET, 6.65%| 112.4=B120.3 > Bite Blocker for Kids (HOMS) |Soybean oil, 2%| 94.6=B142.0 > OFF! Skintastic for Kids (SC Johnson) |DEET, 4.75%| 88.4=B121.4 > Skin-So-Soft Bug Guard Plus (Avon) |IR3535, 7.5%| 22.9=B111.2 > Natrapel (Tender) |Citronella, 10%| 19.7=B110.6 > Herbal Armor (microencapsulated)(All Terrain)|Citronella, 12%;=20 > peppermint > oil, 2.5%; cedar oil, 2%; lemongrass oil, 1%; geraniumoil, 0.05%|=20 > 18.9=B113.3 > Green Ban for People (Mulgum Hollow Farm) |Citronella, 10%;=20 > peppermint > oil, 2%|14.0=B111.3 > Buzz Away (Quantum) |Citronella, 5%| 13.5=B17.5 > Skin-So-Soft Bug Guard (Avon) |Citronella, 0.1%| 10.3=B17.9 > Skin-So-Soft Bath Oil (Avon) |Uncertain| 9.6=B18.8 > Skin-So-Soft Moisturizing Suncare (Avon) |Citronella, 0.05%|=20 > 2.8=B13.4 > Gone Original Wristband (Solar Gloooow) |DEET, 9.5%| 0.3=B10.2 > Repello Wristband (Repello Products) |DEET, 9.5%| 0.2=B10.08 > Gone Plus Repelling Wristband (Solar Gloooow) |Citronella, 25%|=20 > 0.2=B10.09 >=20 > Comparative Efficacy of Insect Repellents against Mosquito Bites > M. S. Fradin and J. F. Day > New England Journal of Medicine; 347(1); July 4, 2002 >=20 > ABSTRACT > Background > The worldwide threat of arthropod transmitted diseases, with their > associated morbidity and mortality, underscores the need for=20 > effective > insect repellents. Multiple chemical, botanical, and "alternative" > repellent products are marketed to consumers. We sought to determine=20 > which > products available in the United States provide reliable and=20 > prolonged > complete protection from mosquito bites. >=20 > Methods > We conducted studies involving 15 volunteers to test the relative=20 > efficacy > of seven botanical insect repellents; four products containing > N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide, now called N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide=20 > (DEET); a > repellent containing IR3535 (ethylbutylacetylaminopropionate);=20 > three > repellent-impregnated wristbands; and a moisturizer that is=20 > commonly > claimed to have repellent effects. These products were tested in a > controlled laboratory environment in which the species of the=20 > mosquitoes, > their age, their degree of hunger, the humidity, the temperature,=20 > and the > light-dark cycle were all kept constant. >=20 > Results > DEET-based products provided complete protection for the longest=20 > duration. > Higher concentrations of DEET provided longer-lasting protection. A > formulation containing 23.8 percent DEET had a mean=20 > complete-protection > time of 301.5 minutes. A soybean oil-based repellent protected=20 > against > mosquito bites for an average of 94.6 minutes. The IR3535-based=20 > repellent > protected for an average of 22.9 minutes. All other botanical=20 > repellents we > tested provided protection for a mean duration of less than 20=20 > minutes. > Repellent-impregnated wristbands offered no protection. >=20 > Conclusions > Currently available non-DEET repellents do not provide protection=20 > for > durations similar to those of DEET-based repellents and cannot be=20 > relied on > to provide prolonged protection in environments where=20 > mosquito-borne > diseases are a substantial threat. (N Engl J Med 2002;347:13-8.) >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "spiker" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 10:27 AM > Subject: RE: {Slick-D} West Nile Q&A >=20 >=20 > > > > This is a discussion list and all opinions are that of the writer=20 > only. > Feel free to respond. > > > > From: "Shonda Ponder" > > > > Many of you may have heard the "alarm" going out about the West=20 > Nile > > Virus over the news. Before I go into this, I need to let you in=20 > on > > the symptoms of the West Nile Virus: > > > > high fever > > headache and bodyaches > > skin rash > > swollen lymph glands > > neck stiffness > > disorientation > > convulsions > > > > Information About the West Nile Virus can be found at > > http://westnilevirus.nbii.gov/human.html > > > > Now, let me explain why I am doing this subject in this=20 > newsletter: > > On the page that I just specified above, there are two columns. =20 > One > > lists the symptoms of the WNV, and the other lists preventative > > measures. The preventative measures listed are as follows: > > > > wear long sleeves & pants in mosquito-infested areas > > use repellant containing DEET (follow directions carefully) > > limit outdoor activities at dawn, dusk, and early evening, when > > mosquitoes are most active > > repair holes in door & window screens > > eliminate sources of standing water in your yard, where=20 > mosquitoes > > will lay eggs (bird baths; outdoor pet dishes; flower pots;=20 > tires; > > wheelbarrows; puddles; wading pools) > > keep your swimming pool aerated and chlorinated, and cover if=20 > possible > > consider purchasing mosquito-eating fish for your pond > > keep your gutters clean to prevent standing water > > spread the word: educate your friends and neighbors > > > > The second line in the "Prevention Tips" column is: use repellant > > containing DEET (follow directions carefully). Well, I have a=20 > problem > > with this -- and if you are an avid Avon user or representative,=20 > you > > should have a problem with this as well. Avon provides a DEET=20 > FREE > > repellent. How can the GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGE people to use a=20 > dangerous > > chemical when they don't have to? > > > > A link to the DEET side effects are at > > http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/westnile/guides/deettips.htm > > > > Why am I making a big deal over this? Because I live in Houston. > > Houston City Health Officials are spraying the area with DEET -=20 > based > > repellants. Without our say so. DEET IS DANGEROUS when directly > > applied to children. (Read the above link for more information=20 > and > > documentation of this claim). > > > > Not only that, the side - effects of DEET resemble the symptoms of=20 > the > > WNV. Side effects of DEET are as follows: > > > > skin reactions, > > including rash, > > swelling and itching; > > eye irritation; > > and, > > less frequently, > > slurred speech, > > confusion > > seizures > > > > Ask your Avon Representative about Bug Guard, Avon's DEET - FREE > > repellent! > > > > Shonda M. Ponder > > Independent Sales Representative > > ponderaa1@avon.net > > Join my newsletter: Avon News and Tips > > Just send a blank email to avontips-subscribe@topica.com > > Or visit my site! > > http://www.youravon.com/swigington/ > > pass=3D ponderaa1 > > District 1696 Houston, Texas > > 713-771-4752 > > > > West Nile Q&A > > > http://www.dallasnews.com/localnews/stories/080602dnmtwestnilebox.55ca2.h= tml Bruce Chesley Truth is a terrible cross to bear. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.". Thomas Paine Treason for $$$: ALL "pro 2A" orgs. ----------------------- end forwarded message from Bruce Chesley --------= --------------- -- --- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** 4-= 19! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+------------------= --- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath n= o weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand =3D Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy= a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Chr= ist ----------------+----------+--------------------------+------------------= --- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! --- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: The Ascension Of Wunxputl (fwd) Date: 08 Aug 2002 22:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Hmmmm, more third paarty Demovrats coming..... ----------------------- begin forwarded message from Howard Rothenburg --= --------------------- Fred On Everything The Ascension Of Wunxputl My Action Is More Affirmative Than Your Action The remarkable rise of the Tloxiproctyl to academic prominence began at UC Berkeley, where the creeping fascism of George Bush gnawed at the professoriate. Worse, no one was paying attention to them, always distressing to the narcissistically irrelevant. They desperately wanted to jumpstart the faltering engines of progressivism. (The metaphor doesn't quite make sense. Of course, neither did the progressivism.) To do this, they needed an irritating Cause. This proved to be a problem. Every imaginable loony idea seemed to have been worked to exhaustion: buggery of Boy Scouts by homosexuals, outlawing English, compulsory issuance of condoms to the unborn. Anxiety followed. In rooms filled with pot smoke and defective grammar, they pondered mightily. Then, not foreseeing the consequences, they chose to revitalize affirmative action, which is the proposition that jobs should be given to people who can't do them. It was an odd choice. Affirmative action was a hallowed principle of progressivism, but only one of several, and anyway it had been done. There was also welfare, which held that money should be given to those who haven't earned it. Others were multiculturalism, which is the view that societal comity is best achieved by dividing the country into groups that hate each other; and bilingualism, the belief that countries work best when people can't talk to each other. But the professors added a zinger: Incompetence was good; no one debated this. But-did it not then follow that greater incompetence was better? Brilliant! Conservatives, ever churlish, said progressives really just wanted to annoy society, which they had confused for their parents. This was grossly unfair, though accurate. Under pressure from the faculty, Berkeley lowered its affirmative-action standards. Theretofore, the school had accepted blacks, and others regarded by universities as inferior, with SATs 200 points below the white average. It was an easy policy, because it was all they could find. Now, so as to promote social justice, they were going to reject blacks with a 200 point deficit as being excessively qualified, and therefore inauthentic. Henceforth, only applicants with a 300-point deficit would be accepted. The benefits for social justice were obvious. Minorities who had no business at Berkeley by 200 points, and therefore almost always flunked out, were replaced by those with a disqualification of 300 points, who failed without exception. The ACLU was baffled. Its members knew they were against white Christian civilization. This, however, was a dispute between minorities. Who to support? After much soul-searching, they went with the principle that worse is better. But it was a close thing. The more astonishing effect occurred back east when Cornell, striving for progressive leadership, began recruiting students 400 points below par. Competitive incapacity had arrived. Soon schools were fighting each other to recruit the cerebrally understated. A problem arose. The SATs did not go below 400, an arrangement intended to protect the self-esteem of furniture, cocker spaniels, and education majors. But now the universities needed ever lower levels of intelligence. The scale was dropped to allow lower scores and therefore greater ethnic authenticity. It worked, at first anyway. Cornell reigned briefly as the Killer Kowalski of affirmative action. Its students displayed record levels of inability. The advance was not without problems. Many of the new students had trouble remembering where they lived. There was talk of equipping them with electronic homing devices. Various luminosities of progressivism weighed in on the side of the new policy. Ted Kennedy, his voice trembling with emotion or, as some suggested, delirium tremens, introduced a bill requiring the federal government to give preference in hiring to the intellectually minimal. Republicans said he was cynically taking credit for a policy of long standing. Everywhere advanced thinkers joined the vanguard. An ABC camera crew interviewed Hillary Clinton in the Bahamas, where she was sunning herself on a flat rock to keep her body temperature up. "Cookies," she said, eyeing the cameras. "Children." Pressed to elaborate, she said, "The hopelessly unintelligent are just as smart as the rest of us and just as valuable in the eyes of God, if there were one. Though of course there may be. We must work together to develop the wonderful abilities these people don't have. Cookies. Vast right-wing.." One of the cameramen, an unreconstructed Southerner, muttered something about "crocodilian Betty Crockers," and vowed to write a book called "It Takes A Village To Raise An Idiot." The race for academic nullity continued apace. Stanford ransacked the coma wards in the Bay Area, harvesting a rich crop for social justice. In Chicago it was rumored that the dead were applying. Unfortunately there seemed to be a limit to witlessness. Soon the better schools had exhausted the neural tundra. The bus stations and prisons were picked clean. Desperation set in. Yale was caught registering a caribou, but said it was an honest mistake. Things were getting a bit flaky, as even progressives privately admitted. At Harvard, Dr. Chuleta Marimacha-Mapache, who taught Central American Lesbianism, wrote a book called, "Patriarchy and the Oppression of Inanimate Objects." She argued compellingly that things had the same right to education people had. Some of the affirmative-action students seemed to be evidence of this. Bumper stickers appeared proclaiming, "Desks Are Students Too." The culmination of the new progressive movement came, unexpectedly, from Wellesley. The anthropology department remembered an obscure tribe of naked savages, the Tloxiproctyl, who lived in the Amazon rain forest. Of uncertain genetic provenance, they drank rainwater, ate squalid grubs they found in rotting logs, and hadn't invented shoes. They spoke a language consisting of three words, none of which meant anything. The Tloxyproctyl, Wellesley realized, were perfect for affirmative action. Mentally speaking, they barely existed. Because of inbreeding, they were actually evolving backward, and lived in danger of extinction because the grubs were too complicated for them. Wunxputl, a thirty-seven year old Tloxiproctyl, was regarded as retarded (or, as Wellesley put it, differently brained) even by his fellow primitives. It wasn't just that the grubs outsmarted him. He couldn't remember how to eat them. He sat wherever he was put, said, "Ooogh," and slowly lost weight. Wellesley later refused official comment on just how the Tloxiproctyl got to the campus. Rumor had it that the tribesmen, seeing an air mattress, decided that it was the Mother of All Grubs, and thereafter worshiped the anthropology department. At any rate, they were soon enrolled in the School of Heartwarming Non-Western Cultures, each with an air mattress. The anthropologists, smug at having trumped Cornell, began grooming Wunxputl as department head. They figured he would get tenure in five years and last a long time, if fed intravenously. =A9Fred Reed 2002 ----------------------- end forwarded message from Howard Rothenburg ----= ------------------- -- --- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** 4-= 19! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+------------------= --- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath n= o weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand =3D Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy= a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Chr= ist ----------------+----------+--------------------------+------------------= --- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! --- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: Environmentalist slams 'lunatic fringe' Says leaders of green movement betraying U.S. Constitution (fwd) Date: 09 Aug 2002 21:18:03 -0700 (PDT) ----------------------- begin forwarded message from Jay Walley ----------------------- Environmentalist slams 'lunatic fringe' Says leaders of green movement betraying U.S. Constitution "Enviros play a very dirty game. Theirs is the politics of personal destruction on a major scale. Do I think the members of most 'environmental' groups support this? No. I think that if the average citizens who belong to one of these organizations understood the group's true agenda, they would be outraged. But they haven't watched their leaders. Where you don't have checks and balances you have abuses. There is no question that the environmental movement has discredited itself and in so doing has done a grave disservice to the country." Jan Michael Jacobson GladesGuru@aol.com By J. Zane Walley The Paragon Foundation Jan Michael Jacobson, an environmentalist and Everglades expert who is part of a battle against the government's habitat policies in South Florida, claims the leadership of the environmental movement has betrayed both its core constituency and the U.S. Constitution. In an exclusive interview with The Paragon Foundation, Jacobson, the founder and director of the Everglades Institute, described himself as "something of a constitutionalist." He was asked his views on the environmentalist movement and its impact on America and the Constitution. "The Greeks dreamed of creating a society their philosophers called 'the shining city on a hill,'" he explained. "Our Founding Fathers believed in ownership and protection of private property, and that sovereignty by grace of God resides in the individual. From those beliefs the framers of our Constitution created a system of government which far exceeded the Greek dream of 'the shining city on a hill.' Unfortunately, the environmental leaders are what could be described as hard-core socialist psychotics. They are the lunatic fringes of socialism, and they are killing the American dream. "Enviros play a very dirty game. Theirs is the politics of personal destruction on a major scale. Do I think the members of most 'environmental' groups support this? No. I think that if the average citizens who belong to one of these organizations understood the group's true agenda, they would be outraged. But they haven't watched their leaders. Where you don't have checks and balances you have abuses. There is no question that the environmental movement has discredited itself and in so doing has done a grave disservice to the country." Jacobson sees no contradiction between environmentalism and private-property rights. "There should never have been an argument between the environmental movement and the private landowner," he said. "The Enviros' agenda is to destroy private land ownership. If America is to survive and prosper as intended by the Founding Fathers, her individual citizens must be allowed to own property. "The media compete for readers or viewers and a crisis brings in readers and viewers. Therefore, they keep looking for a crisis. However, in the natural world, things proceed at the speed of mammalian evolution. There are no great instant crises in the biological world, but if the media require one and someone is willing to pay, there will be one." The Everglades expert demonstrated his point with an example from the Antarctic. "People used to bleep hideously that if you wipe out any single species, even impact the population, the whole world would be destroyed because the whole world is linked together. "Do you know it's possible that the fluttering of a butterfly in Africa could start a wind circulation that could build into a hurricane? Well, it's possible. It's also possible pigs will fly and the price of bacon will be sky-high. But do you really want to count on it? "Consider this scenario: The population of great whales in the Antarctic is reduced to somewhere between slim and none. The single biggest appetite for krill (mini-shrimp) that ever existed was gone. The krill are now swarming the oceans. Nothing happened in the Antarctic - the sky didn't fall, the ice cap didn't melt, and no population crashed except the whales. There was not the slightest detectable change except the whales were not around. In due course, when we quit sticking sharp explosive charges into them, they came back, too. So the ecology turns out to be profoundly resilient." Jacobson sees the original environmentalism movement as a worthy cause that went bad due to its leaders' desire for power. "Environmentalism was hijacked," he said. "The original people in the movement could arguably claim to be the largest grass-roots movement in America, and one of the greatest. People joined together to do good. Then they made a crucial and critical mistake: They gave power - unchecked power - to their leaders. "We allow the Enviros to write critical legislation. We elected many to the House and Senate who just blindly accepted that what the Enviros were doing was good. Now we're unwilling to examine what the Enviros say and do to see if it is flawed. "It is one thing for the Enviros to say, 'We are going to do good,' but if what they do creates profoundly negative impacts on the habitat and turns out to be unconstitutional, it is proof that the power handed to their leaders has corrupted them. "Right now, taxpayers are paying for 'Green Bureau-babble,' which equates to power. The people who come up with these ideas are power perverts. They don't want to stand for election. They want the power without the responsibility. These people are a perversion of the republic." J. Zane Walley is a spokesman for the Paragon Foundation, Alamogordo, N.M., The Paragon Foundation is "dedicated to preserving the constitutional principles established by the Founding Fathers." The Paragon Foundation can be reached at 1-877-847-3443. ----------------------- end forwarded message from Jay Walley ----------------------- -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** 4-19! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: For the general good..... (fwd) Date: 15 Aug 2002 12:43:54 -0700 (PDT) This may not be strictly OT to some minds, but one thing's for sure; The more Socialist types we get out of government, the better, for our issues and others. U.S. Sen. Bob Smith, and Sen Bob Goodlatte, have introduced a National Right To Work Act. On the State level these have traditionally done three things: 1. Unions lose the ability to bully damn their hand picked candidates into office, because they can't extort as much money from their forced into the Union members. 2. Even if the measure fails, lots of big time socialist types expose themselves, by their voting against it, and lose the following elections. 3. Unions are forced to be more responsive to their members, so even if they don't like it, Right to Work is good for Unions, too. Translated to the National level, any one of these would be a good thing(tm), but together they fairly scream, "SUPPORT ME!" More info at the Nat. Right to Work Comittee site. http://www.nrtwc.org/ -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** 4-19! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Vance Subject: Latest from the Brady Bunch 8/29/02 (fwd) Date: 29 Aug 2002 22:59:42 -0700 (PDT) And as California goes..... Bill ----------------------- begin forwarded message from R. Lunn --------------------- Just to let you know what the anti's are up to now... The said to "please pass this message along to friends, family members, and colleagues..." so here it is. DVC -- Regards, >>Dick<< ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: do_not_reply@bradycampaign.org ===================================== BRADY E-ACTION RESPONSE NETWORK ALERT ===================================== Issue: 67 - 8/29/2002 Victory in California! Immunity Law for Gun Industry Repealed! In a monumental victory for sensible gun policy, California recently passed legislation to repeal a law that granted special legal immunity to the gun industry. California Governor Gray Davis is expected to sign the measures. The Brady Campaign united with the Million Mom March sponsored the repeal and led the successful fight to end the gun industry's special legal protection California would be the first state in the country to repeal the gun industry's special immunity, holding gun manufacturers liable for their conduct under the same legal rules that apply to ever other industry in the state. This "legal earthquake" means that judgment day is coming for irresponsible gun makers who engage in negligent or irresponsible conduct in designing, marketing or distributing their weapons. November Elections Loom-Assault Weapons Ban At Risk On January 17, 1989, Patrick Edward Purdy used an AK-47 type assault rifle to kill five children and wound 29 others, including a teacher on a schoolyard in Stockton, California. Purdy fired 106 bullets in less than two minutes before killing himself. This massacre led to landmark Federal legislation known as the Assault Weapons Ban. Before the ban took effect in 1994, American gun deaths were at an all-time high. But after the ban, from 1994 to 2000, annual firearm deaths dropped by 26 percent. And when two students used a copy of one of the banned weapons, a TEC-DC9 to kill 15 in the Columbine High School massacre, it became clear that the Assault Weapons Ban needs to be strengthened--not allowed to die. Clearly, the Assault Weapons Ban is working -- it is saving lives. But this landmark law could be in jeopardy! The Assault Weapons Ban is now in danger of disappearing if voters don't make the right choices at the ballot box on November 5th. The candidates we elect and send to Congress this election year will decide the fate of the Assault Weapons Ban, which expires on September 13, 2004. The battle to renew the federal Assault Weapons Ban will be very difficult. In 1996, Congressional gun extremists, led by Newt Gingrich, pushed legislation to repeal the ban and it passed by a vote of 239-173. The Senate will also be difficult-several of the Representatives who voted to repeal the law are now Senators! We need you to join with the millions of gun-control voters in America to elect lawmakers who support sensible guns laws this November 5th! As a dedicated supporter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March, you are our most powerful ally. You are our voice in your community. You can help our efforts to end the gun violence epidemic by educating your friends and neighbors about the importance of electing politicians who will fight for life-saving measures like the Assault Weapons Ban. Tell your friends and family to go to the polls this November and take a stand with you against gun violence! With your help, we will ensure that the Congress elected this November understands that it has no choice but to permanently reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban. Please pass this message along to friends, family members, and colleagues so that they too can take a stand for sensible gun laws. "Thumbs up to all of you for your generous support! Together, we will build a safer America." - Jim "The BEAR" Brady August 29, 2002 http://www.bradycampaign.org http://www.bradycenter.org http://www.millionmommarch.org ****** PLEASE READ ****** PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS! This e-mail was sent from an automated program. Any responses are not read and will be deleted. ----------------------- end forwarded message from R. Lunn --------------------- -- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** 4-19! ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! -