From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Info - Please Date: 01 Jun 1996 01:09:50 PST In <199606010657.XAA12370@cyprus.it.earthlink.net>, on May 31, Greg Doty wrote: >Can anyone recommend a patriot lawyer in the West Palm Beach, Florida area? Not off hand, but you might check with the "Lawyer's 2nd Amendment Foundation". -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Australians Take on Gun Proposal Date: 01 Jun 1996 13:22:06 -0500 From the news: Australians Take on Gun Proposal Australia's gun debate intensified today as thousands of protesters took to the streets to demand the right to retain their firearms, just hours after six people were wounded in a shooting spree near the city of Darwin. The man armed with a pump-action shotgun was captured after being shot in the arm by police but his motive remains a mystery. Later today, gun owners staged one of the biggest demonstrations in Australia since the Vietnam War, protesting tough new gun laws planned in the wake of the April 28 massacre of 35 people at Port Arthur in the island state of Tasmania. ----- Maybe that's what we should have done when they shoved the Brady Law and AW Ban down our throats. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Bovard on CBS' "Ruby Ridge" Date: 01 Jun 1996 20:22:52 -0700 Forwrded from elsewhere... -------------------------- > James Bovard comments on CBS recent version of what happened at Ruby >Ridge. > >- Mike/North Central Florida Regional Militia > > >[Note: From Matthew Gaylor: James Bovard is the author of "Shakedown: How >the Government Screws You From A to Z; "Lost Rights: The Destruction of >American Liberty; "The Fair Trade Fraud; and "The Farm Fiasco". A regular >contributor to "The Wall Street Journal, his editorials also appear in "The >New York Times", "The Washington Post", "Newsweek", "Playboy", and "The New >Republic". Jim has been at the forefront of calling for full investigations >into the Randy Weaver case and the Waco disaster. George Will described >him as "a one-man truth squad who is more than a match for tendentious >legions of protectionists in American government and industry." >Jim Bovard is a subscriber to Freematt's Alerts and I had the pleasure to >personally meet him in Chicago at the memorial weekend conference (5-25-96) >of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Jim is one of the most knowledgeable >individuals anywhere on government abuses. I asked Jim to write a list of >the inaccuracies of the recent two part CBS's made for TV Movie; "RUBY >RIDGE: AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY".] > >### > >c copyright James Bovard 1996 > >Here's my take on the CBS series. I don't want to trash it >completely; I don't know how hard the producers may have had to >work to get even a version of this case that was even mildly >critical of the government on network TV. The following comments >are a rough but have perhaps a few insights. I am sure that there >are other inaccuracies in the film which I may have missed; if >folks have other observations on the film, I'd be happy to hear >them. > >* * * * * * > > The CBS Miniseries on Ruby Ridge last week may help alert >folks who know little or nothing about the Weaver case to >government entrapment and FBI sniping abuses. Parts of the series >were quite strong; unfortunately, there were several aspects of the >series that were painfully inaccurate. > > The scenes where the sniper kills Vicki Weaver makes the >window on the door appear to be opaque; the reality was otherwise. >The Justice Department in late October sent a team of investigators >back to Ruby Ridge to reconstruct Horiuchi's angle of vision for >the shootings. One Idaho expert observed in a November 22 >interview, "When you look through the scope [of Horiuchi's rifle] >at the door - you can see a wedding ring on the hand of someone >standing behind the window of the door. You can see someone >standing back there with great resolution and great visibility." > > For instance, CBS made it appear that the FBI never knew that >Vicki Weaver had been gunned down by Lon Horiuchi; in reality, the >family was screaming out that she had been thought within minutes >of the killing - and the FBI had planted bugs right by the cabin >so they could hear the inside conversation. During the 11 day >siege, FBI agents taunted the Weavers, broadcasting through a >microphone near the cabin: "Good morning Mrs. Weaver, We had >pancakes for breakfast. What did you have?"' As > > CBS made it appear that the FBI officials felt bad when they >learned about Vicki Weaver's "accidental" death. On the night of >the killing, Horiuchi was debriefed by an FBI expert and made a >sketch of his target for the second shot. While Freeh has claimed >that Horiuchi shot at a man who was running into the cabin at the >time, Horiuchi's drawing showed his cross hairs just above an >upright head clearly visible through the window of the open cabin >door. At the time that Horiuchi fired, Kevin Harris - his alleged >target - was running into the cabin and would not have been in a >fixed upright position. But Vicki Weaver was standing in the >doorway holding her baby. > > If the FBI thought the killing of Vicki Weaver was an >accident, they likely would not have told so many preposterous lies >to justify the shooting. As the Senate hearings revealed, FBI >assistant special agent Thomas Miller's official report on the >shooting falsely claimed that Vicki Weaver had been in the front >yard of the cabin pointing a gun at helicopters before she was >slain, though she never left the cabin during the time at question. >The FBI report noted, "This female, however, did pose an immediate >threat to the circling helicopter... the use of deadly force was >justified in that she willfully placed herself in harm's way by >attempting to assist Harris, and so doing, overtly contributed to >the immediate threat which continued to exist against the >helicopter crew and approaching HRT personnel." But all that Vicki >Weaver did was stand in the doorway of a cabin, shouting for her >husband and his friend to hurry back into their home after the FBI >sniper shot her husband. > > After the FBI sniper had gunned down all the adults in the >cabin, the CBS series showed an FBI official going up to the cabin >in an armored personnel carrier and calling for Randy Weaver to >come out and talk on a telephone. This was one of the starkest >misrepresentations in the entire film. In reality, the FBI sent a >robot up to the cabin - a robot holding a 12-gauge shotgun in one >arm and a phone in the other arm outside the cabin. FBI siege >negotiators continually demanded that Weaver come out of his cabin, >pick up the phone, and talk to the FBI agents at the other end of >the line. But the robot's shotgun was pointing right at the door. > FBI press spokesmen repeatedly complained to the news media during >the 11-day siege that Weaver refused to negotiate - but never >mentioned the shotgun. The FBI robot was one of the hottest issues >in last Fall's Senate hearings, but, somehow, CBS went creative on >this key point. > > In general, CBS did a fair job of hinting at some of the >Marshals' lies and shenanigans; but, when it came to the FBI, the >series was deferential to the point of trying to stick the viewers' >head into the ground. > > The CBS series left out all the numerous different scenes from >the trial where the federal judge condemned the FBI and Justice >Department for fabricating evidence or obstructing evidence. The >CBS Series showed the same federal prosecutor apparently making his >case throughout the trial; in reality, the lead federal prosecutor >had a mental breakdown in court shortly before he was supposed to >begin his final summation to the jury - apparently even he was >appalled by all the lies the government had told. The >representation of the trial seemed extremely soft on the >government, compared to the comments made by Federal Judge Lodge >and the jury foreman after the trial. > > And, while CBS used the Weavers' names and the names of family >friend Kevin Harris, none of the names of federal agents were used >- even those FBI agents who may be indicted in the next few months >by the federal grand jury hearing evidence in Washington. > >c copyright James Bovard 1996 > >### > >**************************************************************************** >Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues >Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA >on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) >Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 >**************************************************************************** > >----End Forwarded Message(s)---- > > > >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Ken's Mailing - 6/2/96 Date: 02 Jun 1996 11:44:05 -0700 >[This is a mass-mailing going out to those who have subscribed to my mailing list for breaking events that the media does not normally cover. To unsubcribe from this list, which will go out several times a week, please email kencook@tiac.net. If you know others who would like to be on it, please feel free to give out this e-mail address and have them contact me. > Please feel free to distribute these mailings widely, but bear in mind that they often contain copyrighted material being used under the "Fair Use" provision of copyright law, so do so on a not-for-profit basis. And never remove bylines and other credits that precede and follow copyrighted material.] > > After a long sabbatical from my mailings, I am back! My problems with Prodigy are over as I now run the mailings from my own Internet account with TIAC (The Internet Access Company) out of Bedford, MA. I will remain on Prodigy and continue to participate in the Whitewater BB. Otherwise, I have no more use for them. They can take a hike! > > I picked a good week to resume my mailings! The Whitewater convictions in Little Rock have brought things back to a full boil and the recent elections in Israel will bring some very significant changes to the Middle East situation. Hopefully they will be able to work things out over there. > I will be sending another mailing out shortly that will fully cover the Whitewater situation that is exploding right before our eyes. That juror that claimed she made up her mind before the trial is a fraud. She merely has the same name as one of the jurors, but that didn't stop the liberal media from jumping into this hoax with both feet, excitedly predicting that the Whitewater convictions may be overturned! Well they look like a bunch of jackasses now and they deserve it! > Also, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is reporting this weekend that Terry Reed has dropped without prejudice (which means he can't refile) the lawsuit that was to begin tomorrow in Little Rock against Clinton cronies that he accuses of setting him up on false criminal charges. > Strange thing is, Terry Reed's lawyer, Robert Meloni, was contacted about this and he claimed to know nothing about Terry Reed dropping the lawsuit. Efforts to contact Terry Reed at his home by radio talk show host Jack Christy have been unsuccessful. I hope to have information about this in my next mailing. > But before delving into any of the above, I now bring to you a breaking news story out of New York. The following is a blockbuster exclusive that appeared today in The New York Post. I posted about this story on Prodigy a couple of years ago, but nothing ever came of it. It now looks like this story will be getting much attention. > Grab a cup of coffee (or your favorite adult beverage) and read on. This story will take your breath away. > > A while back, I posted to the Internet the saga of Wayne Dumond, a man from Arkansas who was railroaded and castrated by Clinton thugs for a crime he did not commit. The story is gruesome, heart-wrenching and absolutely true. > This man was castrated, raped and left for dead before his trial by two men acting on orders from the local sherriff - who was later convicted of racketeering. He was found by his two sons and had by then lost three quarters of his blood. He survived and eleven years later, Dumond still rots in prison, even though evidence clearly shows he did not commit the so-called crime. His release has been denied by Governors Clinton and Tucker because his story is so politically explosive. By releasing him, they will be admitting that that Bill Clinton made a huge mistake and will open up many of Clinton's cronies to more criminal charges. > The story was exposed in a book by Guy Reel called "UNEQUAL JUSTICE," subtitled "Wayne Dumond, Bill Clinton, and the Politics of Rape in Arkansas." > It is a short read but very compelling. And not to be read by those who easily get sick to their stomach. This man is going through hell as we speak and is probably wishing he was one of the "Arkancides," for at least he would be resting in peace right now. > During the past week however, Wayne Dumond has finally seen the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. Jim Guy Tucker, a real criminal, will be exchanging his governorship for prison stripes. The new governor-to-be, Mike Huckabee, a good man, is almost certain to grant Mr. Dumond his long-deserved pardon. > Today, Steve Dunleavy of the New York Post became the first journalist to break this story in the mainstream media. It is a shocker. Just when you thought you heard everything with respect to outrageous behavior in Bill Clinton's Arkansas, here is one that takes the cake. > I will post this blockbuster expose in it's entirety. It appeared today in the Sunday edition (6/1/96) of the New York Post. Fasten your seatbelts. > >A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE >(HOW GOV. CLINTON DENIED AN INNOCENT MAN HIS FREEDOM) >by Steve Dunleavy > > The bombshell Whitewater convictions that my be President Clinton's darkest hour gave a middle-aged Arkansas housewife her brightest moment. > "Now that the Clinton people are going to jail, maybe my husband will finally go free," Mary Lou Dumond told me in Little Rock. > Her husband, Wayne Dumond, 49, has just spent his 11th year in an Arkansas jail. > Many say that Dumond is the victim of one of the most bone-crunching and infuriating examples of Clinton-clan justice the country has ever seen. > And now, because Clinton's alleged bagman, Gov. Jimmy Guy Tucker, is going to jail, Dumond is set to see freedom. > "The new governor, Mike Huckabee, has assured me Wayne will be a free man," Mrs. Dumond said Thursday. > "He is not one of the Clinton crowd. He is a very fair man. He has always been disturbed about the way the Clinton people never wanted my husband free," she added. > And there was a very good reason for the Clinton people not wanting her husband to go free. > >THE CHARGES > > The story of Wayne Dumond is not for the innocent eyes of the young - but every adult of voting age should read closely. > These are the cold facts as an Arkansas court saw it: > > - A 17-year-old girl says she was kidnapped and raped on Sept. 11, 1984, in Forrest City, Ark. > > - Dumond, father of six, Vietnam veteran, churchgoer, was convicted in August 1985 of the rape. > > - He was sentenced to life PLUS 20 years. > > - An appeal by Dumond, under Gov. Clinton, got a response of: "No merit." > > What the public did not see, while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, were the following very unpretty facts - which Clinton, despite countless personal appeals, ignored: > > - A genetic expert stated unequivocally that sperm found on the girl's jeans COULD NOT "IN A MILLION YEARS" belong to Dumond. > > - The victim identified two other men as her rapist but they had ironclad alibis and were set free. > > - She failed to pick out Dumond as her rapist when presented with a lineup. > > But now the clincher: > > - The father of the girl is a millionaire and one of Clinton's biggest contributors. > > But guess what? The girl is Bill Clinton's cousin. And her mother worked as part of Clinton's inner circle when he was governor. > The worst was yet to come. > >THE HORROR > > On March 7, 1985, while Dumond was awaiting trial, two masked men with guns and knives burst into his house. > They hog-tied him. They raped him. > And then, with surgical scalpels, they castrated him. > [Now get this] > The two monsters ACTED ON ORDERS OF LOCAL SHERIFF COOLIDGE CONLEE! > The sheriff retrieved Dumond's testicles from Dumond's blood-spattered house. > The sheriff then placed the body parts in a jar that he displayed on his desk with the admonition: > "That's what happens to people who fool around in my county." > The sheriff actually took that jar to "a good-ol'-boys wedding." > That is a fact. > No reaction whatsoever from Gov. Clinton. > [Now hold on to your seat for this] > The sheriff - who didn't tolerate any "fooling around" in his county - would later be nabbed by the FBI for extortion and drug-dealing and sentenced to 160 years in jail, where he died of natural causes. > Dumond's attackers were never picked up even though ONE OF THEM CONFESSED TO A STATE COP! > All this and Dumond still rotted away in prison. > And Clinton, both as governor and president, ignored facts that surrounded the case of the rape of his cousin. > "Bitter? Hell yes, I was, at first," Dumond told me from prison at Varner in Arkansas. > But now, I think, I hope, things will change around. With Jimmy Guy Tucker gone as governor, one of Clinton's men, and Mr. Clinton running for cover, maybe the new man will have another look. > "But strange as it may seem, it hasn't been all that bad these days. I have gotten a very good education in here. I think I am becoming a computer nut. I just miss my family, so much. > "That girl? Well it's pretty ridiculous. Sad, but ridiculous. > "She told the police that a man in a new red pickup truck, with no tailgate, drove to her house, burst in, forced her into her car, drove in her car to some woods, tied her up, committed a pretty terrible act, drove her back in her car and took off in her car and dumped it nearby. > "Well, I drove a very old dirty brown pickup with a tailgate. Now, if I took her car, what happened to the pickup I drove to her house in? > "She changed her story, how many times? I mean many times. [Well we know one thing, she sure had to be related to Clinton - changing one's story must run in the family.] > "She was with this guy driving through town and suddenly, out of nowhere, months after, she saw me driving my old pickup truck. She told the guy out of nowhere: 'That's the man that did it.' She said I had raped her. > "When it came to the lineup, she couldn't identify me. Suddenly she disappears into a room with her father and a cop who showed here a picture of me. She came out and immediately identified me." > >THE CONVICTION > > The outrageous identifying scam was exposed by a local cop who witnessed it all. > Deputy Sheriff Henry Leary had the guts to go against his own and told the world of the scenario. Dumond was still convicted. > "Oh yeah," Dumond told me, "she identified two other guys who were the rapists. They had an ironclad alibi. Then it came to me." > Dumond was still convicted. Gov. Clinton remained silent. > But of course at that time nobody knew that the girl was Clinton's cousin. The governor didn't mention it. > After 4.5 years, with his freedom gone, his manhood gone, a five-person parole board recommended that Dumond go free for time served. > John R. Steer, managing editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, records the following reaction from then-Gov. Clinton: > "Clinton had a romping, stomping fit. The victim was a distant cousin and St. Francis County [where this all took place] had a lot of votes and he deeply resented the pressure to free Dumond." > Clinton refused to sign a release. > And Dumond rotted. > Dumond has since been before the parole board twice. > "They ask me: 'Do you have any remorse?' Well, I tell them straight. How can I have remorse for something I didn't do? > "No sir, I will stay here until I die before I say I am sorry for something I haven't done." > The day of the castration is not something that should be dealt with in detail [in a family newspaper]. > "My two boys, Michael and Joey, found me there after coming home from school. They cut me loose and got help." he said. > "Sure I remember it, but do you really want to know the details?" > Dumond's life was miraculously saved after he lost three-quarters of his blood. > As he lay near death, Sheriff Coolidge Conlee displayed Dumond's testicles in a jar. > Still no reaction from Gov. Clinton. > >THE HOPE > > The Dumonds later won a lawsuit "of outrage." They cleared just $20,000 from the settlement. > This money came in handy however, because someone burned down the Dumond house when the couple were in hiding from vigilantes. > No insurance was paid on the home. > Can this story get worse? > "Sometimes," said Mrs. Dumond, "I just want to give up. But now, who knows? The new governor has personally assured me that Wayne's case will be the first thing on his desk, after he clears up everything from this Whitewater thing." > Dwayne Harris, a spokesman for Huckabee, the Republican lieutenant governor who will succeed Democrat Tucker, told me Friday that Huckabee "has voiced a very special intention to thoroughly review the case of Wayne Dumond." > "I hope so," Dr. Moses Schanfield told me Friday. "This case was a disgrace." > Schanfield heads the Analytic Genetic Testing Center in Denver. > He was one of the experts dispatched to Bosnia to examine and identify graves after the civil war there. > He did an independent Allotyping test of sperm of the alleged victim's jeans, which supposedly came from Dumond. > "No way, zip, nada. Didn't happen. No way Dumond was the donor of that sperm," Schanfield said. "The girl's scenario of the so-called crime couldn't have happened. I didn't believe anything she said." > >WHY IT HAPPENED > > Fred Odam, a retired Arkansas State Police captain told me "This was and still is a very bad day for justice." > Odam witnessed Sheriff Conlee retrieving Dumond's testicles and later investigated the sheriff for the FBI. > "I have been working to get that boy Dumond free for a long time. In all my time this is the one case when I know a man is not guilty." > What was the crazed motive behind this disgusting affair? > Why Dumond? > Gene Wirges, a fiesty 67-year-old publisher of a local weekly who is writing a book on this mess, told me: > "Well, a Clinton kin had to be revenged. The sheriff was on a hot seat and young Wayne had been talking to a church group about how cars were suddenly disappearing. > "It turned out to be true. The sheriff along with his drugs, and turning the sheriff's department into a casino was heading up a car-theft ring. > "When this girl said she was raped, the sheriff wanted to help out the Clinton clan [so that they might look the other way with respect to his illegal doings]. He would do anything for the girl's father and mother. > "The truth, the terrible truth is, that one of the guys she first identified as the rapist but who had an ironclad alibi had been going out with the girl. > "But the new governor has indicated to me on several occasions that he was more than disturbed about Wayne's case and the way Clinton and his boys handled this terrible thing. > "You know, this is Arkansas. Right up until now this has been Clinton territory. Maybe not anymore." > >END OF EXPLOSIVE COLUMN BY STEVE DUNLEAVY THAT APPEARED IN TODAY'S (6/2/96) NEW YORK POST > > I don't normally say this but please distribute this article widely - in a non-profit manner, of course. Give credit to Steve Dunleavy and the New York Post. > I first learned of this disgusting case in a book by Guy Reel. The title is "UNEQUAL JUSTICE" and it is put out by Prometheus Books (1993). As the article alluded to, another book is in progress by a Gene Wirges. > The Guy Reel book is explosive and deserved much more attention than it actually received. > Imagine being fingered in a rape you did not commit because you were concerned about cars being stolen in your community. The sheriff was running a car-theft ring and because you threatened to expose it, you get framed for rape and get castrated by a couple of goons. Then the crooked sheriff - who would later be convicted of racketeering, drug dealing and extortion - displays your testicles in a jar on his desk. You then get sentenced to life PLUS 20 years for a crime you didn't commit while your wife is left to raise your two young sons without you. Then the corrupt governor who goes on to be president refuses to let you go, even though experts say it was impossible for you to have committed the rape, because he is afraid of the political implications. > This case ought to outrage every American. We need to stop this nonsense now. We've been hearing about these strange "Arkancides" and other bizzarre cases that went on in Clinton's Arkansas for too long now. Enough is enough. We need to put this crooked bunch of thugs behind bars where they belong. Jim Guy Tucker and the McDougals are not enough. We need to bring down the entire house of cards. > Let's hope future Gov. Mike Huckabee gets the support he will need to clean this state up. The citizens of Arkansas, regardless of political affiliation, need to get behind him on this. > In closing, I would like to commend Steve Dunleavy of The New York Post for having the courage to take this story on. > > Ken Cook > Sunday, June 2, 1996 > > > > > > > > > > >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Bad Ol' Good Ol' Boys Date: 02 Jun 1996 23:32:17 -0600 You're going to love this one. Ol' Ambrose sure knows how to end an article on a happy note. Electronic Telegraph International News Monday June 3 1996 Issue 397 Bad ol' good ol' boys CORRUPTION in high places quietly oiled the wheels of Arkansas until Governor Clinton made it to the White House. Now the darkest secrets of Little Rock have been exposed to the glare of world attention and members of the ruling elite are paying the price. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports IT HAD seemed such a glamorous adventure four years ago, when Bill Clinton stood in front of the Old State House and declared his candidacy for President. Who could be blamed for thinking that an Arkansas presidency would elevate a state that had always been cast in American folklore as a backwater of cross-eyed hillbillies? Instead, the Clinton triumph has brought nothing but humiliation, grief and a plague of criminal indictments. Last week Governor Jim Guy Tucker became the latest casualty of the spreading Whitewater scandal, along with Jim and Susan McDougal, the partners of the Clintons in the Whitewater Development Corp. Tucker, 52, was convicted by a federal jury on charges of conspiracy and fraud after being caught in the dragnet of a special prosecutor from Washington with unlimited funds and an army of FBI agents at his disposal. The bitterness was written all over his face when he stepped out of the courthouse into the baking heat and the glare of TV cameras from all over the world. It would not have happened if Bill Clinton had only stayed at home. It is hard to keep count of the lives that have been destroyed. Webster Hubbell, the man appointed by Clinton to help run the US Justice Department, is now serving time in a federal penitentiary for fraud. He had once been Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court and a stalwart of the Little Rock Country Club - one of the chosen few. Hubbell's old partner at the Rose Law firm, Vincent Foster, is dead, supposedly having shot himself because he could not take the strain of being Deputy Counsel in the Clinton White House. Others in the inner circle have been notified that they are "targets" of the Whitewater prosecutor. Even if they succeed in clearing their names, they will be ruined by legal fees. What a disaster it has been for every Friend of Bill. But it does not end there. A special prosecutor - yet another one - is combing through the books of Arkansas poultry king Don Tyson, who now laments that the election of Bill Clinton as President was the worst thing that ever happened to his business empire. Separately, the House Banking Committee of the US Congress has a team of investigators looking into allegations that large amounts of drug money were laundered through the state's financial system in the 1980s when Bill Clinton was governor. Sometimes it seems as if the whole state of Arkansas is on trial. And about time too, says Gene Wirgess, a small town newspaper editor who has spent the past 40 years battling the corrupt political machine of the Arkansas elite. Wirgess describes the state government as the tool of a small oligarchy of extremely powerful families - much like Mexico - who rely on a supporting cast of political apparatchiks, and a docile newspaper appropriately called the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. For decades the "good ol' boys" have been left to their own devices, but all of a sudden they have been exposed to scrutiny by the spotlight of national attention; or as their enemies put it, caught scurrying like cockroaches in the kitchen. 'This group has been in power so long, and their abuses have been so callous, that finally the people have risen up' Wirgess is testament that the Democratic machine does not shrink from using raw police power and compromised judges to suppress dissent. He has several missing teeth to prove it. In the 1960s he was indicted seven times on trumped up charges, and was once sentenced to hard labour. On the surface the system works just the way it does in Iowa or Vermont. But in reality Arkansas is special. The Sunday Telegraph has been shown pictures of several judges and prosecutors photographed with naked girls - one of them pre-pubescent - that were taken by blackmailers in a surveillance sting operation at a hotel in North Little Rock. Equally telling is the story of the seventh judicial district task force appointed to investigate corruption among public officials in 1990. It was closed down when an informant, Sharlene Wilson, testified before a federal grand jury that she had witnessed Governor Bill Clinton and other key figures taking cocaine. Soon afterwards Wilson was charged with minor drug dealing and sent to prison, although the US Supreme Court has now ruled that her conviction was a clear case of entrapment. The prosecutor in charge of the task force, Jeanne Duffey, was forced into hiding, and eventually moved to Texas. "This group has been in power so long, and their abuses have been so callous, that finally the people have risen up," said Wirgess, describing the guilty verdict against Governor Tucker - by a jury of Arkansas common folk, most of them registered Democrats - as a turning point in the history of the state. "They've woken up and realised that they don't have to let the machine run roughshod over them." It was a methodical jury that worked its way through hundreds of pages of complex financial documents. "We fought for each defendant's liberty," said Tracy Pleasants, 30, a hospital employee. "But we were defeated by the evidence." The Whitewater prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, has now shown that he can win convictions from an Arkansas home team' The jury foreman was a nurse, Sandra Lynn Wood, as pure as the driven snow and dedicated to her civic duty. Despite most predictions, the verdict has proved to be a triumph of the US judicial system. It has left the "good ol' boys" in catatonic shock. Nothing will ever be the same. Lieutenant-Governor Mike Huckabee, a Republican and a Baptist Minister, is already starting to take over the executive machinery of the state. He is working quietly on a plan to cleanse the Arkansas State Police, with its rogue elements in the criminal intelligence division. As soon as he takes full power in July the axe will fall, and fall hard. Businessmen who have never given a cent to the Republican Party are now scrambling to adjust to the new political landscape, aware that the Republicans are likely to sweep the 1996 Congressional elections in Arkansas and perhaps win a Senate seat for the first time in modern history. For the Clintons it is nothing less than calamitous. The Whitewater prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, has now shown that he can win convictions from an Arkansas "home team". Those who have been refusing to co-operate with the investigation - fearing reprisals from the political machine more than they fear the indictments of Mr Starr - have a new calculus before them. The juries will not be rigged, they know that now. Glib appeals to Arkansas pride will not succeed. Convictions, followed by long prison sentences, are becoming almost certain. Their only choice is to go over to the Office of the Independent Counsel on Financial Centre Parkway, abandon loyalty to the Clintons, and try to save their own skins. The rush has already begun. This report appeared in the last edition of The Sunday Telegraph ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: More from Charles Duke Date: 03 Jun 1996 00:14:16 -0700 > By Senator Charles R. Duke > Colorado District 9 > > CLARK RANCH FREEMEN ARE NOT PATRIOTS > > The recent trip I took to Brusett, Montana, has to be >called a mixed blessing. The objectives for my role in the >talks were all accomplished. My personal goal of obtaining the >release of two small children has not yet been successful. >Nevertheless, a great deal was learned that had not been known >before and that, too, will be helpful. > The objectives for the talks themselves were threefold: 1) >The complete de-escalation of the standoff and exit from the >property of all residents of the Clark Ranch; 2) Preservation of >the Freemen's data and records; 3) A public forum from which the >Freemen could present their case. Verbal plans to accomplish >each of these were discussed, but the Freemen would not allow >the discussion to remain stable long enough to reduce the plans >to writing. On every major agreement that was made between the >Freemen and the FBI, the Freemen would open the discussions the >following day with a new escalation of demands. > First of all, who are the people on the Clark Ranch? Of >the 21 people believed to be there, 14 have a variety of state >and federal charges against them, including bank fraud, >conspiracy to commit bank fraud, unlawful flight to avoid >prosecution, possession of a deadly weapon, impersonating an >officer of the state, criminal syndicalism and others. The >remaining seven of the twenty-one had no criminal charges >pending as of the beginning of the standoff. > Of the 14 who had charges pending, only six are believed to >be truly in the classification of Freemen. The other eight are >simply trying to hook their wagon to the Freemen star as a means >of avoiding arrest and prosecution. > My own personal tasks were officially three-fold in nature >also: 1) Initiate discussions between the Freemen and the FBI; >2) "Humanize" the discussions as much as possible; 3) Facilitate >the development of a plan whereby the standoff would end. > Prior to my appearance at the site, the Freemen refused to >talk to the FBI. In their world, the FBI had never been created >by statute, and, therefore, did not exist. By talking to the >FBI, the Freemen would be granting venue to the agency which >would interfere with their purported stand on principle. My >presence allowed the Freemen to talk to me in a way that would >let the FBI overhear. Similarly, the FBI could talk to me in a >way that would let the Freemen overhear. That is how the >discussions began. > A plan was drawn up for what was believed to be the de- >escalation process. As the talks to finalize details began on >Monday, however, the Freemen, abruptly and without warning, >suspended talks until a letter could be received from Attorney >General Janet Reno stating that all elements of the de- >escalation plan had been approved. They did this despite being >told that the overall plan might take a week or two to be >approved. > Another plan for the release of the Ward children was drawn >up on Monday. Certain details were demanded by the Freemen. >They stated that if those details could be provided, the Ward >family would be released without delay. With some considerable >difficulty, those details were provided as requested. > On Tuesday morning, however, as the FBI arrived with escort >vehicles for the Ward family, a new demand was presented by the >Freemen. This time the Freemen wanted a letter from the >President of the United States authorizing the FBI's presence >under the "War and Emergency Powers Act." There is no such act, >of course. They may have meant to say, "The Emergency Banking >and Relief Act of 1933." The Freemen have made a considerable >amount of money conducting seminars blasting the use of war and >emergency powers by various presidents. Now, they appeared to >be willing to allow the use of those powers when it suited them. >This showed the Freemen to be, at the very best, disingenuous. > Having learned that the two Ward children had strategic >value to the FBI, the Freemen then moved the two girls to the >house where the main troublemakers, Russ Landers, Dale Jacobi >and Rod Skurdal, lived. Not only could the terms of agreement >not be kept, but they also appeared to be ready to hide behind >children. > It became obvious to me we were not dealing with honorable >people and that most of these Clark Ranch Freemen were not true >partners of the much larger Montana Freemen movement; they were >simply trying to commandeer the patriot movement for their own. >I could not, therefore, maintain a neutral and impartial >position with the Freemen and subsequently left. > Throughout our discussions, Edwin Clark, the fourth member >of the Freemen negotiating team, was cooperative and willing to >compromise. As idea blocks were put together, however, the >other three would enter and ideologically kick the blocks over. > It has been said the Freemen were patriots attempting to >defend the Constitution and are supported by the militia. I do >not believe any of this. Most of the residents of the Clark >Ranch are neither patriots nor constitutionists. For the most >part, they are using a Freemen facade as a means of defying the >exercise of civil authority. > END > > > >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: BILDERBERG Conference ends; list of attendees... (fwd) Date: 03 Jun 1996 08:25:39 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- LIST OF U.S., CANADIAN AND EUROPEAN V.I.P.'s AT SUPERSECRET TORONTO BILDERBERG MEETING! Toronto Bilderberg Conference Contact: John Whitley 416-481 4868/fax: 416-322 7238 e-mail: jwhitley@inforamp.net TORONTO, 2nd June--The supersecretive 1996 Bilderberg Conference at King City, north of Toronto, ends today. As usual, the 120 assorted members of European royalty, internancial financiers, major newspaper publishers, heads of supranational agencies, leading U.S. and North American politicians, and selected titans of industry and commerce have managed to conceal - so far - the substance of, and the concensus reached after, each of their "Round Table" discussions. The Toronto-based NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE [Web address: http://www.inforamp.net/~jwhitley], which first alerted the Toronto media and wire services to this well- concealed huddle of the super-rich and -influential publicity-shy elite, has stated repeatedly, based on sources we consider absolutely reliable, that we understand that one of their main topics of discussion has been a prearranged Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Quebec. For a variety of reasons, we expect this to occur between February and April of 1997. The ultimate aim of the slow and prolonged destruction of Canada as a viable national entity which would follow is a predetermined Continental Union of Canada and the U.S. by the year 2005. We invite you to remember which Canadians attended this Conference if Quebec UDI does in fact occur early next year: Premier Mike Harris of Ontario, recently-returned from his first-ever discussion with Premier Lucien Bouchard of Quebec, just prior to the Conference; Prime Minister Jean Chretien, whose "counsellor, strategist and advisor" for the past thirty years has been Mitchell Sharp, a key member of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission; Paul Martin, Finance Minister, and a product of Paul Desmarais' - also a Trilateral Commission member - Power Corporation; Lloyd Axworthy, Foreign Affairs Minister; Conrad Black, ardent international businessman and Chairman of Hollinger, Inc.,; Frederik Eaton, wealthy scion of the Eaton department store family; Allan Gotlieb, former Ambassador to the U.S.; Anthony Griffin, Honorary Chairman, Guardian Group; Ted Rogers, communications and cable mogul; and Red Wilson Chairman of Bell Canada Enterprises. David Rockefeller himself, the "titan of the Western hemisphere", is of course also in attendance. Prime Minister Chretien "excused" his presence at this Conference by stating that the members of the Bilderberg Conference were traditionally welcomed by the Head of State of the host country. This is not in fact so: the Bilderbergers meet secretly as, when and where they want, without respect of protocol. One glaring example of this was the September, 1958, meeting at the Palace Hotel in Buxton, Derbyshire, England. One contemporary observer stated that: The Mayor of Buxton, whose courteous function it was to welcome conferences to his town, was rudely ignored, as the Queen seems to have been, by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, whose presence on British soil one would have thought neccessitated a courtesy call on Her Majesty. Protocol goes by the board when esoteric international policies are to be discussed. A.K Chesterton, the astute and informed author of THE NEW UNHAPPY LORDS, had this to say concerning the Bilderberg Conference: To the unsuspecting, all this might seem innocuous, almost fatuous. For instance, there might not appear to be much danger in a body that does not attempt to reach conclusions or to recommend policies. However, there are other factors to be taken into account. Quite a lot of money is needed to fly [120] delegates from all over the world to an annual conference. Who finds that money, and why? And who delegates the delegates? The author finds it hard to believe that the expense is incurred merely for the pleasure of staging discussions not aimed at any conclusions. Let their be no doubts about this business. When [such people] foregather it is not for the purpose of amiable chats and mutual back-scratching. If the Bilderberg Conferences reach no conclusions and recommend no policies, it is because the conclusions have already been reached and the policies determined, so that the delegates assemble to be told what the form is. They do not need to be given their orders. Once the form is declared they know well enough what is expected of them..." Who indeed selects the delegates? Who sets the agenda? And who is "higher" than the Bilderbergers; who, by their own admission, "reach no decisions and come to no conclusions" during their Conferences? Sharp-eyed observers might ask themselves who Mr. Carl Bildt, the cryptically-described "High representative" in the following list of Bilderberg attendees, represents. Can a small coterie of international groups and national financial titans truly exert this amount of influence upon both the nature and direction of national policy and international events? Respected author Malachi Martin, who has top-level connections in the Vatican and around the world, has written a number of interesting and revealing books on international politics and the Roman Catholic church and Pontiff. In THE KEYS OF THIS BLOOD, which centres on the life and connections of the present Pope, Martin made this intriguing statement: "Television commentator Bill Moyers found out during a fifteen-day, globe-spanning trip in the company of David Rockefeller that 'just about a dozen or fifteen individuals made day-to-day decisions that regulated the flow of capital and goods throughout the entire world.'" He quotes Bill Moyers himself as saying: "David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and just another day's work... In the world of David Rockefeller it's hard to tell where business ends and politics begins." Alex Constantine [alex@directnet.com] began an intriguing Saturday, June 1st posting, entitled BILDERBERG: The Round Table Of The Fourth Reich, to the Internet newsgroup alt.politics.org.cia with these comments: "As one editorial wit put it: "If the Bilderberg group is not a conspiracy of some sort, it is conducted in such a way as to give a remarkably good imitation." The commentary came from G. Gordon Tether, a writer for England's Financial Times, subsequently ordered not to write about the organization again. Within a year he was squeezed out of his position at the newspaper." This helps explain why Bilderberg meetings usually go completely unscrutinized by the media, and why the recent uninhibited TORONTO STAR coverage of the 1996 Toronto Bilderberg Conference is such an extraordinary event. Before listing the attendees at this year's Conference, we would like to draw the attention of our U.S. media readers to the following facts, also largely or completed unreported. THE NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE has already pointed out that President Bill Clinton was "anointed" for the Presidency at the 1991 Bilderberg Conference in Baden-Baden, which he attended. What was equally ignored by most of the U.S. media was that he then took an unexpected, unannounced trip to Moscow, directly from the Bilderberg meeting He met for one-and- a-half hours, on Tuesday, June 9th, with Soviet Interior Minister Vadim Bakatin. Mr. Vakatim, a minister in the doomed cabinet of President Mikhail Gorbachev, was in the middle of campaigning in the fiercely-contestested Presidential election, the vote for which was a mere six days away - yet he took one-and-a-half hours out of his crowded schedule to meet unexpectedly with the internationally-obscure Governor of Arkansas. Why? Mr. Bakatin's subsequent career might privide a clue. Although Gorbachev lost the Presidential election, Bakatin, a "reformer", was rewarded by President Yeltsin with the top spot at the KGB. It would appear that President Clinton was sent by the Bilderbergers directly to Moscow to get his KGB student-era, anti-Vietnam war files "buried" before anouncing his candidacy for the Presidency some two-and-a-half months later. One of the few U.S. papers to run this story was the ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT, which did so under the headline CLINTON HAS POWERFUL BUDDY IN U.S.S.R. - NEW HEAD OF KGB. It may come as no surprise, therefore, when we state that, through our own sources, THE NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE has learned that Bilderberger-backed President Clinton has promised President Yeltsin that, after he has won the upcoming U.S. Presidential election, Russian warships will be given full refuelling and other port privileges at all U.S. Navy bases. One wonders about the content of that intense 1991 private conversation with Mr. Bakatin. The NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE would like to publicly say "Goodbye" to each of the shy Bilderberg attendees who've graced our city with their virtually-invisible but luminous presence during the past four days. We must all get together again, Queens, money moguls, assorted pols, and you, too, Big Dave! Be very sure that we'll be watching out for you. LIST OF 1996 BILDERBERG ATTENDEES THE UNITED STATES: * Paul Allaire [ Chairman of Xerox] * Dwayne Andreas [Chairman, Archer-Daniels, Midland] * Lloyd Benson [former Treasury Secretary] * John Bryan [Chairman, Sarah Lee Corp.] * William Buckley [the NATIONAL REVIEW] * Jon Corzine [Chairman, Goldman Sachs] * Stanley Fischer [International Monetary Fund] * Charles Freeman [Former Assistant Secretary of Defence] * Richard Holbrooke [former Assistant Secretary of State] * Henry Kissinger [former U.S. Secretary of State] * Henry Kravis [Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts] * Winston Lord [Assistant Secretary of State] * Sam Nunn [U.S. Senator] * William Perry [Secretary of Defence] * David Rockefeller [Chase Manhattan Bank] * Jack Scheinkman [Chairman, Amalgamated Bank] * George Soros [President, Soros Fund Management] * George Stephanopoulos [Senior Advisor to the President] * Alex Trotma [Chairman, Ford Motor Company] * John Whitehead [former Deputy Secretary of State] CANADA: * Lloyd Axworthy [Minister of Foreign Affairs] * Conrad Black [Chairman, Hollinger Inc.,] * Jean Chretien [Prime Minister of Canada] * Frederik Eaton [Chairman, Eatons] * Al Flood [Chairman, CIBC] * Allan Gottlieb [former Amassador to U.S.] * Anthony Griffin [Hon. Chairman, Guardian Group] * Mike Harris [Premier of Ontario] * Paul Martin [Finance Minister] * Sylvia Ostry [Centre fot International Studies, Univ. of Toronto] * Ted Rogers [President, Rogers Communications] * Red Wison [Chairman, Bell Canada Enterprises] EASTERN EUROPE: * Andrzej Olechowski [Former Polish Foreign Affairs Minister] * Flavio Cotti [Foreign Affairs Minister, Czech Republic] * Cornelio Sommaruga [President, Red Cross Committee, Czech Republic] * Gyorgy Suranyi [President, National Bank of Hungary WESTERN EUROPE AND TURKEY:: * Lord Carrington [Conference chairman: former NATO Secretary-General] * Martti Ahtissaari [Finnish President] * Giovanni Agnelli [Hon. Chairman, Fiat, Italy] * Anders Aslund [Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Sweden] * Francisco Pinto Balscmao [Former Prime Minister of Portugal] * Percy Barnevik [President, ABB Asca Brown Boveri, Sweden] * Queen Beatrix [the Netherlands] * Franco Bernabe [CEO, Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi, Italy] * Carl Bildt [the High representative] * Frits Bolkestein [Liberal Party leader, Netherlands] * Jaime Carvarja Urquito [Chairman, Iberfomento, Spain] * Bertrand Collomb [Chairman, Lafarge, France] * George David [Chairman, Hellenic Bottling, Greece] * Etienne Davignon [Executive Chairman, Societie Generale de Belgique, Belgium] * Gazi Ercel [Central Bank of Turkey] * Emre Gonesay [Governor, Central Bank of Turkey] * Westye Hoegh [Chairman, Leif Hoegh & Co., Norway] * Jan Huyghebaert [Chairman, Almanij-Kredietbank Group, Belgium] * Jaakko Iloniemi [Former Finnish ambassor to U.S.] * Peter Job [Chief Executive, Reuters, Britain] * Lionel Jospin [Socialist Party leader, France] * Dietrich Karner [Chairman, Erste Allgemeine-Generali Aktiengesclischaft, Austria] * Andrew Knight [News Corp., Britain] * Max Kohnstamm [European Policy Centre, Belgium] * Phillipe Maystadt [Finance Minister, Belgium] * Ad P.W. Melkert [Social Affairs Minister, Netherlands] * John Monks [Union Leader, Britain] * Mario Monti [European Commissioner] * Theodoros Pangalos [Foreign Affairs Minister, Greece] * Jan Petersen [Conservative Party leader, Norway] * Malcolm Rifkind [Foreign Secretary, Britain] * Simon Robertson [Chairman, Kleinwort Benson Group, Britain] * Renato Ruggiero [Director-General, World Trade Organization] * Mona Sahlin [Member of Swedish Parliament] * Jurgen Schrempp [Chairman, Daimler-Benz, Germany] * Klaus Schwab [President, World Economic Forum] * Queen Sofia [Spain] * Peter Sutherland [former Director-General, GATT and WTO] * Morris Tabaksblat [Chairman, Unilever, Netherlands] * J. Martin Taylor [Chief Executive, Barclays Bank, Britain] * Franz Vranitzky [Chancellor of Austria] * Antonio Vitorino [Deputy Prime Minister, Portugal] * Karel Vuursteen [Chairman, Heineken, Netherlands] * James Wolfensohn [President, World Bank] Are those who direct the Bilderbergers, the "just about a dozen or fifteen individuals [who make] day-to-day decisions that regulated the flow of capital and goods throughout the entire world.'" who Bill Moyers spoke of, now filling the positions of those individuals of whom President Woodrow Wilson wrote about in his book, THE NEW FREEDOM: Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." Canadian and Americans will never know. The Bilderbergers, whether through fear or purpose, maintain their vows of silence. And the press, apart from the TORONTO STAR, have willingly shielded them in privacy. We can now only await the outworkings of their secret deliberations. - 30 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Ruby Ridge: An American Tragedy (fwd) Date: 03 Jun 1996 08:26:05 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [Note: From Matthew Gaylor: James Bovard is the author of "Shakedown: How the Government Screws You From A to Z; "Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty; "The Fair Trade Fraud; and "The Farm Fiasco". A regular contributor to "The Wall Street Journal, his editorials also appear in "The New York Times", "The Washington Post", "Newsweek", "Playboy", and "The New Republic". Jim has been at the forefront of calling for full investigations into the Randy Weaver case and the Waco disaster. George Will described him as "a one-man truth squad who is more than a match for tendentious legions of protectionists in American government and industry." Jim Bovard is a subscriber to Freematt's Alerts and I had the pleasure to personally meet him in Chicago at the memorial weekend conference (5-25-96) of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Jim is one of the most knowledgeable individuals anywhere on government abuses. I asked Jim to write a list of the inaccuracies of the recent two part CBS's made for TV Movie; "RUBY RIDGE: AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY".] ### c copyright James Bovard 1996 Here's my take on the CBS series. I don't want to trash it completely; I don't know how hard the producers may have had to work to get even a version of this case that was even mildly critical of the government on network TV. The following comments are a rough but have perhaps a few insights. I am sure that there are other inaccuracies in the film which I may have missed; if folks have other observations on the film, I'd be happy to hear them. * * * * * * The CBS Miniseries on Ruby Ridge last week may help alert folks who know little or nothing about the Weaver case to government entrapment and FBI sniping abuses. Parts of the series were quite strong; unfortunately, there were several aspects of the series that were painfully inaccurate. The scenes where the sniper kills Vicki Weaver makes the window on the door appear to be opaque; the reality was otherwise. The Justice Department in late October sent a team of investigators back to Ruby Ridge to reconstruct Horiuchi's angle of vision for the shootings. One Idaho expert observed in a November 22 interview, "When you look through the scope [of Horiuchi's rifle] at the door - you can see a wedding ring on the hand of someone standing behind the window of the door. You can see someone standing back there with great resolution and great visibility." For instance, CBS made it appear that the FBI never knew that Vicki Weaver had been gunned down by Lon Horiuchi; in reality, the family was screaming out that she had been thought within minutes of the killing - and the FBI had planted bugs right by the cabin so they could hear the inside conversation. During the 11 day siege, FBI agents taunted the Weavers, broadcasting through a microphone near the cabin: "Good morning Mrs. Weaver, We had pancakes for breakfast. What did you have?"' As CBS made it appear that the FBI officials felt bad when they learned about Vicki Weaver's "accidental" death. On the night of the killing, Horiuchi was debriefed by an FBI expert and made a sketch of his target for the second shot. While Freeh has claimed that Horiuchi shot at a man who was running into the cabin at the time, Horiuchi's drawing showed his cross hairs just above an upright head clearly visible through the window of the open cabin door. At the time that Horiuchi fired, Kevin Harris - his alleged target - was running into the cabin and would not have been in a fixed upright position. But Vicki Weaver was standing in the doorway holding her baby. If the FBI thought the killing of Vicki Weaver was an accident, they likely would not have told so many preposterous lies to justify the shooting. As the Senate hearings revealed, FBI assistant special agent Thomas Miller's official report on the shooting falsely claimed that Vicki Weaver had been in the front yard of the cabin pointing a gun at helicopters before she was slain, though she never left the cabin during the time at question. The FBI report noted, "This female, however, did pose an immediate threat to the circling helicopter... the use of deadly force was justified in that she willfully placed herself in harm's way by attempting to assist Harris, and so doing, overtly contributed to the immediate threat which continued to exist against the helicopter crew and approaching HRT personnel." But all that Vicki Weaver did was stand in the doorway of a cabin, shouting for her husband and his friend to hurry back into their home after the FBI sniper shot her husband. After the FBI sniper had gunned down all the adults in the cabin, the CBS series showed an FBI official going up to the cabin in an armored personnel carrier and calling for Randy Weaver to come out and talk on a telephone. This was one of the starkest misrepresentations in the entire film. In reality, the FBI sent a robot up to the cabin - a robot holding a 12-gauge shotgun in one arm and a phone in the other arm outside the cabin. FBI siege negotiators continually demanded that Weaver come out of his cabin, pick up the phone, and talk to the FBI agents at the other end of the line. But the robot's shotgun was pointing right at the door. FBI press spokesmen repeatedly complained to the news media during the 11-day siege that Weaver refused to negotiate - but never mentioned the shotgun. The FBI robot was one of the hottest issues in last Fall's Senate hearings, but, somehow, CBS went creative on this key point. In general, CBS did a fair job of hinting at some of the Marshals' lies and shenanigans; but, when it came to the FBI, the series was deferential to the point of trying to stick the viewers' head into the ground. The CBS series left out all the numerous different scenes from the trial where the federal judge condemned the FBI and Justice Department for fabricating evidence or obstructing evidence. The CBS Series showed the same federal prosecutor apparently making his case throughout the trial; in reality, the lead federal prosecutor had a mental breakdown in court shortly before he was supposed to begin his final summation to the jury - apparently even he was appalled by all the lies the government had told. The representation of the trial seemed extremely soft on the government, compared to the comments made by Federal Judge Lodge and the jury foreman after the trial. And, while CBS used the Weavers' names and the names of family friend Kevin Harris, none of the names of federal agents were used - even those FBI agents who may be indicted in the next few months by the federal grand jury hearing evidence in Washington. c copyright James Bovard 1996 ### **************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 **************************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Ken's Mailing - 6/2/96 (fwd) Date: 03 Jun 1996 08:29:29 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 'Dorothy Young' <71234.3270@CompuServe.COM>, 'Richard Sampson' , 'MRS ELEANOR G VIGNALE' , 'Rick' , 'MR RONALD E LAITSCH' , "'R. D. Horton'" , 'MR LARRY L DYKES' , 'MRS M B WOLFE' , 'MR JOHN W CROWLEY' , 'MR MATT W THOMPSON' , 'DR KEVIN C TAYLOR' , 'GEORGE HILL' , 'ERVIN J MC CARTHY' , 'MRS RAMONA D MOCK' , 'MRS NANCY S CARR' , "'Gerry9753@aol.com'" , 'MRS LOIS K MCNIEL' , 'DR CAROL H BUCHANAN' , 'Liberty or Death' , 'MR RAYMOND J GILL' , 'MRS MARJORIE L WALKER' , 'MR DENNIS P OBRIEN' , 'Ken Cook' , 'Larry the X' , 'MR RONALD N DOUGHTY' , "'SACHS, MARTHA'" , 'Norm Froman' , 'MRS MAXINE M ALEXANDER' , 'MR JACK A BRUCE' , "'pwatson@utdallas.edu'" , 'MRS JANE E THICKINS' , 'roger' , 'MR JAMES A ROMANDY' , 'MR DAVID THOMAS' , "'MR SAMUEL L METCALFE,JR.'" , "'Paul L. Reese'" , 'WARREN C LITSINGER' , 'Mike McCullough' , 'MR DON H BURGE' , 'MRS SONJA A RAU' , 'MR J SCOTT CHRISTNER' , 'MR KENNETH L SALMEN JR' , 'MR JOHN F DIETZ' [This is a mass-mailing going out to those who have subscribed to my mailing list for breaking events that the media does not normally cover. To unsubcribe from this list, which will go out several times a week, please email kencook@tiac.net. If you know others who would like to be on it, please feel free to give out this e-mail address and have them contact me. Please feel free to distribute these mailings widely, but bear in mind that they often contain copyrighted material being used under the "Fair Use" provision of copyright law, so do so on a not-for-profit basis. And never remove bylines and other credits that precede and follow copyrighted material.] After a long sabbatical from my mailings, I am back! My problems with Prodigy are over as I now run the mailings from my own Internet account with TIAC (The Internet Access Company) out of Bedford, MA. I will remain on Prodigy and continue to participate in the Whitewater BB. Otherwise, I have no more use for them. They can take a hike! I picked a good week to resume my mailings! The Whitewater convictions in Little Rock have brought things back to a full boil and the recent elections in Israel will bring some very significant changes to the Middle East situation. Hopefully they will be able to work things out over there. I will be sending another mailing out shortly that will fully cover the Whitewater situation that is exploding right before our eyes. That juror that claimed she made up her mind before the trial is a fraud. She merely has the same name as one of the jurors, but that didn't stop the liberal media from jumping into this hoax with both feet, excitedly predicting that the Whitewater convictions may be overturned! Well they look like a bunch of jackasses now and they deserve it! Also, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is reporting this weekend that Terry Reed has dropped without prejudice (which means he can't refile) the lawsuit that was to begin tomorrow in Little Rock against Clinton cronies that he accuses of setting him up on false criminal charges. Strange thing is, Terry Reed's lawyer, Robert Meloni, was contacted about this and he claimed to know nothing about Terry Reed dropping the lawsuit. Efforts to contact Terry Reed at his home by radio talk show host Jack Christy have been unsuccessful. I hope to have information about this in my next mailing. But before delving into any of the above, I now bring to you a breaking news story out of New York. The following is a blockbuster exclusive that appeared today in The New York Post. I posted about this story on Prodigy a couple of years ago, but nothing ever came of it. It now looks like this story will be getting much attention. Grab a cup of coffee (or your favorite adult beverage) and read on. This story will take your breath away. A while back, I posted to the Internet the saga of Wayne Dumond, a man from Arkansas who was railroaded and castrated by Clinton thugs for a crime he did not commit. The story is gruesome, heart-wrenching and absolutely true. This man was castrated, raped and left for dead before his trial by two men acting on orders from the local sherriff - who was later convicted of racketeering. He was found by his two sons and had by then lost three quarters of his blood. He survived and eleven years later, Dumond still rots in prison, even though evidence clearly shows he did not commit the so-called crime. His release has been denied by Governors Clinton and Tucker because his story is so politically explosive. By releasing him, they will be admitting that that Bill Clinton made a huge mistake and will open up many of Clinton's cronies to more criminal charges. The story was exposed in a book by Guy Reel called "UNEQUAL JUSTICE," subtitled "Wayne Dumond, Bill Clinton, and the Politics of Rape in Arkansas." It is a short read but very compelling. And not to be read by those who easily get sick to their stomach. This man is going through hell as we speak and is probably wishing he was one of the "Arkancides," for at least he would be resting in peace right now. During the past week however, Wayne Dumond has finally seen the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. Jim Guy Tucker, a real criminal, will be exchanging his governorship for prison stripes. The new governor-to-be, Mike Huckabee, a good man, is almost certain to grant Mr. Dumond his long-deserved pardon. Today, Steve Dunleavy of the New York Post became the first journalist to break this story in the mainstream media. It is a shocker. Just when you thought you heard everything with respect to outrageous behavior in Bill Clinton's Arkansas, here is one that takes the cake. I will post this blockbuster expose in it's entirety. It appeared today in the Sunday edition (6/1/96) of the New York Post. Fasten your seatbelts. A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE (HOW GOV. CLINTON DENIED AN INNOCENT MAN HIS FREEDOM) by Steve Dunleavy The bombshell Whitewater convictions that my be President Clinton's darkest hour gave a middle-aged Arkansas housewife her brightest moment. "Now that the Clinton people are going to jail, maybe my husband will finally go free," Mary Lou Dumond told me in Little Rock. Her husband, Wayne Dumond, 49, has just spent his 11th year in an Arkansas jail. Many say that Dumond is the victim of one of the most bone-crunching and infuriating examples of Clinton-clan justice the country has ever seen. And now, because Clinton's alleged bagman, Gov. Jimmy Guy Tucker, is going to jail, Dumond is set to see freedom. "The new governor, Mike Huckabee, has assured me Wayne will be a free man," Mrs. Dumond said Thursday. "He is not one of the Clinton crowd. He is a very fair man. He has always been disturbed about the way the Clinton people never wanted my husband free," she added. And there was a very good reason for the Clinton people not wanting her husband to go free. THE CHARGES The story of Wayne Dumond is not for the innocent eyes of the young - but every adult of voting age should read closely. These are the cold facts as an Arkansas court saw it: - A 17-year-old girl says she was kidnapped and raped on Sept. 11, 1984, in Forrest City, Ark. - Dumond, father of six, Vietnam veteran, churchgoer, was convicted in August 1985 of the rape. - He was sentenced to life PLUS 20 years. - An appeal by Dumond, under Gov. Clinton, got a response of: "No merit." What the public did not see, while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, were the following very unpretty facts - which Clinton, despite countless personal appeals, ignored: - A genetic expert stated unequivocally that sperm found on the girl's jeans COULD NOT "IN A MILLION YEARS" belong to Dumond. - The victim identified two other men as her rapist but they had ironclad alibis and were set free. - She failed to pick out Dumond as her rapist when presented with a lineup. But now the clincher: - The father of the girl is a millionaire and one of Clinton's biggest contributors. But guess what? The girl is Bill Clinton's cousin. And her mother worked as part of Clinton's inner circle when he was governor. The worst was yet to come. THE HORROR On March 7, 1985, while Dumond was awaiting trial, two masked men with guns and knives burst into his house. They hog-tied him. They raped him. And then, with surgical scalpels, they castrated him. [Now get this] The two monsters ACTED ON ORDERS OF LOCAL SHERIFF COOLIDGE CONLEE! The sheriff retrieved Dumond's testicles from Dumond's blood-spattered house. The sheriff then placed the body parts in a jar that he displayed on his desk with the admonition: "That's what happens to people who fool around in my county." The sheriff actually took that jar to "a good-ol'-boys wedding." That is a fact. No reaction whatsoever from Gov. Clinton. [Now hold on to your seat for this] The sheriff - who didn't tolerate any "fooling around" in his county - would later be nabbed by the FBI for extortion and drug-dealing and sentenced to 160 years in jail, where he died of natural causes. Dumond's attackers were never picked up even though ONE OF THEM CONFESSED TO A STATE COP! All this and Dumond still rotted away in prison. And Clinton, both as governor and president, ignored facts that surrounded the case of the rape of his cousin. "Bitter? Hell yes, I was, at first," Dumond told me from prison at Varner in Arkansas. But now, I think, I hope, things will change around. With Jimmy Guy Tucker gone as governor, one of Clinton's men, and Mr. Clinton running for cover, maybe the new man will have another look. "But strange as it may seem, it hasn't been all that bad these days. I have gotten a very good education in here. I think I am becoming a computer nut. I just miss my family, so much. "That girl? Well it's pretty ridiculous. Sad, but ridiculous. "She told the police that a man in a new red pickup truck, with no tailgate, drove to her house, burst in, forced her into her car, drove in her car to some woods, tied her up, committed a pretty terrible act, drove her back in her car and took off in her car and dumped it nearby. "Well, I drove a very old dirty brown pickup with a tailgate. Now, if I took her car, what happened to the pickup I drove to her house in? "She changed her story, how many times? I mean many times. [Well we know one thing, she sure had to be related to Clinton - changing one's story must run in the family.] "She was with this guy driving through town and suddenly, out of nowhere, months after, she saw me driving my old pickup truck. She told the guy out of nowhere: 'That's the man that did it.' She said I had raped her. "When it came to the lineup, she couldn't identify me. Suddenly she disappears into a room with her father and a cop who showed here a picture of me. She came out and immediately identified me." THE CONVICTION The outrageous identifying scam was exposed by a local cop who witnessed it all. Deputy Sheriff Henry Leary had the guts to go against his own and told the world of the scenario. Dumond was still convicted. "Oh yeah," Dumond told me, "she identified two other guys who were the rapists. They had an ironclad alibi. Then it came to me." Dumond was still convicted. Gov. Clinton remained silent. But of course at that time nobody knew that the girl was Clinton's cousin. The governor didn't mention it. After 4.5 years, with his freedom gone, his manhood gone, a five-person parole board recommended that Dumond go free for time served. John R. Steer, managing editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, records the following reaction from then-Gov. Clinton: "Clinton had a romping, stomping fit. The victim was a distant cousin and St. Francis County [where this all took place] had a lot of votes and he deeply resented the pressure to free Dumond." Clinton refused to sign a release. And Dumond rotted. Dumond has since been before the parole board twice. "They ask me: 'Do you have any remorse?' Well, I tell them straight. How can I have remorse for something I didn't do? "No sir, I will stay here until I die before I say I am sorry for something I haven't done." The day of the castration is not something that should be dealt with in detail [in a family newspaper]. "My two boys, Michael and Joey, found me there after coming home from school. They cut me loose and got help." he said. "Sure I remember it, but do you really want to know the details?" Dumond's life was miraculously saved after he lost three-quarters of his blood. As he lay near death, Sheriff Coolidge Conlee displayed Dumond's testicles in a jar. Still no reaction from Gov. Clinton. THE HOPE The Dumonds later won a lawsuit "of outrage." They cleared just $20,000 from the settlement. This money came in handy however, because someone burned down the Dumond house when the couple were in hiding from vigilantes. No insurance was paid on the home. Can this story get worse? "Sometimes," said Mrs. Dumond, "I just want to give up. But now, who knows? The new governor has personally assured me that Wayne's case will be the first thing on his desk, after he clears up everything from this Whitewater thing." Dwayne Harris, a spokesman for Huckabee, the Republican lieutenant governor who will succeed Democrat Tucker, told me Friday that Huckabee "has voiced a very special intention to thoroughly review the case of Wayne Dumond." "I hope so," Dr. Moses Schanfield told me Friday. "This case was a disgrace." Schanfield heads the Analytic Genetic Testing Center in Denver. He was one of the experts dispatched to Bosnia to examine and identify graves after the civil war there. He did an independent Allotyping test of sperm of the alleged victim's jeans, which supposedly came from Dumond. "No way, zip, nada. Didn't happen. No way Dumond was the donor of that sperm," Schanfield said. "The girl's scenario of the so-called crime couldn't have happened. I didn't believe anything she said." WHY IT HAPPENED Fred Odam, a retired Arkansas State Police captain told me "This was and still is a very bad day for justice." Odam witnessed Sheriff Conlee retrieving Dumond's testicles and later investigated the sheriff for the FBI. "I have been working to get that boy Dumond free for a long time. In all my time this is the one case when I know a man is not guilty." What was the crazed motive behind this disgusting affair? Why Dumond? Gene Wirges, a fiesty 67-year-old publisher of a local weekly who is writing a book on this mess, told me: "Well, a Clinton kin had to be revenged. The sheriff was on a hot seat and young Wayne had been talking to a church group about how cars were suddenly disappearing. "It turned out to be true. The sheriff along with his drugs, and turning the sheriff's department into a casino was heading up a car-theft ring. "When this girl said she was raped, the sheriff wanted to help out the Clinton clan [so that they might look the other way with respect to his illegal doings]. He would do anything for the girl's father and mother. "The truth, the terrible truth is, that one of the guys she first identified as the rapist but who had an ironclad alibi had been going out with the girl. "But the new governor has indicated to me on several occasions that he was more than disturbed about Wayne's case and the way Clinton and his boys handled this terrible thing. "You know, this is Arkansas. Right up until now this has been Clinton territory. Maybe not anymore." END OF EXPLOSIVE COLUMN BY STEVE DUNLEAVY THAT APPEARED IN TODAY'S (6/2/96) NEW YORK POST I don't normally say this but please distribute this article widely - in a non-profit manner, of course. Give credit to Steve Dunleavy and the New York Post. I first learned of this disgusting case in a book by Guy Reel. The title is "UNEQUAL JUSTICE" and it is put out by Prometheus Books (1993). As the article alluded to, another book is in progress by a Gene Wirges. The Guy Reel book is explosive and deserved much more attention than it actually received. Imagine being fingered in a rape you did not commit because you were concerned about cars being stolen in your community. The sheriff was running a car-theft ring and because you threatened to expose it, you get framed for rape and get castrated by a couple of goons. Then the crooked sheriff - who would later be convicted of racketeering, drug dealing and extortion - displays your testicles in a jar on his desk. You then get sentenced to life PLUS 20 years for a crime you didn't commit while your wife is left to raise your two young sons without you. Then the corrupt governor who goes on to be president refuses to let you go, even though experts say it was impossible for you to have committed the rape, because he is afraid of the political implications. This case ought to outrage every American. We need to stop this nonsense now. We've been hearing about these strange "Arkancides" and other bizzarre cases that went on in Clinton's Arkansas for too long now. Enough is enough. We need to put this crooked bunch of thugs behind bars where they belong. Jim Guy Tucker and the McDougals are not enough. We need to bring down the entire house of cards. Let's hope future Gov. Mike Huckabee gets the support he will need to clean this state up. The citizens of Arkansas, regardless of political affiliation, need to get behind him on this. In closing, I would like to commend Steve Dunleavy of The New York Post for having the courage to take this story on. Ken Cook Sunday, June 2, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Silberger Subject: What liberty really means Date: 03 Jun 1996 08:19:47 EDT We have had on the ROC list some peripheral debates on such related ideas as free trade versus tariffs and other trade controls, free immigration versus the protection of American life via enforced immigration barriers, and some of the ramifications of these ideas concretized in GATT, WTO, and NAFTA, together with "policies" in regards to the "flood" of Latino and Mexican immigrants our country has been experiencing. The piece I have reposted, below, addresses what seems to me a root of these ideas. It argues that the purposes of liberty are not necessarily best pursued via the government-managed approach whether that approach be the policy of the Clinton Administration or whether it be proposed by such purportedly radical opponents of the Clintonistas as Patrick J. Buchanan. What maybe ought to be considered with clear sight is another perspective entirely. Furthermore, this perspective, which the review below proposes, seems to me in best keeping with the spirit of liberty and of constitutionally guaranteed rights, towards the promotion of which the ROC list is aimed. Donald Silberger ========================================================================= X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. Received: from SNYNEWVM (SMTP) by SNYNEWVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0316; Sun, 02 Jun 96 19:06:00 EDT Received: from bronze.coil.com by NPVM.NEWPALTZ.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Sun, 02 Jun 96 19:05:59 EDT Received: from [198.4.94.236] (cmh36.coil.com [198.4.94.236]) by bronze.coil.com (8.6.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA26815; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 18:08:26 -0400 X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I recommend this book: *The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration* edited by Jacob G. Hornberger and Richard M. Ebeling. Published by: The Future of Freedom Foundation 11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 800, Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6101 Fax: (703) 352-8678 Internet: freedom@FFF.org WWW: http://www.fff.org/freedom/info/fff.html An example of some of the chapter headings are: 13. Trade and Immigration Controls Assault the Right to Life by Sheldon Richman 14. The Case for Open Immigration by Richard M. Ebeling 15. Locking Out the Immigrant by Jacob G. Hornberger 16. In Defense of Free Migration by Richard M. Ebeling 17. The Case Against the Immigration Laws by Richard M. Ebeling 18. Value Added by Ron K. Unz 19. Immigration and Somalia by Gregory F. Rehmke 20. Clinton, Castro, and Cuba by Jacob G. Hontberger 21. The Freedom to Move as an International Problem by Ludwig von Mises Introduction by Richard M Ebeling Have you ever thought about what a free world would look like? What a world would look like in which men were free to trade with whomever they wanted and wherever they wanted? What a world would look like in which men could travel and live wherever they found it most advantageous and pleasurable? What a world would look like in which anyone could spend their money or invest their savings in any part of the globe in which it seemed most profitable and beneficial to them? A world in which there were neither immigration restrictions nor emigration barriers? A world in which goods could move freely from one country to another with neither tariffs nor quotas on the amounts that could enter or exit a country? A world in which individuals could trade and contract in any form of money they found most profitable, with neither currency nor financial constraints? Almost none of us presently alive have ever known such a world, but it did exist once, and not that long ago. Indeed, it was the type of world that encompassed a sizable part of the globe before the First World War. A picture of it was given by the famous English economist John Maynard Keynes in his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919): What an extraordinary episode in the economic progress of man that age was which came to an end in August, 19 14 ! The greater part of the population, it is true, worked hard and lived at a low standard of comfort, yet, were, to all appearances, reasonably contented with this lot. But escape was possible, for any man of capacity or character at all exceeding the average, into the middle and upper classes, for whom life offered, at a low cost and with the least trouble, conveniences, comforts, and amenities beyond the compass of the richest and most powerful monarchs of other ages. The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; he could at the same moment and by the same means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new enterprises of any quarter of the world, and share, without exertion or even trouble, in their prospective fruits and advantages; or he could decide to couple the security of his fortunes with the good faith of the townspeople of any substantial municipality in any continent that fancy or information might recommend. He could secure, forthwith, if he wished it, cheap and comfortable means of transit to any country or climate without passport or other formality, could despatch his servant to the neighboring office of a bank for such supply of the precious metals as might seem convenient, and could then proceed abroad to foreign quarters, without knowledge of their religion, language, or customs, bearing coined wealth upon his person, and would consider himself greatly aggrieved and much surprised at the least interference. But most important of all, he regarded this state of affairs as normal, certain, and permanent, except in the direction of further improvement, and any deviation from it as aberrant, scandalous, and avoidable. The projects and politics of militarism and imperialism, of racial and cultural rivalries, of monopolies, restrictions, and exclusion, which were to play the serpent to this paradise, were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper, and appeared to exercise almost no influence at all on the ordinary course of social and economic life, the internationalization of which was nearly complete in practice. This world was the achievement of the 19th-century classical liberals. Beginning in the 8th century, with such notable spokesmen as David Hume and Adam Smith, the classical liberals argued that both liberty and prosperity could be more readily attained if the state withdrew from practically all intervention in the market and left the course of economic activity to the free choices of private individuals. The lure of profits by satisfying consumer demand and the pressure of peaceful competition among rivals in the market would assure that the self-interested behavior of each participant in the market would be directed to serve the interests of others in the society. The early classical liberals advocated what Adam Smith called "a system of natural liberty," in which the state would be limited to a handful of functions, primarily the protection of life and property from domestic violence, national defense against foreign aggression, and the adjudication of disputes and the enforcement of contracts through a system of courts under the rule of law. Beyond this, the classical liberals sometimes argued with each other over whether there were some other duties for the state to perform. But their basic premise was that practically all other matters were best left to the voluntary efforts of the free individuals of the society. If a proposal was made for the state to undertake more than these limited tasks, the burden of proof was upon the advocate of intervention to demonstrate that some shortcoming in the natural working of the market economy and any government regulation or interference would not, in fact, make worse the particular problem the intervener hoped to cure through the use of state power. From the middle decades of the 19th century until the beginning of the First World War in 1914, most of the countries of Europe and North America predominantly followed the path of economic liberty. And, in practice, economic liberty meant a mostly unregulated market at home and free trade and free immigration in international affairs. While far from being a perfect world, never had the world been more depoliticized. While wars still occasionally occurred, and while politics still sometimes crept into economic relationships among the citizens of different countries, these occurrences were limited and minimized precisely because it was not the duty of the state to concern itself with the outcomes of the market, but merely to enforce the legal "rules of the game " under which individuals peacefully traded and freely exchanged with one another. With most of the countries of Europe and North America following the same classical-liberal rules of the game, the world, for the most part, became a cosmopolitan market and civil society. Nationalist prejudices, rivalries, and conflicts were restrained and, to a great extent, eliminated. The market was the entire globe, and one's trading partners and potential customers were all the other citizens of this free-trade world. The free market tends to be both color-blind and nationality-blind. It treats all participants equally. As a customer, the market only asks, is the individual offering the best price to the seller? As a producer, the market only asks, is the individual offering the best price to the buyer'! The market ignores where the buyer or seller comes from, what language he speaks, or what religion he professes; it binds all participants into one interconnected network of division of labor and mutual benefit through voluntary exchange. Political power, violent conflict, and national passions are replaced with voluntary interdependency, peaceful competition, and international tranquillity. How different our own times are from those before 1914. Today, politics intrudes into everything. Both domestic commerce and international trade are regulated and controlled by the state. We live not in the era of liberty but in the age of politics . What does this mean? English historian Ronald M. Hartwell helps us to understand: Politicization can be defined as that now pervasive tendency for making all questions political questions, all issues political issues, all values political values, and all decisions political decisions.... Politicization thus takes the manifest form of increasing the power of the state, of increasing political power as against all other forms of power in society, of increasing the power of the politicians and the bureaucrats as against the power of individuals, private institutions, and voluntary associations.... Today the individual ... is constantly aware of the state, over which he can exercise little or no control even though it makes more and more decisions about his life. Today, international trade is no longer the cumulative pattern of private exchanges among a multitude of buyers and sellers, who by accident of birth or conscious choice just happen to reside in different countries of the world. No, today all international transactions are matters of politics and national interest as defined by those who at a moment in time hold high political office and speak for the collection of special interests who have brought them to power in the last election. Shall a particular commodity be allowed into the country? Will a specific raw material be permitted to enter the nation? At what financial penalty--at what rate of tariff--shall the citizens of a country be allowed to purchase the goods offered for sale from another nation? National politics now determine these things, rather than private individuals peacefully pursuing profit to better their own lives. But what about the international organizations established by the governments of the world--the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Labor Organization (ILO), and numerous others--to facilitate the lowering of trade barriers and creation of an international order of freer trade? The establishment of free trade is a simple process for any government to introduce. From a specified date, all barriers and restrictions on the free movement and exchange of goods and services, raw materials and resources, and the free movement of all peoples are abolished. The exchange of goods and the movement of commodities and people from that day forth are free from governmental control and regulation and, thus, are depoliticized. This is all governments need to do and should do. And it can be done in short order through the passage and signing of legislation repealing all political prohibitions on the freedom of trade and the freedom of movement. But this is not the purpose of the international organizations established by the governments of the world. Their purpose is to facilitate politically managed trade. Governments use these organizations and international forums to control and plan the terms under which goods may be sold to each other on the world market and the conditions under which resources and commodities may enter each other's countries. Towards the end of the Second World War, when many of these international organizations were being established, free-market economist Henry Hazlitt analyzed the nature of the problem in an article entitled "Free Trade or State Domination?" in The American Scholar (Winter, 1944-45): For government officials, even when they really understand (which is very rarely) the basic economic forces that they are trying to control, are almost never disinterested. They are almost certain to reflect the special interests of some political pressure group. The interests of the pressure groups represented by the bureaucrats of one nation are certain to clash with those of the pressure groups represented by the bureaucrats of another. And these c conflicting interests, precisely because they are represented by their respective governments, are far more likely to clash openly, directly and politically than in a world of genuine free trade.... [W]hat the planners mean by free trade [is] . . . not the freedom of ordinary people to buy and sell, lend and borrow, at whatever prices and rates they like and wherever they find it most profitable to do so.... They mean ... the freedom of bureaucrats to settle these matters for [them]. This has been the reality of the structure and patterns of international trade since the end of World War II, when these international institutions came into existence. But nowhere has the heavy hand of state control over international affairs in our century been so harmful and cruel as in the arena of human migration. Since the First World War, governments throughout the world have introduced or reinforced the barriers to the free movement of people from one part of the world to another. People in poverty or political fear in their home countries have been unable to escape--or severely restrained in their ability to escape--from their poor or oppressive conditions. It has been bad enough that often the governments under which they have lived, viewing them as the "property" of the state, have prevented or restricted their ability to escape to a freer land. But it has been the blackest mark on the conscience of those freer countries to deny entry to many, if not most, of these wandering souls when they have been lucky enough to find ways to exit from their countries of origin. In the 1970s, thousands of Vietnamese fled their homeland to escape from communist tyranny; many still languish in refugee camps in various parts of southeast Asia. Chinese escaping from their communist homeland have drowned in the waves off America's shores as they have tried to avoid arrest by the Coast Guard and the agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In 1993 and 1994, our television screens were filled with images of boatloads of Haitians escaping from political tyranny and economic poverty; they have been either forced back to their fate in Haiti or have faced an uncertain future in holding areas policed by the U. S. military. Member states of the European Union have instituted new, more stringent rules and bureaucratic procedures to weed out those who are asking for immigrant or refugee status in Western Europe from Eastern Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East, with many of these unfortunate human beings running away from the violence in the former Yugoslavia or the repression and terrorism of Moslem fundamentalists in Algeria. At the very time that means and costs of transportation from one part of the globe to another have become increasingly accessible and affordable for a growing number of people, governments have attempted to raise the political drawbridge to prevent people from living and traveling to where they desire. All such practices succeed in doing is either forcing many of these potential immigrants to continue to languish in poverty and repression in their home countries or living lives as illegals in a politically hostile host country. Periodically the press will run stories on the hardships and exploitation that many of these illegal immigrants suffer, e.g., in the United States. The newspapers will point out that they work for below-market wages because their illegal employers threaten them with exposure and deportation if they cause trouble" and ask for a higher salary or commonly received fringe benefits. The fact that they come to and work in America even under these lower-than-market conditions means that the employment they find still represents an opportunity to earn money for themselves and their families that is better than in their home country. But their hardships and employment disadvantage are precisely due to their illegal status. If they could enter the country openly and legally, no employer could long retain them for wages and benefits less than those offered to workers of equal skill employed elsewhere in the American economy; if some employers tried to do so, these new members in the American workforce would "migrate" to better jobs in other sectors of the market. Thus, government immigration restrictions actually assist the exploitation of these new--albeit illegal--Americans. It is time to move beyond the age of politics and to advance to a new and even freer and more prosperous era of liberty. Freedom of trade and freedom of movement are two of the essential hallmarks of a society of free men. If a human being is denied the right and opportunity to earn his livelihood how and where he finds it most advantageous and agreeable, then in the most fundamental sense he is not a free man but a tool of those who control the governments of the world. He is a puppet whose very movement is determined and controlled by another. Are we not tired of political control and economic manipulation by the state after all the disastrous consequences of big government in our century? Is it not time to say to every human being: Work at what you want, trade with whomever you desire, live wherever you feel happiest. The Future of Freedom Foundation exists to bring the United States and the world closer to that new era of liberty in which every man will be free to do these things. The essays in this volume make the case for complete free trade and unrestricted free immigration. The majority of them have appeared in previous issues of the Foundation's monthly publication, Freedom Daily. Some are reprinted from other publications, with the hope that together they present the most consistent case for global freedom. If we succeed in this fight, the 21st century may, indeed, be the noblest and most majestic in human history. --Richard M Ebeling Vice President of Academic Affairs The Future of Freedom Foundation *** "Marvelously explained here: Trade enriches, and more immigration benefits the United States. Read it and cheer." -- Julian Simon, author of The Economic Conseguences of Immigration "Critics of free international trade will not like this book at all. Hornberger and Ebeling have assembled a collection of articles that are easy to read and understand. These articles seek to introduce elements of truth and good sense into a public policy debate that has been dominated by critics who have been selling their nonsense to industry interest groups with the highest bid for protection from market forces." -- Richard B. McKenzie, Walter B. Gerken Professor of Enterprise and Society, University of California, Irvine "The release of The Case for Free Trade and Oren Immigration could not be more timely. With the consensus in favor of open borders perhaps under greater attack than ever before, this book should help convert Americans to the cause of a genuinely free world." -- Doug Bandow, Senior fellow, Cato Institute, and author of The Politics of Envy ### **************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 **************************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Some weekend news Date: 03 Jun 1996 09:36:37 -0600 Inside Politics News and political dispatches from around the nation Compiled by: Greg Pierce THE WASHINGTON TIMES Gore's secret admirer "FBI agents on the scene are telling colleagues they were amused when, while tearing apart the shack of suspected Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, they came upon Al Gore's 1992 eco-tract, 'Earth in the Balance,'" the American Spectator reports. "Many sections were underlined in pencil, and there were copious notes in the margins. Why wasn't Gore's among the handful of titles listed in press references to the 80 or so books found in the cabin? The FBI and Justice Department haven't commented publicly, but some agents assume the title was suppressed to avoid embarrassing Gore and the administration," the magazine said. Curse of the Mummy New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd calls it the Curse of the Mummy. "The White House seemed to have the election wrapped up until President 'good-looking' 500-year-old Incan mummy known as the 'Ice Princess,'" Miss Dowd writes. "Then things unraveled. "The Clinton flaws that were not fatal in '92 -- indiscretions on the draft, women and Whitewater -- all leaped back into view, just when Clintonites thought they had finally wrestled them off the screen and had painted Republicans as blowhards, hypocrites and meanies. "It probably should not have surprised anyone, given the history of the Clinton presidency as exploding cigar, where the only absolute certainty is no certainty." Hollow man Paul Greenberg, the editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, who has been chronicling the life and times of Bill Clinton for the past two decades, doesn't mince words about what he thinks of the president. "I can't imagine a single principle Clinton would not abandon if it would cost him the election," Mr. Greenberg said yesterday at a meeting with editors and reporters of The Washington Times. He was here to promote his new book about Mr. Clinton, "No Surprises." But the veteran newspaper editor and nationally syndicated columnist was just warming up to his subject, about whom he has written countless columns. On Mr. Clinton's record as president: "The idea that holding the office is what counts rather than what you do with it." On whether Mr. Clinton was telling the truth when he testifed to a Little Rock jury that he did not pressure David Hale to give one of his Whitewater business partners a Small Business Administration-backed loan: "I have followed Bill Clinton long enough that I do not automatically believe him." On Hillary Rodham Clinton: "Inside this cosmetic lady there is a woman of principle trying to get out." On Mr. Clinton's legacy as president: "I'm afraid it will be a wasteland, empty years with a lot of words. ... [This is] the record of a hollow man." On what Mr. Clinton will do when his presidency is over: "He will run for another elective office." Freaked out The New York Post's Deborah Orin apparently talked to a different bunch of political professionals than did the New York Times' R.W. Apple Jr. "Whitewater special counsel Ken Starr's Cheshire Cat smile has Democrats freaked out," Miss Orin writes. "A few days ago, Democrats (over) confidently dismissed Whitewater as a molehill. Now they're keeping their fingers crossed that it's not a nuclear bomb." The big question is "if Starr's newly pumped-up probe will actually touch the Clintons before November's election," she said. Whiteout The Media Research Center finds that in 11 weeks -- from Feb. 29 to May 20 -- ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN aired only 23 reporter-based Whitewater stories on their evening news shows. "The most stunning lack of coverage came from 'NBC Nightly News,' which aired only one reporter-based story in the entire 11 weeks -- on May 9," the study found. Eleven of the 23 stories focused on President Clinton's testimony in the trial, the center said, and CNN aired almost as many Whitewater stories as the other three networks combined -- 10. "The media are in such denial over Whitewater that our study found, in many cases, that there was more coverage of the Jackie Onassis auction than there was of Whitewater," said Brent Bozell, chairman of the Media Research Center. "This is just one reflection of the cozy relationship Bill Clinton has with the Washington media." Vindicated "Talk radio is vindicated by this verdict," said radio host Michael Reagan, referring to the fraud convictions of Arkansas Gov.Jim Guy Tucker and the president's former business partners, James and Susan McDougal. "Why? ... Because talk radio is the only format in this country that has been talking about what has been going on in Little Rock ... since the beginning of time with this administration," Mr. Reagan said, according to Talk Daily. FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF LAST WEEK Sen. Dan BURTON of Indiana: 'Mr. Speaker, what I did in my special order was ask a number of questions that were still unanswered. One of the questions that I think is very, very important is why did the Arkansas Development Financial Authority send $50 million of Arkansas money to the Cayman Islands to deposit in a bank in the Cayman Islands, which is a major drug transit point acknowledged by almost every DEA agent in the world? Why would they send $50 million of Arkansas money down there? That is a question that needs to be answered.' 'I have the electronic bank transfer statements in my office. I am going to put them in the Congressional Record. There is no doubt the money was wired to the Cayman Islands. The question needs to be asked, why was it wired? Why would the Governor of Arkansas allow that? Why would the Arkansas Development Financial Authority, a State-run agency, send their money out of the country to a drug haven? I hope that the independent counsel will explore that. We are going to ask other questions as well.' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: More from Charles Duke Date: 03 Jun 1996 12:39:49 -0700 Mr. Duke, In my humble opinion, you are a cad. Everything you have said in your posts is like your stamp of approval for burning out the Freemen. My estimation is that you got your ego bruised when the Freemen wouldn't go along with "Mr. Duke's campaign strategy" and now you have chosen a path of slandering people that aren't even allowed to present their side of the story to the Internet or the media. Now it seems it is your mission to get patriots on the "burn 'em first and try 'em later" bandwagon. I see you're invoking "crimes" such as "criminal syndicalism" which is another way of saying, "If we can't get you for a real crime. We'll get you with the catch all." In other words, "You're being charged for being a bunch of criminals." You make it appear as though the parents of the children can't just get up and leave with those kids -- that the Freemen won't allow that. I find that hard to believe, since they have already allowed folks to leave. Tell you what, I'll go to Justus with you and we'll ask the parents if they are free to leave with their children or not. Or maybe you can get a pass for me, and I'll just go by myself? Mr. Duke, to my knowledge the Freemen have not been charged with a capital offense. Yet your rhetoric seems to condone the use of deadly force before a trial is conducted -- a trial that could not impose the death penalty, I must add. And from my viewpoint, it all stems from a childish reaction from not being allowed to become "the hero of the day". You, sir, are undoubtedly a political creature propagating a trial by [sic] "popular wisdom". ~Tom Clark >At 12:14 AM 6/3/96 -0700, you wrote: > >> By Senator Charles R. Duke >> Colorado District 9 >> >> CLARK RANCH FREEMEN ARE NOT PATRIOTS >> >> The recent trip I took to Brusett, Montana, has to be >>called a mixed blessing. The objectives for my role in the >>talks were all accomplished. My personal goal of obtaining the >>release of two small children has not yet been successful. >>Nevertheless, a great deal was learned that had not been known >>before and that, too, will be helpful. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Some weekend news Date: 03 Jun 1996 11:33:15 -0700 >Inside Politics > News and political dispatches from around the nation > > Compiled by: Greg Pierce > THE WASHINGTON TIMES > > > Gore's secret admirer > >"FBI agents on the scene are telling colleagues they were amused when, >while tearing apart the shack of suspected Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, >they came upon Al Gore's 1992 eco-tract, 'Earth in the Balance,'" the >American Spectator reports. > >"Many sections were underlined in pencil, and there were copious notes >in the margins. Why wasn't Gore's among the handful of titles listed in >press references to the 80 or so books found in the cabin? The FBI and >Justice Department haven't commented publicly, but some agents assume >the title was suppressed to avoid embarrassing Gore and the >administration," the magazine said. I've been saying for some time that we need to start using emotional tactics against the Bad Guys, and quit depending on sterile statistics. Well, here's an opportunity. This is gonna sound petty to some (it even feels that way to me), but if we want to get anywhere in getting our country back we have to learn to do what works. And this will work. Tell everybody you know about this shocking little piece of news. "My goodness, did you *hear* that the alleged Unabomber had Al Gore's book in his cabin compound? Wow! Who would have thought that terrorists were using Al Gore's book in plotting their dastardly deeds?!?! It's like the Turner Diaries and Oklahoma City!!!" - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 8 Num. 06 (fwd) Date: 04 Jun 1996 08:48:35 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following is brought to you thanks, in part, to the kind assistance of CyberNews and the fine folks at Cornell University. Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 8 Num. 06 ====================================== ("Quid coniuratio est?") STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFF TERRY K. REED ==================================== June 3, 1996 RE: LRC 94-634 REED v. YOUNG, et al. On July 5, 1991, one month shy of 5 years ago, my wife Janis and I mustered up the courage to register ourselves as plaintiffs in a civil law suit that we knew was seeded with political land mines. That original lawsuit, LRC 91-414, filed in federal court in Little Rock, Arkansas, and later to evolve into case number LRC 94-634, has transformed into an all-consuming endeavor, for not only Janis and me, our team of lawyers, but many concerned American citizens as well. We knew all along, as well did Little Rock Federal District Judge George Howard, Jr., that this case was not only about the violation of our civil rights, but carried with it the burden of re-educating the Court, the jury, and the American people about a painful period known in the annals of history as Iran-Contra. Slowly but surely, we and our legal team have been penetrating layer upon layer of government disinformation created for the sole purpose of preventing the truth to surface concerning the Reagan Administration's efforts to assist the Nicaraguan Contras in Arkansas. The Executive branch's by-passing of congressional restraints designed to prohibit or restrict military aid to the Contras through the law known as the Boland Amendment was in great part carried out on Arkansas soil with the full knowledge and complicity of our now-sitting President, Bill Clinton. Some of the CIA's activities which took place at Bill Clinton's Mena, Arkansas were patriotically driven and justified. Other activities, however, those which included the importation of cocaine and money laundering, can never be justified in the domain of the public. For this reason, there has been a concerted and bi-partisan effort to keep the subject matter known as MENA from becoming legitimized through the court process. Judge Howard's court has at times condoned our efforts to amass non-partisan evidence to not only prove our case, but to also re-write history and do what Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh either feared or failed to do after conducting a $40 million investigation: to tell the truth about the CIA's activities in Mena, Arkansas in the mid-1980s. To begin, let me recap our motivations for suing Raymond (Buddy) Young, then a captain with the Arkansas State Police and serving as Bill Clinton's gubernatorial chief of security. Young is now the director of Region 6 of the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) and based at Denton, Texas. From his position at FEMA he still finds time to protect Bill Clinton by threatening former Clinton bodyguards whenever they come forward with evidence which may embarrass the President or hint of wrong-doing. We felt then, as we feel now, that Mr. Young was a dangerous and unethical man who should never have been allowed to wear a badge. Yet, there he was in 1987, officing out of the Governor's mansion, drawing from the resources of the state of Arkansas, and behaving as any modern day crime family "enforcer" as he provided "security" for Arkansas' first family, Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton. Providing security: what does this encompass? That is what this case was destined to expose. Does it include destroying the lives of people who innocently become a political liability to powerful politicians, namely his boss, Bill Clinton? Well, the senior federal judge in Wichita, Kansas, Frank G. Theis, ruled in 1990 that these "security services" included at least the orchestration of phony criminal indictments against myself and Janis. The question is, why? We wanted to answer that question in Judge Howard's court. We already knew the answer. I had worked at the Mena airport and could connect prominent Arkansan power brokers and politicians to some very nefarious activity. Simply said: Janice and I were liabilities and had to be dealt with. As Judge Theis clearly saw, Young was not a solo actor as he conducted the despicable deed of trying to wrongfully and illegally cause innocent people to be incarcerated or killed. Theis concluded that Young had at least one accomplice, Tommy Lee Baker, of Little Rock, Arkansas, another former Arkansas State cop and sometimes private detective. Mr. Baker now sells alcohol to some of Little Rock's lower socio-economic groups through his liquor store on East 9th Street. Judge Theis, the senior federal judge for the 10th circuit district, had witnessed Young and Baker shuffling through his court room on more than one occasion between 1988 and 1990 as they emerged as the star witnesses in a U.S. Government prosecution designed to imprison Janis and myself for 20 years each -- for a crime we knew absolutely nothing about. Yet, Young and Baker, through their own perjurous lips, and manufactured material evidence, had convinced a Kansas U.S. Attorney that Janis and I were drug smuggling airplane thieves who were so "armed and dangerous" that we and our young children could have been shot on sight by any overly wary or trigger-happy law enforcement officer. Young, by his own admission, fabricated and authored a criminal profile that presented us as a modern day Bonnie and Clyde. But miraculously, by November, 1990, through two and one half years of effort, a lot of money, and a little bit of luck, Janis and I and our criminal defense lawyers were able to set the record straight in Judge Theis' courtroom. The judge exonerated us of *all* alleged criminal wrong-doing by finding me "not guilty" and at the same time lashed out at the government-embraced accusers. In the judge's own written words, sworn statements made by both Baker and Young were "made with at least reckless disregard for the truth." On my day of judgement, November 9, 1990, when I was acquitted, I quietly vowed to bring Buddy Young and Tommy Baker to justice -- to expose them for the dregs that they are -- simply bad cops hiding behind tarnished badges and taking instructions from corrupt power-brokers and politicians who likewise should be prosecuted and forced from office to an awaiting prison cell. But that is not going to happen in Judge Howard's courtroom, and not through the five years of sweat and effort that Janis and I have devoted to this uphill and horrendously expensive legal exercise. Judge Howard, for reasons unexplained but clearly understood, has decided to protect these scoundrels, and in so doing protect those who assigned Young and Baker their "targets". In recent months Judge Howard has gutted our lawsuit and in the process has exposed the strings to which he is attached -- strings that are obviously being pulled from Washington, and more significantly, the White House. So who is Judge Howard protecting? I can't fathom it would be the enemies of civil liberties like Young and Baker. Why is a federal judge, who up until recently appeared to be so sympathetic with civil rights issues, ordering me to *not* put on the evidence we have amassed that can clearly prove WHO was instructing Young and Baker to violate our civil rights? The judge, by his own order, has specifically forbidden me to introduce the following evidence, evidence my lawyers desperately need to prove motive on behalf of Young and Baker and other unnamed co-conspirators. ORDER Pending before the Court is defendants' December 4th motion in limine to exclude the following matters: ....... These general areas will be referred to as the "Mena" evidence or documents. .......Even if the Court were to find that the complaint adequately states sufficient facts to make the allegations....... relevant to the alleged overt actions of these defendants, the probative value is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, the potential for misleading of the jury and considerations of undue delay and waste of time. The following description will control: Any reference to the plaintiffs' participation in programs, operations or missions sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Central Intelligence Agency or any other agency of the United States government, covert or otherwise, as well as any organization sponsored by or aligned with the United States government specifically including, but not limited to, any programs, operations or missions conducted in southwest Arkansas regarding the training of Nicaraguan nationals, the funding and support for any factions involved in the Nicaraguan conflict and any contact or communications with operatives or officials of the above-named agencies or organizations. Any reference to President or Governor Bill Clinton and/or Hillary Clinton and the Mena or Nella Airports. Any references to Barry Seale [sic] and any alleged drug smuggling operation or other references to the Mena and Nella Airports, or to a business relationship of Barry Seale [sic] and Dan Lasater, Lasater and Company and the Arkansas Development and Finance Authority (ADFA) and ADFA's former Director, Bob Nash. .......IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8th day of March, 1996. George Howard, Jr. [signed] United States District Judge Judge Howard, through his own order, has exposed himself. Unwittingly, he and his integrity have now been compromised. By dissecting his order, one can clearly see two things. 1. Judge Howard is eliminating evidence that he has not yet even seen. Most of our 110 witnesses were not deposed prior to trial. The judge, and even worse, the defendants, don't know what our witnesses would say on the stand... and that's the problem, isn't it? Heaven forbid the unadulterated and unedited and unrehearsed and uncensored truth spill out within the walls of a federal court house. 2. Judge Howard is protecting people and government agencies not even named in the lawsuit. This is abundantly clear when one notes the names of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Dan Lasater, Bob Nash, and the Arkansas state agency known as ADFA. Bill, Hillary, Dan, Bob and ADFA are not defendants in the suit. One can only conclude from this judge's bizarre behavior that there has been wrongful, unethical, and illegal communication between the judge and the White House. Otherwise, these names wouldn't appear in the Order -- especially that of Bob Nash. Bob Nash has never been officially accused of any wrong doing, although I have knowledge of same, and this would come out in court. And where is Bob Nash? He's in the White House -- Director of Personnel. As a former U.S. Air Force intelligence professional, I am making the following observation: this Democrat appointed judge is running interference for Bill Clinton in this election year. Mena will not be *allowed* to become a political issue in the 1996 race for the Presidency. Judge Howard has been appointed to be our road block to justice. At the same time he is cleverly putting Janis, me and my lawyers in a suicidal posture. We can go to trial, we just cannot put on our evidence. And speaking of suicide, imagine the forces that are causing judge Howard to fall on his sword. When this is over, surely he will have no judicial integrity or respect. But I guess that is a price one pays when one is securely employed for life. And what was the judge's response when my law team filed a 20 page motion on April 23, 1996 giving him the alternatives to: 1. Reconsider his March 8th gag order, or 2. Hear oral arguments on our evidentiary dispute, or 3. Allow us to appeal this evidentiary dispute to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals prior to trial His succinct response was ORDER Plaintiffs' April 23rd motion for reconsideration and clarification or, alternatively, for leave to file interlocutory appeal (#55) is denied for the reasons contained in the March 8th order and defendants' May 6th response. .......IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10th day of May, 1996. George Howard, Jr. [signed] United States District Judge Devastation does not come close to describing our feelings. After years of dragging this case through the federal civil justice system, Judge Howard has manipulated us into the following legal posture: we can go to court but we cannot put on critical evidence, therefore we will lose. That loss, even though we could appeal it (and the appeal would consume at minimum another year of our lives and tens of thousands more dollars), will be interpreted by the Clinton spin doctors as a victory. There will be no mention of the fact our hands were tied, and our mouths were gagged, and the so-called "trial" was a travesty of justice. They will attempt to convince the media, at a critical point in the election process, that Mena is a figment of my imagination, even though the Mena evidence was not allowed to be presented in court. Proudly being a former member of the U.S. armed services, I was trained to win wars, not lose them. I refuse to repeat my Vietnam experience and not be *allowed* to win. When we rather naively filed the original complaint, our sons were ages 4, 6, and 8. They are now 9, 11, and 13, and have little or no memory of their parents not being consumed in the efforts to properly litigate this case. For the sake of our children, and the sanity of our family unit, we are making a very difficult and painful decision. Ruefully, after 59 months of a stressful, tumultuous and at times triumphant struggle, we are being forced to conclude that the subject of Mena will never be presented within the confines of a federal court room, and that Janis and I will not see justice served. Instead, we now cynically view the federal court house in Little Rock as a monument to federal corruption, and a slap in the face to all Americans who believe in the separation of powers provided under the Constitution. With tears in our eyes, lumps in our throats, and knots in our stomachs, we are instructing our attorneys to non-suit this case. To the hundreds of people who directly participated in our struggle, we would like to remind them of the many victories achieved throughout the course of our ordeal. In many ways we did win -- at least in the court of public opinion. Our numerous depositions, which were funded in great part by public contributions, have clearly established the fact that the CIA's activities at Mena, Arkansas *did* take place, and that prominent politicians from both parties either were complicit in the illegal activities that swirled around this covert operation, or even worse, were directly involved or benefited. I would like to think that my personal hero, Harry S. Truman, would be proud of our accomplishments, even in the face of overwhelming odds. At times of strife he was encouraged by the average citizen to "Give 'em hell, Harry!" I too have heard voices who backed me shout, "Give 'em hell, Terry!" I hope I've lived up to the task. And to Raymond (Buddy) Young, Tommy Lee Baker, and those working with the Arkansas political establishment who have successfully undermined my efforts to take this material to trial, I will now quote from another hero of mine, Douglas McArthur: "I will return." Terry K. Reed [signed] 3 Jun 96 ---------------------- -------- I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation." If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1") For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom See also: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn.html See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Our Enemy's Friends.... (fwd) Date: 04 Jun 1996 11:44:38 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by samk@i-link.net (Sam A. Kersh) Just read in August issue of Guns & Ammo that Converse, Inc., makers of tennis shoes, etc, has, for the second year in a row, contributed $100,000 to HCI's front organization Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. To paraphrase an Arab proverb, "My enimy's friends are my enimies." Sam A. Kersh NRA Life Member Texas State Rifle Assc. samk@i-link.net -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clark Subject: [LN] North Carolina Justice Report Date: 04 Jun 1996 10:57:09 -0700 FROM THE LIBERTY NEWSWIRE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH AND REDISTRIBUTE GRANTED BY RELEASE AGENT Peter Kawaja MONTANA SIEGE Update 06-03-96 / Released by : Peter Kawaja Submitted By : Peter Kay., Stern / Chief Justice & Foreman of the Grand Jury, our one Supreme Court, Common Law Venue - General Jurisdiction - Macon county, North Carolina state. "It is our belief that the FBI has never intended a peaceful settlement, is lying to the public about their intentions and intends to destroy the farm, its inhabitants, and all of the evidence contained therein, no later than June." Report; A team of officers of Our One Supreme Court, Common Law Venue, of Macon county, North Carolina state, and members of the Press, have concluded a fact finding mission to Montana State. The primary goal was to act as intermediaries and facilitators in creating a set of circumstances whereby the political prisoners (known as "Freemen") held hostage by the FBI in Brusett, Montana, would not be subjected to ongoing government-sponsored terrorism. Another goal diligently sought was to ward off what appeared to be an impending repeat of the WACO murders and burning of innocent American citizens under the sham of Law Enforcement. The dedicated group went in good faith, and with open minds. They were hoping for forthright, truthful, and productive meetings with FBI agents and the People on the Farm in Brusett. The Common Law Court Officers were led by the FBI to believe that a peaceful solution could be brought about through a non-partisan third party action as an alternative to Force, and what the FBI supposedly wanted. They met with FBI agent Tom Canady (leader of the Investigation and siege at Brusett), and his associate for nearly two hours. Initially, the meeting seemed to be a frank, open, and a friendly exchange, with thoughts and ideas presented by both sides. However, after a lengthy discussion in which the FBI was probing for information(and the Common Law Court Officers were offering assistance), it became apparent that something was amiss-that perhaps the FBI was not being entirely candid and was not acting in reciprocal "good faith". This became apparent after some direct and pointed questions to the FBI. Agent Canady stated that it was indeed he who had personally requested a court order from a judge in order to move the press back from the ranch "for safety reasons." When pressed for information as to who posed the threat to the media, the Freemen or the FBI, Agent Canady's demeanor visibly changed. He became defensive and stated that the siege area was "locked down for an indeterminate cooling off period, and that no new people were going to be brought in or allowed to talk with the hostages, and the FBI wasn't going to do anything else confrontational." Canady said that the Common Law Court Officers "could sit around as long as they liked, but would not be allowed on the site at any time in the foreseeable future." The Officers volunteered assistance as could better inform the FBI and others and/or assist to alleviate the situation without violence. When the FBI was asked to provide access to Charging Documents, the request was denied. The meeting concluded at about 4:30 P.M. with a blunt statement by Agent Canady that "no other outside negotiators would be allowed in at this time". It was with shock, dismay, and consternation that the Common Law Court Officers heard on the 6:00 P.M. news that same day that a "religious expert" was to be brought into Jordan, Montana, supposedly to assist the FBI. It was also reported in the Denver Post that armor and helicopters had been brought into the area of the siege. This was another direct contradiction of Agent Canady's statements assuring the Common Law Court Officers "that no action of any kind would be taking place" in the near future ("for at least 3 weeks"). In addition to the meeting with the FBI, the team was also present in Federal Court in Billings at 1:30 and witnessed Magistrate Anderson's courtroom hearings for five Freemen already in custody. Subsequently, they made several attempts to obtain copies of documents such as warrants, affidavits, indictments, returns, etc., which are fundamental to due process, and supposed to be public records, but were denied the release of these documents by the Clerk of Federal Court. Attempts to view or get a copy of Magistrate Anderson's Oath of Office was refused ! The team members also visited with incarcerated Freemen leader Leroy Schweitzer in Yellowstone County Jail. Family members were also contacted, and the Team Members performed other investigative work while in the area. Leroy asks that everybody pray for him. He is in good spirits and determined. He says the government is on the run ! To summarize the results of this goodwill, fact finding and assistance endeavor, the team wishes to state that there is a definite credibility gap between what is being said by government spokespersons and what is actually being done by the FBI. As a consequence of all of their above efforts, the team members were able to formulate a series of opinions regarding what is really happening in Montana. There is an interesting and very frightening correlation between what is happening in the Billings Federal Courtroom and at the site of the siege in Brusett. On Thursday, May 30, 1996 at 1:30 P.M., AUSA Toscas, a government hired gun who was brought in from Washington, DC, especially to prosecute the Freemen, trampled on the due process protections, and rights of prisoners Hansen, Waterhouse, Clark, Schweitzer, and Peterson, with the obvious pre-planned and well rehearsed collusion of Magistrate Anderson. Five times in succession, Magistrate Anderson, who was visibly and plainly reading from a script of two series of papers, recited the exact same litany in each case. The outcome, of course, was the same in all five cases - no speedy trial. The government plead they did not have evidence and discovery ready to give defense, and needed more time. Even though several of the captives OBJECTED and stated that they waived discovery and were ready for trial, Anderson, with obvious bias and prejudice in favor of the government, put off all matters until July 1st or 6th. Canady had stated that nothing would be done at the ranch for three weeks. Did he know the outcome of those hearings even though they were still in progress during the meeting with the Common Law Court Officers ? (He did state he was aware of and had requested the delay hearings). Did he let it slip that the FBI would move on the hostages on the farm before July 1st ? If he knew what was to occur, how did he know ? Why would he lie to the team about bringing in new people (Arnold) ? Why would he lie about a "cooling off period", knowing full well that he had already ordered up an assortment of military armor, assault weapons, helicopters, and who knows what else we don't know of ? Why would he deliberately lie about a "cooling off period", knowing that he had ordered the FBI to move the media back and to move his storm troopers in closer ? NOTE : Canady made it known that Leroy Schweitzer had placed a $100,000,000.00 Lien on him, and he was MAD about it ! What's the real time line ? What is the real issue in this situation ? Does FBI agent Canady want to move in with high tech weapons in order to burn down the buildings and destroy the evidence that the Freemen are so desperately trying to protect for ALL Americans ? Is this also to destroy the Lien on FBI agent Canady ? What would happen if the Freemen were successful in getting this evidence (that the FBI keeps confiscating) out to the public? What's the government so afraid of ? The government siege of a group of Americans on a farm in Brusett, Montana gives us an opportunity to reflect on whether or not this country has a caste system within its legal system. Is there a double standard ? Might there be an elitist class favoritism of the rich politicians, judges, attorneys, and bankers perpetrated by the judiciary and government agencies upon the unsuspecting common man ? Is the average working class American simply run through the revolving door of the court system's revenue collection grinder and spit out of the courthouse door poorer, downtrodden, confused, frustrated, intimidated, and angry, yet powerless to do anything to change it ? If we draw an analogy between the Montana siege and the now hushed-up Congressional House Banking Scandal, we may find the answer to the above questions. In the House Banking Scandal, dozens of members of the highest governmental body in the land wrote hundreds of fraudulent and bogus checks totaling millions of dollars. These were people in whom the American people had placed an almost sacred trust. These were people who had sworn an oath to do right, yet perjured that oath. These were the same people who passed the laws on "bad checks" under which the average citizen is arrested, brought into court and JAILED ! How many FBI and other government agents armed with assault weapons, high tech electronic surveillance gear, armored vehicles, and battle helicopters surrounded the Congressional Office Buildings in Washington for months ? How many Congressmen were arrested, thrown in jail, denied due process, tortured, and threatened with violence and/or death ? This delegation is unable to recall any - can you? Why not ask your Senators and Congressmen these questions ? While you are at it, why not also ask the Governor of Montana why he allows armed Federal government forces to invade the sovereign soil of Montana State. All of the recent court cases on this issue have made it clear that unless the Federal Government owns the property, they have no police powers over it, no jurisdiction on it. Not to mention, the FBI is UNchartered. Careful analysis of the information gathered from a variety of sources, coupled with a lot of compiled data, personal interviews, and mainstream media stories points to a startling conclusion. It appears that the real issue for the government and FBI is to obtain possession of, and destroy or hide the massive amount of evidence of government and banking fraud which has been accumulated by the Freemen and archived in the buildings on the farm currently under siege by the FBI. Personal interviews with Leroy Schweitzer and cellular phone conversations with others still on the farm confirm this. Further incontrovertible proof of this belief is provided by the FBI themselves. Their heavily armed forces have seized and confiscated almost every paper and set of documents that the Freemen have given to visitors and so-called intermediaries such as "Bo" Gritz and Charles Duke in their vain attempts to put this information before the American public. The government apparatus is OBVIOUSLY in high gear, applying their overwhelming force and resources, intimidation, and threats, to crush a politically motivated class of people. These Freemen are patriots who dare to exercise their First Amendment rights and protections, which are supposedly guaranteed to them (as well as to all Americans) by our Constitution. They do not deserve to suffer this TERRORISM and to die for exercising these rights. It appears likely that there is a carefully orchestrated, pre-planned, and practiced set of actions on the part of government agencies to perpetrate this insidiously discriminatory, class-based plan with the animus behind the conspirator's actions being to deprive the Freemen of equal protection of the laws. If this is the case, each and all of the Government people are liable, personally as well as in their official capacity, for action under 42 USC 1985, 1986, 1983, 1988, 1981, 1621, 18 USC 241, 242, 1621 (perjury) 28 USC 453, 454, (Oath of Office Violations) and a variety of others. If it is shown that their intent all along was to define the Constitutionalists as a "Class" of anti-government people, and that the government people have conspired and agreed to do these things and destroy that class, they are also liable under the Geneva Convention and the Tenants of Nuremberg, against which Hitler's Gestapo and SS were tried. It appears that the government is attempting to duplicate the Bosnian war criminals who are now being tried for government sponsored "ethnic cleansing". IS THE US GOVERNMENT GUILTY OF ETHNIC CLEANSING ? RESTATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ; The "Real Issue" behind all of the Federal government's armed intrusion in Brusett, Montana state, into that sovereign state's soil, without jurisdiction, justification, and/or any authority ; is the seizure and destruction of the massive collection of evidence contained on the ranch that the FBI has surrounded, at any cost in life and property without regard for Law, Truth, or Morality. The elitists in Federal and State government, along with those controlling the banking and financial industry would be threatened if the American Public knew the TRUTH about the Bankers' Secret "Money Creation System" and all of the ongoing FRAUD that has been perpetrated for way too long against the honest, hardworking, and UNSUSPECTING Americans. The collection of evidence being guarded with their lives by the Freemen at the ranch, if exposed to the general Public, would be the Banker's "Worst Nightmare Come True." The pretenses of those alleged crimes are just that - a big, carefully orchestrated illusion for the media and the public to focus on while the FBI destroys the evidence, which is the REAL ISSUE. (Kahl, Beckman, Weaver, Waco, Murrah - now Montana ! ) Conversely, if the evidence could be removed from the ranch (and protected) by a trusted third party, the FBI would probably go away and stop the siege, at least for the time being. These are our personal beliefs, based on our first hand knowledge obtained from meeting with FBI agents and from being in the Federal Courthouse in Billings, Montana on May 30, 1996, and discovering the other travesties and Government Sponsored Destruction of the American Freedoms and way of life. Also obvious is that in this highly Politically Charged election year, with the world wide attentions focused on the Montana situation, there can be absolutely no doubt that each and every move of the FBI and other government agents involved in this atrocious breach of the Constitution, Law, and Public Trust, is being monitored by, submitted to, and approved by - Clinton, through Reno. Never forget - Clinton is the Commander in Chief of the Military Forces (is there any doubt the FBI is military?) and ultimately responsible for everything they do - He's the Boss..... he keeps saying so.... and Reno is his mouthpiece and equally responsible since she is supposed to be the highest Law Enforcement Officer and in control ?? of the FBI they brought in. If you the public do not get involved NOW, we will see another WACO, and more American men, women and children, who have yet to be proven guilty of any crimes, BURNED TO DEATH, without due process, without having an opportunity to present their defense before the American people. What the Freemen are doing, they are doing for YOU - America. The evidence they have acquired can get the entire Nation out of Debt, can get rid of the money scam so you don't have to work two jobs just to scrape by, can allow your wife to stay home if she so chooses, instead of HAVING to work because you can't feed and cloth your children. PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE - YOUR TICKET TO FREEDOM ALLOW THE FREEMEN TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE MEDIA AND A COMMON LAW GRAND JURY. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: Japanese crypto blows Americans away Date: 04 Jun 1996 10:57:59 -0700 >(By Brock Meeks / brock@well.com / Archived at http://www.cyberwerks.com/) > > > CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright (c) 1996 // > > Jacking in from the "One that Got Away" Port: > > Washington, DC -- President Clinton call your spooks, get FBI Director > Louis Freeh on the phone. Tell them to order in pizza. Bill, it's > going to be a long night. All your plans to hold the U.S. crypto > market hostage have just been fucked... and you didn't even get kissed. > > A virtual tactical nuke was hurled into the arcane subculture of > encryption technology Monday when RSA President Jim Bizdos revealed > that his company's Japanese subsidiary had developed a monster chipset > capable of scrambling voice and data real time with a so-called "key > length" of up to 1024 bits. ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ > > That key length stuff is just so much gibberish to those playing > without a scorecard, so let me drill down on it for you. Basically, > the longer the key length, the harder it is for a message to be broken > by "brute force" automated attacks. Current U.S. laws prohibit the > export of any encryption device with a key length longer than 40-bits, > or roughly the equivalent of Captain Crunch decoder ring. For hardcore > math types, I'm told that a 1024-bit key length is 10 to the 296th > power more difficult to break than 40 bits. > > Bizdos, speaking during lunchtime at the Electronic Privacy Information > Center (EPIC) 6th Cryptography and Privacy conference, told how his > Japanese based company, Nihon-RSA, developed a set of two chips capable > of scrambling messages at a level that will make the spooks in the > Puzzle Palace (the National Security Administration) cough up hair > balls that would make the First Cat Socks envious. > > Bizdos seems to have found crypto's magic bullet; a legit way to > essentially give the finger to U.S. export laws for crypto product. For > years now the White House has been locked into a kind of crypto war. > The Administration insists that strong encryption products must not be > exported for fear that "terrorists, child pornographers and drug > barons" and a rabble of assorted "bad guys" would snag the technology > and proceed to plot the destruction of the "World As We Know It"... or > at least Western Democracy, if the inbred Iranians got in line first. > > The White House crypto-fascist team, led by the NSA, FBI and assorted > military hawks, have offered braindead compromise plans, including > three versions of the "Clipper Chip." This is a plan whereby you can > buy strong locks for your data with the simple caveat that when you buy > and use the products, you have to put the decoding key "in escrow." > This way if a law enforcement agency ever has the need to unscramble > any of your messages -- without you knowing it -- they can simply ask > for these escrowed keys and have them handed over. Yes, even your > local sheriff's department can ask for the keys. > > Now, the government promises it will use this power only for good and > never for evil. Honest, that's what they say. Of course, the Justice > Department, in writing the rules for getting the keys, totally absolves > any law enforcement agency of all harm if this power is abused in any > way. Oh.. and if that power is abused, the sheriff or the FBI or > fucking Park Police for that matter, can still use any "evidence" they > gin up on you. Honest, I'm not making any of this stuff up. > > So the battle has raged. The industry has been loathe to develop such > products only for the American market because the cost of producing > essentially duplicate products for domestic and foreign markets just > wouldn't be cost effective. > > So, you and I are stuck having to use some pretty tedious encryption > technologies, such as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which is great, but > tough to use. Or we can use the Captain Crunch Decoder ring > equivalents available off the shelf. In the meantime, other countries > are happily making and distributing robust encryption technologies, at > a possible loss of up to $60 billion for U.S. companies. > > In fact, it's a crime even to put a program like PGP on your laptop and > go overseas. The State Department calls that "exporting." The > government recently dropped a case against Phil Zimmermann, the > inventor of PGP, after putting him through several hellish years in > which they threatened to toss his ass in jail. There Phil would no > longer be a threat to society at-large, but instead become a > "girlfriend" for a 265 pound felon named Spike. Phil's "crime"?? > That somehow his PGP app had been uploaded on to the Internet and > whisked around the world. Phil didn't do it, but the U.S. government > cried "export violation," anyway, eventually telling him, "Oh, never > mind." > > So Bizdos, tired of fighting the wars here, enlisted the help of the > Japanese. After setting up his Japanese unit, he hired a crack team > of Japanese crypto experts who essentially "reverse engineered" the > company's own U.S. crypto product, according to Kurt Stammberger, RSA > director of technology marketing. It was a brilliant move. Bizdos > can't be slammed by the State Department for violating crypto export > laws because, well, he didn't export a damn thing, except some U.S. > greenbacks, which of course, could have gone to U.S. cryptographers, > but let's not quibble about jobs. > > Anyone want to kick around the subject of global competitiveness? > > What's happened here is the Japanese have now trumped the entire world > on the crypto market. What's more, Clinton's brain-dead allegiance to > the FBI, et al., has now allowed the Japanese government, which still > owns a large share of NTT, which owns a minority share of RSA's > Japanese subsidiary, to have a lock on the world's strongest encryption > technology. Can you say "Remember the VCR" or "Remember the > Semiconductor" or how about "Thanks, Bill. We're fucked." > > The boys in the Pentagon made a stink a few years ago when a Japanese > company made a play for Fairchild, a top defense contractor. It was > feared that the Japanese, by swallowing up the U.S. company, would also > gain access to technologies vital to the U.S. military. The deal was > squashed. Natch... now it looks like the G.I.'s with the stars on > their shoulders have just put their spit-shined combat boots up their > own ass by supporting Clinton and his continued ban on crypto exports. > > "We truly have ceded this market to Japanese companies," Bizdos said. > "It's almost too late to turn it around." Some 15 COUNTRIES have > already placed orders for these chips, Bizdos said, adding that the > Japanese will not build the chips with a key escrow function. > > EPIC Director Marc Rotenberg said he was told by a Japanese > representative that the country's constitution wouldn't allow key > escrow because it doesn't allow wire-tapping. Umm... maybe the > Japanese just don't have *really* bad guys like the FBI assumes we have > here. > > What's more, Bizdos says the deal with NTT is "no coup." He says the > Germans and French "aren't far behind" in developing similar > technologies. The RSA bombshell "fuels the argument that this stuff > can't be contained in our own borders," said PGP's Zimmermann. > > Just how the relationship between NTT and RSA works out isn't set, > Bizdos acknowledged. "They'll pay us a royalty for the chips they > sell," he said. "We're working it all out." > > Meanwhile, from my office window here in DC I've already counted 17 > Domino's Pizza delivery bikes go screaming by on their way to the White > House. Through my telescope I can see the White House balcony; it > looks like Bill is sick, like he's just heard some "really bad news." > And behind him, just inside the double-doors, on a persian rug placed > there by Warren G. Harding, I think Socks the Cat has just coughed up a > hairball... or maybe it was Louis Freeh. From this angle, I just can't > be sure. > > Meeks out... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: [LN] North Carolina Justice Report Date: 04 Jun 1996 11:22:40 -0700 (PDT) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Someone please elucidate to me how this is relevent to a restoration of the US constitution? Did the freemen think that passing "cheques" would make us a constitutionalist republic again? Did their agents (these so called courts and the press releases I keep seeing) think that tactical threats against the Federal Government and the FBI would be met peacefully, let alone help win over the hearts and minds of the voting populace to our cause? Sorry, but anybody who needs it explained to them that threatening "the establishment" with force is a non starter isnt going to be much of an ally in any sort of battle we can wage on line or politically. To threaten thusly, and then back it up by funding the group through "cheque" "contracts" is a PR debacle ROC should be IMHO well clear of. It is the "P" in "PR" that will breathe life back into our constitution IMNSDHO and the "freemen" have gotten between me and that goal. I'll be interested in hearing answers to my questions but frankly I hope you all will color me "distanced" from these guys in the mean time. boydk@wrq.com PGP fingerprint; D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMbQcG7ShsEZeYU9pAQHIUgP/fpbnpa4Hp9Vr7bKbhKX1RjZ3KITLtHf5 4iiMUL81WjKE6UwBeQOwtos+3mLLm5vYK/wOf7i1btuDd1Iw/seBB/nt7I4JKekW cRKomnKoFodup3Rv5XbkpcLtlQFfmV1dw1ufAUBK2yN4TsLrm7njuNNGjRElCizZ mgtNqnkpwGU= =f/Pb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: notes on RKBA and 2nd Amendment (fwd) Date: 04 Jun 1996 13:36:03 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Topic No. 14 Message-ID: <9605038338.AA833837501@ccgate.atmel.com> Incorrect. The Constitution IS the Supreme law of the land. Our Rights are inalienable, meaning they can neither be forfeit or rescinded. No state can write any law that violates the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Any law of this type is UnConstitutional, regardless of what any court says. Any law of this type should not be obeyed. Of course, the fact that a law is unConstitutional has not been effective in preventing them from being passed and enforced. Any person who votes for, signs into law, or enforces any unConstitutional law is committing a crime against the Constitution of the United States, and is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. Any person who is an enemy of the Constitution is an enemy of the United States. This is legaleze bullshit. The process of "incorporation" is not described in the BOR or the Constitution. The BOR does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless the person exercising his rights resides in a state that has not incorporated the BOR"...... This is why I get so upset with people who do not clearly understand the divine providence associated with our Constitution and BOR. Until one understands the inalienable aspect of our rights, and just where they eminate from, one is at a significant (fatal) legal disadvantage. Our rights are not granted by the Constitution, BOR, DOI, states "incorporation" or any other nonsensical notion. Our RKBA existed long before the Constitution was written, and exists no matter what laws are passed, no matter by whom. (This does not mean to imply that there are not hundreds, nay thousands, of despicable lawyers, judges, politicians, subversives, etc. who will attempt to circumvent the document in any dishonest, illegal, or clandestine fashion. This is not a personal flame on RLH. I have massive respect for him. But until we make it perfectly clear that the Constitution, BOR, and DOI are the Supreme law of the land, that we are "endowed by the(ir) Creator with certain inalienable rights......" we are playing by our enemies' rule book, and not the rule book given us by the Founding Fathers. When you play by the other guys rule book you will always lose. The idea of "States Incorporation of the BOR" is playing by your adversary's rule book. A game we cannot win. cordially, Dan Terry ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Topic No. 22 Message-ID: <960603215644_209893720@emout08.mail.aol.com> Enjoying Richard and Monte's posts, I thought I'd jump in with my two cents worth: Monte (>>) said: >>Just some minor food for thought: the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of >>the United States says you have the right to keep and *bear* arms; any law >>which disagrees with that is, in fact, null and void. > Richard (>) said: >While I *agree* with this statement, and wish it to be true, at the moment >the Second Amendment does NOT apply to the states. It applies only to the >Federal government. The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights >applied only to the federal government long ago. After the Fourteenth >Amendment was passed, the SC used it to begin applying the BoR to the states >in piecemeal fashion. The process is called "incorporation", as in "an >Amendment which has been incorporated to the states". Most, but not all, of >the BoR has been incorporated to the states; the Second Amendment is one of >the few which has not. There are some of us who reject the whole notion of "incorporation." The Supreme Court has no legislative authority. The constitution is quite explicit. Art. I, Sec. 1 states: "_All_ legislative Powers herein granted _shall_ be vested in a Congress . . . ." The Supreme Court has usurped such authority only recently. (I know, many will now say that the Supreme Court said in Marbury v. Madison that it could say what the law was. That topic is too lengthy for discussion (I can only type so fast) but I believe what Chief Justice Marshall merely did there was make an evidentiary ruling, sitting as a Court hearing a case before it, finding that the evidence to be offered was not evidence since it was pursuant to a statute not in keeping with the Constitution. This was a _judicial_ finding, not a legislative finding. There's a big difference, see Art. I, Sec. 1 already cited.) In the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, 60 U.S. 691 (1856), the Court recognized that all citizens had the right to carry firearms at will. Specifically, it referred to the rights citizens enjoy by reason of their citizenship, rights "which the court would be bound to maintain and enforce," including the right "to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." This right was taken for granted by most everyone. The next pronouncements by the supreme court regarding the right to keep and bear arms that involved the second amendment were consistent with the Dred Scott decision. In U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the court stated that the right to keep and bear arms, like the rights of assembly and petition, existed long before the Constitution and that the right to keep and bear arms was not "in any manner dependent upono that instrument for its existence." Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) was consistent with Dred Scott and Presser, noting that "the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms." In U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court did not retreat from the prior decisions. Under the curious procedural posture of the case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, acquitted in the District Court, which found the section of the 1934 National Firearms Act, making possession of a sawed off shotgun, in violation of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, did not participate in the appeal. They therefore offered no evidence to the supreme court on the issue of whether a sawed off shotgun had some utility as a militia weapon. The government, which appealed the district court ruling, of course offere none. Thus, it was easy for the supreme court to simply hold that, because there was no evidence before it to allow it to hold that a sawed off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice [judicial notice is a doctrine that allows courts to accept as evidence facts generally known to be true] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." One should also keep in mind that the supremacy clause makes the constitution the supreme law of the land -- its the law of all fifity states. Also, the Ninth Amendment also makes clear that all other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are retained by the people. The right to self defense, by force of arms if necessary, is an inalienable right that guaranteed by the Second and Ninth Amendments working in tandem. Let the Supreme Court say that my right to keep and bear arms is not protected by the Second Amendment -- I'll say that it's an inalienable right "not dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and that the Ninth Amendment protects me. >This was the basis for the Morton Grove, IL decision a few years ago. Morton >Grove outright banned the possession of handguns; it was challenged to the >SC on the grounds that it violated the Second Amendment. The SC ruled that >the SC did not apply to the states, and (of course) skipped that obvious >opportunity to fix the problem at that time. The ban is still in place, I >believe. > My recollection is that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals made the ruling that you reference and the supreme court refused to hear the appeal. >Unless you want to be the 1990's test case and martyr yourself in another >attempt to force the SC to incorporate the Second, I'd be careful with >assertions such as the one you make above. I agree with its spirit - but >unfortunately the letter of the law, as currently interpreted, does not. If we can educate enough of our fellow gun owners about the essence of rights, and get them to do jury service and get empanneled as jurors, it only takes one educated juror to hold out for an acquittal when an innocent person, intent on protecting his life, is hauled before a court and jury for the "terrible" crime of carrying concealed to protect his life. The case need not go all the way to the supreme court if you can get _just_one_ juror to effect justice in the case at bar, holding out for an acquittal and persuading the other jurors as to why an acquittal makes sense in the particular case. If the lone juror can't convince all eleven others, than the jury is hung, and there is no conviction. The state can decide whether to again spend the $$$ to put the defendent on trial. The bottom line is, as it is obvious both Monte and Richard and most of the other NOBANers have, we all need to study the founding documents (Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, etc.) and learn more about the power of the fully informed jury, and then encourage our friends and family members, especially the children, to do the same. I encourage everyone to call 1-800-TEL-JURY to obtain an info packet from the Fully Informed Jury Association. Also, a great product for the kids is the "'Gun Control'" Kills Kid! with Gran' pa Jack" comic book, guaranteed to cause liberals conniptions. It can be ordered by writing to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 2872 S. Wentwort Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53207, $3.00/copy or 25 for $14.00, postage pre paid. Call Aaron Zelman at (414) 769-0760 for bulk rates. The comic book was reviewed in this month's issue of Guns and Ammo magazine. Best regards, Dan Schultz -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body.