From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)Embassy of Heaven Raided ? Date: 01 Feb 1997 01:04:19 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:05:02 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: eplurib@megalinx.net (E Pluribus Unum) >Subject: Embassy of Heaven Raided ? > >Did any one hear a report about the Embassy of Heaven Complex near Staton, >OR being raided ??? >The report was given via a sattlite radio broadcast. > >If anyone has any more info, please send. > >In Liberty, > >J.J. Johnson >=========================================================== >E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html > >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)Mississpi Update 1/31/97 Date: 01 Feb 1997 01:04:44 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:35:51 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: eplurib@megalinx.net (E Pluribus Unum) >Subject: Mississpi Update 1/31/97 > > >Dear Patriots, > > I spoke with Bill Cockrell & Drew Rayner at 10:20pm Thursday nite. >We are in need of all patriots who can possibly come to be at Bill >Cockrell's home over the weekend and anytime next week. Even a few hours >will give relief to those who are there keeping watch now. This is a >good christian family that needs our help. They are fighting for their >home and property. Please help for the next time it could be you! >It's time we take a stand against tyrants! To help call Bill at >601-342-2095 or e-mail me at livefree@mobbs.com and I will give you >directions. > Pray that the good Lord gives those good patriots keeping vigilant >watch divine protection against our enemies. Pray also for the Cockrell >family. > Hope to see you there! > >PLEASE SPREAD THIS MESSAGE TO ALL WHO COULD POSSIBLY HELP!!! > God bless, > Mike Goza >=========================================================== >E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html > >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Feb 1997 00:58:27 PST This "FAQ" is auto-posted once a month via cron triggered script, and may be triggered off by hand from time to time in between if the info is requested by someone, such as when the House recently voted down the AW Ban and the Media threw a hissy fit. The purpose of this FAQ is to inform people what they can do about Media generated lies and misinformation. While the FCC only handles Broadcast Media, (TV and Radio), some of these techniques will work for magazines and newspapers too. If I've missed something, or you find errors, let me know and I'll add/fix it. 1.a. Send letters of complaint to the Station Manager every time it happens with all the time, details, other info, and your complaint(s). 1.b. Send an additional copy for their FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Public file. 1.c. Send an additional copy to the FCC itself, in case they don't put it in their Public file. 2.a. Send a letter of complaint to their Station Owner as per above, with copies as per above (1.b and 1.c). 3. Send copies of their replies to you along with yours to them to their FCC Public file, so that it gets nice and fat, again, with copies to the FCC itself. 4. If you can afford it, send all corespondence by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested. Send a copy of the Return Receipt with everything that goes to the FCC itself, so that they will have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their Public File. 5.a. Go to the Public Library and look up "Standard Rate and Data Services" (SRDS) "Directory of National Advertisers." It is found in many major Libraries (in the business/reference stacks), and lists EVERY current advertiser, who the players are at both the company and advertising agency(s), and the appropriate telephone and fax (and probably E-Mail by now) addresses. If your Library doesn't have it, it can be requested. Otherwise you can watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all their advertisers. There are other references that have the addresses for the nation's business headquarters too. look them all up and pass the addresses and phone/FAX numbers etc., around so that everyone can bitch to the sponsors. IF enough people do that, it'll get back to the Station. Tell them if the Station continues their nastiness you'll _consider_ changing to brand(X), (otherwise they'll just write you off as a loss). 5.b. The above, (5.a.), can be a lot easier and less time consuming if you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads, as they are right in front of you for the listing. 6. If they put on something good or even just more reasonable, call and compliment them on it, but do _not_ send any kudos to their FCC file, or write to them about it. That way they have to keep it up and hope, as there is nothing good in the file or in writing that they can show the FCC to justify their Station's License. 7. Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and Compliance Division Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 FAX: 202-653-9659 FCC Attn: Edythe Wise -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | The _only_important_difference_ between Nazi-ism, Fascism, weapon in every | Communism, Communitarianism, Socialism and (Neo-)Liberalism hand = Freedom | is the _spelling_, and that the last group hasn't got the on every side! | Collective brains to figure it out. -- Bill Vance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: reply from B. Boxer Date: 01 Feb 1997 05:22:40 -0800 Next time, ask her for the true identity of the BATF. Then, when you get another answer like this one, send her the Cooper File. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 10:17 PM 1/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >Well, mines no different than the others, and I even got a little testy in my >letter. Guess they really don't read them. No suprise there. ;-) > > > >> Thank you for recently contacting me to express your >opposition >> to my bill to extend the "junk gun" import ban to the >domestic >> market. I appreciate hearing your views. > > > My bill calls for using the same test for domestic >firearms >> currently used to determine whether a weapon can be >imported. It >> would apply to guns produced after the legislation is >enacted, >> and it would not apply to firearms already in circulation. > > > According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and >Firearms, >> eight of the ten firearms most frequently traced at crime >scenes >> are junk guns. These guns are not sporting weapons >because they >> have low accuracy and high failure rates. And because >they are >> inaccurate, poorly constructed, and lacking in safety >features, >> junk guns are ill-suited for home and self protection. >Keeping a >> junk gun in the house is an invitation to disaster. > >> This legislation has been endorsed by the California >Police >> Chiefs Association and 27 individual California police >chiefs and >> sheriffs. Among them are the chiefs of some of >California's > > largest cities, including Willie Williams of Los Angeles, >Fred >> Lau of San Francisco, Art Venegas of Sacramento, and >Louis > Cobarruviaz of San Jose. > > > Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. > > >> Sincerely, > >> Barbara Boxer >> United States Senator > >Maybe I should try the 'Flame Form Letter' :-P > >V. Lum > > > > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Pastor Paugh answers grand jury Date: 01 Feb 1997 12:29:43 -0800 [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] Express U.S. Mail c/o 2509 N. Campbell Ave., #1776 Certified Serial Number Tucson [zip code exempt] #P-502-472-504 ARIZONA STATE Return Receipt Requested Restricted Delivery Requested February 1, 1997 Foreperson, Federal Grand Jury U.S. Post Office and Federal Building 500 West Pike Street, 2nd Floor Clarksburg [zip code exempt] WEST VIRGINIA STATE In re: Grand Jury Subpoena Served on IRVIN HIEL PAUGH a/k/a/ BUTCH PAUGH [sic] Dear Grand Jury Foreperson: At the verbal request of My client, Pastor Butch Paugh, I am writing this letter to challenge your alleged authority to issue a subpoena upon Him to testify before your body. We hereby document the reasons for Our challenge, as follows: 1. Janet Reno has failed to produce any credentials in response to a proper and timely Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request and appeal submitted for same. In addition to the request and appeal, a 10-day courtesy notice was also mailed to Ms. Reno. Her deadline for producing credentials was 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 24, 1997. Her failure to produce the requisite credentials means that she is now estopped from claiming any of the authorities which can be exercised by the Attorney General, because her silence is a fraud, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel, and her silence activates estoppel, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen. Thus, the U.S. Attorney(s) who signed the subpoena to Pastor Paugh have no delegation of authority at all. 2. The federal Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. 1861 thru 1865, is unconstitutional for exhibiting prohibited class discrimination against Citizens of West Virginia state who are not also federal citizens. This is the case, even though each and every member of your "grand jury" is otherwise qualified, according to the requirements of this Act. The problem is that the Act itself is unconstitutional, and its unconstitutionality dates from the moment of its enactment. In several federal cases around the nation, this challenge has been placed properly before federal courts, but they are now obstructing justice by failing to rule on it. Accordingly, your body is not a lawful grand jury, and Pastor Butch Paugh cannot be compelled to testify before a group of people who are not a lawful body. 3. Evidence now shows that specific employees of the federal government receive financial kick-backs upon obtaining federal grand jury indictments against the "enemies" of the President. These kick-backs include $25,000 per indictment to U.S. Attorneys, and $35,000 per indictment to the President of the United States. These kick-backs are being paid under color of a defunct federal program called the Performance Management and Recognition System ("PMRS"). A FOIA request for all financial records of the PMRS system has been submitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. A staff attorney in the Treasury Department has responded by admitting that there are no records for many PMRS kick-backs, because they were paid in CASH! Add to this the evidence of widespread perjury and property conversion rackets within the Department of Justice, using computer software which was stolen by that Department, and you have the makings of a massive criminal conspiracy among employees of the U.S. Department of Justice, the "Internal Revenue Service" [sic], and possibly also the federal judiciary. 4. Recent research has also proven that the federal judiciary has sabotaged the U.S. Constitution and corrupted laws governing the conduct of the federal courts. This has been done in part by creating the false impression that the United States District Court ("USDC") has territorial and subject matter jurisdiction within the several States of the Union, particularly over criminal prosecutions, when it does not. The truth is that the USDC is designed to adjudicate matters that arise within the federal zone, and the District Court of the United States ("DCUS") is designed to adjudicate matters that arise within the state zone. You will notice that the USDC is named on the subpoena which you attempted to serve upon Pastor Paugh. This is a fraud upon you, upon Me, upon Pastor Paugh, and upon all American People, who enjoy the fundamental guarantee of due process of law. Sedition by syntax is not due process of law. 5. Last but not least, I object to this blatant mistreatment of Pastor Butch Paugh, who is being persecuted in part because He has assumed responsibility to raise funds to pay My legal fees for assisting His colleague, Major General Ray Looker. DOJ attorneys are now persecuting Looker's wife, a Chinese national who can barely speak English. Why don't they pick on someone their own size, like sewer rats? During calendar 1996, I was denied over $35,000 in legal fees by a conspiracy of agents, both known and unknown, who persuaded several of My clients to believe a vicious lie that I am some kind of federal "agent" or "government informant." I am not. This latest move against Pastor Paugh is more evidence of a consistent and premeditated pattern of lies, corruption, economic terrorism, and obstruction of justice, instigated within the Department of Justice specifically to halt, or cripple, the important research which I have been doing for more than 7 years now. Ask yourself this simple question: if Our challenge to the Jury Selection and Service Act is "frivolous," then why don't the judges just deny it? For your edification, We have attached to this letter a number of essays, and additional documents, which constitute material evidence to support the challenges which We bring to you in this letter. These documents also constitute probable cause to charge the U.S. Attorney(s) in Pastor Paugh's case with fraud, jury tampering, and perjury of oath, not to mention a host of other criminal violations of pertinent federal laws. See Title 18, United States Code, Sections 241 and 242, for example. Please give all this evidence your careful and considerate attention. The future of this nation is riding on what you do. Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, and Counsel to Pastor Butch Paugh attachments copies: Pastor Butch Paugh Major General Ray Looker (incarcerated) The Internet # # # ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg@hevanet.com (wbg) Subject: Re: (fwd)Embassy of Heaven Raided ? Date: 01 Feb 1997 11:04:16 -0800 (PST) > >Subject: Embassy of Heaven Raided ? > >Did any one hear a report about the Embassy of Heaven Complex near Staton, > >OR being raided ??? > >If anyone has any more info, please send. > >J.J. Johnson > >=========================================================== It hardly constituted a "raid" in the usual sense - at least not one of sufficient signifance to generate a _cause celebre_ or anything close. Actually that's "Stayton" OR. It's not far from the state capitol, Salem, and in the same county. The members of the Embassy of Heaven Church referred to their place in the woods as simply "Heaven". It seems this numbskull Craig D. Fleshman, pastor of the church, back in 1985 changed his name to "Paul Revere". Right, Craig - great way to get a little sympathy from the mainstream, and prove you're no nutcase. Right. In 1990 he applied to Marion County for religious exemption from land property taxes and the application was denied. Given the history of him & his pals, I suspect that if he'd bothered to completely research the requirements in advance, he's have easily qualified his church for the exemption ... but he doesn't seem to operate that way. "Revere" claims the church property is "a separate nation", and issues his own "Heaven" license plates and passports. He refuses to obtain a drivers' license. Now his fundamental beliefs and aims are no doubt something with which most of us on the list could find some sympathy - but this character seems to have programmed himself to fail at (a) using the bureaucracy's own rules against it to attain his desires, and (b) eliciting at least some sympathy and support from the public. Anyway, he's paid no taxes since 1990 or before, and had accumulated some $16,000 in back property taxes. He was given a deadline of last November 6th to pay up, and when he didn't, the county gave him 30 days to vacate the premises. When a federal judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order preventing the county from seizing the property, yesterday about 8AM they sent in a dozen or so deputies to evict him. He and two others were arrested and charged with a misdemeanor count of "obstruction of government administration" (something many of us would probably be proud to bear as a badge of honor :-) ) for not leaving the property voluntarily. The whole article is in the Feb. 1 issue of _The Oregonian_ - a daily so un-hip that they don't post their editorial content to their web page. Otherwise I'd have plucked it out & mailed it. Brewster -- *********************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Reply from B.Boxer Date: 01 Feb 1997 15:48:35 -0500 (EST) I first sent e-mail to the Boxer CON junk gun address way back in SEPTEMBER. Mail was returned as undeliverable. As a test I sent a short note stating a neutral position to the PRO address. This was NOT returned. I then sent mail to Ba Ba directly and also to DiFi and ALL Boxers California collegues asking them to forward the mail IAW Congressional protocols. This got me a response from Boxers staff (See Below) saying they would check the Web site for bugs. I then shortly received the form letter response that you posted. That was Oct 15,1996 (See 2nd attachment) Obviously a mailbot is programmed to do her liberal bidding irregardless of public opinion to the contrary Regards, Dennis -------- Mr. Baron: This is one of a number of emails of its type that we have recieved. I will check the link. But as I mentioned to the others a "message not deliverable" error is less a sign of a conspricacy and more a sign of computer error. We have received hundreds of messages to both the pro and con addresses since their inception. My suggestion, try again. Thank you. Rob Patton Systemadmin@boxer.senate.gov --------------- Dear Friend: Thank you for recently contacting me to express your opposition to S.1654, my bill to extend the "junk gun" import ban to the domestic market. I appreciate hearing your views. S.1654 calls for using the same test for domestic firearms currently used to determine whether a weapon can be imported. It would apply to guns produced after the legislation is enacted, and it would not apply to firearms already in circulation. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Sincerely, Barbara Boxer United States Senator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Reply from B.Boxer Date: 01 Feb 1997 13:56:03 PST roc@xmission.com wrote : >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >-------- >Subject: Re: Returned Mail >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 16:59:43 +0000 >From: Senator >To: Dennis Baron > > Mr. Baron: > > This is one of a number of emails of its type that we have recieved. > I will check the link. But as I mentioned to the others a "message not > deliverable" error is less a sign of a conspricacy and more > a sign of computer error. We have received hundreds of messages to > both the pro and con addresses since their inception. My suggestion, *** > try again. Thank you. > > Rob Patton > Systemadmin@boxer.senate.gov And all the con ones were returned as undeliverable. It is always so fascinating how much deception can appear in English sentences even when each sentence is true by simply leaving out a few words Jack PS Tho, in passing, I long ago quit communicating with both of Californias ultra liberal Senators. Even when nicely formatted letters are mailed via the US POST Office with a CON position that would be clear to one reading at the first grade letter one usually gets back a form letter thanking you for supporting the PRO position of the ultra liberal senators. For a while I thought even if they did not like the CON position they might tally it, but then decided they could not recognize a CON position to even tally Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ed Lawson" Subject: Re: Preventing Soldiers from Voting Date: 01 Feb 1997 17:04:51 -0500 On Tue, 28 Jan 97 17:58:56 PST, Jack@minerva.com wrote: >No soldiers allowed >Washington Times > > > For putting their lives on the line to defend this country, > some U.S. military personnel may lose a right they - balance deleted - I caught a piece of a radio news today that said that Susanna Gratia Hupp (Luby's Killeen) has authored and is sponsoring a bill to define and enhance Military voting rights..... I didn't hear the whole thing because I wasn't paying attention until I heard her name.... Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: balpert@sky.net Subject: Re: Preventing Soldiers from Voting Date: 01 Feb 1997 17:58:17 CST Addressed to: "roc@xmission.com" "Ed Lawson" ** Reply to note from "Ed Lawson" Sat, 01 Feb 97 17:04:51 -0500 > > On Tue, 28 Jan 97 17:58:56 PST, Jack@minerva.com wrote: > > >No soldiers allowed {deletia} > I caught a piece of a radio news today that said that Susanna Gratia > Hupp (Luby's Killeen) has authored and is sponsoring a bill to define and enhance > Military voting rights..... I didn't hear the whole thing because I wasn't paying > attention until I heard her name.... > > Ed > That's interesting! Suzi is a representative in the statehouse in Texas, so whatever she sponsored would have to apply only to Texans, presumably? Brad (and yes, i'm darn glad i helped get her elected!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ed Lawson" Subject: Re: Preventing Soldiers from Voting Date: 01 Feb 1997 19:11:10 -0500 Yeah, it's probably just to get press and public 'awareness'. Ed On Sat, 1 Feb 1997 17:58:17 CST, balpert@sky.net wrote: >Addressed to: "roc@xmission.com" > "Ed Lawson" > >** Reply to note from "Ed Lawson" Sat, 01 Feb 97 17:04:51 -0500 >> >> On Tue, 28 Jan 97 17:58:56 PST, Jack@minerva.com wrote: >> >> >No soldiers allowed > >{deletia} > >> I caught a piece of a radio news today that said >that Susanna Gratia > Hupp (Luby's Killeen) has authored and is sponsoring a bill >to define and enhance > Military voting rights..... I didn't hear the whole >thing because I wasn't paying > attention until I heard her name.... >> >> Ed >> > >That's interesting! > >Suzi is a representative in the statehouse in Texas, so whatever she sponsored >would have to apply only to Texans, presumably? > >Brad > >(and yes, i'm darn glad i helped get her elected!) > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: (fwd) Knox -- Special Report (fwd) Date: 02 Feb 1997 10:53:55 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ======================================================================== Online Report to the F I R E A R M S C O A L I T I O N Box 6537, Silver Spring, MD 20916 ======================================================================== January 30, 1997 Special Report ======================================================================== A friend sent me a note this afternoon saying that Pop had made the front page of the New York Times Fax edition. You'll likely be seeing more of this story in the general press in the coming days. CNN, Fox and CBS will carry the story in the morning. Wayne has apparently gone very public. You've seen the rumors and reports, much of it played out on the Net. Make up your own mind, but remember this through it all. Neal Knox has been at the front of the gun rights movement for over thirty years. For over twenty years he has badgered, pestered, led, and badgered again NRA into the gun rights battle when much of its leadership, including some who have been fairly vocal of late, wanted to make nice and appease the beast by accepting partial bans and limited restrictions which would be guaranteed to grow, exactly as they have in England and Australia. Here is the current message on the legislative update line. ======================================================================== Chris Knox wrote and is solely responsible for everthing above this line. ======================================================================== January 29 Update HCI will be rejoicing when they read tomorrow's New York Times judging by what the reporter told me, NRA Executive Vice President Wayn is saying or implying that I want his job and that I'm an extremist. I might not believe one reporter, but two others have told me essentially the same thing. And that's not good for Wayne, me or the organization. Truth is, there are a large number of board members who are pushing to remove Wayne fom office at the Board's meeting next week. NRA's financial affairs are a mess. We've lost about $70 Mil in assets during his tenure, almost all of it before the present board became a majority. We've been able to maintain a balanced budget for the last couple of years only because of fundraising miracles. But the membership is getting tired of being inundated by begging letters. I know too much about the difficulty of being EVP to want the job. But I'll admit that a lot of directors have been after me to take it. And I might have to. But want it? Not a chance. No matter how this shakes out, there's not really anything for HCI to be pleased about. This board is not going to allow any EVP or any ILA director to let up on the gas. ======================================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvGdZiGz4I2lBJDFAQHz2gQAp5v7QSJ/dByvDq8fUPC8gpRC1UxR/U7M SbJwI/99t2g+b3q+6eTDatrO2EItLYI5TcpjcYqSAIRp43N8cFb8OffiTTsGB+AP TiKC+m18MK51pl2pI7NP0BBgBnEpACcBqcKdrL5qRr3CkJw/pln57igiTnCfqQGi UC7GpbfRefc= =xMDD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To receive the Online Firearms Coalition Bulletin send mail to listproc@mainstream.com containing in the message body: subscribe fco http://www.crl.com/~cknox/fco.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Taste Massage Date: 02 Feb 1997 10:13:32 PST Tasting, tasting, one two, three, tasting..... This has been a taste, _only_ a taste, of the ROC Emergency boredcasting system.....:-) -- 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: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Fetal Custody Date: 02 Feb 1997 12:59:06 PST The following was a front page story in the LA TIMES today (2/2/97). Bad as this is one wonders how many simple steps it would be to take custody if each woman on conception to make sure nothing happens to the fetus .....like an abortion ......or heaven forbid she would want to forgo the medical system and opt for home delivery Jack Drug Use Spurs Court Test of Fetal Custody By JUDY PASTERNAK, Times Staff Writer WAUKESHA, Wis.--In the next few months, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to decide whether county officials in this Milwaukee suburb acted legally when they took custody of an unborn child a month before its due date. The mother-to-be was using cocaine, drugging the developing baby within. The local social services agency asked a Juvenile Court judge to place the fetus in Waukesha Memorial Hospital. The judge issued a detention order to the Waukesha County sheriff. The 24-year-old cocaine user had no say in the matter. She was not under arrest, nor charged with any crime. Yet she was confined. What happened to Angela M.W. in September 1995, is a logical extension of the famous case of Roe vs. Wade, maintains the county's attorney, Assistant Corporation Counsel William J. Domina. His position, affirmed by the state Appeals Court, has heartened some youth-justice experts. At the same time, it has appalled the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as some women's law specialists and public health advocates who contend that it would result in juvenile courts acting as pregnancy police, overseeing an expectant mother's way of life. Twenty-four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roe vs. Wade that a woman had a right to choose whether to have an abortion or carry her pregnancy to term. But as the fetus grows, the court ruled, the state's interest--its right to intervene and regulate--grows as well. It is "a very important statement about choice and the consequences of choice," Domina said. "If an individual chooses to carry a pregnancy to term, what does that mean?" "Choice entails responsibility," said Margaret M. Zimmer, another assistant corporation counsel on the case. "That's been given too little attention." Plenty of attention is being paid now. The National Assn. of Counsel for Children and the prosecutor in neighboring Milwaukee County weighed in with legal briefs in support of recognizing the Juvenile Court's authority over babies-to-be. Eleven health, women's and children's organizations banded together to argue against seizing fetuses and depriving pregnant women of their liberty. They say the Roe vs. Wade decision applies only to the power to restrict abortion. "This is heady stuff," said Deborah Mathieu, a University of Arizona political scientist and author of a recent book about prenatal protection. She predicts that the state Supreme Court justices will not uphold the lower-court decisions. "But if they do, it puts pregnant women in Wisconsin on notice," she said. "They're liable to be snatched." Indeed, a second case has cropped up well to the north, in the town of Ashland on Lake Superior's shore. Last spring, a juvenile judge there ordered police to take a fetus--and, of course, the woman carrying it--to the hospital because a physician had misgivings about the small-boned mother's plan to deliver the baby at home with the help of a midwife. The woman was released after promising to return to the hospital upon going into labor. She later delivered a healthy baby--at home. "It's a slippery slope," said that woman's attorney, Robin Goree. Robin Shellow, the lawyer for Angela M.W., sees a "huge right-to-life conspiracy" behind the legal initiatives. "There's clearly an agenda which is being foisted upon the courts at this point," she said. At least one antiabortion activist, however, expressed qualms about imposing so much government control in the name of the fetus. "We've got to look at this very carefully," said Susan Armacost, legislative director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "It could be an incentive for women to have abortions." Attempts at prosecuting as criminals pregnant women who endanger their fetuses have brought mixed results during the past 15 years, with many cases dropped and most lower-court convictions overturned on appeal. In July, however, the South Carolina Supreme Court let stand the manslaughter conviction of a woman who shot herself in the abdomen when she was more than 20 weeks' pregnant, killing the fetus. And in Wisconsin, a judge recently cleared the way for the trial of a Racine woman on charges of attempted murder. She allegedly drank alcohol in a bar while pregnant, saying she didn't care if the baby died because she didn't want it. To Domina, Waukesha County's approach to fetal health is more humane. "Our system is about child protection, not punishment," he said. Angela M.W. "didn't go to jail. We were working toward reunification of the family as soon as she could be a safe parent." Still, in a matter this complicated, Mathieu said, "there's nothing you can do that's good that's not going to be, for someone involved, harmful and wrong." Angela M.W.'s confinement, Mathieu said, "is better than jail." But, she wondered, "what if the woman has other children to care for? What if she has a job? Or a mortgage to pay?" In addition, said Sara Mandelbaum, an ACLU lawyer handling Angela M.W.'s state Supreme Court appeal, the threat of losing her liberty could keep a pregnant woman from seeking prenatal care--seen as essential so that problems can be detected and treated early. Which is a greater danger to a fetus, Mandelbaum wondered, a cocaine addict who sees her doctor regularly or one who avoids physicians out of fear of detention? It is not uncommon for pregnant women to engage in behavior that could hurt their fetuses. A pediatrics journal estimated in 1992 that 11% of infants in the nation are exposed to illegal drugs in the uterus. In Wisconsin, a Legislature task force found that one in 10 pregnant women in the state uses illegal drugs, one in four smokes cigarettes, and one in four drinks alcohol. Exposure to any of those poses risks, although the amounts involved and the long-term effects are still not clearly defined. The dangers can range from low birth weight to sudden infant death syndrome, from central nervous system defects to behavioral problems. "If the lower court's . . . misinterpretation of Roe vs. Wade is upheld, pregnant women who smoke, or live with a smoker, or maintain a poor diet, or fail to take medications could be subjected to an order of protective custody to ensure that they change their behavior and provide 'a safe environment in the womb' for their fetus," wrote attorneys representing 11 groups, ranging from the American Public Health Assn. to the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. Domina disagreed. "It's not going to open the floodgates," he said. "You have to have proof." Angela M.W.'s doctor had proof. Matthew Meyer is a popular obstetrician in Waukesha--he had, in fact, delivered babies for Domina, the Juvenile Court judge in the Angela M.W. case and the attorney appointed to represent the fetus. He wondered about this patient's erratic behavior, however. According to his affidavit, Angela admitted to him that she had started using cocaine in April 1995. He screened her blood, drawn at prenatal visits. She tested positive twice. When she missed an appointment, Meyer reported the fetus as a child in need of protection. The legal machinery kicked into play, with a social worker petitioning for hospital placement for the "child of 16 weeks gestation." Circuit Judge Kathryn Foster granted the request, acknowledging "such detention will by necessity result in the detention of the unborn child's mother, Angela W." Angela was not notified of the hearing. Later, the judge granted Angela M.W.'s request for transfer to the Lawrence Center, a nearby drug treatment program. If the mother left the treatment center, the judge ordered, the deputies should take her to the hospital. She stayed for three weeks until giving birth to her third child, a boy. To the courts, he is known as Bobby L.W. Cocaine was present in the baby's meconium--the first solid waste--but not in his bloodstream, Domina said. Bobby L.W. appeared healthy. He and his siblings are now in foster care. Copyright Los Angeles Times Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)Case against OKC bomb suspect collapses Date: 02 Feb 1997 22:01:21 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) >Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 13:49:49 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: eplurib@megalinx.net (E Pluribus Unum) >Subject: Case against OKC bomb suspect collapses > >Case against Oklahoma bomb suspect collapses >By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington > >THE government case in the Oklahoma bombing trial, due to open >next month, is disintegrating. It is now quite possible that Tim >McVeigh, the main suspect, will be acquitted. > >The latest blow to the prosecution is a report that the FBI crime lab >altered forensic conclusions to accommodate government claims >that the blast, which killed 168 people in the spring of 1995, was >caused by a 4,000lb ammonium nitrate bomb. The report, by the >Justice Department's Inspector General, found that some lab >officials have been pressed to falsify evidence and commit perjury >to support prosecutions. > >With the FBI crime lab going through the worst crisis in the history of >the Bureau, everything it touches is now tainted. > >But there are deeper problems with the case, the deadliest act of >terrorism ever committed on American soil, one that precipitated a >witch hunt against the militia movement and, by raising the spectre >of Right-wing extremism, arguably helped President Clinton's re- >election. > >The prosecution has been tying itself in knots from the beginning. >This is chiefly because it insists on a 'lone bomber theory' - with >another man, Terry Nichols, helping in the background - when the >evidence clearly indicates a more complex conspiracy involving a >terrorist cell. Last week it became clear that the Justice Department >is willing to let the case collapse rather than risk collateral >revelations. On Thursday the FBI arrested Michael Brescia, the man >alleged to be the mysterious 'John Doe II' seen with McVeigh in the >days before the bombing. Brescia has been named in a private >lawsuit by victims of the blast as a co-conspirator of McVeigh. > >But in keeping with the "Alice in Wonderland" character of this >investigation, Brescia was arrested for his alleged role in a series of >bank robberies carried out by a neo-Nazi group called the Aryan >Republican Army. > >McVeigh is also tied into this ARA cell, and his sister told the FBI in >May 1995 that her brother had been involved in bank robberies. But >the Justice Department does not want to know. > >Indeed, it has gone to hazardous lengths to stamp out talk of a >broader bombing conspiracy involving the Aryan Republican Army. >On Wednesday, the day before Brescia's arrest, it announced that >John Doe II - the subject of the massive FBI manhunt in the weeks >after the bombing - had never existed. > >The Justice Department stated that Tom Kessinger, a clerk at the >Ryder rental agency where McVeigh allegedly rented the bombing >vehicle, was confused when he helped to produce a artist's sketch of >a second man with McVeigh. This is highly contentious. Mr >Kessinger provided the famous John Doe II sketch immediately after >the blast. Almost two years later he abruptly changes tack and >asserts that he muddled John Doe II with a soldier named Tod >Bunting who came into the office on a different day. > >Unfortunately for the prosecution, Mr Kessinger has already given >too many interviews ridiculing the Bunting canard. "He was laughing >about it and said 'I don't know how they came up with that one'," said >Glenn Wilburn, a bombing victim, when he visited Mr Kessinger last >year. The Justice Department has now destroyed Mr Kessinger's >credibility, so it can no longer put him on the stand to identify >McVeigh as the man who rented the Ryder truck. But the >prosecution does not have much else to rely on. > >The original FBI statements by the employees at the Ryder rental >agency describe the man supposed to be McVeigh - who used the >alias of Robert Kling - as 13 stone, 5ft 11in, stocky, with a pock- >marked face. This bears no resemblance to the lanky, 11 stone, 6ft >3in, baby-faced McVeigh. > >The prosecution, of course, can draw on an army of witnesses who >saw McVeigh with a Ryder truck shortly before the bomb went off at >9am on April 19 1995. But they all saw him with other suspects, >making a mockery of the claim that McVeigh acted alone. > >So it appears that none of these witnesses is going to be called to >testify. Instead, the prosecution is relying on a single man who >thought he might have seen McVeigh getting out of a Ryder truck. >Why is the Justice Department destroying its own case? A clue >came last Tuesday in an Oklahoma newspaper, the McCurtain Daily >Gazette, which has gathered evidence that the US Bureau of >Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) was monitoring the bombing >conspiracy from the very start. > >According to the Gazette, a paid informant working for the Tulsa >office of the ATF has come forward to admit that she used hidden >cameras to film three members of a neo-Nazi group in Oklahoma >discussing plans to blow up a federal building. > >One was Andreas Strassmeir, a former German army officer with >ties to McVeigh. Strassmeir shared a house at the time with Michael >Brescia of the Aryan Republican Army underground. The story helps >to explain how bomb squads could have been seen in downtown >Oklahoma hours before the explosion. It also buttresses testimony >that McVeigh appeared to be operating as part of a team on the day >of the crime in Oklahoma City. > >The only conclusion that one can draw is that the Justice >Department is protecting a federal informant who had penetrated the >bombing conspiracy - probably Strassmeir, but possibly also Brescia >- and is trying to cover up a bungled sting. McVeigh's defence >lawyer, Stephen Jones, says that the American people will never be >able to think of their government in the same way once they learn >the full truth about the Oklahoma bombing. Is he just bluffing? >=========================================================== >E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html > >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)FBI:The Domino Effect continues... Date: 03 Feb 1997 06:33:34 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) >Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 22:30:09 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: eplurib@megalinx.net (E Pluribus Unum) >Subject: FBI:The Domino Effect continues... > >Well folks, I'm getting those warm and fuzzy feelings about >being a Patiot again. Watching the Federal Bureau of >Investigation fall FLAT ON IT'S FACE is "just desserts" >to all in the freedom movement. For example, try this quote >for size... > >======================================================= >Larry Pozner, a Denver defense attorney who has tried a number >of high-profile cases in recentyears, suggested the FBI lab >situation is tantamount to a breakdown of the entire justice >system as we know it. "This is big, this is huge," Pozner said. >"This is America's nightmare. Just as we discovered J. Edgar Hoover >wasn't a white knight, now we're finding that the FBI lab is >equally suspect. > >DENVER POST - JAN 31, 1997 >======================================================== > >I know, I know... don't get too excited. I'm sure the government >got's something even more dastardly up their sleeve. >Meanwhile, back to the carnage.... - J.J. Johnson >====================================================== > > Published in the Feb. 3, 1997 Issue of The Washington Weekly >Copyright (c) 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) > > > MASSIVE, SYSTEMATIC FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE AT FBI LAB > Affecting Oklahoma, Atlanta, and New York Bombing cases > > A still secret Justice Department Inspector General draft >report raises sharp criticism of the FBI crime lab. > > The internal findings basically confirm the allegations by >FBI whistleblower Dr. Frederic Whitehurst of massive, systematic >tampering of evidence, slanting of results, covering up of facts, >and sloppy science at the FBI crime lab. Whitehurst was suspended >last week after the FBI received the report. Senator Charles >Grassley (R-Iowa), who is following the case closely, said that >the suspension looked like a retaliation for Whitehurst's >whistleblowing. > > Three other FBI lab officials, who were involved in the >handling of evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, >were suspended last week as well. > > The problems at the lab now call into question its handling >of evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation as well as >the Atlanta Olympic Games bombing and the New York Trade Center >bombing. > > But we know that the problems at the crime lab are just the >tip of the iceberg. As detailed in the Washington Weekly over >several years, there has been a systematic fabrication of >evidence and falsification of testimony by the FBI in cases that >involve the federal government: most notably the death of Vince >Foster and the Oklahoma City bombing. In the Vince Foster case, >witness Patrick Knowlton has stepped forward to detail the >harassment, intimidation, and falsification of testimony he has >been subjected to in the investigation. > > In the Oklahoma City bombing case, witnesses like Connie >Smith have stepped forward to reveal the intimidation and >falsification of testimony she has been subjected to because of >her knowledge of John Doe II (see news story elsewhere in this >issue). > > It is obvious that this is not merely "prosecutorial bias" >but that an active cover-up of the role of the government in >those two cases is ongoing. After more than three years, the FBI >is still unable to determine whether Vince Foster committed >suicide or was murdered. Clearly, the evidence does not yet >support the conclusion the government wants. > > "There's been too much covering up by the FBI for too long," >said Senator Charles Grassley on ABC News last week. > > The courage and integrity of Dr. Frederic Whitehurst is now >legendary. Despite intimidation, threats, and harassment -- he >was transferred from top level scientist to paint chip analyzer >trainee after coming forward and is now suspended -- he stood up >for what is right. Congress should bestow upon him its medal of >honor. People like Whitehurst -- one man out of the thousand of >FBI employees -- are the only ones that stand between us and >tyrannical government. > > > > > > > >=========================================================== >E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html > >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Case against OKC bomb suspect collapses (fwd) Date: 03 Feb 1997 08:46:38 -0600 (CST) ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From eplurib@megalinx.net Sun Feb 2 12:55:02 1997 X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Lines: 115 Case against Oklahoma bomb suspect collapses By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington THE government case in the Oklahoma bombing trial, due to open next month, is disintegrating. It is now quite possible that Tim McVeigh, the main suspect, will be acquitted. The latest blow to the prosecution is a report that the FBI crime lab altered forensic conclusions to accommodate government claims that the blast, which killed 168 people in the spring of 1995, was caused by a 4,000lb ammonium nitrate bomb. The report, by the Justice Department's Inspector General, found that some lab officials have been pressed to falsify evidence and commit perjury to support prosecutions. With the FBI crime lab going through the worst crisis in the history of the Bureau, everything it touches is now tainted. But there are deeper problems with the case, the deadliest act of terrorism ever committed on American soil, one that precipitated a witch hunt against the militia movement and, by raising the spectre of Right-wing extremism, arguably helped President Clinton's re- election. The prosecution has been tying itself in knots from the beginning. This is chiefly because it insists on a 'lone bomber theory' - with another man, Terry Nichols, helping in the background - when the evidence clearly indicates a more complex conspiracy involving a terrorist cell. Last week it became clear that the Justice Department is willing to let the case collapse rather than risk collateral revelations. On Thursday the FBI arrested Michael Brescia, the man alleged to be the mysterious 'John Doe II' seen with McVeigh in the days before the bombing. Brescia has been named in a private lawsuit by victims of the blast as a co-conspirator of McVeigh. But in keeping with the "Alice in Wonderland" character of this investigation, Brescia was arrested for his alleged role in a series of bank robberies carried out by a neo-Nazi group called the Aryan Republican Army. McVeigh is also tied into this ARA cell, and his sister told the FBI in May 1995 that her brother had been involved in bank robberies. But the Justice Department does not want to know. Indeed, it has gone to hazardous lengths to stamp out talk of a broader bombing conspiracy involving the Aryan Republican Army. On Wednesday, the day before Brescia's arrest, it announced that John Doe II - the subject of the massive FBI manhunt in the weeks after the bombing - had never existed. The Justice Department stated that Tom Kessinger, a clerk at the Ryder rental agency where McVeigh allegedly rented the bombing vehicle, was confused when he helped to produce a artist's sketch of a second man with McVeigh. This is highly contentious. Mr Kessinger provided the famous John Doe II sketch immediately after the blast. Almost two years later he abruptly changes tack and asserts that he muddled John Doe II with a soldier named Tod Bunting who came into the office on a different day. Unfortunately for the prosecution, Mr Kessinger has already given too many interviews ridiculing the Bunting canard. "He was laughing about it and said 'I don't know how they came up with that one'," said Glenn Wilburn, a bombing victim, when he visited Mr Kessinger last year. The Justice Department has now destroyed Mr Kessinger's credibility, so it can no longer put him on the stand to identify McVeigh as the man who rented the Ryder truck. But the prosecution does not have much else to rely on. The original FBI statements by the employees at the Ryder rental agency describe the man supposed to be McVeigh - who used the alias of Robert Kling - as 13 stone, 5ft 11in, stocky, with a pock- marked face. This bears no resemblance to the lanky, 11 stone, 6ft 3in, baby-faced McVeigh. The prosecution, of course, can draw on an army of witnesses who saw McVeigh with a Ryder truck shortly before the bomb went off at 9am on April 19 1995. But they all saw him with other suspects, making a mockery of the claim that McVeigh acted alone. So it appears that none of these witnesses is going to be called to testify. Instead, the prosecution is relying on a single man who thought he might have seen McVeigh getting out of a Ryder truck. Why is the Justice Department destroying its own case? A clue came last Tuesday in an Oklahoma newspaper, the McCurtain Daily Gazette, which has gathered evidence that the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) was monitoring the bombing conspiracy from the very start. According to the Gazette, a paid informant working for the Tulsa office of the ATF has come forward to admit that she used hidden cameras to film three members of a neo-Nazi group in Oklahoma discussing plans to blow up a federal building. One was Andreas Strassmeir, a former German army officer with ties to McVeigh. Strassmeir shared a house at the time with Michael Brescia of the Aryan Republican Army underground. The story helps to explain how bomb squads could have been seen in downtown Oklahoma hours before the explosion. It also buttresses testimony that McVeigh appeared to be operating as part of a team on the day of the crime in Oklahoma City. The only conclusion that one can draw is that the Justice Department is protecting a federal informant who had penetrated the bombing conspiracy - probably Strassmeir, but possibly also Brescia - and is trying to cover up a bungled sting. McVeigh's defence lawyer, Stephen Jones, says that the American people will never be able to think of their government in the same way once they learn the full truth about the Oklahoma bombing. Is he just bluffing? =========================================================== E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: FBI:The Domino Effect continues... (fwd) Date: 03 Feb 1997 08:48:50 -0600 (CST) ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From eplurib@megalinx.net Sun Feb 2 21:35:30 1997 X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Lines: 99 Well folks, I'm getting those warm and fuzzy feelings about being a Patiot again. Watching the Federal Bureau of Investigation fall FLAT ON IT'S FACE is "just desserts" to all in the freedom movement. For example, try this quote for size... ======================================================= Larry Pozner, a Denver defense attorney who has tried a number of high-profile cases in recentyears, suggested the FBI lab situation is tantamount to a breakdown of the entire justice system as we know it. "This is big, this is huge," Pozner said. "This is America's nightmare. Just as we discovered J. Edgar Hoover wasn't a white knight, now we're finding that the FBI lab is equally suspect. DENVER POST - JAN 31, 1997 ======================================================== I know, I know... don't get too excited. I'm sure the government got's something even more dastardly up their sleeve. Meanwhile, back to the carnage.... - J.J. Johnson ====================================================== Published in the Feb. 3, 1997 Issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright (c) 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) MASSIVE, SYSTEMATIC FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE AT FBI LAB Affecting Oklahoma, Atlanta, and New York Bombing cases A still secret Justice Department Inspector General draft report raises sharp criticism of the FBI crime lab. The internal findings basically confirm the allegations by FBI whistleblower Dr. Frederic Whitehurst of massive, systematic tampering of evidence, slanting of results, covering up of facts, and sloppy science at the FBI crime lab. Whitehurst was suspended last week after the FBI received the report. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who is following the case closely, said that the suspension looked like a retaliation for Whitehurst's whistleblowing. Three other FBI lab officials, who were involved in the handling of evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, were suspended last week as well. The problems at the lab now call into question its handling of evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation as well as the Atlanta Olympic Games bombing and the New York Trade Center bombing. But we know that the problems at the crime lab are just the tip of the iceberg. As detailed in the Washington Weekly over several years, there has been a systematic fabrication of evidence and falsification of testimony by the FBI in cases that involve the federal government: most notably the death of Vince Foster and the Oklahoma City bombing. In the Vince Foster case, witness Patrick Knowlton has stepped forward to detail the harassment, intimidation, and falsification of testimony he has been subjected to in the investigation. In the Oklahoma City bombing case, witnesses like Connie Smith have stepped forward to reveal the intimidation and falsification of testimony she has been subjected to because of her knowledge of John Doe II (see news story elsewhere in this issue). It is obvious that this is not merely "prosecutorial bias" but that an active cover-up of the role of the government in those two cases is ongoing. After more than three years, the FBI is still unable to determine whether Vince Foster committed suicide or was murdered. Clearly, the evidence does not yet support the conclusion the government wants. "There's been too much covering up by the FBI for too long," said Senator Charles Grassley on ABC News last week. The courage and integrity of Dr. Frederic Whitehurst is now legendary. Despite intimidation, threats, and harassment -- he was transferred from top level scientist to paint chip analyzer trainee after coming forward and is now suspended -- he stood up for what is right. Congress should bestow upon him its medal of honor. People like Whitehurst -- one man out of the thousand of FBI employees -- are the only ones that stand between us and tyrannical government. =========================================================== E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: License to Kill Part II Date: 03 Feb 1997 12:41:27 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE ============================ 2 FEB 1997 _The Libertarian Enterprise_ is available through the World Wide Web at various addresses. The official website is at: http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/libemain.html Why not link your site up to it today? ===================================================================== LICENSE TO KILL, PART II By Vin Suprynowicz Special to _The Libertarian Enterprise_ Last week, I recounted the tale of how David Aguilar, a 44-year old veteran from Tucson, Ariz., came to be shot to death on his own property by an undercover drug cop, who has not been charged with any crime as of this writing. We then prepared to deal with the case of Ralph Garrison, 69, a video store owner from Albuquerque, N.M., who dialed 911 before dawn on Dec. 16, 1996 when a gang of black-clad men started breaking into his rental property next door, using sledge hammers and axes. On Dec. 18, the daily Albuquerque Journal printed a transcript of that 911 call. I delete some repetitions and pauses: Garrison: "They're breaking into my house -- a whole bunch of people. ... Please hurry up." "How are they trying to get in?" "Oh, they're breaking in with uh, axes and all kinds of stuff. ... Please. I've got a gun. I'm gonna go up there and shoot them." "OK. Stay on the phone with me. I'm getting somebody out there, OK?" Reporter Jeff Jones, of the Journal, writes that Garrison's voice was "filled with fear and panic" as he described lights being shined in his eyes, and insisted he had no idea who the invaders were. "Please hurry up. Please hurry up," Garrison says. "I'm gonna go out there now." "Can you take the phone with you?" "Yes." "OK. Take the phone with you." As Garrison moves toward his back door, his dog begins barking, and he complains he still can't see what's going on because of lights shining in his face. "I've got my gun," he says. "I'll shoot the sons of bitches." Police report that Albuquerque Police Officer H. Neal Terry and county deputies James Monteith and Erik Little -- displaying no badges, dressed in unmarked dark SWAT gear and possibly wearing their black hoods pulled down over their faces -- saw Garrison come to his back door with a gun in one hand, a cellular phone in the other. All three officers opened fire with their AR-15 assault rifles, discharging at least 12 rounds. Police Chief Joe Polisar said it isn't department policy to notify 911 dispatchers before serving a warrant -- in this case one under which police hoped to find "counterfeit items including checks, driver's licenses and birth certificates." Garrison was not suspected in connection with the "fake ID" ring. No one was arrested that day. Local papers were not told whether any false documents were found. Officers did find it necessary to shoot and kill Garrison's Chow dog, when the animal tried to protect his master after he was down. Garrison's wife, Modesta, was inside the home at the time police killed him. Albuquerque police officer Howard Neal Terry, one of the three "lawmen" involved, has been a defendant in three federal excessive-force lawsuits in the past six years, the local daily reports. The city of Albuquerque has paid more than $375,000 to settle the three lawsuits. In one case, Terry kicked an unarmed man in the head, causing permanent brain damage, and then contended the 64-year-old Mexican man "resisted arrest." In another case, the city argued (before paying up) that another Mexican man, whose home Officer Terry has invaded, was responsible for his own injuries since he failed to obey the officer's orders. In March 1993, Terry was one of two officers involved in the fatal shooting of Randy Libby, a 30-year-old man who supposedly threatened them with a locomotive-shaped cologne bottle. The city paid off the Libby family to the tune of $100,000. Polisar and County Sheriff Joe Bowdich said they believe the officers shot Garrison in accordance with departmental policies. The officers "couldn't look into his heart and mind," Polisar said. "They simply had to make a split-second decision." Why do I doubt that if Mr. Garrison had shot and killed the deputies, Sheriff Polisar would be holding a similar press conference to explain why Mr. Garrison was not being charged with any crime, since "He could not look into the hearts and minds of the unidentified, black-clad men brandishing AR-15s at him on his own property. He simply had to make a split-second decision"? # # # Pro-government extremists will argue that, in each case, if these citizens had docilely allowed armed strangers to have their way, they might still be alive. But this does not constitute a rebuttal to my contention that we are now living in a police state. Rather, it merely constitutes advice on how we might behave if we hope to survive a little longer _in_ a police state. Short-sighted advice. The Jews of Eastern Europe figured their best course was to passively obey the authorities in 1942. We all know where that got them. Our judges are now issuing search warrants which allow police to invade private property without notice, and murder any law-abiding citizen they find there, on as flimsy a pretext as "searching for fake ID." The mistake made by David Aguilar and Ralph Garrison was not in taking up arms to defend their homes, families, and neighborhoods. That is the right of every American. They made their mistakes when they allowed themselves to be outgunned, when they failed to wear Kevlar, and when they decided to confront their violent assailants directly, rather than waiting with longer-range weapons in positions of concealment. The people will re-learn these lessons eventually ... if only through genetic selection. ------------------------ Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)IRS wants NRA Membership List Date: 03 Feb 1997 17:20:07 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) >Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 16:15:58 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: eplurib@megalinx.net (E Pluribus Unum) >Subject: IRS wants NRA Membership List > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >NRA won't release members' names to IRS >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >IRS demands confidential list >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D > >By Rowan Scarborough: Washington Times February 3, 1997 > >The National Rifle Association is balking at Internal Revenue Service >demands to turn over its confidential membership list as part of an audit >begun 18 months ago and slated to last more than two years. > >"Not only have we said no, we've said it in much stronger terms than that," >said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre Jr. > >The IRS showed up at the NRA's door in 1995 after President Clinton= publicly >lashed out at the nation's leading gun lobby, blaming it for the Republican >takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections. > >The audit is costing the group about $1,000,000 a year in legal and >accounting fees, office space and other costs, said Wilson H. Phillips Jr., >NRA treasurer and chief financial officer. > >"It's a separate line on our budget," Mr. Phillips said. "We budget about >$1 million a year. Last year, it looks like we ended up just under that." > >The group is one of about a dozen conservative public policy groups the IRS >has chosen to audit since 1994, All have opposed Clinton Administration >policies. Two are mentioned in an internal White House report as >responsible for negative news stories about the president and first lady >Hillary Rodham Clinton. > >Mr. Phillips said in an interview the dispute over access to the names and >addresses of dues-paying NRA members is likely headed for the courts. The >NRA's membership list contains some 2.8 million names. > >The association worries that if the IRS, with its extensive powers to audit >individuals and businesses , obtains custody of the members' list, >gun owners will be discouraged from joining. > >IRS agents began the audit in June 1995, parked themselves at NRA >headquarters for months and demanded reams of internal documents. > >Mr Phillips said the IRS is employing a far-reaching team approach called a >Coordinated Examination Program (CEP). > >The IRS typically uses a CEP for tax-exempt groups who have offices in >different geographic regions and whose assests or income exceed $50= million. >The NRA estimates its net worth at $85 million. > >Neither Mr. LaPierre nor Mr. Phillips would directly criticize the IRS for >so rigorous an audit. > >When asked to discuss in general Mr. Clinton's use of federal law >enforcement agencies, Mr. LaPierre said: "I think there has been a tendency >to politicize a lot of the federal agencies in the Clinton Administration." > >Frank Keith, an IRS spokesman in Washington, declined to say whether it is >routine to request a group's membership list during a Coordinate= Examination >Program. He said federal law prevents him from discussing individual= cases. > >A spot check of other conservative groups under IRS audit found that they >were not asked to provide a membership list. > >The NRA is a nonprofit group that under IRS rules may engage in political >activity. The lobby also operates foundations for which donations are=7F >tax-deductible. The foundations are barred from participating in political >campaigns. > >IRS audits typically check to make sure the tax-deductible groups, >designated 501(c)3, are not involved in partisan politics. > >President Clinton, still stinging from the Democrats' election debacle, >singled out the NRA for blame in an interview with the Cleveland Plain >Dealer published on Jan. 14, 1995. > >"The fights that I fought, bloody though they were, cost a lot," Mr.= Clinton >said. "The fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats= in >Congress. The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House. I can't >believe nobody has written that story, but it is - partly because our guys >didn't know how to fight them, the NRA." > >One month later, the IRS notified the NRA it would face a sweeping audit, >which began the following June. > >The IRS denies that politics are a factor in choosing which organizations= to >audit. Officials say many decisions are based on media reports about a >group's activities or complaints from opponents. Conservatives contend= this >makes them juicy targets since the press, which they describe as liberal, >tends to churn out more critical reports on right-of-center advocacy= groups. > >The struggle with the IRS comes as Mr. LaPierre is fending off a challenge >from dissident members of the board of directors. > >A vote on whether to retain Mr. LaPierre is expected at a Feb. 8-9 board >meeting. Board member Neal Knox, who is leading the anti-LaPierre= movement, >said the IRS audit has no bearing on the issue. > =20 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html > >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Form 1040: what law requires filing (if any)? Date: 03 Feb 1997 21:35:21 -0800 >Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:28:58 -0600 >From: tfs@adc.com (Tony F Sgarlatti) >To: pmitch@primenet.com >Subject: Re: L&J: 1040 - What Law Requires Filing? >X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII > >Paul, > >You wrote: >> Tony, >> >> May I please have your permission >> to forward your message here to >> others I know on the Internet? > >Absolutely! As far and wide as possible! > >Tony > >> Many thanks, again! >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> At 01:42 PM 2/3/97 -0600, you wrote: >> >You'll love this one.. >> > >> >Call the I.R.S. at 1-800-829-1040 and ask them this >> >question (the answer they gave me was hilarious): >> > >> > "What law or statute makes me liable to >> > file an individual income tax return?" >> > >> >Be aware that you'll first have to go through a few >> >menu selections first, so do the following in order >> >to get through the selections quickly so you can >> >speak with a live representative - >> > >> >After the number (recording) answers: >> > >> >1.) Press 1 (all touch-tone callers do this). >> >2.) Skip the next prompt which asks if you >> > know the extension of the party you wish >> > to reach, or if you're calling because you >> > didn't receive a W-2 or 1099 form. >> >3.) The next prompt asks you to press a number >> > from one to seven - press 1; a question you >> > have about personal income tax. >> >4.) The next prompt asks you to press a number >> > from one to six - press 3; questions about >> > wages, etc. >> >5.) The next prompt asks you to press a number >> > from one to four - press 2; questions about >> > wages, etc. >> >6.) Finally remain on the line for the next >> > available representative - mine answered >> > after about 40 seconds; however, your >> > mileage may vary. >> > >> >Now here is the answer I was given (in a rather >> >disgusted tone): >> > >> > "Well, I don't know. I guess you'll have >> > to call your Senator or somebody." >> > >> >With that, she HUNG UP THE PHONE before she >> >even heard me ask, "Why don't you know? >> >You're the IRS." >> > >> >I was prepared to have a small discussion with >> >her regarding what the U.S. Supreme Court said >> >about the 16th Amendment, namely: >> > >> > The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of >> > taxation. [see Stanton, v. Baltic Mining Co., >> > 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916)], and >> > >> > The 16th Amendment did not extend the taxing >> > power to new subjects. [see Eisner v. Macomber, >> > 252 U.S. 189, at 206 (1920)] >> > >> >And discuss with her what privileged activity I >> >am engaged in to tax my income based on what >> >the House Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page >> >2580 had to say: >> > >> > "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on >> > income as such. It is an excise tax with >> > respect to certain activities and privileges >> > which is measured by reference to the >> > income which they produce. The income is >> > not the subject of the tax; it is the basis >> > for determining the amount of tax." >> > >> >That the mere receipt of income, in and of >> >itself, does not determine tax liability. It >> >is the nature of the activity that determines >> >liability. >> > >> >And discuss with her specific points of the United >> >States Code Title 26, which makes references to >> >*conclusions of law* such as "taxpayer," "taxable >> >year," "subject to," or "liable for" any internal >> >revenue tax. >> > >> >Or the fact that "income tax returns" are only >> >"voluntary" because the free exercise of the >> >constitutionally guaranteed rights to exist and >> >to sustain one's self, and to acquire property >> >(wages) by lawful means, *cannot* be taxed for >> >revenue purposes. Requiring income taxes to be >> >"mandatory" unless you fit within a "revenue >> >taxable activity" would be unConstitutional. >> > >> >So being discouraged from the rudeness displayed >> >by that IRS representative I spoke with, I did as >> >she suggested and called my U.S. Senators offices >> >asking the same question and they promised to get >> >back with me. >> > >> >I'd be curious to hear how the IRS agents answer >> >this question when others call. Thx. >> > >> >In freedom, >> > >> >Tony Sgarlatti >> >tonys@the-truth.org >> >http://www.future.net/~thetruth/ >> > >> >"If you do not quality as a "taxpayer", then >> > the entire Internal Revenue Code and all of >> > the multitude of rules and regulations >> > issued pursuant to the Code apply to some >> > other persons, but they do not apply to you." >> > -- Otto Skinner, "The Best Kept Secret" >> > >> >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> >Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with >> >"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) >> >Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman >> > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: ANOTHER PHONE COMPANY SCAM Date: 03 Feb 1997 19:10:20 -0500 (EST) Fwd from another list This directly affects our ability to communicate on this list. Regards, Dennis -- >>Date: 97-02-03 00:07:51 EST Subj: FCC charges To my internet friends, I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments, responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all our voices may be heard. Thanks for your time,<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Forwarded mail.... Date: 03 Feb 1997 17:01:58 -0800 >Read a little about this in the general media -- the Internet providers >are fighting this one tooth and nail. Note the FCC address to send >comments to. > >Regards, > >Barb Beier > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 21:41:44 -0700 >From: 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com > >From: Elan Amram >Date: Friday, January 31, 1997 3:00 AM > >I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter currently >under review by the FCC. Local telephone companies have filed a >proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service. > >They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the >telephone network. It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if >users were required to pay additional per minute charges. > >The FCC has created an email box for your comments, responses must be >received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to isp@fcc.gov and >tell them what you think. > >Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all our >voices may be heard. Thanks for your time, >Elan Amram >DTC SuperNet - 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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: "IRS" Quo Warranto Date: 03 Feb 1997 21:37:13 -0800 Dear Americans, How many Americans would be willing to come together to fund a serious Quo Warranto action against the "Internal Revenue Service"? For some background, see URL: http://www.sky.net/~caf See also 31 U.S.C. in toto. rsvp here asap /s/ Paul Mitchell ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Canadian Tribes Fight Gun Laws Date: 04 Feb 1997 07:32:07 -0500 (EST) It would appear the Tribal Chief are Canada's equivilant of the NRA. It is also obvious they have a better understanding of laws and rights than a vast majority of Canadians. Bravo! Regards, Dennis -------- << Subj: Canada Tribes Fight Gun Laws Date: 97-02-03 19:44:12 EST From: AOLNewsProfiles@aol.net .c The Associated Press OTTAWA (AP) -- Canada's tribal chiefs will go to court to challenge strict new gun-control laws unless native hunters are exempted, a top-ranking chief said Monday. Ovide Mercredi, grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations, told the House of Commons justice committee that the law breaks treaty rights guaranteed under the constitution. The law, enacted last year despite strong opposition from the prairie provinces, requires registration of all firearms, including rifles and shotguns that previously were not covered. Mercredi said he had no objections to restricting handguns and automatic weapons. But he said he wanted Indians excluded from laws governing registration, storage and transportation of rifles and shotguns used for hunting. The Justice Ministry is willing to exempt tribal hunters from fees, but not from registration and licensing. Mercredi became angry when Gordon Kirby, a Parliament member from the governing Liberal Party, asked if it would be legal to exempt natives from the regulations. ``Don't play that game with me about criminal law and the firearms act,'' Mercredi said. ``The fact of the matter is we never agreed as a people that you could make laws for us. That's why we have treaties with you.'' Alberta's provincial government, joined by three other provinces, has launched a challenge of the firearms law in the Alberta Court of Appeal. Alberta says the law is unconstitutional because it deals with property and civil rights that fall under provincial, not federal, jurisdiction. Gun lobbyists said the proposed fees were too high and argued the new law will not do what it aims -- to keep guns away from criminals. Under the regulations, gun owners will be charged up to $60 for a five-year license. They also will have to pay to register the firearms. New gun owners also will have to pay to take a firearms safety course. AP-NY-02-03-97 1940EST ------------------------- OTTAWA (AP) -- Exempt aboriginal hunters from gun-control laws or face a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court of Canada. That was the message Chief Ovide Mercredi of the Assembly of First Nations delivered Monday to a Commons justice committee studying proposed regulations for Ottawa's gun-control bill. Laws forcing aboriginals to register rifles or shotguns, and which impose restrictions on storage and transportation, violate rights protected by treaties, Mercredi said. ``We have treaty rights and aborigional rights to hunt. When the treaties were signed there was no discussion about issues like storage or registration.'' Justice Minister Allan Rock said he's confident Bill C-68 and its regulations are constitutionally sound. The proposed regulations, introduced in November, say Aboriginal Peoples engaged in traditional hunting practices are exempt from fees, but not registration and licensing. That doesn't satisfy Mercredi. ``You can't perfect the law through the regulations,'' he said. ``You can't violate those rights.'' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: IRS wants NRA Membership List (fwd) Date: 04 Feb 1997 07:07:23 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by wasmith@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Wade A. Smith) ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From eplurib@megalinx.net Mon Feb 3 15:22:17 1997 X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Lines: 111 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 5149 ========== NRA won't release members' names to IRS ======================================= IRS demands confidential list ============================= By Rowan Scarborough: Washington Times February 3, 1997 The National Rifle Association is balking at Internal Revenue Service demands to turn over its confidential membership list as part of an audit begun 18 months ago and slated to last more than two years. "Not only have we said no, we've said it in much stronger terms than that," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre Jr. The IRS showed up at the NRA's door in 1995 after President Clinton publicly lashed out at the nation's leading gun lobby, blaming it for the Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections. The audit is costing the group about $1,000,000 a year in legal and accounting fees, office space and other costs, said Wilson H. Phillips Jr., NRA treasurer and chief financial officer. "It's a separate line on our budget," Mr. Phillips said. "We budget about $1 million a year. Last year, it looks like we ended up just under that." The group is one of about a dozen conservative public policy groups the IRS has chosen to audit since 1994, All have opposed Clinton Administration policies. Two are mentioned in an internal White House report as responsible for negative news stories about the president and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. Phillips said in an interview the dispute over access to the names and addresses of dues-paying NRA members is likely headed for the courts. The NRA's membership list contains some 2.8 million names. The association worries that if the IRS, with its extensive powers to audit individuals and businesses , obtains custody of the members' list, gun owners will be discouraged from joining. IRS agents began the audit in June 1995, parked themselves at NRA headquarters for months and demanded reams of internal documents. Mr Phillips said the IRS is employing a far-reaching team approach called a Coordinated Examination Program (CEP). The IRS typically uses a CEP for tax-exempt groups who have offices in different geographic regions and whose assests or income exceed $50 million. The NRA estimates its net worth at $85 million. Neither Mr. LaPierre nor Mr. Phillips would directly criticize the IRS for so rigorous an audit. When asked to discuss in general Mr. Clinton's use of federal law enforcement agencies, Mr. LaPierre said: "I think there has been a tendency to politicize a lot of the federal agencies in the Clinton Administration." Frank Keith, an IRS spokesman in Washington, declined to say whether it is routine to request a group's membership list during a Coordinate Examination Program. He said federal law prevents him from discussing individual cases. A spot check of other conservative groups under IRS audit found that they were not asked to provide a membership list. The NRA is a nonprofit group that under IRS rules may engage in political activity. The lobby also operates foundations for which donations are tax-deductible. The foundations are barred from participating in political campaigns. IRS audits typically check to make sure the tax-deductible groups, designated 501(c)3, are not involved in partisan politics. President Clinton, still stinging from the Democrats' election debacle, singled out the NRA for blame in an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer published on Jan. 14, 1995. "The fights that I fought, bloody though they were, cost a lot," Mr. Clinton said. "The fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress. The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House. I can't believe nobody has written that story, but it is - partly because our guys didn't know how to fight them, the NRA." One month later, the IRS notified the NRA it would face a sweeping audit, which began the following June. The IRS denies that politics are a factor in choosing which organizations to audit. Officials say many decisions are based on media reports about a group's activities or complaints from opponents. Conservatives contend this makes them juicy targets since the press, which they describe as liberal, tends to churn out more critical reports on right-of-center advocacy groups. The struggle with the IRS comes as Mr. LaPierre is fending off a challenge from dissident members of the board of directors. A vote on whether to retain Mr. LaPierre is expected at a Feb. 8-9 board meeting. Board member Neal Knox, who is leading the anti-LaPierre movement, said the IRS audit has no bearing on the issue. =========================================================== E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 ----- End Included Message ----- -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: about unsolicited commercial email to this address Date: 04 Feb 1997 08:50:27 -0800 (PST) Sorry, this is not on topic. Yesterday, I sent 15 of my patented "get off my email account" messages to people offering me the most -amAzing- commercial opportunities. If you or anyone you know asks for my email address without asking me, be aware that I -flush- these incredible astounding opportunities to make money "like never before" and that actually I don't even like spending that much time on it. Somebody wants my email address, you may forward their request to me for them, don't hand it out. I hate long .sigs. It's a waste of the internet, a resource that is stretched beyond it's capacity as it is. But since that doesn't matter to these conniving modern con artists anyway I'll be adding a l o n g one to all my public posts. Putting the words up front may stop me from having to battle these dimwits with this: "Further unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrasement.Your requirement that I take positive action to avoid you further abusing my private email, is repugnant." It would be a pathetic comment on the state of humanity if I had to change my user name to something like adsuckwind@ads.die or some such. A real pain in the butt for the people that I really do want to be able to reply easily to me. boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, requiring positive action to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Wee Willie Clinton Sings Another Golden Oldie Date: 04 Feb 1997 12:08:04 -0500 (EST) THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Met Paula on a fun day and my Part stood still, Da doo ron ron ron, Da doo ron ron, Told her I was Clinton with a first name Bill, Da doo ron ron ron, Da doo ron ron, Yeah, my Part stood still, Yeah, my name was Bill, And she surely ran like hell, Da doo ron ron ron, Da doo ron ron. Needed money badly, called the DNC, Da doo ron ron ron, Da doo ron ron, Said, `Lippo-suck dinero, send it all to me!', Da doo ron ron ron, Da doo ron ron, Yeah, the ol' DNC, Heck, they do it all for me, Breaking laws with impunity, Da doo ron ron ron, Da doo ron ron. Guests at my coffees have been shady guys, Da doo ron ron ron, Da doo ron ron, Gun runners, embezzlers, even foreign spies, Da doo ron ron ron, Da doo ron ron, Yeah, Wang smuggled Chinese guns, Hey, it was all good fun, Money flowed when all was done, Da doo ron ron ron, Da doo ron ron. Almost every day McCurry, yes, he wants to cry, Da doo ron ron ron, Da doo ron ron, Asking, `Boss, do I hafta tell another lie?', Da doo ron ron ron, da doo ron ron, Yeah, some aides do cry, When I do make them lie, Me, I'm just a lying guy, Da doo ron ron ron, Da doo ron ron. THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Wee Willie Clinton's Draft State of the Union Speech (1997) Date: 04 Feb 1997 12:20:39 -0500 (EST) THIS IS A SATIRE ___________________________________________________________________________ Good evening. Jones ran away, so there was no union. Flowers was able to hang in there for a while ... what union there was ... was not worth recalling. Hillary ... well let's just call our unique `my-part-is-in' (NOT!) arrangement a confederacy of convenience and not a union. Thank you, and good night. ____________________________________________________________________________ THIS IS A SATIRE Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Quo Warranto against "IRS" [sic] Date: 04 Feb 1997 14:41:06 -0800 [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, and Relator c/o 2509 N. Campbell Avenue, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state zip code exempt Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION People of the United States ) Case No. CV-96-163-BLG of America, ex relatione ) Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) NOTICE OF INTENT TO PETITION ) FOR LEAVE TO INSTITUTE QUO WARRANTO Petitioners, ) PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ) "INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE" [sic] vs. ) ) This is a 60-day letter. United States et al., ) ) All Writs Statute: Respondent. ) 28 U.S.C. 1651 ____________________________) COME NOW the People of the United States of America (hereinafter "Petitioners"), ex relatione Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law (hereinafter "Relator"), to provide formal Notice to all interested party(s), and to demand mandatory judicial notice by this honorable Court, pursuant to Rules 201(d), 301, and 302 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, of Petitioners' intent to petition this honorable Court for leave to institute Quo Warranto proceedings against the organization known as the "Internal Revenue Service" (hereinafter "IRS"), and to do so at the end of sixty (60) calendar days, which day is Friday, April 4, 1997. Notice of Intent to Quo Warranto the IRS: Page 1 of 5 In 1972, Internal Revenue Manual 1100 was published in both the Federal Register and Cumulative Bulletin (see 37 Fed. Reg. 20,960; 1972-2 Cum. Bul. 836). The very first page of the Bulletin's "Statement of Organization and Functions" includes the following admission concerning the lawful creation of the IRS: (3) By common parlance [sic] and understanding of the time, an office of the importance of the Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a bureau. The Secretary of the Treasury, in his report at the close of the calendar year 1862 stated that "The Bureau of Internal Revenue has been organized under the Action of the last session ...." Also it can been seen that Congress intended to establish a Bureau of Internal Revenue, or thought they had, from the act of March 3, 1863, in which provision was made for the President to appoint with Senate confirmation a Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue "who shall be charged with the duties in the bureau of internal revenue as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, or as may be require by law, and who shall act as Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the absence of that officer, and exercise the privilege of franking all letters and documents pertaining to the office of internal revenue." In other words, "the office of Internal Revenue," was the "Bureau of Internal Revenue," and the act of July 1, 1862, is the organic act of today's Internal Revenue Service. [emphasis added] This statement clearly admits the absence of any specific statute or other legislation creating the Bureau of Internal Revenue and its present day alter ego -- the IRS -- as a duly constituted agency of the United States (federal government). The Act of 1862 cited supra only created the Office of the Commissioner, not the Bureau of Internal Revenue, nor the IRS. Furthermore, the Acts of July 1, 1862, and March 3, 1873, were both repealed and were not re-enacted by the Revised Statutes of 1873. If there were a specific Act creating the Bureau, the publication would have so stated, rather than to rely upon the claim that Congress "thought they had created the Bureau". Notice of Intent to Quo Warranto the IRS: Page 2 of 5 Thus, the IRS was not established by the Constitution, has never been created by any Act of Congress, and is not a duly constituted office of the United States (federal government). See United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886) ("there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill"); United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505 (1888); United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 8 S.Ct. 595, 607, 21 S.Ct. 891 (1901) ("The law creates the office, prescribes its duties"); Cochnower v. United States, 248 U.S. 405, 407, 39 S.Ct. 137 (1919) ("Primarily we may say that the creation of offices and the assignment of their compensation is a legislative function .... And we think the delegation must have clear expression or implication"); Burnap v. United States, 252 U.S. 512, 516, 40 S.Ct. 374, 376 (1920); Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchel, 269 U.S. 513, 46 S.Ct. 172, 173 (1926); N.L.R.B. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Of Louisville, 350 U.S. 264, 269, 76 S.Ct. 383 (1956) ("'Officers' normally means those who hold defined offices. It does not mean the boys in the back room or other agencies of invisible government, whether in politics or in the trade-union movement."); Crowley v. Southern Ry. Co., 139 F. 851, 853 (5th Cir. 1905); Adams v. Murphy, 165 F. 304 (8th Cir. 1908); Scully v. United States, 193 F. 185, 187 (D.New. 1910) ("There can be no offices of the United States, strictly speaking, except those which are created by the Constitution itself, or by an act of Congress"); Commissioner v. Harlan, 80 F.2d. 660, 662 (9th Cir. 1935); Varden v. Ridings, 20 F.Supp. 495 (E.D. Ky. 1937); Annoni v. Blas Nadal's Heirs, 94 E.2d 513, Notice of Intent to Quo Warranto the IRS: Page 3 of 5 515 (1st Cir. 1938); and Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943). Furthermore, neither the Respondents, nor the IRS, nor any of their agencies, assigns, or instrumentalities, may claim standing without first alleging facts to show the standing to be true: Standing cannot be inferred argumentatively from averments in the pleadings, but rather must affirmatively appear in the record; it is the burden of the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute; the parties must allege facts essential to show jurisdiction, and if they fail to make the necessary allegations, they have not standing. [FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215] [110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d. 603] [emphasis added] Unlike most state courts of general jurisdiction, in which jurisdiction is generally presumed unless contrary is demonstrated, in federal district courts absence of jurisdiction is generally presumed unless party invoking federal jurisdiction clearly demonstrates that it exists. [State of La. v. Sprint Communications Co.] [892 F.Supp. 145] [emphasis added] Dated: February 4, 1997 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law All Rights Reserved without Prejudice Notice of Intent to Quo Warranto the IRS: Page 4 of 5 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law, do hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States", that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF INTENT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INSTITUTE QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE "INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE": This is a 60-day letter. All Writs Statute: 28 U.S.C. 1651 by placing one true and correct copy of same in first class U.S. Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to: Attorney General William H. Rehnquist, C.J. Department of Justice Supreme Court of the U.S. 10th and Constitution, N.W. 1 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Solicitor General Warren Christopher Department of Justice U.S. Secretary of State 10th and Constitution, N.W. Department of State Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. James M. Burns LeRoy Michael; Schweitzer United States District Court c/o Yellowstone County Jail 316 North 26th Street 3165 King Avenue, East Billings, Montana state Billings, Montana state Office of the U.S. Attorneys Judge J. Clifford Wallace United States District Court Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Federal Building c/o P.O. Box 193939 Billings, Montana state San Francisco, California Chief Judge Judge Alex Kozinski Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals c/o P.O. Box 193939 125 South Grand Avenue, #200 San Francisco, California state Pasadena, California state Executed on February 4, 1997: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, and Relator Notice of Intent to Quo Warranto the IRS: Page 5 of 5 # # # ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: NRA in-fighting Date: 04 Feb 1997 12:31:36 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: <32F6EA0F.1D4@icsi.net> So far the count is 18. That's the number of folks who have called, tonight, and asked if I heard Neil and Wayne play 'Silly Buggers' on the Liddy show, today. No, I didn't, thank you very much. I did talk to two board members, tonight, trying to find out what's going on. I now know for certain that Wayne either is or is not going to be replaced by Neil, that Marion definitely will or definitely will not be dispossessed and that no matter what happens Tanya either will or won't be fired. Or maybe not. I'm getting a little tired of this NRA intramurial bloodletting. Frankly, if all these folks have all this energy to fight each other, they're not spending enough time fighting our external battles. I don't remember the AWB being repealed, the executive orders re various and sundry weapons being revoked, Brady, GCA 1968 and the MGA of 1934 being repealed and a blood oath being taken by the president that he and all future presidents will uphold and honor the second amendment. Until such time as that happens, folks in Fairfax and those who wannabe in Fairfax don't have time for this silliness. And those who think they do are not the Defenders of the Faith they consider themselves to be. I'm going to abridge the conversations of the evening, re Wayne and Neil. One says that Wayne is an articulate and reasoned spokesman for the NRA and that if he goes the NRA's mainstream constituency goes with him. That any chance of expanding the NRA's membership outside of the traditional demographics of the org lie with the current admin. The other says that we've put up with pussyfooting too long, he don't give a damn about the media or Joe Sixpack, they're not with us anyway, that Wayne is a lousey administrator and Neil can rally the troops to the battle. Neil has been doing this for x number of years, he's earned the position. I don't know about all that on both sides. Few, if any, have more respect for Neil Knox than I do. He has been doing this for x number of years and been there when others weren't. BUT...that's what they said about Bob Dole. It's not language that works for me. It gives me a great feeling of Deja Moo: the feeling I've heard that bullshit somewhere before. While I agree with the individual in not giving a damn about the media, I do care about Joe Sixpack. He's the guy, his daughter, son and wife along with him, who we have to bring into our fold. Without him, we don't do so good. And I'm not sure a hard core activist is the way to get him. If there is any more active activist than Larry Pratt I don't know who it is. Yet, compare the membership of NRA to GOA. Far as I'm concerned, if we want a hard core activist to be ExVP, lets get Larry. That'll get you a couple hundred thousand new members overnight. Don't know how many it'll cost. To me, Neil is a grass roots leader. Whether he has the social and communicative skills to do what needs to be done is moot. Larry, on the other hand, defitintely has the communication skills. You may or may not like what he says but he can damn sure get it said. So, if Wayne gets dumped, lets bring in Larry. If you want an activist to run the show, take it to the wall. Pink Floyd will do the soundtrack. As far as Wayne's admin. skills, I have no clue, therefore no opinion. I've heard both sides and still don't know what they're talking about. I've met Marion exactly twice for a total of less than two minutes. I don't pay any attention to the politics of the NRA so I have no idea if she's effective or not. This brings us to TM. Before '94, when she took over ILA, we got Brady, AWB and had a "D" congress. In "94" we got the first "R" congress in several decades and Clinton gave credit for the happening to the NRA. In "96" we kept that congress, improved the senate, lost a few in the house, basically a push in a year in which the president is reelected. I worked the Foster campaign in La. Fact is, I called Foster to NRA's attention after Al Alcock called him to mine. He was 17th out of 17 candidates, at the time. Today, he's governor and don't kid yourself about one thing. Deduct the NRA's effort from that election and Mike would be sitting on the front porch in Franklin holding prayer meetings, today. Probably be happier doing it, but that's beside the point. Two weeks before the congressional elections she called me and asked what was happening with Ron Paul. I told her he was in trouble because all the cops were supporting Lefty because of Paul's earlier stand on drugs. I made the race a dead heat. She said, "Hummmm, better do a mailer." Five days before the election I and every other NRA member, or voter, for all I know, got a letter emphasizing the NRA endorsement of Ron Paul. Paul won by two points. Anyone don't think an NRA mailer is worth two points? Ask Congressman Paul. Lefty who? I understand others in other states have a different experience. That's fine, I'm not arguing with you. I'm just telling you mine. I don't really give a damn about the thing with Wayne and Marion, as I said, I don't know much about NRA internal politics, and at that know more than I care to. HOW-SOME-EVAH,according to me, whoever finds him/herself in charge of the NRA needs to leave ILA the hell alone. I'll stipulate that Tanya can be cantankerous as hell and that when she goes on a tear she can peel varnish off an antique statue of Jesus. But, the same set of balls that gives her the fortitude to stand up to a board of directors and an administration is what gives her the fortitude to contest and win marginal races and get in the faces of various and sundry congressmen what need their faces got into. Whatever happens, whoever comes in, you better leave ILA alone. Jim PS: I'll be offline for a few days on personal biz. If the above pisses you off, you tell me so and don't get an immediate answer, it's not because I've become shy and retiring now that I'm in my dotage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: NRA in-fighting Date: 04 Feb 1997 11:34:20 -0800 (PST) My goodness, there certainly is a lot of specualation going on. Anybody out there doing things in RL other then speculating about the speculations regarding interpersonal relations in fairfax? -Boyd (going to state legislative hearings on friday) boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Your tax dollars at work -- from cyberpunks (fwd) Date: 05 Feb 1997 01:21:00 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NIJ Opens Regional Technology Center in Rome: Representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice, state and local elected officials, and Air Force leaders officially opened the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center/Northeast (NLECTC) at Rome Laboratory. The Center will work with law en forcement and corrections organizations from 16 states --- stretching from Maine to Minnesota --- to determine operational requirem ents and identify, evaluate, develop, demonstrate and assess new or improved technology applications to meet those needs. The Center will also provide assessment of law enforcement products information, standards and testing. The Northeast NLECTC is co-located with Rome Laboratory within the Griffiss Business and Technology Park. Rome Laboratory is the Air Force's research and development laboratory responsible for command, control, communications, computer and intelligence technologies. The laboratory was selected as a regional technology center for the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in December 1994. It joins four other regional centers across the country that use existing facilities and resources to support the NI J's Office of Science and Technology and law enforcement and corrections organizations. The Northeast NLECTC will support law enforcement and corrections activities in the following states: Maine, New Hampshire, Verm ont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio Michigan, Wisconsin, Io wa and Minnesota. It will facilitate technical interchange between prospective users and developers or technology through regional symposia, exhibitions and workshops. Participants range from the law enforcement and corrections community to the Department of De fense and the commercial sector. Each of the five regional centers has a specific technological focus, with the Northeast NLECTC capitalizing on Rome Laboratory' s more than 40 years of expertise developing technologies that provided the vital eyes, ears and voices for the nation's military. The Rome Laboratory Law Enforcement Team will be working with the Northeast NLECTC to convert a variety of defense technologies to the benefit of law enforcement and corrections. At the current time, efforts are directed at transferring technologies in the foll owing areas: *** Sensors: concealed weapon detection, Over-the-Horizon radar, wall penetration surveillance, and passive location, tracking and tagging. *** Information Technology: image processing, natural language processing, and identification using optical correlation. *** Intelligence Exploitation: speech processing, timeline analysis, automated firearm identification, and forensic sciences. *** Communications: applications of high-speed networks, multiband multifunction radios, and rapidly deployable communications. *** Command and Control: collaborative planning, visualization techniques, and Joint Automated Booking Station. Over the past four decades, researchers at Rome Laboratory have developed a vast array of technological tools for the military to e mploy in our national defense. Within the shared framework of command, control, communications and intelligence, many of those tech nologies apply to the domestic law enforcement mission as well. As one of NLECTC's regional law enforcement technology centers, Ro me Laboratory will continue to make substantial contributions to the war on crime by developing technologies that meet the increasi ng needs of law enforcement. Rome Laboratory Signs Law Enforcement Technology Agreement with City of Rome Representatives of Rome Laboratory and the City of Rome signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) to establ ish a formal working agreement for the purpose of testing and evaluating military technologies in a law enforcement setting. The C RDA signing was the first official action following a ribbon-cutting that opened the National Institute of Justice's Northeast Regi on National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center at Rome Laboratory. Signing the agreement were Col. Ted. F. Bowlds, com mander of Rome Laboratory, and Rome Police Chief Merino J. Ciccone. During the five-year agreement, Rome Laboratory will supply a variety of technologies to the Rome Police Department. Police department officers and officials will then test, evaluate and report back to Rome Laboratory regarding the effectiveness of the test technologies. Some of the technical tasks to be performed under t he CRDA are enhancing the computing capability of the Rome Police Department, including improved access to law enforcement data bas es and access to the World Wide Web/Internet, as well as synchronization of 911 Emergency System, computer and alarm time clocks. Rome Police Department personnel will also gain access to advanced technologies such as the "sniffer alcohol detection flashlight," night-vision goggles and hand-held digital assistants. German Magazine interested in Rome Laboratory's Law Enforcement Efforts Dr. Frank Ochmann, a science editor for Germany's Stern Magazine, visited Rome Laboratory to interview engineers and managers involved in law enforcement technology. The interview was requested in light of the April issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, which carried an eight-page article covering a wide variety of C3I technologies developed by the Laboratory. Rome Laboratory Awards Funding to Research Consortia for Dual-Use Military and Law Enforcement Applications ROME, N.Y., June 25, 1996 --- Rome Laboratory has awarded funding totaling more than $5 million to three research consortia. Combined with investment by the consortia partners, the total amount of research will approach $17 million. Rome Laboratory will serve as the agent for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in managing the three research programs that were instituted under DARPA's Technology Reinvestment Project. The goal of all three programs is to develop new technologies with applications to both the military and commercial markets. The Quick Reaction Spoken Language Translator (QRSLT) Consortium seeks to develop a product prototype of a hand-held or body-mounted QRSLT that would allow military personnel in a hostile environment or civilian law enforcement personnel in an emergency situation to communicate with a non-English speaking individual using an easily portable, automatic translation device. The government is contributing $2,374,821 to the program, with consortium members sharing a cost of $3,632,852. Consortium members include Language Systems Inc., Woodland, Calif.; Entropic Research Laboratories Inc., Menlo Park, Calif.; and Eloquent Technology Inc. of Ithaca, N.Y. Language Systems Incorporated, developed the initial spoken language translation prototype under the direction and funding of Rome Laboratory, in support of military requirements. The QRSLT will accept spoken English input from a military or law enforcement user, translate the input into Spanish or Arabic, and generate the computer-spoken translation. The translator will also accept spoken Spanish and Arabic inputs and translate them into spoken English output. This will be an innovative advance over currently available "speaking translators," which produce speech based on typed inputs, which cannot accept spoken input, and which are not customized for military or law enforcement operations. The Millimeter Wave Imaging Radar Consortium seeks development of a suitable technology and effective, affordable products for concealed weapon detection (CWD) and through-the-wall surveillance (TWS) application --- well-established objectives for both military operations other than war and civilian law enforcement agencies. Consortium members include Millimetrix Corp., South Deerfield, Mass.; Technology Service Corp., Trumbull, Conn.; and Riverside Research Institute of Lexington, Mass. They will contribute $2,035,087 to the research program, while the government's share will be $2,018,491. Military applications of the envisioned technology, in addition to operations other than war, would include use by military police and special forces personnel, all weather aircraft operation, shipboard and airborne missile warning, helicopter obstacle avoidance, battlefield surveillance, fire control, and missile seekers. Civilian law enforcement agencies would be able to use the technology in curtailing terrorist acts and juvenile handgun crimes that frequently involve the use of concealed weapons, bombs and other contraband that cannot be detected using currently available technology. The Speaker Identification for Law Enforcement Consortium will be funded with $3.2 million, evenly divided between the government and consortium members T-NETIX Inc. of Englewood, Colo., and Dictaphone of Stratford, Conn. The goal of the consortium is to transfer previously developed speaker identification technology into commercial and military applications. With specific emphasis on minimal size, weight, power and cost, the technology is envisioned to have widespread civilian law enforcement surveillance applications. see ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Militia Satire by Nick -- age 12 Date: 05 Feb 1997 08:26:59 -0800 This is hilarious -- out of the mouths of babes .... Enjoy! (That's an ORDER.) /s/ Paul Mitchell >X-Sender: hwysong@mindspring.com >Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:08:39 -0500 >To: hwysong@mindspring.com >From: Harvey Wysong >Subject: Militia Satire by Nick -- age 12 > >MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS > >Dear M R, > In a recent edition of Reader's Digest, there appeared a satire on >the militias. As you might imagine, the militias were held up to ridicule. >My friend Nick, age 12, thought they had missed some wonderful >opportunities for humor. Here are some of his rejoinders -- uncut, unedited. > I hope you enjoy them as much as I did. > >-- Harvey > >P.s., He's homeschooled. Always has been. > ========================================== > >HOW TO TELL IF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE MILITIA MEMBERS > >There's a delivery truck across the street that hasn't moved in 3 days, >and it has strange looking antennas sticking out of the top. > >There hasn't been a burglary or mugging in your neighborhood in the past >year. > >You are occasionally awakened by nice people in black ski masks doing a >"dynamic entry" on the house next door. > >The church parking lot is always full on Sundays. > >One of your next door neighbors is always following the other one around >at a short distance. > >A kid picked randomnly out of a crowd on Saturday can recite Shakespeare >or the Bible. > >You keep seeing that same white car driving past your house about >every 30 minutes. > >In the (small) public school maintained in your neighborhood, the kids >raise their hand to correct the teacher more than 5 times a day. > >Your kid's treehouse has a bookshelf in it. > > **************************************************** > TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS > **************************************************** > "A great flame follows a little spark." > -- Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy, Paradiso, Canto I, line 34 > **************************************************** > Harvey Wysong > National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association > 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. > hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 > **************************************************** > > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Defrauding America Date: 05 Feb 1997 13:21:39 -0600 (CST) A LETTER FROM THE AUTHOR, RODNEY STICH =20 =20 =20 Rodney Stich =20 The Intent of this letter is to make concerned citizens more effective in bringing about a halt to government corruption, based upon thirty years of fighting corruption. It is important to gain sufficient support from the general population, and this requires making them aware of hard-core criminal activities, and avoiding subjective and discressionary government acts, or far-out theories. =20 First of all, I want to express appreciation of those people who do voice their concern about problems in government. At least these citizens are exerting some effort toward recognizing and resolving the problem. Unfortunately, many of these people are missing the mark, if their intention is to fight the hard-core government corruption that has and is inflicting great harm on the American People, its institutions, and on those who are directly affected. =20 THIRTY YEARS OF INTENSE ACTIVITIES My insight to the problem, and what must be done to address it, stems from thirty years of trying to expose hard-core, documented government corruption, commencing in the early 1960's while I was a federal investigator (with the FAA). Since then, I have repeatedly contacted every government and non-government check and balance that I knew of, which had a duty to act, offering each documents and hard facts which I had obtained as a federal investigator. I am now intimately familiar with the tactics used by these parties to ignore their duties, and to protect the guilty in government. =20 In order to circumvent this obstruction of justice, I wrote three editions of Unfriendly Skies, an expos=E9 detailing the criminal misconduct in government I had encountered, and how this corruption affects air safety and the lives of many unfortunate victims. (Editor's note: This book should not be confused with the book of the same name by "X", which was far less informative, and released after Mr. Stich's book, possibly deliberately.) To inform and motivate people to take action, I have appeared as a guest on over 2,000 radio and television shows since 1978, when Unfriendly Skies was first published. =20 My persistence and determination to force people with a duty to act, to do so, led me to other areas of government criminality, which became the subject of my second book, Defrauding America, now in its second edition. Although both books have had excellent reviews, most of that small portion of the American Public that is aware of the charges has been apathetic, indifferent, and lazy. Even most those who were defrauded of their life's assets in Chapter 11,12,and 13 courts, and those who paid heavily in fraud-related airline crashes did nothing. As a result, the problem has continued to grow out of control, and seroiusly threatens our liberties. The reaction of the so called "Patriots" has not been much better. With the exception of a few concerned individuals, most of these "patriots" have chosen to limit their focus to peripheral, subjective, or discretionary activities of government officials, which totally misses the point of hard-core, criminal government misconduct. Changing any one of these minor matters will not address the corruption in the Justice Department or the court system, for example. =20 The average citizen will not understand the depth of government corruption by listening to someone complain about these peripheral issues (though it is safer to concentrate on such matters than on true criminal corruption.) It is necessary to get large numbers of the American Public informed of these criminal activities, and motivated to act. Most of the efforts of concerned citizens cannot possibly address the need to prosecute and impeach the many crooked judges and government officials. In my opinion, the following are the priorities that concerned citizens must meet to accomplish the task of removing crooked officials and judges, and bringing about their imprisonment: =20 1. Become informed of the hard core criminal activities involving government personnel. This requires reading documented and detailed books that focus on criminal activities. Books that simply make statements without supporting data are weak for accomplishing this. The following books are excellent starters: =20 + Defrauding America, written by an insider, with the help of numerous deep-cover CIA and other government personnel. It addresses a broad band of ongoing criminal activities in government, and helps the reader to understand immensity of the criminal subversive acts being perpetrated against them. The full spectrum of corruption in all three branches of government detailed in this book make it a "must read". =20 + Compromised, writtem by a former CIA asset, focuses on drug activities in Arkansas involving key government personnel. =20 + The Politics of Heroin, written by a college professor who spent years in the field investigating the CIA role in drug trafficking. =20 + Clinton Chronicles book. This covers a relatively small area, but an area that is much in the news. =20 2. Publicize the books and the information. This should include repeated phone calls to every talk show possible; letters to talk shows, including network shows; making people aware of the books and encouraging them to read them. Make speeches whenever possible on the contents of these books. Distribute literature on the books to people who can be expected to respond. =20 3. Don't mix information on hard-core criminal activities in government with subjective or discretionary issues, or far-out theories. If the person you are talking to does not agree with your comments on these matters, they will probably dismiss what you say about hard-core criminal activities in government, as well. Let's keep these issues separate. =20 Despite the many excellent book reviews on Defrauding America, my many appearances on radio and television, and the heavy advertising in alternative newspapers, probably less than 0.001% of the complaining "patriots" have made the effort to read the book. Without reading it, much of the information on government corruption will never be known. Due to my age, I will not be able to contribute much longer to fighting this government corruption by myself. =20 I could use some help. =20 Sincerely, =20 =20 =20 Rodney Stitch. =20 DEFRAUDING AMERICA =20 Defrauding America (cover) by Rodney Stich _________________________________________________________________ =20 For a better understanding of government corruption, to understand what actually happened in past government scandals and their cover-ups, and to better comprehend government corruption that has yet to surface, read the second edition of Defrauding America. This unusual 650-page trade paperback is highly documented and detailed. It was written by a former government investigator, with the assistance of numerous deep-cover CIA and other government personnel. =20 Elections over the past two years brought about the possibility of policy shifts, but did little or nothing about the hard-core corruption in government that is inflicting great harm upon the American people and the world. This book is capable of informing an otherwise poorly-informed American public, and hopefully motivating them to exercise their responsibilities under a democratic government. =20 =20 Defrauding America educates and motivates by describing, in unprecedented detail and unmatched clarity, the interrelationships of various criminal activities and people in control of the CIA and other intelligence services, the Department of Justice, the federal courts, and members of Congress. =20 Among the racketeering schemes described are: 1. CIA and other government personnel involved in drug trafficking into the United States; 2. October Surprise and its cover-up; 3. Inslaw, the coordinated theft of proprietary software and subsequent ruining of the company by persons in the Department of Justice; 4. Iran-Contra (No, you don't know the whole story-even if you read the Walsh Report.) 5. The Savings and Loan swindle; 6. Arkansas scandals involving President Clinton; 7. BNL, BCCI, HUD, and much, much more! =20 Never before has the venality of Justice Department attorneys and federal judges been exposed in this manner. Never before have the methods by which the American people are being looted of their money, their freedoms, and their future been so completely exposed _________________________________________________________________ =20 =20 It is impossible for any voter to make logical decisions on election day without the knowledge provided by Defrauding America. It is every American's patriotic duty to read this book, talk about it to friends and acquaintances, and act on it! =20 =20 Ordering Information: =20 =20 Copies are $25 each, plus shipping. Volume discounts are available (see form) =20 To Order =20 Just download and print this order form. =20 or call =20 1 (800) 247-7389 =20 and tell them you saw it on the Internet! _________________________________________________________________ =20 Electronic Orders with visa or master card will be accepted only if encrypted with PGP 2.6 or later. Our public key can be obtained here. Please use the order form and fill in all information. Be sure to sign and encrypt the form, then e-mail to dstern@copi.com. _________________________________________________________________ =20 =20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: thoughts on O.J. Simpson Date: 05 Feb 1997 15:49:48 -0800 Dear Friends, As long as jury candidates are being drawn from pools consisting exclusively of federal citizens, their verdicts (and indictments) are necessarily null and void for exhibiting class discrimination, which is prohibited. If there were no federal citizens prior to the Civil War, then what are we to do with all the jury verdicts which were issued between the years 1789 and 1866 -- a mere 78 years of American jurisprudence? Those juries were populated by state Citizens, and there is no reason in Law why this should not still be the case, even now. Therefore, I overturn both verdicts -- the "not guilty" verdict in O.J.'s criminal trial, and the "guilty" verdict in O.J.'s civil trial -- because I allege that his juries consisted exclusively of federal citizens. Those juries were selected, however, pursuant to California State law, not according to the federal Jury Selection and Service Act, where the class discrimination is obvious and unavoidable. For more details on this question, visit the Supreme Law Library at URL: http://www.supremelaw.com /s/ Paul Mitchell ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: TESTING Date: 05 Feb 1997 18:46:49 -0800 please delete immediately ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: iwilsker@ih2000.net Subject: Is new proposed "Internet access fee" real or a hoax? (LONG) Date: 05 Feb 1997 20:35:47 -0700 (MST) FCC-LOCAL PHONE CHARGE FOR INTERNET ACCESS - REAL or new URBAN LEGEND There have been over 2000 "READ ME" announcements listed on USENET (according to Altavista) in the past few days regarding an alleged proposed new fee to be charged by the local telephone companies for internet access. (http://www.altavista.digital.com search USENET for "isp@fcc.gov" for the list) If this is factual, or a new hoax and urban legend is currently being debated; there is some evidence that it is basically factual, but there are some exagerations floating around. In SUPPORT of the "rumor" was an article in the January 20 issue of "Web Week", a respected Mecklermedia magazine. The full text of the article can be found on the WebWeek site at : http://www.webweek.com/97Jan20/news/isps.html . An FCC announcement is at http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html but does NOT explicitly mention the local phone company line charges. There is a 300k plus announcement at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/fcc96488.txt Sections 282 - 290 which DOES mention the isp@fcc.gov email address, but also includes the following: 283. Therefore, as part of this comprehensive proceeding, we must consider how our rules can provide incentives for investment and innovation in the underlying networks that support the Internet and other information services. We consider in this section the narrow question of whether to permit incumbent LECs to assess interstate access charges on information service providers. We make no specific proposals, and we tentatively conclude that the existing pricing structure for information services should remain in place at this time. In Section X, we issue a Notice of Inquiry to examine various fundamental issues about the implications of usage of the public switched network by information service and Internet access providers. A recent CNET TV show made a passing mention that the local phone companies are going to need to raise funds to upgrade the local phone infrastructure due to the increased burden of local internet connections (CNET-TV 2/3/97 or http://www.cnet.com) Ira Wilsker iwilsker@ih2000.net http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm OR http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1814/ira.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Military being prepared for assualts on citizens (fwd) Date: 05 Feb 1997 20:20:19 PST I'm still not getting anything from the list, but I'll try this anyway. Looks like it's more than just, "collecting data for a school project", now. Can anyone verify this? If it's true, it's time to start raising bloody hell with our critters. On Feb 5, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Military being prepared for assults on citizens [Excerpted from Media Bypass, Feb., 1997, 1-812-477-8670] Across the nation, reports are coming in from young Americans in U.S. military service telling how they are being indoctrinated. In Ft. Jackson, South Carolina, soldiers in basic training are being told that they may be used to fight domestic violence and terrorism perpetrated by the militias. Citizens who defend the Second Amendment (the right to be armed) are referred to as "crazy Good Ol' Boys." Those citizens who own multiple guns are referred to as "people stockpiling weapons" and are said to be a "threat to the government". In Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, trainees have been told by their commander, "We are actually part of a one world military. We will police the world. World wars were fought to establish the U.N. Do everything you are ordered. If you refuse, you will be courtmartialed and you will never be able to work again in this country." Soldiers are asked, "Could you fire on civilians who are up in arms against the government, like in another civil war?" Part of the training program includes "How to go door-to-door, rounding up guns from suspected citizens." Soldiers who object or complain are called Nazis or Rednecks, and harrassed into going along. Any American with average intelligence and common sense should, by now, see what those who control our governemtn are preparing for us: The sell-out of U.S. sovereignty! The eradication of our individual rights and property! The suppression of all resistance to the New World Order! -APRA ALERT -- now merged with: Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- 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: Brad Dolan Subject: Group crime Date: 06 Feb 1997 00:23:12 -0500 (EST) Saw a guy on CNN Business Day today, editorializing about a wonderful new anti-gang tactic in CA. Apparently they are rounding up entire groups of people just for "being gang members," wearing the wrong colored clothing, and so on. In explaining the program, the bozo said the following: There is no way a gang-infested neighborhood can be reclaimed by convicting each gang member of an individual crime. When gangs flourish, *gangs* and not individuals need to be attacked. I thought it might be fun to try some permutations on this plan. There is no way an NRA-infested neighborhood can be reclaimed by convicting each NRA member of an individual crime. When the NRA flourishes, the *NRA* and not just individual members need to be attacked. or There is no way a jew-infested neighborhood can be reclaimed by convicting each jew of an individual crime. When Judaism flourishes, Judaism and not just individual jews need to be attacked. etc. I thought I had heard it all, but an explicit call to punish people merely because they *belong* to an unpopular group surprised me. I don't know why. bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: What your phone company is trying to do! Date: 05 Feb 1997 23:36:31 -0800 (PST) >From: plcoffr@alpha.wcoil.com >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:24:45 -0500 >X-Sender: plcoffr@alpha.wcoil.com >To: gdoty@earthlink.net >Subject: What your phone company is trying to do! >X-UIDL: c40f44df74c37eec603f64db231f32b5 > >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:13:10 -0400 >>To: copperas@bright.net >>From: Rob Jorgensen >>Subject: What your phone company is trying to do! >> >>Hello everyone, >>I am just forwarding this on to those that I feel may be concerned and/or >>in the know about this issue. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this >>letter, as I have not had time to check it out. If anyone has more >>information on this, please let me know so that I can issue a retraction, >>if necessary, to those that received this. Thanks. >> >> >>>I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter >>>currently under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has >>>filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your >>>internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the >>>operation of the telephone network. >>> >>>It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were >>>required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an >>>email box for your comments, responses must be received by February >>>13, 1997. Send your comments to isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you >>>think. >>> >>>Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak >>>it in just under the wire for litiagation. Let everyone you know here >>>this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of. >>> >>>isp@fcc.gov >>> >>>Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all >>>our voices may be heard! >> >>Rob Jorgensen >>Ohio, USA >>onear15@alpha.wcoil.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Distribution of Nazi Gold Halted Date: 05 Feb 1997 23:37:44 -0800 (PST) The Associated Press WASHINGTON - The United States, Britain and France have agreed to freeze distribution of gold bars worth $68 million that the Nazis looted from European central banks, U.S. and French officials said Tuesday. The gold, which for a half-century has been stored in the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank in New Youk and in the Bank of England, could form the core of a fund to compensate Holocaust victims. "The administration and the president are deeply committed to seeing that the Holocaust victims are given justice," Commerce Uncersecretary Stuart Eizenstat told reporters in Washington. The gold bars have been stored since Switzerland, Sweeden and other nations turned them over to the Allied powers after World War II. They were under the control of the Tripartite Commission, a U.S.-British-French commission set up in 1946 to deal with Nazi loot. The commission had gradually returned to central banks across Europe most of an estimated 337 metric tons of gold, valued at $4 billion at current gold prices. The commission had $68 million worth left to disburse and was scheduled to go out of existence by the end of this year. The Clinton administration, citing new evidence to support Jewish groups' claims that the gold came partly from Jews killed durring the Holocaust, persuaded Britain and France to freeze distribution of the remaining gold. In Paris, Yves Doutriaux, a spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry, said that France takes demands by Jewish groups "very seriously" and would consider all requests for compensation with an open mind. Reprinted without permission. The Palm Beach Post (Florida) Wednesday, February 5, 1997, Page 4A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Colorado Term Limits/Coc-Con Lawsuit (fwd) Date: 06 Feb 1997 06:53:06 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Article from local Colorado (Metro State College) newspaper The Capitol Reporter. Hope this helps in your state. -------------SNIP---------------------- Court to hear Amendment 12 lawsuit By: Jessie Stephenson The Capitol Reporter While a pair of lawsuits against Amendment 12 simmer in federal, state and local courts, opponents of the amendment gained momentum in Colorado Supreme Court last week. That court initially rejected two separate lawsuits against Amendment 12 but on Jan. 29 agreed to hear both cases against the amendment at the urging of the Attorney General's office. The court ordered the two suits be consolidated. Amendment 12 directs lawmakers to ask Congress for a constitutional convention to add an amendment that limits congressional terms or be marked on ballots as someone who has "disregarded voter instruction on term limits." In the consolidated suit, the plaintiffs contend that Amendment 12 is unconstitutional on several grounds and requested injunctions in separate suits against the measure in the U.S. District Court and Denver District Court. Federal District Judge Alan B. Johnson dismissed the request for an injunction in federal court last Thursday. Johnson said that court does not have the authority to stop the General Assembly from acting on the amendment but noted that importance of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling to hear the plaintiffs' case. "I believe it is very significant that the (Colorado) Supreme Court has decided to accept this case for consideration," Johnson said. "I've read the complaint and this is important stuff." The other request for an injunction filed in Denver District Court is set for hearing on March 19. The plaintiffs in the Colorado Supreme Court Case are Sen. Charles Duke R-Monument, Richard Goggin, a Denver election judge, Walter Cross, an Aurora man who lost a bid for a seat in the house last election and Karen Morrissey, a Denver systems analyst. None of the plaintiffs has a lawyer. Defendants in the consolidated case include the state of Colorado, Gov. Roy Romer, Secretary of State Victoria Buckley, Attorney General Gale Norton and the Colorado General Assembly. The attorney general is representing the defendants in the consolidated suit but was unavailable for comment. Duke said he would prefer to have an attorney for the plaintiffs but professional legal representation is not crucial in pointing out the constitutional violations and illegalities of the amendment. "I don't need a lawyer to interpret the constitution," he said. "This amendment is a challenge to one of the very axioms of representative government." Amendment 12, Duke said, interferes with his ability to act independently and in the best interest of his constituency because it instructs him to vote for the constitutional convention, without regard to the needs of people in his district. "Frankly, as a legislator, it is offensive to me that someone is telling me how to vote," Duke said. Dennis Polhill a key proponent of the amendment and member of U.S. Term Limits, a national organization that has spearheaded measures such as Amendment 12, said term limit measures have proven to be popular with the public and cannot be quelled in court. "The people are sold on term limits, and they will have term limits," he said. "Who has the authority to negate the will of the people?" Duke, however said that people were mislead into voting for Amendment 12 thinking it was a term limits initiative when getting a constitutional convention is the amendment's true intent. "When I tell people who voted for the amendment about its true intent ,they are horrified that they were duped by this." One complaint in the consolidated case charges that the petition for Amendment 12 was fraudulent because it stated the initiative addresses term limits but did not include that the measure advocates a constitutional convention to get them. Polhill said members of U.S. Term Limits made sure that the amendment followed the law, and any court action challenging the measures' lawfulness is moot. "It's going to go nowhere; we did all the homework before we did this, and we've got good attorneys," Polhill said. Another key charge the plaintiffs make in the consolidated suit is that the amendment makes fraudulent use of ballots. Like the petition wording, the ballot wording does not address the issue of the constitutional convention, Goggin said. "That's fraudulent and misleading when you do a grammatical analysis," Goggin said."The tag says the legislator failed to follow voter instruction on term limits, but they might have actually voted against the constitutional convention." Additionally the plaintiffs assert in their suit that any lawmaker who complies with the amendment is violating article V section 20 of the Colorado Constitution concerning bribery. Under that law, bribery is committed by any public official who exchanges his or her vote for personal gain. Goggin said lawmakers who vote for a constitutional convention as prescribed by Amendment 12 essentially would be succumbing to bribery since to do so would prevent "disregarded voter instruction" from appearing next to their name on the ballot. "To keep that thing off the ballot beside your name could definitely be considered a personal advantage," Goggin said. "A lot of people could end up in a lot of trouble real fast." The Supreme Court's willingness to hear his case, Goggin said, is a sign that there is a flurry of valid legal and constitutional questions raised by the amendment. Goggin said he feels compelled to challenge the measure because he thinks it is an affront to constitutional law. "This is a really big deal, and I'm not looking for fame or fortune; I love my country," Goggin said. "And I think it's every citizens duty to uphold the Constitution." Polhill, however, said he thinks constitutional law is on the amendment's side and proponents of term limits will remain committed to limiting terms despite legal challenges to their ways of doing that. "I know most of the state term limits leaders are absolutely committed zealots, which is what I am, I guess," Polhill said. "We don't care how it gets done we just want it to get done." An Arkansas bill that is almost identical to Amendment 12 is currently being challenged in the U.S. Supreme court. -------------------HOPE THIS HELPS--------------- Charles "Chuck" Inston ==================================================== God & Constitution in that order. ==================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: C-NEWS: Eagle Forum: Jan. Education Reporter (fwd) Date: 06 Feb 1997 06:57:30 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- January 1997 Education Reporter Article Medicaid Moneyline Flows to Schools Medicaid Funds Make Public Schools Providers of Socialized Health Care SPRINGFIELD, IL - The Illinois State Board of Education has sent detailed instructions to district superintendents on how to exploit Medicaid to increase taxpayer funding available to public schools. The Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA) and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) are encouraging all public schools to participate actively in Medicaid programs in order to "augment and enhance services for children with and/or at risk of disabilities." A letter sent from Medicaid Consultant Jean Rowe at the ISBE dated Oct. 8, 1996 alerts school officials of "renewed interest in accessing Medicaid federal matching dollars" for Special Education. Schools, Ms. Rowe reports, "have found Medicaid to be a viable funding source." Medicaid funds are supposed to be spent exclusively for poverty-level (welfare) people. In 1991, Medicaid dollars became available to schools for school-based health services through the IDPA. Since then, two initiatives have made over $100 million in federal matching Medicaid funds available to Illinois public schools. The first initiative provides Medicaid funding through school-based health services. Schools may bill Medicaid not just for therapies, but also for "social work and psychological services, nursing and audiological services, hearing/vision screenings, and transportation." In fiscal year 1996, $31,700,000 in federal funds were paid to Illinois schools for such school-based health services. The second initiative allows all Illinois schools to claim Medicaid dollars for Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT). Such services include "public awareness, identification and referral, initial health review and evaluation, family notification, health provider networking, care planning and coordination, immunization program management, family planning referral." In fiscal year 1996, Illinois schools received $40,800,000 in federal funds for EPSDT claims. Ms. Rowe describes how Medicaid dollars have also been used to pay for audiometers, mini-buses, closed-caption TV, computer systems, substitute teachers, special education staff, special education program expansion, and new program implementation. "The potential for the dollars," she boasts, "is limitless." Ms. Rowe encourages local public schools to use the experienced ISBE and IDPA staff in order to "maximize federal reimbursement" of Medicaid dollars. IDPA allows schools to bill school-based health services for up to two years from the date of service, which means that schools can submit documentation of services from the 1994-95 and 1995-96 school years for Medicaid reimbursement. In fiscal year 1996 alone, 61,000 students received billable services. Foundations Promote Medicalization of Public Schools Meanwhile, several billionaire foundations are pursuing a large-scale plan to turn the public schools into delivery centers for all kinds of health services, including physical examinations, treatment and medication of children, with or without their parents' knowledge or consent. This plan also includes compiling all sorts of private information on schoolchildren and their families. Leading the movement to use the public schools to propel Americans into a government-controlled health care system is the $5.5 billion Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Following close behind are the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trust. The principal expertise of these foundations is developing creative ways to locate and lock in taxpayer funding for foundation projects. The foundations have successfully captured federal grants from the Medicaid benefit called Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment Services (EPSDT), Medicaid waivers, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Goals 2000, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Goals 2000, whose number-one proclaimed goal is "every child should start school ready to learn," provides the fig leaf of legal authority for this array of federal intervention in public schools. The foundations are making the states and school districts believe that federal mandates in Goals 2000 and IDEA require the schools to test children for emotional, social, mental, and physical disorders. The foundations are persuading schools that "readiness" requires the schools to provide health services clinics, which then must be staffed by nurse practitioners emboldened with new authority to prescribe medications. The foundations then demand a perpetual, exclusive license to use, and to allow others to use, all data generated by the services. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation started funding school-based health clinics 20 years ago and now boasts that there are more than 600. Foundation documents state that the expectation that "every grant dollar is expected to leverage five dollars in public monies." Foundations dole out about $100 million each year to state and local governments and school districts. ================================== EAGLE FORUM PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 Fax: 618-462-8909 Are you on our E-mail list? Just send us an e-mail message with subscribe in the subject! Tell a friend about us! URL: http://www.eagleforum.org E-mail: eagle@eagleforum.org ================================== ********************************************************************* An excellent way to find out how well any child or adult can read is to take the First Reading Test. You can order the First Reading Test by e-mailing us with your name and mailing (postal) address. The First Reading Test is FREE ! ********************************************************************* ------- To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: C-NEWS: Government Suppression (fwd) Date: 06 Feb 1997 07:01:58 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Part of an article from the Sunday London Times: "US taxman targets Clinton's enemies by James Adams Washington IN WHAT Republicans see as a blatant attempt to silence critics of President Bill Clinton, the tax authorities have launched a series of audits into many large organisations which have criticised his administration over the past four years. So far 12 groups are being audited and have been forced to hand over thousands of documents, while agents from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have raided offices and questioned officials from the different non-profit organisations. No audits are under way against organisations that support the administration. The IRS is supposed to be independent of politics and such blatant use of the tax authorities is being seen in Congress as a clear abuse of power. Last week Senator Don Nickles, the Republican head of the committee responsible for the IRS, said he planned to raise the issue with Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary, and other congressmen have promised to hold hearings. "The IRS has a responsibility to conduct audits, but not just against political enemies or political adversaries of this administration," said Nickles. "I hope the IRS has not become politicised." Although the White House has denied orchestrating the audits, the pattern of investigations is extraordinary. Among the groups being probed are: the Heritage Foundation; the National Rifle Association; Citizens Against Government Waste; the Freedom Alliance, a group associated with Oliver North; a number of groups associated with Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker; and two conservative magazines, The National Review and the American Spectator. Bill and Hillary Clinton have grown increasingly paranoid about the criticism they have received from conservatives. Privately, the president rails against a "media conspiracy" obsessed with his sex life and stories of corruption. This month the American Spectator will reveal details of yet another alleged marital infidelity by Clinton, publishing claims by Connie Hamzy, 42, a former rock groupie, that she was propositioned in 1984 by Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, while by the pool of a Little Rock hotel. The relationship was never consummated, although Hamzy recorded in her diary that she and Clinton enjoyed a passionate grope in a hotel doorway. Hamzy has been dismissed by the White House as a habitual drug user with loose morals, but the American Spectator will publish the results of a lie-detector test that shows she is telling the truth. Last month it was revealed that the White House had prepared a 331-page report that purported to detail the media conspiracy against the administration. The report, Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce, was an inaccurate mix of gossip and innuendo. But many of the organisations identified in it are now being audited. None of the groups had been audited before Clinton entered the White House. The National Center for Public Policy, one of the groups being investigated, was one of the most critical voices of Clinton's plans to reform healthcare. "I asked how we got to be audited and he [the auditor] came back with, 'Somebody probably didn't like what you were doing,' " said Amy Moritz Ridenour, president of the organisation. "That's when I followed up with, 'You mean it's political?' And then he said, 'Right.' " The IRS is notoriously secret and wields extraordinary power and fear in America. An audit is a grim experience and can often involve hundreds of hours of work, the threat of massive fines and fees. Although the IRS refuses to discuss individual cases, it claims that its choice of targets is determined mainly by "issues raised in media reports and third-party communications". There is evidence, however, of unauthorised contacts between the IRS and senior figures in the Democrat party. On December 23, Charles Rangel, senior Democrat of the House ways and means committee, issued a press release stating that five non-profit groups linked to Gingrich, including the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Fund, were going to be audited. On January 5, Rangel confirmed in a television interview that he had "been in touch with the IRS on this issue" and the investigation was going ahead. "It's not clear how these audits are being orchestrated," said Mark Levin, president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative watchdog group. "We have filed a series of freedom of information requests to the IRS to find out just who has made the complaints that started the audits." Unleashing the IRS as a political weapon is not a new idea. In the 1960s President Kennedy and his brother Bobby, the attorney-general, appointed a close ally as chief counsel of the IRS with access to all the files. With the Kennedys in charge, the IRS set up the Ideological Organisation Audit Project and proceeded to harass and silence critics. Clinton appointed Margaret Milner Richardson, a close family friend who worked on the 1992 campaign, to head the IRS. "If you wanted to politicise the IRS, she was a great choice," said Joseph Farah, director of the Western Journalism Center, which has produced reports claiming that the late Vince Foster, the White House deputy was murdered. The journalism centre is one of those targeted by the audits. Richardson was involved in the Travelgate scandal when White House workers were sacked to make way for friends of the Clintons. After the dismissals the IRS audited the airline that had been used by the White House Travel Office and the manager of the office. Nothing improper was found. Richardson is to resign after being accused of overseeing a bungled attempt at introducing a modern computer system for the IRS........" ------- To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Form 1040 not required this year Date: 05 Feb 1997 06:44:33 -0800 This just in! It is reported that this year's Form 1040 does not have OMB approval and, for this reason, it is no longer a "required form" (read "Information Collection Request"). This means that it is now a "Bootleg Form" which should be thrown in the trash, pursuant to the legislative intent of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Congress wants Us Citizens to "police" agencies which do not comply with the PRA, so: LET'S START COMPLYING, EVERYBODY! N-O-W!!!! I have not had time to confirm this report. Can someone please confirm this for Us? Caveat emptor. Many thanks! /s/ Paul Mitchell >To: jcraft@hitel.com >Cc: pmitch@primenet.com, RSayles@aol.com, hwysong@mindspring.com >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 02:02:37 MST >Subject: Re: Hi >References: <199701301953.AA155464028@akira.hitel.com> >X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-6,8-32 >From: fedbuster@juno.com (Nancy T. Lord) > >Wow, Jonathan, this is great news! Question is, do they >contend you have to file something, i.e. computer generated, >or other informational return? > > > > >On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:53:48 EST Jonathan Craft >writes: >>Great news! >> >>The IRS publicly admits in their paperwork >>reduction act notice this year that Form 1040 >>is NOT REQUIRED FILING! "You are not required >>to file a form..." (or something to that effect) >>appears in the privacy/paperwork act notice on >>Form 1040 this year. The reason being that Form >>1040 does not have a valid OMB number. (This >>is so exciting.) >> >>The pig is going to die -- and die soon. >> >> >>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>Jonathan Craft >>jcraft@hitel.com >>Configuration Management (770) 446-8820 x1468 >>(voice) >>ClearCase Administator (770) 242-1414 >>(fax) >> H I T A C H I T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N S >>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Group crime Date: 06 Feb 1997 10:33:47 -0500 > >I thought I had heard it all, but an explicit call to punish people merely >because they *belong* to an unpopular group surprised me. I don't know >why. > >bd > I think that adolescents, in general, are close to being a persecuted group - curfews, uniforms in school, plus a lot of exagerated agit-prop about increased violent crime, etc. As a random middle-aged guy, I know I should be tut-tutting about "kids these days", but I think that is a sword that cuts both ways. Saw the McClaghlin Group (jeez, can't spell) this Friday and one of the members actually stood up for American chaos, as in we have a lot of freedom, and hence a lot of confusion, bad outcomes, and, yes, violence. It was refreshing. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Michael New case revisited Date: 06 Feb 1997 15:04:22 -0800 ROC-ers, Just in case you didn't get one yourself, my snail mail today brought an appeal for funds for his legal defense fund from Michael New, the soldier who refused to don UN colors on his uniform, and was court martialled and discharged for it. That put a felony offense on his record of course, which he is now trying to clear. The timing of this appeal leads me to believe that New had hopes for a pardon if Dole was elected, but no chance with Clinton. I'm not pushing this, just sharing info for ROC-ers who might be interested in but might not get otherwise. New's fund-raisers are asking for contributions of any size, but for $24 or more they offer a video called "Good Conduct" which tells the whole story of New's ordeal. The address for contributions and video requests is: SPC Michael New Michael New Legal Defense Fund Washington, DC 20069-0408 (No omission there. The 9-digit ZIP code identifies a PO Box) Have a good one, Skip. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Really marvelous RANT ......Liberals Beware Date: 06 Feb 1997 15:48:02 PST Conservative Consensus Events * Analysis * Commentary * Forecasts * Readers' Opinions What in the world is going on? www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html Opinion Column * V3X3 * 02.06.1997 * ISSN 1074-245X [Ed: This is an indicator of the "bipartisanship" we see ahead.] CIVILITY by Redmon Barbry Civility -- the very thought of Liberals demanding civility makes me want to froth. Civility is like peace: all tyrants want peace, so that they will be left alone to carry out their butcheries undisturbed. Naturally, the world's most brutal dictators all vigorously support a peace movement. And you know what? it works. People on the Left are so stupid or so treacherous that many of them have agitated on behalf of the dangerously absurd notions of unilateral disarmament, peace at any price, and moral parity between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Left cheered and made excuses as cities burned, riots tore up the streets, and protesters threw blood on police and called the president a baby-killer. So why do these same people all of a sudden want civility? Just [a few] months ago, they were characterizing their opponents as murdering the elderly, enriching themselves off the poor, and starving children. That creaky, old Stalinist and sanctimonious windbag, the dishonor- able Member from Florida, Sam Gibbons, stood up in the House and called the Republican balanced budget proposal mean: mean to children, the elderly, and the poor. (I suppose selling our children into the bondage of debt for the next fifty years, just to pay for your political phantasms, is not mean, Rep. Gibbons.) So, why ask for civility now? The brain-dead city I live in (Dallas) has a matching brain- dead newspaper that last week printed a brain-dead editorial bemoaning how uncivil we are to one another, parroting the left-wing leadership like a chorus of useful idiots. Their solution to the "growing incivility" is to run an advertising campaign consisting in billboards placed around town bearing a single word, such as, "Caring", "Responsibility", "Trustworth- iness", "Respect", "Citizenship", "Fairness", and so on, as a "reminder of our core values". Notice that no actual virtues were named, such as, Prudence, Justice, Temperance, Fortitude, Faith, Hope, and Charity; just derivative or para-virtues, like caring, respect, and citizenship: the watered-down milque-toast of an ad-man's morality. Standing up for what is right, honorable, truthful, and just, is missing from the list, because a citizenry that stood up for what is right would not put up with the city government we have, nor with the birdcage liner that calls itself The Dallas Morning News. (Actually, my bird won't tolerate it, either; he insists on back issues of The New Republic. And so, silly me, I give in.) The salubrious belief that the political atmosphere requires a return to civility comes from those who are threatened by incivility, namely, the thieves in Congress, the crooks, dopers, and scoundrels in the White House, and most of all, the bumbling, well-intentioned architects of socialism, who desperately need to silence their critics. Civility will let them pretend in front of the cameras that transfer payments are not theft, that Social Security is not a swindle, that the first amendment wasn't really supposed to protect political speech, that gun control is not the thin edge of tyranny, that the IRS is nothing at all like Louis XVI's tax-collectors, that the proponents of socialism are not really the mortal enemies of freedom, that the Left is not actually looting the public treasury to enrich themselves and their causes, that Bill Clinton really cares about each and every one of us, etc., ad nauseam. There not being any polite way to call someone a corrupt, lying traitor, civility will require us to be silent as the administration sells out our country's security and future on the world market just to line their pockets. Since such words as "chiseler" and "mountebank" are impolite, at best, civility will not permit us to characterize properly the administration's various financial plans, for instance, the Medicare so-called reform. And in view of the response that the term, "howling jackass", is likely to receive, civility means that we shall have to shut up in the face of this recent Ebonics nonsense, along with all the political correctness, the creeping environmental regulation idiocy, government oversight of every jot and tittle of our lives, the outrageous mismanagement of the executive branch, the vaulting ambition of the federal bench to reshape the Constitution into an instrument of social tyranny, the base corruption and thievery of the Congress, the elevation of perversion to a cherished social institution, and on, and on, and on... I will give you incivility: Jesus, whipping the money- changers out of the Temple! (See Gospel.) Did He first sit down and discuss His feelings with them? Did He "dialogue" with them, as the saying is in today's idiotic diction? Did He negotiate, perhaps? Compromise? Submit the dispute to binding arbitration? Did He blame His outburst on His inner rage, later? No, he went out, fashioned a whip, and drove the self- servers out of the Temple by force, unapologetically. Was that civil? No, but then, there was something more important than civility at stake: principle, and the obligation He had (as do we all) to set things aright. No, I will not keep silence. If that means that I am called uncivil, then I accept the accusation; I embrace it. If the press is saying that it is time to turn the heat down, that means that it is most likely time to turn the heat up another notch. Wickedness must be resisted, civility notwithstanding. Morality demands that one speak out against evil; truthfulness means contradicting lies; and virtue stands up for the rigorous application of the basic ethical standards of behavior, publicly and privately. The nomenclatura of American socialism want to enjoy their ill-gotten gains in peace, safe from the raucous outcries of their victims and opponents; and so they ask for civility, to shut us up. But I will not, for the sake of civility, refrain from criticism. And neither will you, I hope. Gospel: ...Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. ... John 2:13-16 Reprinted from FRATRICIDE, used with permission. Copyright 1997 by Redmon Barbry. Archives at http://redmon.deltos.com/frat.htm. --- --- --- COPYRIGHT 1997 by Conservative Consensus. Please redistribute widely, provided nothing is changed, and our headers and trailers remain intact. Publications may reprint provided credit is given. CURIOUS about what the media and political elite have planned for the rest of us? Want to find out what they'd rather not tell you? Send email with SUBSCRIBE as the subject to: CONSENSUS-L-REQUEST@eskimo.com VISIT our Website: Get free, downloadable news releases that you can copy and pass on to friends. Updates, back issues, reader comments. All TEXT -- visit us with any browser. http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests: consensus-L-request@eskimo.com Advertising, Editorial, etc: ccnrs@eskimo.com Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Military being prepared for assaults on citizens. Date: 07 Feb 1997 00:37:38 -0500 (EST) roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) posts: >>In Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, trainees have been told by their commander, "We are actually part of a one world military. We will police the world. World wars were fought to establish the U.N. Do everything you are ordered. If you refuse, you will be courtmartialed and you will never be able to work again in this country."<< I seriously question the veracity of this report. No military commander I ever heard, and I've heard quite a few, talked that way. And I don't necessarily mean content, I mean tone and style and emphasis. That's not Army speak, especially the portion in quotes. That's the way civilians phrase things. Note the part...you'll never be able to work again in this country" The military rarely, if ever, refers to a recruits life OUSIDE the service. Everything is IN the service. There are more than enough things to threaten a soldier with inside the military. Regards, Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: Michael New case revisited Date: 07 Feb 1997 06:17:09 -0500 I just found out that Michael New will be at the Medina gun show next weekend, Feb 15 & 16th, and will be speaking at the Seville Party Center on the 15th at 7:00pm eastern. This is in Ohio. Regards Tom At 03:04 PM 2/6/97 -0800, you wrote: >ROC-ers, > snip > >The address for contributions and video requests is: > >SPC Michael New >Michael New Legal Defense Fund >Washington, DC 20069-0408 > >(No omission there. The 9-digit ZIP code identifies a PO Box) > >Have a good one, Skip. > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)Mississippi Updates Date: 07 Feb 1997 06:24:33 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) >Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:47:07 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: eplurib@megalinx.net (E Pluribus Unum) >Subject: Mississippi Updates > > S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 280, February 6, 1997 > >SIEGE IN NORTH MISSISSIPPI (Update No. 1) >by Donna Malone (A2Fast4U@aol.com) >[See SAFAN Alert (1/31/97) Missississippi Campout Was a Media Event] > >Campout Update: >Great Fun is being had by all. There is a lot of local interest and >support - people are driving by and leaving FOOD and MONEY. A >couple of guys brought amps and guitars out on Saturday and there >was a big cook out. (Even the police that were buzzing the place >were invited to stop and eat - they didn't.) Lots of literature about >militias generally, F.I.J.A. (the Fully Informed Jury Association >[800-TEL-JURY], and information about the trouble our host is having >with the local "alleged" authorities is being handed out to passersby. > >But, in a nutshell, the down side of the story goes like this: > >An allegedly VOLUNTARY property acquisition program was presented >to the Cockrell family and they declined to participate. There are >additional factors, to complicated to addess herein, but the bottom >line is a very questionable eminent domain proceeding was held by >a city that may not legally exist in a court that may not have had >jurisdiction and with a juror that should not have been on the case, >etc. etc., and the Cockrells were issued an order to vacate their >home by January 17th. This eviction was ordered before the >Cockrells had exhausted all appeals. > >A call was made to the Mississippi Militia for assistance and a watch >was established to assure there would be plenty of witnesses to any >governmental wrongdoing. Col. Drew Rayner with the Mississippi >Militia was on the scene. He called the FBI to ask them to investigate. >Allen Tatum, with the local F.B.I. office, said he would contact the >U.S. Attorney about allegations of malfeaseance, misappropriation >of federal funds, and other acts of wrongdoing by the alleged City >of Southaven. Interestingly, the alleged City of Southaven failed to >move forward with their eviction plans on the 17th. > >The Cockrells next received notice from a private local attorney >advising them they would be evicted on January 30th. This plan also >fell through and the BULLYdozer failed to make its scheduled >appearance, probably in large part because the media was there in >full force, having been alerted to the threatened eviction by the Militia, >so they, too, could act as witnesses. (Lots of "off the record" stories of >abuse of citizens by goverment were told by press personnel - which >was encouraging and surprising!) > >On Friday, January 31st, the (ALLEGED) Southaven Board of Alderman >met to discuss the Cockrell property. The evening news related that >the Aldermen had decided to allow the courts to handle the dispute >and the alleged city was not, at present, planning to go forward with >the demolition! > >Saturday, an article in a local paper advised the alleged City >Prosecutor intended to "get an order denying the Cockrells' appeal." >An interesting choice of wording which could be a misquote or could indicate >"collusion" between the City and the Judge to deprive the >Cockrells of their property - although simple "collusion" on the part >of government officials is the least of the Cockrells problems, at >present. > >At this time, no one has heard back from the F.B.I.. Nor has the >F.B.I. announced an investigation. This is one time I'd like to see >BIG BROTHER step in - the whole situation stinks to high heaven >and probably only they, with their investigative powers, can really >get to the bottom of the situation. Otherwise, the Cockrells' friends >and the Mississippi Militia will be in the path of a rather large >BULLYdozer and potential roadkill. Anything anyone can do to >encourage an investigation into this matter would, of course, be >appreciated. > >Will post again soon. Thanks for your help. - Donna >-------------------------------------------------- >And More from Donna: >The initial rounds in this ongoing controversy have gone to the >Cockrell Family. When push came to shove, the Board of >Alderman for Southaven, although previously ready to BULLDOZE >the Cockrell home, backed down and have stated that they are >NOW willing to wait until all legal challenges by the Cockrells have >been exhausted before moving on the property. > >In addition, the judge in the case has RECUSED himself from the >case, after the Cockrells filed a motion for recusal based on past >differences with this Judge. On wonders how and why, if enough >differences exist that the Judge agreed to the recusal, that the >Judge did not do this originally instead of sitting on the case to this >point. > >The Cockrells, along with their Militia friends, intend to go before >the Board of Alderman at their next meeting to ask for a statement >in writing promising no action will be taken until all legal remedies >have been resolved. > >Bill Cockrell and Militia Col. Drew Rayner continue to be the subject >of media attention. Every day they are participating in various radio >talk shows around the Country. In addition, both the television and >printed media are bombarding them with interviews. A lot of good >publicity is coming out of this and it is hoped that, under the light >of investigation, enough facts will come out of this case to warrant >an F.B.I. probe into the antics of the City of Southaven. If even half >of what the Cockrells have alleged is true, a full investigation into >the case is warranted. > >Donna Malone (A2Fast4U@aol.com) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >SIEGE IN NORTH MISSISSIPPI (Update #2) >by Franklin Sanders (76473.2425@compuserve.com) > >Friends: > >Bill and Carolyn Cockrell & their son Jeffrey are under seige across >the border in Mississippi. Would you please pray for them? I'm not >asking anyone to second their position, not considering its merits at >all, I'm just asking your prayers because I know them to be sincere >Christian people who believe they are doing the right thing. Bill >has been a vigorous PRO SE fighter in the courts here, even taking >on the People's Republic of Germantown, a suburban municipality >noted for robbing, kidnapping, waylaying, and ransoming motorists. > >Bill and Caroline are LEGAL fighters, not violent people. > >The state of Mississippi wanted to take their Southaven home because >it supposedly lies in a Noise Abatement Zone near the airport. The >state wants to save the Cockrells from themselves so badly that it will >steal their home to do it. > >The eminent domain proceeding began in 1994, and after a trial in >February '95, Bill held the government at bay with Title 42 (violation >of constitutional rights) suits in federal court. One by one the federal >judge in Oxford peeled off the defendants, granting them summary judgement. > Bill is still appealing this. Finally after numerous judges >recused themselves, on Oct. 9, 1995 the Cockrells went to trial and the >judge signed a warrant of removal for Jan. 17, 1997. > >Things got tough when the court appointed a guardian ad litem for >the Cockrell's son, Jeffrey, their only son, and HHS threatened to take >him away from them. > >When the state was supposed to show up to evict the Cockrells, they >never did, apparently because the call went out far and wide for >people to appear as witnesses. Militia members from numerous >places showed up. > >Since 3:40 a.m. Thursday, January 30, 1997 about 60 people have >been camping out with the Cockrells to prevent seizure of their >home. The State of Mississippi Militia (Unofficial) is involved. They >say they will stay either until the Cockrells receive a decent price for >their home, or the government promises to leave them alone forever. > >Would you please pray that God would protect the Cockrells from >all violence and trickery, that he would decree peace on their place, >and that they would soon be delivered? I am not speaking to the >merits of their case, or asking you to agree with their actions, only >to pray for their safety and for defusing the situation. Thanks very >much. > >Yours in the bonds of Christ, > >Franklin Sanders (76473.2425@compuserve.com) > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know that > government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last, become >the > people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed >- > first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the >flock, > until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf." "From Freedom to > Slavery"........................Gerry Spence >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > SAFAN %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 > SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on David Feustel's Page > http://feustel.mixi.net 219-483-1857 E-Mailto: feustel@mixi.net >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >1 >=========================================================== >E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html > >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: IRS COMPUTERS "DO NOT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD" Date: 06 Feb 1997 07:24:18 -0800 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: IRS COMPUTERS "DO NOT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD" > >Pull the plugs, I say. > >And do it NOW! > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > > > >>Excerpts from >>>************************************************************ >>>Edupage, 2 February 1997. Edupage, a summary of news about information >>>technology, is provided three times a week as a service by Educom, a >>>Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities >>>seeking to transform education through the use of information technology. >>>************************************************************ >> >> >> >>>IRS COMPUTERS "DO NOT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD" >>>An Assistant Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service has conceded to a >>>panel created by Congress that a $4-billion computer systems modernization >>>project has failed, that IRS computers "do not work in the real world," and >>>that the agency is incapable of bringing its computer capabilities up to the >>>right level because it lacks the "intellectual capital" for the job. He >>>proposed contracting out the processing of paper returns filed by >>>individuals and abandoning a "big bang" approach to systems modernization in >>>favor an incremental, piecemeal one. Though characterizing the systems as >>>"dysfunctional," the administrator told that panel that the IRS "is wholly >>>dependent on them." (New York Times 31 Jan 97) > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: FYI: bank signature card (defined) Date: 06 Feb 1997 16:09:25 -0800 PUBLIC NOTICE TO ALL BANKS The legal definition of "signature card" is as follows: "Signature card. A card which a bank or other financial institution requires of its customers and on which the customer puts his signature and other information. It becomes a permanent file and permits the bank to compare the signature on the card with the signature on checks, withdrawal slips and other documents." [Black's Law Dictionary with Pronunciations] [Sixth Edition] There is no mention here of waiving any fundamental Rights, like the Right to due process of law, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. According to U.S. v. O'Dell, banks must demand a WARRANT OF DISTRAINT (court order) from the IRS, before the IRS can levy any bank account. The signature card is not a competent waiver of due process of law, which encompasses the WARRANT OF DISTRAINT (you cannot get to a court ORDER unless due process of law has run its normal course). /s/ Paul Mitchell ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: SLS: IRS Form 1040 not required this year Date: 07 Feb 1997 04:32:29 -0800 Jonathan et al., Are you ready for a little wry humor? I am forwarding a true life experience with Our "friends" at the "IRS" [sic], with explicit permission of the author. If possible, please let me know the very latest on this one; I am just too busy to confirm all "statements" which appear on my monitor (2 megabytes per day, and growing hourly). I can understand why you would be in the same situation too! Be well! /s/ Paul Mitchell p.s. I will dispatch Pobot (my Robot) to RUN his digital TRUTH DETECTION MICROMETER vise (a very reliable instrument:), using a fast fourier doubly inverted transform firmware algorithm. [tilt] Take it away, Pobot! I Pobot, I, here. >Subject: IRS Form 1040 not required this year > >Cc: jcraft@hitel.com > >Dave, > >After receiving this post I called the IRS. It was an almost humorous >conversation. I talked to three separate 800 numbers who did not know the >answer to the post. They transferred me to the technical department. They >would not give me the technical department's number because it was an >internal number. I got this gruff sounding woman on the phone. I very >politely read to her what was in the post and asked her if it was true. She >immediately avoided the question. She answered saying that all forms have >the same OMB number. Pobot tilts here! (not to be confused with a "bow":) >I said if that's true and if it's the OMB number is >not considered valid in the federal registry what else do we use to file? >She said it sounded like I was challenging the validity of the form. I told >her no that I was trying to verify what I read was true. She abruptly said >that the sixteenth amendment allows them to blah, blah. Pobot assures you she did NOT say "blah, blah." (But, then again, you never know.) I said I understand >what the amendments say but would OMB tell me why the number was wrong or >why they wouldn't give them one. She said we will collect the tax. Pobot agrees that she probably did say this. Bets, anybody? >I decided she was going to be a bitch and not answer anything straight. Pobot has a separate algorithm for detection of this general "B" fault. What do you mean by "going to be"? Is that like "going to B"? >I told her I would call OMB and see if I could get to the bottom of it. Did ya? Did ya? > >I got off the phone and I shook my head. Pobot thinks that was a good idea (shaking your head). This proves somethings that some >Patriot literature says. Pobot is dying to know here, what do Patriot literatures say? Pobot prefers fast fourier transforms to much of the text-based processing he is asked to perform daily -- too many grammar and spelling erors. Pobot is still trying to understand the difference between adverbs and adjectively. However, I need to pick up the public notice and >see what it exactly says. Pobot cannot read without the aid of human eyes. Can we get a few volunteers? > >I called Jonathan Craft and shared the story with him. Jonathan was >receptive to a complete stranger calling him to tell him his experience with >IRS. I think I'll copy him on this and see if he can make some recommendations. > >If you want to post this, please, hopefully it will bring some smiles ! > >Thanks, > >Terry Olgin >Quickly becoming a believer > >>Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 06:44:33 -0800 >>To: (Recipient list suppressed) >>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >>Subject: Form 1040 not required this year >> >>This just in! >> >>It is reported that this >>year's Form 1040 does not >>have OMB approval and, for >>this reason, it is no longer >>a "required form" (read >>"Information Collection Request"). >> >>This means that it is now a >>"Bootleg Form" which should be >>thrown in the trash, pursuant >>to the legislative intent of >>the Paperwork Reduction Act. >> >>Congress wants Us Citizens to >>"police" agencies which do not >>comply with the PRA, so: >> >> LET'S START COMPLYING, EVERYBODY! >> >> N-O-W!!!! >> >>I have not had time to confirm this report. >> >>Can someone please confirm this for Us? >> >>Caveat emptor. >> >>Many thanks! >> >>/s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> >>>To: jcraft@hitel.com >>>Cc: pmitch@primenet.com, RSayles@aol.com, hwysong@mindspring.com >>>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 02:02:37 MST >>>Subject: Re: Hi >>>References: <199701301953.AA155464028@akira.hitel.com> >>>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-6,8-32 >>> >>>Wow, Jonathan, this is great news! Question is, do they >>>contend you have to file something, i.e. computer generated, >>>or other informational return? >>> >>> >>>On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:53:48 EST Jonathan Craft >>>writes: >>>>Great news! >>>> >>>>The IRS publicly admits in their paperwork >>>>reduction act notice this year that Form 1040 >>>>is NOT REQUIRED FILING! "You are not required >>>>to file a form..." (or something to that effect) >>>>appears in the privacy/paperwork act notice on >>>>Form 1040 this year. The reason being that Form >>>>1040 does not have a valid OMB number. (This >>>>is so exciting.) >>>> >>>>The pig is going to die -- and die soon. >>>> >>>> >>>>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>>>Jonathan Craft >>>>jcraft@hitel.com >>>>Configuration Management (770) 446-8820 x1468 >>>>(voice) >>>>ClearCase Administator (770) 242-1414 >>>>(fax) >>>> H I T A C H I T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N S >>>>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: All federal judges are now neutralized. Date: 07 Feb 1997 05:07:39 -0800 PUBLIC NOTICE All federal judges, at all levels of the federal judiciary, are now effectively prohibited from hearing any cases within the several states of the Union, as long as their pay is being diminished by federal income taxes, pursuant to a W-4 Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate. The authorities for this Notice are Article III, Section 1, and Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920). The case of O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939) is based on the false premises that there is only one (1) class of citizenship, and that the secret bankruptcy of 1933 was lawful. There are two (2) classes of citizenship in America, pursuant to the case Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909), and a myriad of other cases, which are cited in Chapter 11 and Appendices "A" and "Y" in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue," electronic fourth edition, which is accessible on the Internet via the Alta Vista search engine. Furthermore, Congress cannot tax the pay of "citizens" as such, because such a tax is a direct tax which requires apportionment, pursuant to 1:2:3 and 1:9:4 in the U.S. Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment [sic] was effectively overturned by the case of People v. Boxer, California Supreme Court, case number S-030016, December 1992. Respondent Boxer fell totally and completely silent in the face of the affidavits filed in that case. Silence is a fraud, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel, and silence activates estoppel, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen. The implications of the failed ratification are discussed in detail in Chapter 13 in "The Federal Zone" supra. The facts and law discussed in Chapter 13 have never been rebutted, by anybody. /s/ Paul Mitchell ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: [Fwd: 1040 info correct!] Date: 07 Feb 1997 04:13:17 -0800 >Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 01:21:38 -0500 >From: eagleflt >Reply-To: eagleflt@flash.net >To: 102052.3716@compuserve.com >Subject: [Fwd: 1040 info correct!] > >-- > Note: My email address is eagleflt@flash.net and not > drydel@concentric.net. Thank you. > >================================================================== > EAGLEFLIGHT > ///, //// > \ /, / >. David E. Rydel > \ /, _/ /. ***** > \_ /_/ /. United States Theatre Command > \__/_ < Voice-810-391-0798 > /<<< \_\_ Fax-810-391-6785 > /,)^>>_._ \ Alt.Fax-810-391-3528 > (/ \\ /\\\ E-MAIL: EAGLEFLT@FLASH.NET > // ```` > ======((`=================================================== > A VOICE OF THE MILITIAS IN NORTH AMERICA >From: patwriot@juno.com (Pat W Riot) >Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 00:13:31 EST > > >Yes, the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice >does say: "You are not required to provide the information >requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork >Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control >number". > >Further, they state the code sections that authorize them to >ask "you"(whoever this is) for information AND they state >"This notice applies to all papers "you" file with us including >this tax return." > >Well! If you filed no papers at all, the code sections do not >apply to you. Is this correct? > >IRS believes it is more blessed to give than to receive as they >always return more than they receive. Consider that in times >past, we gave them a check which they punched full of holes >and returned to us. Why didn't we just send them the holes? > >Today if we send them a check with ink on it, they add more >ink and return it heavier than when we sent it. > >Keep in mind the Fed says their system "works only with credit". >This is found in their booklet: KEEPING OUR MONEY HEALTHY, which >translates to keeping their credit healthy as there is no money. > >Fifty years ago in high school, I was told that communism was >"forcible redistribution of wealth" or "robbing Peter to pay Paul. >In my mind, I pictured a man coming around with a bucket and >a gun. You put your money in the bucket and he would give it >to someone else. > >What is it like today? There isn't any bucket. Its an envelope. >You can't give them money as there isn't any. You either send >them an authorization for your bank to reduce your credit >(a check) or a good explanation why you didn't -- or you'll meet a >man with a gun. > >About 35 years ago, some long forgotten journalist defined >communism as "a battle for the minds of men" and I pictured >communists running around seeking recruits. Well with the >system working us "only with credit" and credit exists only in >the mind, they have to control the minds of the majority to work >all of us with credit. Those who believe government spends >money are not in control of their own minds--and I'll bet this >includes 98 per cent of the people reading this. > >I get calls from across the country from strangers and I always >ask them if they believe government spends too much money. >100 per cent say 'yes' and these are people who think the Fed >and IRS are criminals! > >We have to many tax protesters and not enough Monetary >Realists. We have too many who believe preachers and not >enough who believe the Bible. Jesus did not tell HIS people >to render unto Caesar and you are a fool to contribute to a >preacher who utters those words. > >"My people perish for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 08 Feb 1997 15:58:56 -0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------74675EFA1F50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Roc-ers Sharing this with you because I think Dave Wiesner's got it right, and because I wish I could learn to say so much in so few words. Have a good one, Skip --------------74675EFA1F50 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from right-net.com (mast.right-net.com [206.13.40.191]) by mail.pacifier.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id CAA12400; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by right-net.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #57) id m0vt8uS-000XSAa; Sat, 8 Feb 97 01:17 PST Sender: owner-uwsa-uwsa@right-net.com Message-Id: <199702080919.JAA25160@relay1.geis.com> X-genie-QK-From: D.WIESNER X-genie-QK-Id: 3864267 X-genie-Gateway-Id: 559772 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-uwsa-uwsa@uwsa.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: uwsa@uwsa.com After seeing politics up close in 1996 I determined that the people are into wish fulfillment and have lost all ability to build the sort of ruling coalition that will guide this country according to democratic principles. The Democrats are in denial that the spending binge is over. The Republicans are captives of a faction that wants to impose Biblical law on the rest of us. The independents are repelled by a Reform Party which insists on glorifying Ross Perot as its saint, so what might be a nucleus of a voter rebellion against the two parties ends up being a bad joke. And over 50% of voting age people have completely tuned politics out. Meanwhile, all the trends we didn't want to appear continue apace. Is the country out of control? No. Unfortunately, it is quite firmly under control. Dave --------------74675EFA1F50-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: SLS: [UWSA] state of the country Date: 08 Feb 1997 19:06:32 -0800 I would only qualify these statements by objecting to "democratic principles" [sic]. The federal zone is a legislative democracy; the state zone is a constitutional republic. See the Guarantee Clause, Article VI, Section 4. See also the essay "The Two United States and the Law" by Howard Freeman, in the Supreme Law Library at URL: http://www.supremelaw.com If you are a federal citizen, then you are participating in a legislative democracy, whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not. If you are a state Citizen, then you are participating in a constitutional Republic. This is the big political battle which is now being waged, all across the Land. If you want proof, check out any state voter registration form. Observe the warnings thereon, for signing your name on false information. Currently, if you are a state Citizen, you cannot vote, you cannot serve on a federal grand jury, and you cannot serve on a federal trial ("petit") jury. These same problems may also exist with state grand and petit juries. Check with the jury commissioners in your respective counties. If you are a state Citizen and you are also white, then you are a white nigger, whether you know it or not. I presume you will not like it, once you discover this fact of life in America. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 03:58 PM 2/8/97 -0800, you wrote: >Roc-ers > >Sharing this with you because I think Dave Wiesner's got it right, >and because I wish I could learn to say so much in so few words. > >Have a good one, Skip >Reply-To: uwsa@uwsa.com > >After seeing politics up close in 1996 I determined that the people >are into wish fulfillment and have lost all ability to build the sort >of ruling coalition that will guide this country according to >democratic principles. > >The Democrats are in denial that the spending binge is over. > >The Republicans are captives of a faction that wants to impose >Biblical law on the rest of us. > >The independents are repelled by a Reform Party which insists on >glorifying Ross Perot as its saint, so what might be a nucleus of a >voter rebellion against the two parties ends up being a bad joke. > >And over 50% of voting age people have completely tuned politics out. > >Meanwhile, all the trends we didn't want to appear continue apace. >Is the country out of control? No. Unfortunately, it is quite >firmly under control. > >Dave ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 08 Feb 1997 18:52:40 -0900 Skip Leuschner wrote: > > Roc-ers > > Sharing this with you because I think Dave Wiesner's got it right, > and because I wish I could learn to say so much in so few words. > > Have a good one, Skip > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: [UWSA] state of the country > Date: Sat, 8 Feb 97 08:37:00 GMT > From: d.wiesner@genie.com > Reply-To: uwsa@uwsa.com > To: uwsa@uwsa.com > > After seeing politics up close in 1996 I determined that the people > are into wish fulfillment and have lost all ability to build the sort > of ruling coalition that will guide this country according to > democratic principles. > > The Democrats are in denial that the spending binge is over. > > The Republicans are captives of a faction that wants to impose > Biblical law on the rest of us. > > The independents are repelled by a Reform Party which insists on > glorifying Ross Perot as its saint, so what might be a nucleus of a > voter rebellion against the two parties ends up being a bad joke. > > And over 50% of voting age people have completely tuned politics out. > > Meanwhile, all the trends we didn't want to appear continue apace. > Is the country out of control? No. Unfortunately, it is quite > firmly under control. > > Dave Republicans, IMHO, are worse than useless. They are occupying the position of the party in opposition, but aren't opposing. I can't comprehend what is wrong: no guts, the FBI has pictures, bought off by drug money, ... In any case, their failures are astonishing. A bunch of people who believe in our Constitution better get real radical. As this post points out, there aren't any choices left. You MUST support the Libertarians. They may not be much in the way of gathering votes yet, but they are the only real party which REALLY supports the Constitution. You moderates better get radical, or we will need a revolution, with guns, blood, the whole nine yards. Lew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Weapons defined - Humor break Date: 08 Feb 1997 19:34:37 -0800 >From PIML: > > *** HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. DICTIONARY *** > >AMAZING FIREPOWER - a) holding more than two shots; b) makes a loud >'boom' which could hurt the ears of a child. > >ARMOR-PIERCING AMMO - Any round capable of penetrating 5 layers of >aluminum foil, or a heavy sweater. Must be banned. > >ASNER, Edward - An actor world renowned for his brilliant portrayal of >a major metropolitan newspaper editor; truthful, hand- some, virile yet >kindly and honest spokesman whose veracity is unassailable when he >speaks of the need for gun control. > >BILL OF RIGHTS - A piece of parchment written by dead white males, that >is either worthless or sacred, depending on whether the portion under >consideration agrees with us. > >BRADY, SARAH - Saintly daughter of FBI agent, who grew up with guns, >then decided they are wrong for the rest of us. Similarity of >philosophy to that of Adolf Hitler has been exaggerated. > >CANNON, HOWITZER, ELEPHANT GUN - Any weapon having "amazing firepower" >(above), eg, any firearm more powerful than a .22 blank starters >Pistol. Must be banned. > >CIVILIZATION - Those parts of the world where guns are outlawed (like >New York City, or Northern Ireland). > >COP-KILLER BULLET - Either a hard, non-expanding bullet, or a soft, >expanding bullet, depending on which isn't banned yet. > >CSGV / HCI - Socially responsible organizations of honest, concerned, >truthful citizens of the highest integrity who only want to keep >Saturday Night Specials out of the hands of criminals. > >CRIMINAL - Anyone posessing a gun, if we get our way... > >CULTURE OF GUNS - Those Americans still capable of original or >independent thought. Must be re-educated to understand that we, not >they, know what's best for them. (We haven't ruled out "camps"...) > >DEADLY ASSAULT RIFLE - Any open-sighted firearm that will fire two or >more consecutive rounds without major inconvenience to the user. Must >be banned. > >DEADLY SNIPER WEAPON - Any weapon capable of accepting an optical >sighting device. Must be banned. > >DEADLY "STEALTH" WEAPON - Any gun with a quiet or muffled report, >e.g. airguns. Must be banned. > >DEADLY ASSAULT PISTOL - Aww, hell, even we don't know what this is. >Better ban 'em all, just to be sure... > >GUN - Any oblong metallic object capable of harming a child, even if he >drops it on his foot. Must be banned IMMEDIATELY. > >HESTON, Charlton - An obscure, little-known actor who once had a minor >role in a movie about the Bible; has been known to espouse the pro-gun >propaganda of the NRA. Probably a student of Soviet disinformation >techniques. > >HUNTERS - Sadistic uncivilized cretins who wantonly massacre morally >superior peace-loving woodland creatures with assault rifles and >elephant guns, then leave the carcasses to rot while they (the hunters) >drink beer. Many seem to worship severed heads. Must be taxed to clean >up their contribution to urban violence (the current $75 Million in fees >stupidly goes to husband more animals for them to shoot). > >JUSTIFIABLE OUTPOURING OF RAGE BY VICTIMS OF 12 YEARS OF ECONOMIC >VIOLENCE - Riot. > >LEAD - Toxic substance used to make bullets that kill children ... >(what, they're not buying that? ... well, how about ...) - >Toxic substance that contaminates drinking water when mistakenly >used in pipe solder (yeah, that's the ticket!). Must be taxed out of >existence to pay for "cleanup". > >LIES - Anything the National Rifle Association says. > >LOBBYIST - 1) An HCI representative who tells the truth to Congress >about gun control. 2) An NRA representative who lies to the Congress >about gun control. > >MACHINEGUN - (old) Any firearm capable of firing more than one round >without having to ram powder, patch, and ball down the barrel. >(current) Any gun containing parts made with machines. > >MERCENARY - Anyone who owns an assault rifle. > >NATIONAL RIFLE ASSN. - An organization made up of ultra right-wing >redneck, beer-swilling, roadsign-shooting bumkins, who believe everyone >should be forced to own a machinegun loaded with cop-killer bullets, and >skinheads should each own two. > >POLITE SOCIETY - Hate-filled "code-word" for racist, sexist, >gay-bashing slaughterhouse that would result if unwashed masses were not >restrained by big government, with us in charge. > >POLLS - 1) A random sampling of good & decent people that proves a >majority want gun control. 2) A biased sampling of NRA members that NRA >uses to claim people don't want gun control. > >RANGE - Place where homicidal maniacs are encouraged by the NRA to >practice killing women and children. > >RELOADING - The black art of manufacturing cop-killer bullets >clandestinely by the dark of night in one's basement. Probably involves >witchcraft. > >SAFE STORAGE LAWS - It's 3 am, do you know where your guns are? We do, >and just to make sure, we're going to come in and look around. Smart >off, and you're under arrest. Resist, and we'll take your house. > >SABOT - Bullet which only kills police. Somehow it knows. > >SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIAL - Any weapon affordable to working people. > Won't sleep until these are banned. > >SCHUMER, CHARLES - may already be a wiener. (see Opportunists, >shameless). > >SEETHING CAULDRON OF HOMICIDAL RAGE - holder of concealed carry permit. > >SEMI-AUTO - Weapon capable of pumping bullet after bullet into your >daughter's dead body. The NRA wants everyone to have one. > >SPORTSMAN - Anyone who doesn't use a firearm in recreational or outdoor >activity. > >STATISTICS - 1) A series of numbers that prove our point. 2) A series >of numbers the NRA lies about, which proves our point. > >THROWING OFF THE SHACKLES OF ENSLAVEMENT - Armed Robbery. > >TOOLS OF SICK PARA-MILITARY FANTASY - Paint guns, starters pistols, >camo gear, combat boots, etc. Must all be banned. > >TRUTH - Anything Handgun Control, Inc. says (see "Pravda"). Call us, >we'll tell you what to think. Or better yet, keep your mouth shut and >just send more money. > >TWELVE YEARS OF REAGAN-BUSH - (a) Why I did it; (b) Why it's not my >fault. > >WAITING PERIOD - Will either break the back of crime, or be completely >insufficient and ineffective, depending on the date of the HCI press >release relative to passage of the Brady Act. - 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: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Washington Post Threatens Waco Holocaust Electronic Date: 08 Feb 1997 19:59:29 -0800 Forwarded from Carol Valentine: >*** >Recipients are urged to repost this release to suitable USENET groups and lists. >**** > >Washington Post Threatens Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum > >Well, here they come. On February 4, lawyers for The Washington Post >arrived at the doorstep of the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum. Katharine >Weymouth, Assistant Counsel at The Washington Post and the granddaughter of >the owner, Mrs. Katherine Graham, wrote complaining that a Washington Post >article was posted at the site "without permission." > >[The article she cited in her letter ("Public Honors for Secret Combat") can >be found in the War Gallery in the exhibit "A Death Cult Wears Black." This >exhibit focuses on the secret (black) helicopter unit of the >Special Operations Command. < >http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum >] > >If Ms. Weymouth's real objection is what she claims--that the article was >posted "without permission" -- the following e-mail (sent on February 7, >1997) should fix matters up. Meanwhile, if you have not downlaoded your copy >of the Museum, do so immediately. Look for details at the end of this message. > >*****Letter Begins***** > >Dear Ms. Weymouth: > >I am in receipt of your e-mail calling attention to the posting of a >Washington Post article/articles at the cited website. It seems to me the >situation could be resolved easily by giving The Post's blessing to the use >of its material on the site. Please regard this as a formal request to >reproduce, with permission, the article/articles to which you refer. > >The Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum is a scholarly presentation. Material >is not quoted out of context. The Museum is a high profile website with >global visibility and considerable attendance throughout the world. The >inclusion of Washington Post articles in the site, clearly labeled with >source and date, cannot hurt the commercial interests of your corporation. > >If you decline this request, would you please let me know your concerns? >Many thanks for your kind attention to this matter. > >Sincerely, > >Carol A. Valentine >Curator >Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum >February 7, 1997 > >**END LETTER** > >The entire Museum is available for anonymous ftp downlaod. Go to >[home.overthe.net] and then go to [/pub/showtime/] and take these files: > >wm1x2f1.zip >wm1x2f2.zip >wm1x2f3.zip >wm1x2f4.zip >wm1x2f4a.zip >wm1x2f5.zip >wm1x2f5a.zip >wm1x2f5b.zip > >Or follow directions at: > >http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/library/download.html > > > > > > >Carol A. Valentine >President >Public Action, Inc. > >Have you seen the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum? >http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum > > - 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: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: IRS Computers etc. Date: 09 Feb 1997 00:31:09 -0500 (EST) Paul Andrew Mitchell fwds: >> He proposed contracting out the processing of paper returns filed by individuals and abandoning a "big bang" approach to systems modernization<< IMHO not a good idea. It is bad enough to give incompetent govt employees access to that information. I have no desire to have my tax records available to every fly-by-night low bidder the IRS can dredge up. I can see it all now. The XYZ Dinky Toy and Tax Prep Co. sending me dunning notices and Luigi "The Lug" Linguini Collection Agency and Bocci Ball Fabricators LTD. attempting to seize my assets. Just shit can the whole damn system. Go VAT or flat. Each has it's merits and drawbacks. BTW, in case no one noticed, except for a "Skip" to my "Lew" and an end run by Monte, Sat Feb. 8, 1997 was Paul Mitchell Day on ROC. Give him the game ball folks. Way to go, Paul!!!! Regards, Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: (fwd) ATF had prior warning of OKC bomb: London Telegraph (fwd) Date: 09 Feb 1997 02:57:05 -0500 (EST) Got this second hand, but it does sound like AEP. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- International News Electronic Telegraph Sunday 9 February 1997 Washington had Oklahoma bomb tip-off By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington An Oklahoma newspaper has convincing evidence that the US Government was warned about the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building in 1995, the most deadly act of terrorism in US history. Next Tuesday the McCurtain Daily Gazette is scheduled to publish how an informant for the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was paid $120 a week to monitor a neo-Nazi compound in eastern Oklahoma, called Elohim City. The informant, Carol Howe, wrote monthly reports for her ATF case officer in Tulsa, warning that the group was planning to blow up a federal building, with a probable target date of April 19, 1995. She told the ATF that the terrorist cell, sometimes known as the Aryan Republican Army, had narrowed down the list of targets to three buildings: one in Oklahoma City and two in Tulsa. The ATF has confirmed that Howe was a source. After repeating for two years that allegations of prior knowledge were a crazy "conspiracy theory", the US authorities now admit that they received warning, but insist the information was too vague to prompt action. Ms Howe said that the prime instigator of the conspiracy was Andreas Strassmeir, a former German army officer from a prominent political family in Berlin. Strassmeir told The Telegraph last year that he moved to the United States in 1989 to work as an undercover agent for the US Justice Department, but says that the job fell through. Instead, he went to live at Elohim City, where he took charge of paramilitary training. Two days after the bombing, which killed 168 people, Ms Howe was taken to an underground command centre in downtown Oklahoma City for an extensive debriefing. In her official statement to investigators, she identified sketches of suspects "John Doe I" and "John Doe II" as two members of Elohim City's terrorist underground, both housemates of Andreas Strassmeir. According to the Gazette, one of them was called Michael Brescia, a member of the Aryan Republican Army underground. Other witnesses also raised concerns about Brescia within days of the bombing, but there was no follow-up. The FBI did not question Brescia until his name started surfacing in the press last year. Two weeks ago the FBI arrested him in Philadelphia - for bank robberies carried out by the Aryan Army, not for questioning about the bombing. Glenn and Cathy Wilburn, an Oklahoma couple who lost two grandchildren in the blast, have named Brescia and Strassmeir as co-conspirators in a civil lawsuit against the chief suspect, Tim McVeigh. Carol Howe has revealed that Tim McVeigh used to visit Elohim City, using the alias of Tim Tuttle. He would frequent the house of Strassmeir, who had an extraordinary influence over him. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Finkline, database to give gun-owners "special attention" Date: 09 Feb 1997 10:29:11 -0500 (EST) Baltimore Starts Anti-Gun Drive AP 2/7/97 BALTIMORE The city plans to launch an unusually aggressive campaign to remove guns from the streets by asking residents to anonymously send police the names of people who carry weapons. The program will allow police to monitor names sent to them and keep track of those who are mentioned repeatedly. "We will give that person special attention," Mayor Kurt Schmoke said Thursday. "If we see him on the street, one false move and we pounce." [Meaning the usual police lies will be employed to justify stopping and searching people: "improper lane changes," imagined tailight problems, and the old favorite, the "baggie of drugs falling out of the pocket." -bd] Police would not make an arrest based solely on a tip, said Agent Robert Weinhold Jr., a department spokesman. They will also keep confidential the information received from residents. [...] But the idea of police going through neighborhoods and soliciting anonymous tips concerns some. "The danger is someone is going to misuse this program to take care of private disputes," said Dwight Sullivan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland. "It will be very interesting to see what the police do with this information. We will be very interested in monitoring what happens to people whose names are turned in." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg@hevanet.com (wbg) Subject: Re: SLS: [UWSA] state of the country Date: 09 Feb 1997 08:07:25 -0800 (PST) PM wrote: > > See the Guarantee Clause, Article VI, Section 4. Some Constitutional scholar. The Guarantee Clause is in Article _Four_. Article Six _has_ no Section 4. -- *********************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: SLS: [UWSA] state of the country Date: 09 Feb 1997 02:01:45 -0800 Mr. Gillett et al., Excuse me. I am guilty of a typo. This writer is correct: the Guarantee Clause is Article IV, Section 4. I will admit that I do need new glasses, and have needed them for a long time. :) /s/ Paul Mitchell p.s. Must every human error be turned into an interpersonal criticism? :( At 08:07 AM 2/9/97 -0800, you wrote: >PM wrote: >> >> See the Guarantee Clause, Article VI, Section 4. > >Some Constitutional scholar. The Guarantee Clause is in Article _Four_. >Article Six _has_ no Section 4. > >-- >*********************************************************************** >W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA >*********************************************************************** > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: (fwd) ATF had prior warning of OKC bomb: London Telegraph Date: 10 Feb 1997 01:59:28 -0600 At 02:57 AM 2/9/97 -0500, you wrote: >Got this second hand, but it does sound like AEP. > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >International News >Electronic Telegraph >Sunday 9 February 1997 >Washington had Oklahoma bomb tip-off >By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington It is, I read it right off their (ET) web page. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: SLS: [UWSA] state of the country Date: 10 Feb 1997 02:01:29 -0600 At 08:07 AM 2/9/97 -0800, you wrote: >PM wrote: >> >> See the Guarantee Clause, Article VI, Section 4. > >Some Constitutional scholar. The Guarantee Clause is in Article _Four_. >Article Six _has_ no Section 4. Just a bit of disgraphia I suspect, or a typo, IV ..VI, see the ease of turning them around? The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: NRA EMPLOYS JACK BOOTED THUGS Date: 10 Feb 1997 07:25:24 -0600 Last Thursday the judiciary committee of our state legislature (Nebraska) had a hearing about our pending concealed carry law. As you can imagine every gunner in favor of such a law was in attendance. The hearing room and the hall way were packed with proponents. I showed up to testify against the law! Why? Because in 1988, through a citizen's initiative petition, our state constitution was amended to give Nebraskan's the right to keep and bear arms for our personal defense, defense of family, home, property, others, and for all other legal purposes. Our state constitution does not put restraint upon the mode of carry, the geographic area of carry, nor the type of arms that can be carried. The term "bear" means "carry." Nebraskans' already have the right to carry. Since this is so, I reason that a concealed carry permit is not only unnecessary but works to deprive me of my civil rights. What we should be doing instead is petitioning our legislature to proclaim their support of our right to carry according to the constitutional mandate laid upon government in 1988. But the NRA is full steam wanting all states to pass concealed carry permit laws. For Nebraskans this converts our free rights to taxable and controllable privilege. This does not add up to a bargain for me. I have been against this action for over a year and have made no secret about it. I was sitting in the hearing room waiting my turn to testify when I was summoned to the hallway. "Someone wants to speak to you," I was informed. I went out. When I got to the hall I was confronted by a pretty little blond girl dressed in a red dress and red face. (Yes, I said blond.) It was Tara Riley, the NRA lobbyist for Nebraska. "What the HELL do you think you are doing?" she shouted. I gave her a copy of my testimony, reminded her of my long standing opposition to the measure, which she acknowledged, and told her that one thing that I was not doing was swearing at her. I told her that she ought to get some respect and shape up, and stomped back into the hearing room. I am offended at her attempt either to intimidate me, or to make a play to the crowd in the hall at my expense. I am an American and a Nebraskan. I have a right and a duty to stand up for my rights. I object to the NRA rushing around like a bull in a china shop destroying my rights. It is the NRA more than any other organization that I know of that should honor and defend rights. But the standards of the NRA have fallen. Instead they hire high heeled jack booted thugs to enforce their dictums. At least that is how Tara Riley acted and appeared to me. And not only me. An officer of the Nebraska Rifle and Pistol Organization, Justin DeBoer, holds views about this effort similar to mine and has voiced them. He got a call from Tara asking "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING?" Either Tara has limited vocabulary and reasoning power, or she has an attitude. An attitude similar to Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler. Them High Heeled Jack Boots will accept one hob nail per heel and I think she has them. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 10 Feb 1997 09:55:08 -0500 Hmmm. Re: the state of the country, I just have to comment. >Republicans, IMHO, are worse than useless. They are occupying the >position of the party in opposition, but aren't opposing. I can't >comprehend what is wrong: no guts, the FBI has pictures, bought off by >drug money, ... In any case, their failures are astonishing. > I'm a Republican, and I have to agree. But the interesting thing is: they *aren't* occupying the position of the party in opposition, thay are the *majority* party, controlling the legislative branch. One trouble is: they don't think like a majority party, they think like an accomidationist minority party. The legislative branch is only one of the important pieces. I would say the rest are: the Executive, the Judiciary, the assorted bureaus and TLAs, and the "elites" in media and academia. Remember: 25% of the economy goes directly to Gov. spending and employment. >50% of the households in the nation receive a Gov. check regularly. The TLA's and the Judiciary like the current lack of motion just fine, as do trial lawyers, media people, and a slew of special interests. >A bunch of people who believe in our Constitution better get real >radical. As this post points out, there aren't any choices left. You >MUST support the Libertarians. > >They may not be much in the way of gathering votes yet, but they are the >only real party which REALLY supports the Constitution. You moderates >better get radical, or we will need a revolution, with guns, blood, the >whole nine yards. I, frankly, don't have a lot of hope for a revolution. We, as a people, are just real comfortable. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Washington had Oklahoma bomb tip-off (fwd) Date: 10 Feb 1997 11:33:14 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- London Telegraph, Electronic version, Feb. 9, 1997 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000143370135591&rtmo=32fea9ba&atmo=32fea9ba&pg= Washington had Oklahoma bomb tip-off 9 February 1997 Article: The Aryan Republican Army AN Oklahoma newspaper has convincing evidence that the US Government was warned about the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building in 1995, the most deadly act of terrorism in US history. Next Tuesday the McCurtain Daily Gazette is scheduled to publish how an informant for the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was paid $120 a week to monitor a neo-Nazi compound in eastern Oklahoma, called Elohim City. The informant, Carol Howe, wrote monthly reports for her ATF case officer in Tulsa, warning that the group was planning to blow up a federal building, with a probable target date of April 19, 1995. She told the ATF that the terrorist cell, sometimes known as the Aryan Republican Army, had narrowed down the list of targets to three buildings: one in Oklahoma City and two in Tulsa.

The ATF has confirmed that Howe was a source. After repeating for two years that allegations of prior knowledge were a crazy "conspiracy theory", the US authorities now admit that they received warning, but insist the information was too vague to prompt action. Ms Howe said that the prime instigator of the conspiracy was Andreas Strassmeir, a former German army officer from a prominent political family in Berlin. REF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000143370135591&rtmo=32fea9ba&atmo= 32fea9ba&pg=/et/96/5/20/wbungl19.html"> Strassmeir told The Telegraph last year that he moved to the United States in 1989 to work as an undercover agent for the US Justice Department, but says that the job fell through. Instead, he went to live at Elohim City, where he took charge of paramilitary training.

Two days after the bombing, which killed 168 people, Ms Howe was taken to an underground command centre in downtown Oklahoma City for an extensive debriefing. In her official statement to investigators, she identified sketches of suspects "John Doe I" and "John Doe II" as two members of Elohim City's terrorist underground, both housemates of Andreas Strassmeir. According to the Gazette, one of them was called Michael Brescia, a member of the Aryan Republican Army underground. Other witnesses also raised concerns about Brescia within days of the bombing, but there was no follow-up. The FBI did not question Brescia until his name started surfacing in the press last year. Two weeks ago the FBI arrested him in Philadelphia - for bank robberies carried out by the Aryan Army, not for questioning about the bombing. Glenn and Cathy Wilburn, an Oklahoma couple who lost two grandchildren in the blast, have named Brescia and Strassmeir as co-conspirators in a civil lawsuit against the chief suspect, Tim McVeigh. Carol Howe has revealed that Tim McVeigh used to visit Elohim City, using the alias of Tim Tuttle. He would frequent the house of Strassmeir, who had an extraordinary influence over him.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Clinton's "Buy Partisan!" (Co) Operation Date: 10 Feb 1997 13:14:53 -0500 (EST) THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Confused as ever by Super Prez The Panderer as he wanders all over the political map, I wondered recently what President Clinton meant when he kept referring to "Buy Partisan!" (co) operation in his various speeches and radio addresses delivered during the past few weeks. Here are two definitions of the word "partisan" which I found in a respected dictionary: 1. Mil. Any member of a body of detached light troops engaged in harassing an enemy. 2. Orig. Russia. A member of a guerrilla band within enemy lines engaged in demolition, incendiarism, diversionary attacks, and teaching sabotage. Wow, heavy duty stuff for the President to be advocating. Has he checked this out with the Attorney General? Or is she down buying camo fatigues and camo face paint, too? Well, it appears that the President wants us to cooperate and "Buy Partisan!" Message received. He wants us to outfit ourselves for armed conflict, does he not? He wants us to prepare for self-defense by equipping ourselves with military type equipment, as did the partisans during World War II, does he not? Heck, I am a law abiding American and I have no real desire to "play Army" (having served on active dury from 1977-1983), but if the Commander in Chief wants Americans to "Buy Partisan!", well, then, I guess that I am obligated to start dropping dinero at the local Army surplus store and purchasing more firearms, the future production of which was banned by Clinton's own 1994 Crime Bill. Oh, and I guess that Clinton, as part of "Buy Partisan!" (Co) operation, will be repealing the Crime Bill's onerous anti-gun provisions with the assistance of his allied "freedom fighters" in Congress. Gee, I figured that Schumer might have danced to Tito Puente's Latin rhythms, but I never figured that he would have been a backer of Tito's Yugoslav partisans. Hey, one learns a new lesson every day. Nobanners, obey your President, and "Buy Partisan!", con mucho gusto. THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 10 Feb 1997 11:21:44 -0800 John Curtis wrote: > > Hmmm. Re: the state of the country, I just have to comment. > > >Republicans, IMHO, are worse than useless. They are occupying the > >position of the party in opposition, but aren't opposing. I can't > >comprehend what is wrong: no guts, the FBI has pictures, bought off by > >drug money, ... In any case, their failures are astonishing. > > > > I'm a Republican, and I have to agree. But the interesting thing > is: they *aren't* occupying the position of the party in > opposition, thay are the *majority* party, controlling the > legislative branch. The Republicans are drifting aimlessly and playing defense instead of offense because they are leaderless. Dole wasn't much of a leader, but he at least had the respect of his subordinates. Lott has done nothing yet to earn any respect, and until he does, Republicans will regard following him as optional. Newt was the Republican leader, and a damned good one, but he has now been neutralized because he believes he has lost the popular support he once inspired with the Contract with America. That being the case, he is playing politics instead of standing on the principles that produced the Republican sweep in 94. The Democrats will beat him at playing politics because they play a "no rules" game. The Repubs are constrained by the notion that honesty is still a virtue. Clinton, Dodd, Gephardt, Bonior, Daschle & Co are getting a big laugh out of that as they sprint toward the goal line for another political touchdown with victory in 98 as the stakes in the game. Bless their lying little hearts, the Democratic leadership have done an absolutely brilliant job of decapitating the Republican party, and we are rewarding their outrageous tactics by forgetting about the Contract with America and having doubts about the only force-for-reform there is in DC, the Republicans. (I'm not a Republican, but given a choice between having them or the Dems in power, I would have no problem choosing.) The Dem's success in rendering the Repubs leaderless was only possible, of course, because of the astounding gullibility and tactical stupidity of the American electorate. Newt ranks among the most unpopular politicians alive today, yet he is the only guy in DC with any vision about the future of America, and the skill, courage and passion to articulate that vision in an inspirational way. None of the other would-be leaders can construct a complete sentence, at least not one that doesn't sound like a campaign speech or a shallow attempt to dodge the tough issues. Anyhow, the point is if we want the Republicans to behave like they have some ideas, backbone and power, the inspiration has to come from us at the grassroots. All they are hearing now are comforting words of reassurance from their families and friends while the Dem attack-dogs continue the lies and the media call them inept and unworthy of leadership, which is true as long as they are leadersless themselves. Bill Buckley's magazine National Review cut right to the bottom line in the recent issue. The Republicans got into power by standing on conservative principle. Unless they start doing that again, they will find themselves in the minority again. The American electorate is stupid to be sure, but they still get more inspired by sizzling steak than cold oatmeal. > > One trouble is: they don't think like a majority party, they think > like an accomidationist minority party. The legislative branch is > only one of the important pieces. I would say the rest are: > the Executive, the Judiciary, the assorted bureaus and TLAs, and > the "elites" in media and academia. The current Republican leadership spent decades as a powerless minority, and learned all they know about governing in that mode. The reform-minded Repub freshman class of 94 has been widely criticized for it's determination and "to-hell-with-status-quo" approach to governing, but remember where that criticism came from - the old guard, of both parties - the careerists who have been in power far too long and whose thought processes are totally corrupted by the seniority-based institutional system. As a relevant sidebar, term limits anyone? The institutional system can't be fixed without them. Regards and FWIW, Skip. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 10 Feb 1997 12:24:51 -0900 John Curtis wrote: > > Hmmm. Re: the state of the country, I just have to comment. > > >Republicans, IMHO, are worse than useless. They are occupying the > >position of the party in opposition, but aren't opposing. I can't > >comprehend what is wrong: no guts, the FBI has pictures, bought off by > >drug money, ... In any case, their failures are astonishing. > > > > I'm a Republican, and I have to agree. But the interesting thing > is: they *aren't* occupying the position of the party in > opposition, thay are the *majority* party, controlling the > legislative branch. > > One trouble is: they don't think like a majority party, they think > like an accomidationist minority party. The legislative branch is > only one of the important pieces. I would say the rest are: > the Executive, the Judiciary, the assorted bureaus and TLAs, and > the "elites" in media and academia. > > Remember: 25% of the economy goes directly to Gov. spending and > employment. >50% of the households in the nation receive a Gov. > check regularly. The TLA's and the Judiciary like the current > lack of motion just fine, as do trial lawyers, media people, and a > slew of special interests. > > >A bunch of people who believe in our Constitution better get real > >radical. As this post points out, there aren't any choices left. You > >MUST support the Libertarians. > > > >They may not be much in the way of gathering votes yet, but they are the > >only real party which REALLY supports the Constitution. You moderates > >better get radical, or we will need a revolution, with guns, blood, the > >whole nine yards. > > I, frankly, don't have a lot of hope for a revolution. We, as a > people, are just real comfortable. > > jcurtis The problem is, of course, that moderates don't control the timing or course of a real revolution, with blood, guts and the whole nine yards. I stand by my statement about moderates needing to get real radical in the Libertarian party. Lew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 10 Feb 1997 14:46:03 -0600 Skip Leuschner wrote: > a book compared to his usual posts, most of which I agree with but find myself hoping they're (R's) are laying in the woods with rifles instead of flinging birdshot off in every direction like they did last session. The problem with Newt's house is twofold. First, they accomplished too much. They kept their "Contract" promises to the letter, actually passed 9 of ten of the items and saw a number of them clear the Senate. The record is mind boggling. Second, they assumed the public would watch what they were doing and actually give a shit. The public doesn't, for the most part. It wants Peter Jennings and Chef Boyardee. They abdicated the PR war and it's been down hill ever since. The lesson is: Reality doesn't count, perception is everything. Speaking of perceptions, wasn't JCWatts' expressing his perception of JJackson ("race-hustling poverty-pimp") wonderful? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 10 Feb 1997 17:41:14 -0800 -snip- >Newt was the Republican leader, and a damned good one, but he has now >been neutralized because he believes he has lost the popular support he >once inspired with the Contract with America. That being the case, he >is playing politics instead of standing on the principles that produced >the Republican sweep in 94. -snip- >Newt ranks among the most unpopular politicians alive today, yet he is >the only guy in DC with any vision about the future of America, and the >skill, >courage and passion to articulate that vision in an inspirational way. -snip- I'm sorry to disagree, Skip; IMO Newt is bought and paid for. Look at who his idols are: New World Order advocates, one and all. In the beginning (1994) Newt liked to say patriot-sounding things, and he fooled a lot of real patriots, myself included, for a while. But the fact is, he's a globalist; he's one of the elite. Until people realize that there's only one party in America (and most won't realize it until some time after it all collapses, post-4th-Reich totalitarian police state) we haven't got a chance. The dems/repubs are playing smoke and mirrors. There's no *real* difference, only varying grades of evil & socialism. - 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: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Pass along Date: 10 Feb 1997 20:22:59 -0600 At present, one can call the Hill switchboard free by dialing 1-800-96-AFLCIO and our union friends pay for the call. Kind of them, doncha think? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 10 Feb 1997 21:53:19 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Liberty or Death wrote: > -snip- > >Newt was the Republican leader, and a damned good one, but he has now > >been neutralized because he believes he has lost the popular support he > >once inspired with the Contract with America. That being the case, he > >is playing politics instead of standing on the principles that produced > >the Republican sweep in 94. > -snip- > >Newt ranks among the most unpopular politicians alive today, yet he is > >the only guy in DC with any vision about the future of America, and the > >skill, > >courage and passion to articulate that vision in an inspirational way. > -snip- > > > I'm sorry to disagree, Skip; IMO Newt is bought and paid for. Look at > who his idols are: New World Order advocates, one and all. Newt did just get back from the globalista confab in Davos, Switzerland, where he danced the NAFTA-GRAFTA fast-track tango. Bet he doesn't feature that appearance in any campaign commercials. bd > > In the beginning (1994) Newt liked to say patriot-sounding things, > and he fooled a lot of real patriots, myself included, for a while. > But the fact is, he's a globalist; he's one of the elite. > > Until people realize that there's only one party in America (and most > won't realize it until some time after it all collapses, post-4th-Reich > totalitarian police state) we haven't got a chance. The dems/repubs are > playing smoke and mirrors. There's no *real* difference, only varying > grades of evil & socialism. > > > - 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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: FYI: Open Letter to Leroy Schweitzer (#2) Date: 10 Feb 1997 23:34:35 -0800 SECOND REQUEST (first one on 1/28/97 went unanswered) Mr. Leroy Schweitzer c/o Yellowstone County Jail 3165 King Avenue East Billings, Montana state February 10, 1997 Dear Mr. Schweitzer, I get asked this question quite often, so please do not take it personally, or get offended, because I do believe it is a perfectly good question, and also appropriate during these uncertain times in America. Are you a federal agent of any kind? I am not a federal agent of any kind, and I have filed an affidavit to that effect in the United States District Court in downtown Los Angeles, California. If you require a certified copy of my affidavit, complete with the Clerk's conforming stamp, I will be happy to provide you with one, free of charge. I will look forward to your prompt and considerate response. I think that you owe me at least a few answers. /s/ Paul Mitchell copy: The Internet ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)Ruling in Kriho CAse (2/10/97) Date: 11 Feb 1997 06:51:47 -0500 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 01:42:45 -0700 (MST) >From: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Ruling in Kriho CAse (2/10/97) >To: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com > > >DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF GILPIN, STATE OF COLORADO >Case No. 96 CR 91 Division 1 > >Filed in Combined Court >Feb. 10., 1997 > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >ORDER >----------------------------------------------------------------- >THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO > > Plaintiff, > >v. >Laura J. Kriho, > > Defendant >---------------------------------------------------------------- > THIS MATTER came before this Court on October 1 and 2, 1996, >for trial to the Court on issues raised in the District >Attorney's Motion of Contempt Citation. The People were >represented by Deputy District Attorney James Stanley, and Ms. >Kriho was represented by Paul Grant. This Court, having heard >the evidence and arguments of counsel and having reviewed the >legal briefs of counsel filed on October 9, 1996, and being >advised in the premises, enters the following findings and order. > This action arose out of jury selection during the trial of >_People v. Michelle Brannon_, Gilpin County District Court case >number 95 CR 74, which occurred on May 13, 1996. A juror serving >on the _Brannon_ case, Laura J. Kriho, was cited with contempt of >court for her conduct during the jury selection process. After >the contempt citation was issued, the trial judge in the >_Brannon_ case, Judge Kenneth Barnhill, disqualified himself from >further participation and Ms. Kriho's contempt case was assigned >to this judge for trial. > The District Attorney asserts that Ms. Kriho is in contempt >of court for disobeying an order of the trial court, obstruction >the administration of justice, and committing perjury. The >District Attorney alleges that Laura Kriho, while serving as a >juror: >1) failed to reveal that she had previously been arrested, > charged with, and pled guilty to a felony charge of > Possession of a Scheduled I Controlled Substance and was > thereafter granted a deferred judgment and sentence; > >2) failed to reveal that she was opposed to the enforcement of > drug laws through the courts and that she was actively > involved in an organization which had as its purpose the > modification of certain Colorado drug laws; and > >3) failed to reveal that she did not intend to follow the > judge's instructions on the law. > >The District Attorney argues that Ms. Kriho did these things with >the intent to obstruct justice. > > Ms. Kriho, through her counsel, has mischaracterized the >issues in this case. This case is not now and has never been >about how Ms. Kriho voted during jury deliberations. This case >is about whether Ms. Kriho misled the trial court and the trial >attorneys about important matters during the jury selection >process with the intent to remain on the jury and obstruct the >legal process. The Court admitted evidence of Ms. Kriho's >conduct during deliberations only as it was relevant to the issue >of Ms. Kriho's conduct during the jury selection process. This >mischaracterization of the case has made it more difficult to >focus upon the real issue: Ms. Kriho's conduct during jury >_selection_, not jury _deliberation_. > >JURY NULLIFICATION > No juror can be punished for their vote in deciding a case. >Even if the juror's vote amounts to jury nullification and flies >in the face of the evidence and the law, they cannot be punished >in any way. However, if a juror deliberately misleads the court >and the attorneys during jury selection with the intent to >obstruct the legal process, it is a totally different situation. >Here, the District Attorney seeks a finding of contempt for Ms. >Kriho's alleged failure to reveal important information during >voir dire. The District Attorney is not seeking to punish Ms. >Kriho for her refusal to vote in favor of a conviction during >jury deliberations. > This case presents a delicate and sensitive issue because it >can easily be misinterpreted. The laws of this state do not >permit lawyers and judges to criticize jurors for their decisions >in a case, much less punish them. Ms. Kriho has attempted to >focus the case on a juror's "right" to vote without regard for >the instructions of law give by trial court and has forcefully >argued in favor of a "right" to jury nullification. The term >"jury nullification" refers to the power of a juror to decide a >case in a way that is contrary to the evidence and the law. The >United States Supreme Court, in _Sparf v. United States_, 156 >U.S. 51 (1895), held that it is the duty of the judge to instruct >the jury on the law. In that case the court stated: > Public and private safety alike would be in peril if the > principle be established that juries in criminal cases may, > of right, disregard the law as expounded to them by the > court, and become a law unto themselves. Under such a > system, the principle function of the judge would be to > preside and keep order while jurymen, untrained in the law, > would determine questions affecting life, liberty or > property according to such legal principles as, in their > judgment, were applicable to the particular case being > tried... We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the > courts of the United States it is the duty of jurors in > criminal cases to take the law from the court and apply that > law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence. >_Sparf_, 156 U.S. 51 at 101-102. > There is no question that jurors possess the power referred >to as jury nullification, but juries should not be encouraged to >use such power indiscriminately. In _United States v. Moylan_, >417 F.2d 1002, 1006 (4th Cir. 1969), _cert. denied_, 397 U.S. 910 >(1970), the United States Court of Appeals stated: > > No less an authority than Dean Pound has expressed the > opinion that 'Jury lawlessness is the great corrective of > law in its actual administration.' However, this is not to > say that the jury should be encouraged in their > 'lawlessness', and by clearly stating to the jury that they > may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide > according to their prejudices or conscience (for there is no > check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience > rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule > of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not > be allowed. > > These opinions hold that while jurors have a duty to follow >the court's statement of the law, they still have the ability, >although not the right, to disregard the law in reaching their >decision. > Defendant takes a strong position in favor jury >nullification arguing that such a right is necessary for juries >to oppose a tyrannical government. Defendant refers to historic >cases in which jury nullification has had an important impact on >civil liberties. While this is unquestionably true, it is also >unquestionably true that jury nullification can lead to the >tyrannical application of the law. If the jury can, as a matter >of right, acquit in the face of contrary evidence and law, could >they not also convict flying in the face of evidence and law? A >system which allows jurors, as a matter of right, to pick and >choose among the rules of law which they will apply, has >extremely dangerous implications, particularly to those who may >espouse unpopular causes or who, for other reasons, are not >looked upon favorably by the majority in the community. It is >one thing to laude the efforts of a jury fairly picked and >honestly chosen to decide a case in conformity with their >conscience. It is quite another thing for a juror to >deliberately mislead the court in an effort to obstruct the >administration of justice. > >FINDINGS OF FACT > From the evidence in the case this Court makes the following >factual findings. Ms. Kriho was summoned to jury duty in the >case of _People v. Brannon_, Gilpin County District Court case >number 95 CR 74. Ms. Kriho reported for jury duty on May 13, >1996. She and all jurors were given an oath by the trial court >to truthfully answer questions concerning their ability to serve >as fair and impartial jurors. The charges in the case were read >to the jurors so all jurors were aware that it was a criminal >trial involving alleged violations of drug laws. The trial court >advised all of the jury panel, including those in the gallery, >that it was important for everyone to listen to the questions of >the trial court and the lawyers because it was possible that >jurors in the gallery would be called forward to replace jurors >in the box. From the testimony of the jurors who served with Ms. >Kriho on the _Brannon_ case and from the testimony of Ms. Kriho >herself, it is clear that all potential jurors, including those >in the box and those in the gallery, understood the need to >listen closely to the questioning of all jurors. Every >replacement juror called was asked if they had heard the prior >questions and they were given an opportunity to comment on any of >the topics discussed. Ms. Kriho testified that she was able to >hear all of the court proceedings from her place in the >courtroom. Because it was stated clearly by the judge during his >voir dire, and the other jurors who testified clearly understood >the need to volunteer information, and because the question was >asked repeatedly to all replacement jurors, this Court finds that >Ms. Kriho was aware of the prior questioning and she was given an >opportunity to comment on the topics discussed. > Several consistent topics were discussed with many jurors, >including discussions of the jurors' obligation to follow the law >as given by the trial court, discussions of drug usage and drug >laws and how such experiences might affect the jurors' ability to >serve fairly and impartially. To a lesser extent, the fact that >punishment was not within the province of the jury was also >discussed. Discussion of a juror's duty to follow the law as >given by the trial court, and any issues relating to enforcement >of the drug laws, was repeated so many times during voir dire, >that this Court must conclude that all jurors, including Ms. >Kriho, were aware that these were important issues and that >prospective jurors should have revealed any opinions or strong >feelings on these topics. > The following quotations from the transcript of the jury >voir dire illustrate how clearly Judge Barnhill explained the >issue of jurors following the trial court's instructions on the >law. > >(Questions by Judge Barnhill.) > Would all of you agree to follow my instructions on the law > even if you don't agree with them or you don't think that > they are what the law is or should be? People sometimes > have a little different attitude about what the law should > be than what it really is. What I need from you is a > commitment that you will follow my instructions even if you > don't agree with them. And you all agree to do that? > Follow the instructions on the law? My job is to tell you > what the law is, and will you all agree to follow my > instructions? Will you all agree? Anyone saying no? (pages > 17 and 18) > >(Question by Judge Barnhill.) > What I need to have from you is a commitment that you will > follow my instructions on the law in this case and not try > to remember any of the instructions that you received in the > earlier case. Will you all agree to that? (page 24) > > The testimony of several jurors indicated that at various >times during jury deliberations they brought to Ms. Kriho's >attention the trial court's instruction that they were to follow >the law even if they disagreed with it. From that testimony, >this Court concludes that the voir dire made a distinct >impression on the jurors of their duty to follow the law. Ms. >Kriho knew this was an important consideration for the judge and >the lawyers and yet she chose not to reveal her strong feelings >about this. > > The following quotation from the jury voir dire transcript >reveal the obvious emphasis during voir dire concerning any >strong feelings about drug laws. > > (Question by Mr. Stanley) > > Let me ask about -- does anyone have any particular strong > feelings, either pro or con, about the laws we have > including the law that will apply here that you will get > from His Honor, Judge Barnhill, about the control of > dangerous drugs or controlled substances? In other words, > it is against the law to possess methamphetamine and that > is why we're here. Does anybody have any particular views > about these laws including specifically this one? (Pages 41 > and 42). > > Several different times during voir dire the judge, the >District Attorney and Ms. Brannon's attorney, discussed issues >relating to drugs with several different jurors. This Court >finds that Ms. Kriho was aware that any experiences, or strong >opinions she had concerning the drug laws were important issues >in selecting the jury. The evidence shows that on April 29, >1985, in Boulder County District Court, Ms. Kriho had pled guilty >to the felony crime of Possession of a Schedule I Controlled >Substance and was granted a deferred judgment and sentence. The >evidence further shows that Ms. Kriho holds strong opinions about >the propriety of certain drug laws. She is a founder and >activist in an organization called the Boulder Hemp Initiative >Project, which has the goal of legalizing marijuana in Colorado. >She failed to reveal any of this highly relevant information >during the jury selection process. > > On the issue of punishment, the trial court gave the >following instruction to the jury in the final written jury >instructions. > > If you decide that the prosecution has proved beyond a > reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the crimes > as charged, it will be my job to decide what the punishment > will be. You should not try to guess what the punishment > might be. It would not enter into you consideration at any > time. > >Based on this instruction and the comments by the trial court and >counsel during voir dire, this Court concludes that all of the >jurors, including Ms. Kriho, were aware that punishment was not >to be considered by the jury in finding the defendant guilty or >not guilty. The testimony of other jurors revealed that this >prohibition was called to the attention of Ms. Kriho during jury >deliberations. > The evidence further revealed that during jury deliberations >Ms. Kriho attempted to discover what the punishment for the crime >of Possession of Methamphetamines would be. She investigated >this in the evening between the first and second days of trial >and told her fellow jurors what she though the punishment would >be based upon information she obtained from the internet. The >information she conveyed to the jury was inaccurate. > Testimony of Ms. Kriho's fellow jurors revealed that she >informed these jurors that she did not believe drug laws should >be enforced through the courts and she discussed her belief that >jurors did not have to follow the law if they did not agree with >it. > During the course of deliberations it came to the judge's >attention that a juror had researched the question of punishment >on the internet and had brought that information to the attention >of other jurors. The defendant in the underlying trial, Michelle >Brannon, moved for a mistrial and that request was granted by the >trial court. The jury was then discharged. Outside the >courthouse Ms. Kriho produced a jury nullification brochure from >her purse and gave it to one of her fellow jurors. Ms. Kriho >admitted in her testimony that she brought this brochure to the >courthouse with her. This brochure promotes the concept that >jurors should be permitted to judge the merits of the law as well >as the facts in a case. It further promotes the concept of >jurors disregarding the law if they do not agree with it. These >are the same concepts Ms. Kriho was espousing in the jury room. >On the back of this brochure the following is printed: "For more >information contact the: Boulder Hemp Initiative Project." The >brochure then provides the address and telephone number for that >organization. > Ms. Kriho testified that she was not a member of or an >activist for the organization that published the brochure. >However, Ms. Kriho also testified that she was very active in the >Boulder Hemp Initiative Project which according to the brochure >will provide more information concerning the jury nullification >organization. > The Court finds that Ms. Kriho does have some relationship >with the organization that published the brochure and she knew >this was important to the selection of a fair and impartial jury. > >CONCLUSIONS OF LAW > > Thankfully, contempt citations against jurors are quite >rare. However, they are not unprecedented. See _Clark v. United >States_, 289 U.S. 1 (1933) (United States Supreme Court affirmed >judgment finding juror in contempt of court for giving knowingly >misleading and knowingly false answers in response to questions >concerning her qualifications as a juror during jury selection >process); _In re Mossie_, 768 F.2d 985 (8th Cir. 1985) (trial >court finding that juror was under duty to disclose prior >offenses on voir dire examination and intentional failure to >respond to court's voir dire questions constituted contempt >reversed by appellate court, which held that because juror only >pled guilty to marihuana possession and because marijuana >possession was not a crime in Missouri, juror did not falsely >answer voir dire question regarding whether or not she had been >convicted of a crime); _In the Matter of the Application to a >Judge Herbert Borgdon in Criminal Contempt_, 625 F. Supp. 422 >(W.D. Ark. 1985) (evidence of juror's willful and deliberate >failure to disclose previous knowledge of case during voir dire >was sufficient to permit the privilege concerning jury >deliberations to fall and was sufficient to support conviction); >_Bays v. Petan Company of Nevada, Inc._, 94 F.R.D. 587 (D. Nev. >1982) (failure to respond truthfully during voir dire could not >form basis for holding juror in contempt in the absence of >evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the >defendant willfully and knowingly gave false evidence during voir >dire, and the juror's failure to follow instructions during >deliberations could not constitute contempt in absence of a >showing of knowing and willful concealment or false swearing); >_United States v. Lampkin_, 66 F. Supp. 821 (S.D. Fla. 1946) >(juror found to be in contempt when juror failed to reveal prior >criminal record during jury selection process). > > The _Clark_ case, cited above, decided by the United States >Supreme Court in 1933, with an opinion written by Justice >Cardozo, affirmed a finding of contempt against a juror for >knowingly giving misleading and false responses to questions >effecting her qualifications as a juror with the intent to >obstruct justice. Justice Cardozo stated that "(c)oncealment or >misstatement by a juror upon a voir dire examination is >punishable as contempt if its tendency and design are to obstruct >the processes of justice." _Clark_ 289 U.S. at 10. The opinion >clearly points out that a juror found to be in contempt is not >punished for the act of concealment or the act of false swearing, >but is punished for using the false swearing or concealment of >obstruct the course of justice. The case goes on to hold that >testimony concerning the conduct of a juror during deliberations >does not violate the rule that jurors may not be questioned >concerning their processes of deliberations, if evidence other >than the jury deliberation provides a prima facie case sufficient >to satisfy the judge that the juror has willfully concealed or >withheld information with the intent to obstruct justice. In >Kriho's case the Court finds such a prima facie case exists based >on the following evidence: (1) the question the jurors sent to >the judge indicated that a particular juror did not think drug >cases belonged in the courts and had introduced information >concerning punishment; (2) Ms. Kriho produced a jury >nullification brochure immediately following the declaration of >mistrial and gave it to a fellow juror; 3) this fellow juror >presented the brochure to Judge Barnhill and stated that this >brochure explained the reason for the mistrial. Under these >circumstances, the evidence concerning Ms. Kriho's conduct during >jury deliberations was merely confirmation of the prima facie >case established by other evidence. > After reviewing all the evidence and the law, and applying >the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court >reaches the following conclusions. During the jury selection >process Ms. Kriho was aware that the trial court and the lawyers >felt it was a juror's duty to follow the law as given by the >trial court, and they wanted to know if any juror disagreed with >this proposition. Ms. Kriho was also aware that the trial court >and the parties wanted to know if the jurors could follow the >rule that punishment was not to enter into their deliberations. >Ms. Kriho was also aware that the trial court and the parties >wanted to know if the jurors could follow the rule that >punishment was not to enter into their deliberations. Ms. Kriho >was also aware that the trial court and the parties wanted to >know if any juror had strong feelings concerning the enforcement >of drug laws or any experience that would affect their attitude >about drug laws. While being aware of the importance of these >issues and having been given the opportunity to comment on these >issues, Ms. Kriho deliberately withheld her opinions on these >topics from the trial court and the parties during the jury >selection process. Based on all the evidence, this Court >concludes that it was Ms. Kriho's intent to withhold this >information from the trial court and the parties so that she >could be selected to serve on the jury and obstruct the judicial >process. By deliberately withholding this information, she >obstructed the process of selecting a fair and impartial jury. >The selection of jurors who have open minds and who have not >preconceived the verdict is essential for a fair trial. Ms. >Kriho's lack of candor about her experiences and attitudes led to >the selection of a jury doomed to mistrial from the start. This >Court finds this conduct constitutes obstruction of justice and >this conduct was offensive to the authority and dignity of the >trial court. > On the issue of disobedience to an order of the trial court, >this Court finds in favor of Ms. Kriho and against the People. >Instructions on the law given to a jury at the conclusion of a >trial are not orders of the court which, if violated by a juror, >can result in a finding of contempt. No evidence of the trial >court's orders to the jury was introduced by the People. Orders >given to jury concerning their conduct during the course of a >trial are court orders and might support a finding of contempt if >there was evidence that such an order was given and it was >deliberately violated. Such directions are ordinarily given to a >jury during trial. They include an admonition that jurors are >not to attempt to gather any information concerning the case >outside of the courtroom. This direction relating to juror >conduct is usually given after the jury is sworn and before >opening statements are made. The transcript of that portion of >the trial was not introduced into evidence in this contempt >hearing and therefore this Court must conclude that the People >have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Kriho violated >an order of the trial court. > > On the issue of Ms. Kriho committing perjury, this Court >finds in favor of Ms. Kriho and against the People. The case of >_Murer v. Rogowski_, 480 P.2d 853 (Colo. App. 1971) sets forth >specific conditions under which perjury can constitute contempt >of court. The evidence in this case does not meet those >conditions. The absence of those conditions did not deprive the >District Attorney of all remedies. The District Attorney could >have filed a criminal charge against Ms. Kriho for perjury if he >had chosen to do so. > > THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that, based upon this Court's >finding that Ms. Kriho deliberately and willfully withheld and >concealed information which was relevant and important to >selecting a fair and impartial jury, and that Ms. Kriho did so >with the intent of serving on the jury for the purpose of >obstructing justice, the Court finds Ms. Kriho in Contempt of >Court. > > IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Deputy District Attorney and >counsel for Defendant shall immediately contact the Division >Clerk to clear a date for a hearing at which time the Court shall >consider the issue of imposition of sanctions. > > Done in Chambers this 10th day of February, 1997 > > BY THE COURT: > > Henry E. Nieto > District Judge > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Gilpin County District Court can be reached at: (303) 582-5522. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen/kriho.html > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Cong-Exec Agreements (fwd) Date: 11 Feb 1997 07:57:48 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- A Post By: OPERATION PATRIOT SPECTRE ***********rbiondi@u.washington.edu Congressional-Executive Agreements Article I, Section 1 states that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 states that the President "shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties." Article VI states that the "Constitution, and laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any States to the Contrary notwithstanding." FROM: Johnson, Claudius. "Borah of Idaho." New York, Longmans, 1936. "The recipricol tariff proposal which came before Congress in the spring of 1934 was but another manifestation of the tendency to increase executive power. It was stated that an emergency existed in foreign trade (which none disputed) and that the President should be given the authority to make tariff agreements or treaties, whithin very broad limits, with foreign powers. He stated that treaty-making was lodged by the Constitution in the President and the Senate combined, and that the same instrument gave the powers of taxation and the regulation of foreign commerse to Congress. How could Congress take the treaty power and give it to the President when the Constitution stipulated that the President and the Senate should exercise it? How could Congress give the powers of taxation and foreign commerce to the President when the Constitution provided that Congress itself should exercise them? But it was said that Congress could delegate the power to make tariff agreements because the Court had held that such delegation of power did not violate the Constitution as long as Congress fixed an intelligible principle which would guide he Executive in the exercise of the delegated power. Senator Borah admitted this, and regretted that the Court had been so liberal. But he claimed that there was no such intelligabel principle fixed in this proposed grant of power; the President was to be given practically a free han in making tariff agreements. 'There has been a supposition undoubtedly entertained by many people that an emergency, somewhat like the midnight hags upon the the blasted heath tormenting the soul of Macbeth, can call up power from the unknown deep of the Constitution that is desired for any particular occasion.' The Senator tried once more to lay this superstition, quoting from the Minnisota Mortgage Moratorium case: 'Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved.' But his plea was always more than a lawyer's plea. We take a few sentences from his peroration. 'We need something of an ancient faith, something of an ancient vision. You will remember, Mr. President, in the history of the American revolution when the British forces were in possession of the Old Dominion, when the traitor Benedict Arnold was leading his marauding forces up and down the coast, when Mr. Nicholas, a distinguished citizen of Virginiam seconded by Patrick Henry, moved that a dictator be appointed for the Commonwealth. Thomas Jefferson was then Governor of Virginia. He had just narrowly escaped at the hands of the British forces. When this resolution came to his attention he said: 'The very thought alone was treason against mankind in general, as riviting forever the chains which bow down their necks by giving their oppressors proof (do not forget that) - by giving their oppressors proof, whcih they would have trumpeted throughout the universe, of the imbecility of republican government in times of pressing dangere to shield us from harm.' '[Borah] What vision! What trust! What confidence! Of these things this Republic was built, and of these things alone will it be maintained.' " (Page 482-3) ***************** FROM: Ackerman, Bruce and David Golove. "Is NAFTA Constitutional?" Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. "During and after the War, the President won the constitutional authority to substitute the agreement of both Houses for the traditional advice and consent of the Senate. It is this historic triumph that laid the foundation for NAFTA...But not without a further step, taken a generation later. The Trade Act of 1974 made a comprehensive effort to restucture the modern two-House procedure to suit the needs of economic diplomacy." (2-3) THE BRICKER AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE TERMINATED THIS SCHEME TO SIDE STEP THE CONSTITUTION. Sua Sponte, Richard R. Biondi Operation Patriot Spectre (For more info on the Bricker Amendment, email rbiondi@u.washignton.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: *Jus Dare* Kriho verdict (fwd) Date: 11 Feb 1997 08:22:15 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *Jus Dare* Kriho Verdict Patricia Neill, and a member of the Jury Rights Project, both sent this late breaking item: The Kriho case is decided. The verdict is in. Believe me, we will look at this in depth. The article below is followed by the court's written opinion. Dave Laura Kriho, former Gilpin County juror, was pronounced guilty of contempt of court on Monday. A date will be set soon for her sentencing. The nine-page ruling was issued Monday afternoon by First Judicial District Chief Judge Henry Nieto who presided over Kriho's trial. The ruling states that Ms. Kriho "deliberately and willfully withheld and concealed information which was relevant and important to selecting a fair and impartial jury, and that Ms. Kriho did so with the intent of serving on the jury for the purpose of obstructing justice". The timing of the ruling came as a surprise to Ms. Kriho and her attorney Paul Grant. They were informed of it by a local reporter who just happened to call Judge Nieto's office inquiring about a verdict. Grant and Kriho have yet to receive the verdict in the mail. Judge Nieto took over 4 months to issue this written verdict. Paul Grant had six weeks to prepare her trial defense and only one week to research the applicable law for post-trial legal briefs requested by Judge Nieto. Legal eagles wonder, "If it took a judge 4 months and 9 single-spaced pages to detemine how Laura violated the law, how was Laura ever supposed to obey the law in the first place?" Kriho's prosecutor, Jim Stanley, tried to prove that Kriho should be convicted of contempt of court for three reasons: 1) Disobedience to an order of the court. Judge Nieto ruled in favor of Kriho, stating the People never introduced the relevant transcripts into evidence at Kriho's trial. 2) Committing perjury by lying under oath. Judge Nieto ruled in favor of Kriho, stating that there are specific conditions which have to be met in order for perjury to constitute contempt of court. These specific conditions were not met in this case. 3) Obstructing the administration of justice. Reports from Kriho's trial indicated that this was charge was the most ill-defined of the three. Grant asked several times for the judge or prosecutor to clarify what action or statement of Kriho's constituted "obstructing the administration of justice." No answer was given before or during her trial. This nine-page ruling has made it a little clearer. Judge Nieto ruled that Kriho, during jury selection, deliberately withheld her attitude about certain drug laws, her involvement in hemp legalization activities, and her knowledge of a juror's power to determine questions of law as well as fact. By failing to volunteer this information, Kriho "obstructed the process of selecting a fair and impartial jury." Judge Nieto writes, "The selection of jurors who have open minds and who have not preconceived the verdict is essential for a fair trial. Ms. Kriho's lack of candor about her experiences and attitudes led to the selection of a jury doomed to mistrial from the start. This Court finds this conduct constitutes obstruction of justice and this conduct was offensive to the authority and dignity of the trial court." FACTS OF THE CASE All the voir dire questions quoted in Judge Nieto's ruling were made well before Kriho was called to the jury box, while she was still sitting in the audience. Kriho never lied during voir dire. She was seated late in the process. Over 350 different had been asked of other jurors while she was in the audience. Kriho was asked 21 questions (12 by the judge, 6 by the prosecutor, and 3 by the defense attorney), one of which was "You listened to all of our topics; would you have answered anything differently?" Like all the other jurors before her, Kriho replied no. Laura's conviction sets a dangerous precendent in our system of justice. Much help will be needed in this case. Laura's sentencing date has not been set, but could come in the near future. She faces up to 6 months in jail and an unlimited fine. Updates will follow. DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF GILPIN, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 96 CR 91 Division 1 Filed in Combined Court Feb. 10., 1997 ORDER THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Plaintiff, v. Laura J. Kriho, Defendant THIS MATTER came before this Court on October 1 and 2, 1996, for trial to the Court on issues raised in the District Attorney's Motion of Contempt Citation. The People were represented by Deputy District Attorney James Stanley, and Ms. Kriho was represented by Paul Grant. This Court, having heard the evidence and arguments of counsel and having reviewed the legal briefs of counsel filed on October 9, 1996, and being advised in the premises, enters the following findings and order. This action arose out of jury selection during the trial of _People v. Michelle Brannon_, Gilpin County District Court case number 95 CR 74, which occurred on May 13, 1996. A juror serving on the _Brannon_ case, Laura J. Kriho, was cited with contempt of court for her conduct during the jury selection process. After the contempt citation was issued, the trial judge in the _Brannon_ case, Judge Kenneth Barnhill, disqualified himself from further participation and Ms. Kriho's contempt case was assigned to this judge for trial. The District Attorney asserts that Ms. Kriho is in contempt of court for disobeying an order of the trial court, obstruction the administration of justice, and committing perjury. The District Attorney alleges that Laura Kriho, while serving as a juror: 1) failed to reveal that she had previously been arrested, charged with, and pled guilty to a felony charge of Possession of a Scheduled I Controlled Substance and was thereafter granted a deferred judgment and sentence; 2) failed to reveal that she was opposed to the enforcement of drug laws through the courts and that she was actively involved in an organization which had as its purpose the modification of certain Colorado drug laws; and 3) failed to reveal that she did not intend to follow the judge's instructions on the law. The District Attorney argues that Ms. Kriho did these things with the intent to obstruct justice. Ms. Kriho, through her counsel, has mischaracterized the issues in this case. This case is not now and has never been about how Ms. Kriho voted during jury deliberations. This case is about whether Ms. Kriho misled the trial court and the trial attorneys about important matters during the jury selection process with the intent to remain on the jury and obstruct the legal process. The Court admitted evidence of Ms. Kriho's conduct during deliberations only as it was relevant to the issue of Ms. Kriho's conduct during the jury selection process. This mischaracterization of the case has made it more difficult to focus upon the real issue: Ms. Kriho's conduct during jury _selection_, not jury _deliberation_. JURY NULLIFICATION No juror can be punished for their vote in deciding a case. Even if the juror's vote amounts to jury nullification and flies in the face of the evidence and the law, they cannot be punished in any way. However, if a juror deliberately misleads the court and the attorneys during jury selection with the intent to obstruct the legal process, it is a totally different situation. Here, the District Attorney seeks a finding of contempt for Ms. Kriho's alleged failure to reveal important information during voir dire. The District Attorney is not seeking to punish Ms. Kriho for her refusal to vote in favor of a conviction during jury deliberations. This case presents a delicate and sensitive issue because it can easily be misinterpreted. The laws of this state do not permit lawyers and judges to criticize jurors for their decisions in a case, much less punish them. Ms. Kriho has attempted to focus the case on a juror's "right" to vote without regard for the instructions of law give by trial court and has forcefully argued in favor of a "right" to jury nullification. The term "jury nullification" refers to the power of a juror to decide a case in a way that is contrary to the evidence and the law. The United States Supreme Court, in _Sparf v. United States_, 156 U.S. 51 (1895), held that it is the duty of the judge to instruct the jury on the law. In that case the court stated: Public and private safety alike would be in peril if the principle be established that juries in criminal cases may, of right, disregard the law as expounded to them by the court, and become a law unto themselves. Under such a system, the principle function of the judge would be to preside and keep order while jurymen, untrained in the law, would determine questions affecting life, liberty or property according to such legal principles as, in their judgment, were applicable to the particular case being tried... We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the courts of the United States it is the duty of jurors in criminal cases to take the law from the court and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence. _Sparf_, 156 U.S. 51 at 101-102. There is no question that jurors possess the power referred to as jury nullification, but juries should not be encouraged to use such power indiscriminately. In _United States v. Moylan_, 417 F.2d 1002, 1006 (4th Cir. 1969), _cert. denied_, 397 U.S. 910 (1970), the United States Court of Appeals stated: No less an authority than Dean Pound has expressed the opinion that 'Jury lawlessness is the great corrective of law in its actual administration.' However, this is not to say that the jury should be encouraged in their 'lawlessness', and by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or conscience (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed. These opinions hold that while jurors have a duty to follow the court's statement of the law, they still have the ability, although not the right, to disregard the law in reaching their decision. Defendant takes a strong position in favor jury nullification arguing that such a right is necessary for juries to oppose a tyrannical government. Defendant refers to historic cases in which jury nullification has had an important impact on civil liberties. While this is unquestionably true, it is also unquestionably true that jury nullification can lead to the tyrannical application of the law. If the jury can, as a matter of right, acquit in the face of contrary evidence and law, could they not also convict flying in the face of evidence and law? A system which allows jurors, as a matter of right, to pick and choose among the rules of law which they will apply, has extremely dangerous implications, particularly to those who may espouse unpopular causes or who, for other reasons, are not looked upon favorably by the majority in the community. It is one thing to laude the efforts of a jury fairly picked and honestly chosen to decide a case in conformity with their conscience. It is quite another thing for a juror to deliberately mislead the court in an effort to obstruct the administration of justice. FINDINGS OF FACT From the evidence in the case this Court makes the following factual findings. Ms. Kriho was summoned to jury duty in the case of _People v. Brannon_, Gilpin County District Court case number 95 CR 74. Ms. Kriho reported for jury duty on May 13, 1996. She and all jurors were given an oath by the trial court to truthfully answer questions concerning their ability to serve as fair and impartial jurors. The charges in the case were read to the jurors so all jurors were aware that it was a criminal trial involving alleged violations of drug laws. The trial court advised all of the jury panel, including those in the gallery, that it was important for everyone to listen to the questions of the trial court and the lawyers because it was possible that jurors in the gallery would be called forward to replace jurors in the box. From the testimony of the jurors who served with Ms. Kriho on the _Brannon_ case and from the testimony of Ms. Kriho herself, it is clear that all potential jurors, including those in the box and those in the gallery, understood the need to listen closely to the questioning of all jurors. Every replacement juror called was asked if they had heard the prior questions and they were given an opportunity to comment on any of the topics discussed. Ms. Kriho testified that she was able to hear all of the court proceedings from her place in the courtroom. Because it was stated clearly by the judge during his voir dire, and the other jurors who testified clearly understood the need to volunteer information, and because the question was asked repeatedly to all replacement jurors, this Court finds that Ms. Kriho was aware of the prior questioning and she was given an opportunity to comment on the topics discussed. Several consistent topics were discussed with many jurors, including discussions of the jurors' obligation to follow the law as given by the trial court, discussions of drug usage and drug laws and how such experiences might affect the jurors' ability to serve fairly and impartially. To a lesser extent, the fact that punishment was not within the province of the jury was also discussed. Discussion of a juror's duty to follow the law as given by the trial court, and any issues relating to enforcement of the drug laws, was repeated so many times during voir dire, that this Court must conclude that all jurors, including Ms. Kriho, were aware that these were important issues and that prospective jurors should have revealed any opinions or strong feelings on these topics. The following quotations from the transcript of the jury voir dire illustrate how clearly Judge Barnhill explained the issue of jurors following the trial court's instructions on the law. (Questions by Judge Barnhill.) Would all of you agree to follow my instructions on the law even if you don't agree with them or you don't think that they are what the law is or should be? People sometimes have a little different attitude about what the law should be than what it really is. What I need from you is a commitment that you will follow my instructions even if you don't agree with them. And you all agree to do that? Follow the instructions on the law? My job is to tell you what the law is, and will you all agree to follow my instructions? Will you all agree? Anyone saying no? (pages 17 and 18) (Question by Judge Barnhill.) What I need to have from you is a commitment that you will follow my instructions on the law in this case and not try to remember any of the instructions that you received in the earlier case. Will you all agree to that? (page 24) The testimony of several jurors indicated that at various times during jury deliberations they brought to Ms. Kriho's attention the trial court's instruction that they were to follow the law even if they disagreed with it. From that testimony, this Court concludes that the voir dire made a distinct impression on the jurors of their duty to follow the law. Ms. Kriho knew this was an important consideration for the judge and the lawyers and yet she chose not to reveal her strong feelings about this. The following quotation from the jury voir dire transcript reveal the obvious emphasis during voir dire concerning any strong feelings about drug laws. (Question by Mr. Stanley) Let me ask about -- does anyone have any particular strong feelings, either pro or con, about the laws we have including the law that will apply here that you will get from His Honor, Judge Barnhill, about the control of dangerous drugs or controlled substances? In other words, it is against the law to possess methamphetamine and that is why we're here. Does anybody have any particular views about these laws including specifically this one? (Pages 41 and 42). Several different times during voir dire the judge, the District Attorney and Ms. Brannon's attorney, discussed issues relating to drugs with several different jurors. This Court finds that Ms. Kriho was aware that any experiences, or strong opinions she had concerning the drug laws were important issues in selecting the jury. The evidence shows that on April 29, 1985, in Boulder County District Court, Ms. Kriho had pled guilty to the felony crime of Possession of a Schedule I Controlled Substance and was granted a deferred judgment and sentence. The evidence further shows that Ms. Kriho holds strong opinions about the propriety of certain drug laws. She is a founder and activist in an organization called the Boulder Hemp Initiative Project, which has the goal of legalizing marijuana in Colorado. She failed to reveal any of this highly relevant information during the jury selection process. On the issue of punishment, the trial court gave the following instruction to the jury in the final written jury instructions. If you decide that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the crimes as charged, it will be my job to decide what the punishment will be. You should not try to guess what the punishment might be. It would not enter into you consideration at any time. Based on this instruction and the comments by the trial court and counsel during voir dire, this Court concludes that all of the jurors, including Ms. Kriho, were aware that punishment was not to be considered by the jury in finding the defendant guilty or not guilty. The testimony of other jurors revealed that this prohibition was called to the attention of Ms. Kriho during jury deliberations. The evidence further revealed that during jury deliberations Ms. Kriho attempted to discover what the punishment for the crime of Possession of Methamphetamines would be. She investigated this in the evening between the first and second days of trial and told her fellow jurors what she though the punishment would be based upon information she obtained from the internet. The information she conveyed to the jury was inaccurate. Testimony of Ms. Kriho's fellow jurors revealed that she informed these jurors that she did not believe drug laws should be enforced through the courts and she discussed her belief that jurors did not have to follow the law if they did not agree with it. During the course of deliberations it came to the judge's attention that a juror had researched the question of punishment on the internet and had brought that information to the attention of other jurors. The defendant in the underlying trial, Michelle Brannon, moved for a mistrial and that request was granted by the trial court. The jury was then discharged. Outside the courthouse Ms. Kriho produced a jury nullification brochure from her purse and gave it to one of her fellow jurors. Ms. Kriho admitted in her testimony that she brought this brochure to the courthouse with her. This brochure promotes the concept that jurors should be permitted to judge the merits of the law as well as the facts in a case. It further promotes the concept of jurors disregarding the law if they do not agree with it. These are the same concepts Ms. Kriho was espousing in the jury room. On the back of this brochure the following is printed: "For more information contact the: Boulder Hemp Initiative Project." The brochure then provides the address and telephone number for that organization. Ms. Kriho testified that she was not a member of or an activist for the organization that published the brochure. However, Ms. Kriho also testified that she was very active in the Boulder Hemp Initiative Project which according to the brochure will provide more information concerning the jury nullification organization. The Court finds that Ms. Kriho does have some relationship with the organization that published the brochure and she knew this was important to the selection of a fair and impartial jury. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Thankfully, contempt citations against jurors are quite rare. However, they are not unprecedented. See _Clark v. United States_, 289 U.S. 1 (1933) (United States Supreme Court affirmed judgment finding juror in contempt of court for giving knowingly misleading and knowingly false answers in response to questions concerning her qualifications as a juror during jury selection process); _In re Mossie_, 768 F.2d 985 (8th Cir. 1985) (trial court finding that juror was under duty to disclose prior offenses on voir dire examination and intentional failure to respond to court's voir dire questions constituted contempt reversed by appellate court, which held that because juror only pled guilty to marihuana possession and because marijuana possession was not a crime in Missouri, juror did not falsely answer voir dire question regarding whether or not she had been convicted of a crime); _In the Matter of the Application to a Judge Herbert Borgdon in Criminal Contempt_, 625 F. Supp. 422 (W.D. Ark. 1985) (evidence of juror's willful and deliberate failure to disclose previous knowledge of case during voir dire was sufficient to permit the privilege concerning jury deliberations to fall and was sufficient to support conviction); _Bays v. Petan Company of Nevada, Inc._, 94 F.R.D. 587 (D. Nev. 1982) (failure to respond truthfully during voir dire could not form basis for holding juror in contempt in the absence of evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant willfully and knowingly gave false evidence during voir dire, and the juror's failure to follow instructions during deliberations could not constitute contempt in absence of a showing of knowing and willful concealment or false swearing); _United States v. Lampkin_, 66 F. Supp. 821 (S.D. Fla. 1946) (juror found to be in contempt when juror failed to reveal prior criminal record during jury selection process). The _Clark_ case, cited above, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1933, with an opinion written by Justice Cardozo, affirmed a finding of contempt against a juror for knowingly giving misleading and false responses to questions effecting her qualifications as a juror with the intent to obstruct justice. Justice Cardozo stated that "(c)oncealment or misstatement by a juror upon a voir dire examination is punishable as contempt if its tendency and design are to obstruct the processes of justice." _Clark_ 289 U.S. at 10. The opinion clearly points out that a juror found to be in contempt is not punished for the act of concealment or the act of false swearing, but is punished for using the false swearing or concealment of obstruct the course of justice. The case goes on to hold that testimony concerning the conduct of a juror during deliberations does not violate the rule that jurors may not be questioned concerning their processes of deliberations, if evidence other than the jury deliberation provides a prima facie case sufficient to satisfy the judge that the juror has willfully concealed or withheld information with the intent to obstruct justice. In Kriho's case the Court finds such a prima facie case exists based on the following evidence: (1) the question the jurors sent to the judge indicated that a particular juror did not think drug cases belonged in the courts and had introduced information concerning punishment; (2) Ms. Kriho produced a jury nullification brochure immediately following the declaration of mistrial and gave it to a fellow juror; 3) this fellow juror presented the brochure to Judge Barnhill and stated that this brochure explained the reason for the mistrial. Under these circumstances, the evidence concerning Ms. Kriho's conduct during jury deliberations was merely confirmation of the prima facie case established by other evidence. After reviewing all the evidence and the law, and applying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court reaches the following conclusions. During the jury selection process Ms. Kriho was aware that the trial court and the lawyers felt it was a juror's duty to follow the law as given by the trial court, and they wanted to know if any juror disagreed with this proposition. Ms. Kriho was also aware that the trial court and the parties wanted to know if the jurors could follow the rule that punishment was not to enter into their deliberations. Ms. Kriho was also aware that the trial court and the parties wanted to know if the jurors could follow the rule that punishment was not to enter into their deliberations. Ms. Kriho was also aware that the trial court and the parties wanted to know if any juror had strong feelings concerning the enforcement of drug laws or any experience that would affect their attitude about drug laws. While being aware of the importance of these issues and having been given the opportunity to comment on these issues, Ms. Kriho deliberately withheld her opinions on these topics from the trial court and the parties during the jury selection process. Based on all the evidence, this Court concludes that it was Ms. Kriho's intent to withhold this information from the trial court and the parties so that she could be selected to serve on the jury and obstruct the judicial process. By deliberately withholding this information, she obstructed the process of selecting a fair and impartial jury. The selection of jurors who have open minds and who have not preconceived the verdict is essential for a fair trial. Ms. Kriho's lack of candor about her experiences and attitudes led to the selection of a jury doomed to mistrial from the start. This Court finds this conduct constitutes obstruction of justice and this conduct was offensive to the authority and dignity of the trial court. On the issue of disobedience to an order of the trial court, this Court finds in favor of Ms. Kriho and against the People. Instructions on the law given to a jury at the conclusion of a trial are not orders of the court which, if violated by a juror, can result in a finding of contempt. No evidence of the trial court's orders to the jury was introduced by the People. Orders given to jury concerning their conduct during the course of a trial are court orders and might support a finding of contempt if there was evidence that such an order was given and it was deliberately violated. Such directions are ordinarily given to a jury during trial. They include an admonition that jurors are not to attempt to gather any information concerning the case outside of the courtroom. This direction relating to juror conduct is usually given after the jury is sworn and before opening statements are made. The transcript of that portion of the trial was not introduced into evidence in this contempt hearing and therefore this Court must conclude that the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Kriho violated an order of the trial court. On the issue of Ms. Kriho committing perjury, this Court finds in favor of Ms. Kriho and against the People. The case of _Murer v. Rogowski_, 480 P.2d 853 (Colo. App. 1971) sets forth specific conditions under which perjury can constitute contempt of court. The evidence in this case does not meet those conditions. The absence of those conditions did not deprive the District Attorney of all remedies. The District Attorney could have filed a criminal charge against Ms. Kriho for perjury if he had chosen to do so. THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that, based upon this Court's finding that Ms. Kriho deliberately and willfully withheld and concealed information which was relevant and important to selecting a fair and impartial jury, and that Ms. Kriho did so with the intent of serving on the jury for the purpose of obstructing justice, the Court finds Ms. Kriho in Contempt of Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Deputy District Attorney and counsel for Defendant shall immediately contact the Division Clerk to clear a date for a hearing at which time the Court shall consider the issue of imposition of sanctions. Done in Chambers this 10th day of February, 1997 BY THE COURT: Henry E. Nieto District Judge Gilpin County District Court can be reached at: (303) 582-5522. Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen/kriho.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *JUS DARE* ======== Perversion of the U.S. Supreme Court *Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law." To subscribe or unsubscribe from *Jus Dare*, send a message to jus_dare@hotmail.com Feel free to include your comments, but indicate that you wish to "subscribe" or "unsubscribe." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: FYI: Open Letter to Leroy Schweitzer (#2) Date: 11 Feb 1997 07:13:08 -0800 (PST) Okay, I think I've mentioned before how inappropriate it is to use public internet lists as witnessing services and how easy it is to get a notary. Did I not mention how easy it is to -FORGE- internet messages? As far as I'm conncerned, if I can't judge authorship on content (as I sure can't with any of Mitchells posts) I simply picture a black lab tapping at the keyboard and move on. Perhaps it would be illucidative for Mr. Mitchell if someone did send out some messages with his user name. boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > SECOND REQUEST > (first one on 1/28/97 went unanswered) > > Mr. Leroy Schweitzer > c/o Yellowstone County Jail > 3165 King Avenue East > Billings, Montana state > > February 10, 1997 > > Dear Mr. Schweitzer, > > I get asked this question quite often, > so please do not take it personally, > or get offended, because I do believe > it is a perfectly good question, and > also appropriate during these uncertain > times in America. > > Are you a federal agent of any kind? > > I am not a federal agent of any kind, > and I have filed an affidavit to that > effect in the United States District > Court in downtown Los Angeles, California. > > If you require a certified copy of my > affidavit, complete with the Clerk's > conforming stamp, I will be happy to > provide you with one, free of charge. > > I will look forward to your prompt > and considerate response. > > I think that you owe me at least > a few answers. > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > copy: The Internet > > ==================================================================== > [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] > [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] > Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com > Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com > Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. > Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan > ==================================================================== > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: FYI: Open Letter to Leroy Schweitzer (#2) Date: 11 Feb 1997 08:45:14 -0800 Do you have a fax machine? /s/ Paul Mitchell At 07:13 AM 2/11/97 -0800, you wrote: >Okay, I think I've mentioned before how inappropriate it is to use public >internet lists as witnessing services and how easy it is to get a notary. >Did I not mention how easy it is to -FORGE- internet messages? As far as >I'm conncerned, if I can't judge authorship on content (as I sure can't >with any of Mitchells posts) I simply picture a black lab tapping at the >keyboard and move on. Perhaps it would be illucidative for Mr. Mitchell >if someone did send out some messages with his user name. > >boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B >Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 > Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, > requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. > -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- > >On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> SECOND REQUEST >> (first one on 1/28/97 went unanswered) >> >> Mr. Leroy Schweitzer >> c/o Yellowstone County Jail >> 3165 King Avenue East >> Billings, Montana state >> >> February 10, 1997 >> >> Dear Mr. Schweitzer, >> >> I get asked this question quite often, >> so please do not take it personally, >> or get offended, because I do believe >> it is a perfectly good question, and >> also appropriate during these uncertain >> times in America. >> >> Are you a federal agent of any kind? >> >> I am not a federal agent of any kind, >> and I have filed an affidavit to that >> effect in the United States District >> Court in downtown Los Angeles, California. >> >> If you require a certified copy of my >> affidavit, complete with the Clerk's >> conforming stamp, I will be happy to >> provide you with one, free of charge. >> >> I will look forward to your prompt >> and considerate response. >> >> I think that you owe me at least >> a few answers. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> copy: The Internet >> >> ==================================================================== >> [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] >> [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] >> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com >> Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com >> Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. >> Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan >> ==================================================================== >> > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: FYI: Open Letter to Leroy Schweitzer (#2) Date: 11 Feb 1997 08:21:00 -0800 (PST) I have access at one at work, why do you ask? boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > Do you have a fax machine? > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > > At 07:13 AM 2/11/97 -0800, you wrote: > >Okay, I think I've mentioned before how inappropriate it is to use public > >internet lists as witnessing services and how easy it is to get a notary. > >Did I not mention how easy it is to -FORGE- internet messages? As far as > >I'm conncerned, if I can't judge authorship on content (as I sure can't > >with any of Mitchells posts) I simply picture a black lab tapping at the > >keyboard and move on. Perhaps it would be illucidative for Mr. Mitchell > >if someone did send out some messages with his user name. > > > >boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B > >Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 > > Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, > > requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. > > -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- > > > >On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > > > >> SECOND REQUEST > >> (first one on 1/28/97 went unanswered) > >> > >> Mr. Leroy Schweitzer > >> c/o Yellowstone County Jail > >> 3165 King Avenue East > >> Billings, Montana state > >> > >> February 10, 1997 > >> > >> Dear Mr. Schweitzer, > >> > >> I get asked this question quite often, > >> so please do not take it personally, > >> or get offended, because I do believe > >> it is a perfectly good question, and > >> also appropriate during these uncertain > >> times in America. > >> > >> Are you a federal agent of any kind? > >> > >> I am not a federal agent of any kind, > >> and I have filed an affidavit to that > >> effect in the United States District > >> Court in downtown Los Angeles, California. > >> > >> If you require a certified copy of my > >> affidavit, complete with the Clerk's > >> conforming stamp, I will be happy to > >> provide you with one, free of charge. > >> > >> I will look forward to your prompt > >> and considerate response. > >> > >> I think that you owe me at least > >> a few answers. > >> > >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >> > >> copy: The Internet > >> > >> ==================================================================== > >> [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] > >> [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] > >> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com > >> Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com > >> Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > >> We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. > >> Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan > >> ==================================================================== > >> > > > > > > ==================================================================== > [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] > [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] > Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com > Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com > Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. > Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan > ==================================================================== > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: The Mass That Roared .....Really Must Reading Date: 11 Feb 1997 08:54:57 PST This delightful piece is from the current ECONOMIST. However, it was not on their WWW site so I may have introduced one or more typos. While it is fun reading, I am perplexed that all these people do not realize that the WTO was passed as a treaty and all its rules supercede all else ....or at least so I thought. But, each time a small spark is seen that might be fanned into a great blaze for freedom, I suppose we should pay it some attention Jack "We will appeal to people's patriotism", says Byron Rushing, a Massachusetts state representative. "Our constitution is older that country's. We can do these things." Those are are fighting words, but Mr Rushing finds himself facing rather more muscular adversaries that he usually gets in his state legislature's Ways and Means Committee. Massachusetts is confronting Myanmar, Japan, the European Union and if things get bad, the World Trade Organization The long fuse was lit when Mr Rushing introduced a bill known locally as the "Burma law," banning Massachusetts agencies from signing or renewing contracts with companies that do business with Myanmar, as Burma now calls itself. Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel-prize winning leader of Myanmar's democratic opposition, has for foreign companies not to do business with Myanmar's ruling thugs, known by the ominous acronym SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council). The Democrat- controlled Massachusetts legislature obliged her by dusting off and old anti-apartheid sanctions bill, changing the words "South Africa" to "Burma(Myanmar)" and passing it William Weld, the Republican governor, had not hereto been known to be SLORC-obessed. But in the middle of his campaign last year to nab the Senate seat of John Kerry, Mr Weld noticed that Mr Kerry had been slow to endorse sanctions on Myanmar. Mr Weld got religion. Last June 25th, flanked by Burmese activists, Mr Weld signed the bill, and said he would divest his own holding in any firms that did business with Myanmar. Massachusetts found itself the only state in American with a so called selective-purchasing law. "Just as the citizens of the Massachusetts Bay Colony fought so bravely for their freedom from the tyranny of British rule." Mr Weld roared, "the people of Burma are struggling for their right to self-government" That, people reckoned, was that. The state's population started to turn their attention from SLORC back to pork. Then to general wonderment, Apple Computer, Eastman Kodak, Phillips Electronics and Hewlett-Packard all promptly pulled out of Myanmar, citing the Massachusetts law. The state's blacklist also includes lots of European and Japanese firms, including Toyata, Nissan, Sony, Siemens and Guiness. Would Massachusetts get even more results for its new foreign policy? Indeed, Japan has now formally complained to the State Department and America's trade representative about the "Burma Law", On January 22nd the European Union sent a demarch to the State Department demanding that the federal government get its unruly provincials in line. If not the EU "fully reserves its rights under the WTO dispute settlement procedure." For Diplomats this full cry. The EU's precise complain is that Massachusetts has violated something called the Government Procurement Agreement. America's trade representative is talking to Massachusetts officials and trying to work out American's legal position. So is Massachusetts, "I had no idea we were party to the Government Procurement blah-blah," says Mr Rushing. Mr Weld is standing his ground. If this spat escalates, he may gain some unlikely allies. the spectacle of Europe, Japan and the WTO all ganging up on an American state could bizarrely, bring right-wing nationalists rushing to protect preachy Bay State lefties. For God's sake, no one mention this dust-up to Ross Perot. "It is my hope", said Mr Weld last June, "that other state and Congress will follow our example and make a stand for the cause of freedom." So far selective-purchasing laws have mostly come out of liberal bastions like San Francisco and Ann Arbor, Michigan. But human-rights activists such as Simon Billenness of the Massachusetts Burma Round Table hope that pending legislation in New York city will pass, and are eyeing other states. the White House is deciding whether to block further American investment in Myanmar. Bill Clinton can not relish being upstaged by pip-squeak Massachusetts. Flushed with its new superpower status, the Massachusetts legislature is already putting together a sanctions bill for Indonesia--which says an American official may have been the real reason why Europe and Japan went ballistic. Mr Weld will see if Indonesia is in fact a "SLORC-like situation". After that, says Mr Rushing, Massachusetts may consider moving on to China or Northern Ireland. And then? The ouster of Saddam Hussein, democratization in Serbia, or just a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council? Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Fw: Please help protect the Internet from regulation Date: 11 Feb 1997 22:39:35 -0600 ---------- > From: System Manager > To: all@falcon.inetnebr.com > Subject: Please help protect the Internet from regulation > Date: Tuesday, February 11, 1997 14:55 PM > > > Help protect the Internet from regulation. > Support Nebraska Legislative Bill 786 > > A battle over the future of the Internet is being waged between the > large telephone companies (local exchange carriers, or LECs, such as > US West and Aliant) on one side and a coalition of Internet service > providers, equipment manufacturers, and consumer interest groups on > the other side. For years, the telephone companies have attempted > to extend regulations and levy access fees on the emerging industry > of computer networks. This battle is being fought before the Federal > Communications Commission (NOI, December 23, 1996) and in the > Nebraska state legislature (LB786). > > This session, the Nebraska Legislature is considering LB786 which > would exclude interactive computer services from regulation by the > state's Public Service Commission. The bill adds two clauses to > the Nebraska statutes on telecommunications --- one stating that > "it is the policy of the state to . . . preserve the vibrant and > competitive free market that exists for the Internet and other > interactive computer services, unfettered by state regulation" and > one specifying that "the [Public Service] Commission shall not regulate > . . . communications using the Internet or private data networks." > The first clause is verbatim from the recent federal telecommunications > act (except to say "state" instead of "federal and state"). With > respect to the second clause, currently, cable television and cellular > phone services are excluded from regulation. > > I am writing to ask your help in support of the Internet and LB786. > Regulations and access fees in excess of real costs will stifle growth > and innovation in information services, causing detrimental effects > for consumers, the economy, and U.S. competitiveness. Moreover, it > will place the future of electronic information networks in the hands > of powerful monopolies. The only interests served by such regulations > and excess fees are those of these telephone companies. > > What can you do? > > Now is the time for all concerned to act. We have created an email > petition alias that will reach the Transportation Committee of the > Legislature, the Nebraska Public Service Commission, and the Nebraska > news media. Please send email supporting LB786 to LB786@inetnebr.com. > A sample note is appended. Feel free to redistribute this note and > email address. > > We also created a (rudimentary) WWW site at http://www.nebrnews.org/. > It provides some history and background and also describes how you > can do more to help. We welcome your assistance in this fight. > > > ****SAMPLE NOTE FOLLOWS THIS LINE************************************ > To: lb786@inetnebr.com > Subject: I support the Internet and LB786 > > I am writing to support Nebraska LB786 which will protect the > Internet from state regulation in Nebraska. It is in the public > interest to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that > exists for the Internet and other computer services. State regulation > and access charges created for traditional phone services should > not be extended to the still-evolving Internet and other computer > networks. Regulation and non-cost-based access fees will stifle > growth and innovation in information services, causing detrimental > effects for consumers, the economy, and U.S. competitiveness. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chuckrn@aone.com (Charles R. Norgaard) Subject: NWLibs> Shotgun News comments on Drug War. (fwd) Date: 11 Feb 1997 22:09:47 -0800 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:36:13 -0800 (PST) >From: Bob Tiernan >To: "Charles R. Norgaard" >Subject: NWLibs> Shotgun News comments on Drug War. (fwd) > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:29:45 -0500 >From: "ERIC E. SKIDMORE" <104413.3573@compuserve.com> >To: Prevailing winds >Subject: WOW! Shotgun News even? > >}}} WOW!!!! Check this out. Loathing for the treasonous drug war has >reached epidemic proportions. It's reached all segments of the population. > "You're even in Kansas-Nebraska now, todo!" > >SHOTGUN NEWS >Vol. 50, Issue 33, 1996 -- 3rd issue of November > > To the readers of Shotgun News: > > ...My columns concerning the "Drug War" in relation to gun control >have generated mountains of response from readers. The consensus is to >decriminalize drugs, let the chips fall where they may and obliterate the >drug dealer and crime in the process. > > Mr. Populi's letter on the subject follows and we feel each and >every point he makes is well taken. We thank him for his permission to >publish this fine treatise on the subject and look forwar to your input on >this timely debate. > > Nancy Snell Swickard > Publisher > > >Ms. Nancy Snell Swickard -- Publisher >"Shotgun News" >P.O. Box 669, Hastings, Nebraska 68902 > >Dear Ms. Swickard, > >I was very distressed to see the remark of one of your subscribers which >you quoted on page 8 of your October 1 issue. The support of the "Drug >War" by anyone who values the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of >Rights, is the most dangerous error of thinking in the politics of the "gun >control" debate. This error is extremely widespread, although there have >been some recent signs that some Americans are seeing through the >propaganda of the Drug Warriors which affects all levels of our society. >Sadly, major players in the defense of the 2nd Amendment (like the NRA) >show no signs of awareness of the part played by the Drug War in our >present hysteria over violence. This is a serious error, because the >violence produced by the Drug War is one of the main reasons that a >majority of American citizens support gun control. Without the majority of >a citizenry frightened by endemic violence, Mr. Clinton and his allies in >the Congress would not enjoy the power they now posses to attack the Bill >of Rights. > >To understand the effect of the Drug War, we must understand it for what it >is: the second Prohibition in America in this Century. I do not need to >remind anyone who knows our recent history what a disaster the first >Prohibition in America was. It is a classic example of the attempt to >control a vice -- drunkeness -- by police power. It made all use of >alcohol a case of abuse. It produced such an intense wave of violence that >it gave a name -- The Roaring Twenties -- to an entire decade. It lead to >the establishment of powerful criminal empires, to widespread corruption in >police and government, and to a surge of violence and gunfire all over the >land. And it produced a powerful attack on the Bill of Rights, including >the most successful campaign of gun control laws in America up to that >time. Before the first Prohibition criminalized the trade in alcohol, >liquor dealers were ordinary businessmen: after 1920 they were all violent >criminals fighting for their territories. We had gang wars, and drive-by >shootings and the use of machine guns by criminals. We now have the same >effects of the first Prohibition in the present Drug War, and Americans >appear to be sleepwalking through it with no apparent understanding of what >is happening. It is testimony to the truth of Santayana's famous remark >that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. We must >understand that this has all happened before, and for the same reasons. > >It is essential that defenders of the 2nd Amendment understand the whole >Bill of Rights is under attack by the Drug War, and that assaults on the >2nd Amendment are a natural part of that trend. What is the main premise >of a gun-control law? It is that guns are implements which are too >dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. What is the main premiss of Drug >Prohibition? It is that drugs are substances which are too dangerous to >entrust to the citizenry. Both lines of reasoning say that because a few >people abuse something, all Americans must be treated like children or >irresponsibles. All use is abuse. This is an extremely dangerous idea for >a government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. It is a natural >consequence that such thinking will lead to attacks on the Bill of Rights, >because that is the chief defense in the constitution against abuses of >government power. > >Since the beginning of the Drug War, no article of the Bill of Rights has >been spared from attack. There has been an enoromous increase in police >power in America, with a steady erosion of protections against unreasonable >search and seizure, violations of privacy, confiscation of property, and >freedom of speech. We have encouraged children to inform on their parents >and we tolerate urine tests as a condition of employment for anyone. All >who question the wisdom of Drug Prohibition are immediately attacked and >silenced. These are all violations of the Bill of Rights. Are we >surprised when the 2nd Amendment is attacked along with the others? We >understand that opponents of the 2nd Amendment exaggerate the dangers of >firearms and extrapolate the actions of deranged persons and criminals to >all guns owners. That is their method of propaganda. Do we also know that >Drug Warrios exaggerate the hazards of drug use -- "all use is abuse" -- in >the same way formerly done with alcohol, and extrapolate the condition of >addicts to all users of drugs? That is their method of propaganda. Most >Americans are convinced by both arguments, and both arguments depend on >tlhe public's ignorance. That is why discussion and dissent is inhibited. >Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and >should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other >because the logic of the arguments is the same. >Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential >alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential >killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic >except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments. Those >are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all >Prohibition. We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so >undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs. >If we do not explain to people that the fusillade of gunfire in America, >the return of the drive-by shooting, and our bulging prisons, come from the >criminalizing of commerce in illegal drugs, we cannot expect them to listen >to a plea that we must tolerate some risk in defence of liberty. > >Why should we tolerate, for the sake of liberty, the risk of a maniac >shooting a dozen people, when we cannot tolerate the risk that a drug-user >will become an addict? In fact, very few gun-owners are mass murderers and >a minority of drug users are addicts, but people are easily persuaded >otherwise and easily driven to hysteria by exaggerating dangers. What >addict would be a violent criminal if he could buy his drug from a pharmacy >for its real price instead of being driven to the inflated price of a >smuggler? How many cigarette smokers would become burglars or prostitutes >if their habits cost them $200 per day? How many criminal drug empires >could exist if addicts could buy a drug for its real cost? And without >Prohibition, what smuggler's territory would be worth a gang war? And why >isn't this obvious to all of us? > >It is because both guns and drugs havve become fetishes to some people in >America. They blame guns and drugs for all the intractible ills of >society, and they never rest until they persuade the rest of us to share >their deranged view of the evil power in an inanimate object. They >succeed, mainly, by lies and deception. They succeed by inducing the >immediate experience of anxiety and horror by the mere mention of the >words: Guns! Drugs! Notice your reactions. Once that response is in >place, it is enough to make us accept any remedy they propose. An anxious >person is an easy mark. They even persuade us to diminsh the most precious >possession of Americans, the one marveled at by every visitor and cherished >by every immigrant, and the name of which is stamped on every coin we mint >-- Liberty. They say that liberty is just too dangerous or too expensive. >They say we will have to do with less of it for our own good. That is the >price they charge for their promise of our security. > >Sincerely > >Amicus Populi > > >}}}} One of the justifications given by the ATF in the Waco raid on the >Branch Davidians...was that they had a >radical-underground-right-wing-fringe-gun-nut-magazine on the premises! >That magazine was "Shotgun News." Their other justification was that they >had a meth-amphetaine lab. A BALD-FACED LIE. How very interesting. >These are the two hot-button issues that 'they' use for their viciousness. >Like it or not Guns-and-Drugs are the issues that 'they' use to destroy the >delegation of powers of the Xth amendment to destroy our rights. Both >issues are about delegation of powers; the Federal government no longer >has the respect of the people in either issue. 'They' are doomed. > > A few years ago we use to hear third world countries >say...."Yankee, Go home," now we're hearing it from our own populace. > >"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution >inevitable." > Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy > > >}}}} "These people, who do they think they are, saying that their >government has stamped out human freedom? We need to conduct a nation-wide >search for these right wing.... purveyors of hate." > Bill Clinton > >"I find little Willie to be quite insufferable and feel that he would >benefit greatly from a nice bath of tar & feathers." > (Apologies to Queen Victoria for bowdlerizing her quote) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: The American Opium Wars: A New Boxer Rebellion? Date: 12 Feb 1997 05:27:48 -0800 Hi Boyd et al., This thing runs much deeper than appearances, as is usually the case. The warrants are being tracked through the banking system by some pretty powerful software (Inslaw?); the tracking leads DOJ to real properties which are ripe for picking, using fraudulent warrants and a sophisticated sting operation. The HQ is probably Los Angeles, but there are most likely "subsidiary" headquarters, particularly at the Canadian Border, where INS is less well staffed, as compared with the Mexican Border. My sources tell me that the Montana State government is deeply engrossed in heavy drug shipments across the Canadian Border. There is a "connection" between the drug war, and the war on real property. That connection is becoming much clearer to everyone now, as time goes by, and as the WOD becomes more transparent. The people in Billings did not want me around, and they found some flimsy pretexts to usher me out. Broderick's group was less skillful; they put me in a car with tampered front brakes, and gutted the legal office I was building. Broderick and Schweitzer are continuously linked in the press, most notably in recent weeks when the Southern Poverty Law Center got in the act, in a big way -- "The Freeman Tentacle" they called it. I call it a property conversion racket, being orchestrated by DOJ with the help of bogus commercial warrants. There is a split within DOJ, and one side wants to stop it; Kenneth Starr is on this side. The other side is running the racket, complete with judges, FBI, and Marshals, of course. The federal building in downtown Los Angeles is a virtual sewer of corruption. Check out the large metal statue in front of the downtown federal courthouse: tall workmen riddled with bullet holes. Later, okay? I must attend to a memory optimization problem. Thanks for your interest. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 06:46 PM 2/11/97 -0800, you wrote: >OK, now I understand. You think there are people on the list who may be >interested in this case and want to help apply pressure. That wasn't >clear to me before, thanks for clearing it up. > >On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> There is no need for a notary here; >> I have mailed the letter to Mr. Schweitzer, >> twice now. I deserve an answer, at the >> very least, for all the work I did on >> his behalf, and on behalf of the other >> co-defendants in his case. I do not deserve >> to be stiffed for all that work, merely because >> I dispute the Freemen position on apartheid. >> And so, I have decided to go public with the >> "situation," shall we say? >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> At 01:50 PM 2/11/97 -0800, you wrote: >> >Why not use a public notary? If you have a traditional bank account, your >> >bank will provide this service (most likely) for free. Then you can just >> >keep a paper copy on file and that is -much- more reliable and trusted >> >then sending unverifiable copies to people you don't know. >> > >> >boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. >> >On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> > >> >> If you want me to send you a certified >> >> copy of my letter to Schweitzer, >> >> I will be happy to fax one to you. >> >> >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At 08:21 AM 2/11/97 -0800, you wrote: >> >> >I have access at one at work, why do you ask? >> >> > >> >> >boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B >> >> >Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 >> >> > Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, >> >> > requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. >> >> > -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- >> >> > >> >> >On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Do you have a fax machine? >> >> >> >> >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At 07:13 AM 2/11/97 -0800, you wrote: >> >> >> >Okay, I think I've mentioned before how inappropriate it is to use >> public >> >> >> >internet lists as witnessing services and how easy it is to get a >> notary. >> >> >> >Did I not mention how easy it is to -FORGE- internet messages? As >> far as >> >> >> >I'm conncerned, if I can't judge authorship on content (as I sure >> can't >> >> >> >with any of Mitchells posts) I simply picture a black lab tapping at >> the >> >> >> >keyboard and move on. Perhaps it would be illucidative for Mr. >> Mitchell >> >> >> >if someone did send out some messages with his user name. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B >> >> >> >Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 >> >> >> > Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, >> >> >> > requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. >> >> >> > -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- >> >> >> > >> >> >> >On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> SECOND REQUEST >> >> >> >> (first one on 1/28/97 went unanswered) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Mr. Leroy Schweitzer >> >> >> >> c/o Yellowstone County Jail >> >> >> >> 3165 King Avenue East >> >> >> >> Billings, Montana state >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> February 10, 1997 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Mr. Schweitzer, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I get asked this question quite often, >> >> >> >> so please do not take it personally, >> >> >> >> or get offended, because I do believe >> >> >> >> it is a perfectly good question, and >> >> >> >> also appropriate during these uncertain >> >> >> >> times in America. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Are you a federal agent of any kind? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am not a federal agent of any kind, >> >> >> >> and I have filed an affidavit to that >> >> >> >> effect in the United States District >> >> >> >> Court in downtown Los Angeles, California. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you require a certified copy of my >> >> >> >> affidavit, complete with the Clerk's >> >> >> >> conforming stamp, I will be happy to >> >> >> >> provide you with one, free of charge. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I will look forward to your prompt >> >> >> >> and considerate response. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I think that you owe me at least >> >> >> >> a few answers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> copy: The Internet >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ==================================================================== >> >> >> >> [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] >> >> >> >> [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] >> >> >> >> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com >> >> >> >> Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com >> >> >> >> >> >> Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> >> >> >> We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. >> >> >> >> Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan >> >> >> >> ==================================================================== >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> ==================================================================== >> >> >> [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] >> >> >> [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] >> >> >> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com >> >> >> Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com >> >> >> >> Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> >> >> We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. >> >> >> Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan >> >> >> ==================================================================== >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> ==================================================================== >> >> [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] >> >> [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] >> >> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com >> >> Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com >> >> Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> >> We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. >> >> Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan >> >> ==================================================================== >> >> >> > >> > >> >> ==================================================================== >> [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] >> [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] >> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com >> Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com >> Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. >> Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan >> ==================================================================== >> > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Secret Pentagon Report on Oklahoma City Bombing--Evidence of an Inside Job? (fwd) Date: 12 Feb 1997 07:26:34 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- jw-rh@ix.netcom.com, bigred@duracef.shout.net, jlavis@communique.net, liberty@gate.net, vikbob@halcyon.com, virkkala@olympus.net, cato@cato.org, akimery@citizen.infi.net, pwatson@utdallas.edu, garb@ix.netcom.com, maddog6@flex.net, edb@interport.com, wdmann@ix.netcom.com, germanic@netcom.com, eric@remailer.net, sandfort@crl.com, loboazul@icsi.net, bdolan@use.usit.net, stitch@defraudingamerica.com, L.L.Grabbe@theol.hull.ac.uk, JMcCorm215@aol.com, zns@interserv.com, tbyfield@panix.com, drdean@bio.win.net, rpedraza@sierra.net, kalliste@aci.net, chuck44@juno.com, KWhite9472@aol.com, rcathlst@mail.cdc.net, triton@pta6000.pld.com Secret Pentagon Report on Oklahoma City Bombing--Evidence of an Inside Job? by J. Orlin Grabbe U.S. government attempts to portray Timothy McVeigh as the "lone bomber" (with assistance from Terry Nichols) in the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City have completely collapsed with recent revelations of McVeigh's associations with individuals connected to the Aryan Republican Army,as well as with a BATF informant and an agent of German military intelligence. This has lead some to conclude that there has been a U.S. government (primarily BATF and FBI) cover-up motivated by the desire to destroy evidence of a "government sting gone bad," much as with the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. The secret Pentagon report shows, however, that such a judgment may be too kind to the agencies concerned. The principal damage to the Alfred P. Murrah Building was brought about by explosives placed on five columns of the Murrah Building, according to the Pentagon report, and not by the ANFO bomb in the truck supposedly driven by McVeigh. Thus, until the individuals who placed the explosives on the columns of the Murrah Building are identified, any proposed explanation of how the bombing came about is woefully inadequate. The existence of demolition charges placed on some columns at the third-floor level of the Murrah Building is strongly suggestive of inside participation by at least some federal employees. The Pentagon commissioned nine explosive experts to write independent reports on the bombing, and adopted two of the nine reports as the "official" report. I spoke to both experts, but they declined to be interviewed, citing confidentiality agreements with the Pentagon. Sources familiar with the Pentagon report, however, have confirmed that the conclusions were similar in nature to those of a private report prepared by General Benton K. Partin, dated July 30, 1995, except that the Pentagon report concludes there were demolition charges placed on five columns, not four as concluded by General Partin. Partin's report showed that the pattern of damage to the Murrah Building was inconsistent with the ANFO truck bomb as a point source for the explosion, and that the damage sustained by the columns could not possibly have come from this source. Explosive pressure drops off approximately with the cube of the distance. Double the distance, and you reduce the explosive pressure (pounds per square inch) to one-eighth its original value. If the 4800 pounds of ammonium nitrate in the Ryder truck bomb were in a compressed sphere and detonated from the center, it would have generated a blast wave with an initial pressure of about 500,000 pounds per square inch. By the time the nearest Murrah Building column was reached, that pressure would have fallen to about 375 pounds per square inch. The rows of columns in the Murrah building can be labeled from front to back as rows A, B, and C. The rows are about 35 feet apart. The columns in each row can be labeled from left to right (as seen by an individual facing the front of the building) as numbers 1 through 11. The third column in the first row would thus be labeled "A3". The columns are 20 feet apart within each row. The concrete in the columns had a compressible yield strength of at least (and probably higher than) 3500 pounds per square inch. Since this value is almost ten times the strength of the blast wave hitting the columns from the truck bomb, the blast wave is insufficient to produce a wave of deformation in the concrete (and thus to turn it back into its sand, gravel, and clay components). However, a high detonation velocity contact explosive attached to a column would have generated pressure of 1 to 1.5 million pounds per square inch-- about 300 times the yield strength of the concrete, and thus would have pulverized it into sand until the blast wave front had dropped below the yield strength of the concrete. Left behind would be a smooth granular surface with protruding steel reinforcement rods (which have a much higher yield strength). General Partin's report shows strong evidence of such contact explosive charges placed on columns B3, A3, A5, and A7. While the truck bomb itself was insufficient to destroy columns, it was responsible for ripping out some floors at the second and third floor levels, Partin concluded. The notion of a government-sting gone awry would at best suggest the idea that BATF or FBI agents planned to arrest McVeigh in a dramatic flourish of publicity when he pulled up in front of the Murrah Building in his rented Ryder truck containing the ANFO bomb. But this story becomes faintly ridiculous when you consider that demolition charges were placed on five Murrah Building columns well before McVeigh's arrival. If there was a government sting in operation, then someone was using their knowledge of the sting as cover for the actual bombing. Either way, it suggests an inside job. Finally, McVeigh was not arrested prior to the bombing. Which leads one to ask, What government sting? We are basically left with evidence of government complicity and government cover-up, but with no evidence of a government sting. Did some government agency take advantage of the general expectation that something would happen that day, and, for its own reasons, ensure these fears were realized? Prior Knowledge of the Explosion There are several sources of evidence of a prior expectation of a bombing to take place on April 19, 1995. Executed on the day of the Oklahoma bombing was Richard Wayne Snell for murder of a black Arkansas trooper. Snell had been involved in a plot to blow up the Murrah Building in 1983. And, according to Alan Ables, an Arkansas prison official quoted by the Denver Post, "Snell repeatedly said that there would be a bombing or explosion the day of his death." The explosion took place at the Murrah Building, the previous focus of Snell's attention. Snell's information would appear to have come from Robert Millar, who was in attendance as Snell's spiritual advisor. Millar was the founder of Elohim City, a religious commune in Oklahoma near the border with Arkansas. Timothy McVeigh had made numerous visits to Elohim City in the weeks before the bombing (see, for example, William F. Jasper, "More Pieces to the OKC Puzzle," The New American, June 24, 1996). A BATF informant named Carol Howe wrote her BATF case officer in Tulsa that the Elohim City group, or its operational arm the "Aryan Republican Army", was planning to blow up a building with a possible date of April 19, 1995 (McCurtain Daily Gazette, February 11, 1997). Howe said there were three possible targets, two in Tulsa, and one in Oklahoma City. (Members of the Aryan Republican Army are currently charged with bank robberies in Ohio and Pennsylvania. This includes Peter Langan, on trial in Columbus, Ohio, and Michael Brescia, indicted in Philadelphia. Witnesses have identified Brescia as "John Doe II", originally sought by the FBI in the Oklahoma City bombing.) The BATF says the warnings were too vague to prompt any actions. Too vague, apparently, to warn security guards at the Murrah Building, who overlooked all the activity involved in placing demolition explosives on the building columns. But not too vague not to warn BATF employees to stay home for the day. No BATF employee was among the 168 killed in the bombing. February 11, 1997 Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: NWLibs> Shotgun News comments on Drug War. (fwd) Date: 12 Feb 1997 10:00:07 -0800 (PST) I really need to find the speech where the President made the quote before. I had thought it was in his "purveryors of hate" speech the week after the OKC bombinb. But I'm knee deep in searching the whitehouse web site and can't find that speech or whatever speech this qoute was included in. "Help me out here"... anybody know where to look? -Boyd (An anti gun friend is saying this is just "gun nut paranoia") boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Charles R. Norgaard wrote: snp > > > >SHOTGUN NEWS > >Vol. 50, Issue 33, 1996 -- 3rd issue of November > > > > To the readers of Shotgun News: snip > >}}}} "These people, who do they think they are, saying that their > >government has stamped out human freedom? We need to conduct a nation-wide > >search for these right wing.... purveyors of hate." > > Bill Clinton ssnip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: *Jus Dare* Anti-government Guilt (fwd) Date: 12 Feb 1997 12:38:41 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 12, 1996 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Juror found guilty of harboring anti-government opinions Now comes word that District Chief Judge Henry Nieto of Gilpin County, Colorado on Feb. 10 found Laura Kriho guilty of contempt for failing to stand up during "voir dire" questioning for an earlier drug trial in which Ms. Kriho was seated as a juror, to volunteer that Ms. Kriho held opinions about the drug laws which might differ from those of the prosecution. Judge Nieto took four months to craft a nine-page ruling which he obviously hopes will steer clear of the appearance that Ms. Kriho is being punished for what she said in the jury room ... though, of course, she is. Judge Nieto found Kriho innocent of perjury, acknowledging that she had never lied in answer to a direct question about her opinion of the drug laws, since no such question was ever asked. This leaves us with the absurd notion that potential jurors commit a crime by failing to stand up and demand to be excused, if they have any doubts at all ... BEFORE hearing the evidence ... that they may be able bring in a guilty verdict. I wonder if jurors called in for "voir dire" questioning could now ask to have a court-appointed lawyer sit and advise them when they must stand up and shout out their opinions even on matters about which they have not been questioned -- given that the judges of Colorado now hold one can be fined or jailed for failing to do so. "By deliberately withholding this information, she obstructed the process of selecting a fair and impartial jury," Judge Nieto rules. "The selection of jurors who have open minds and who have not preconceived the verdict is essential for a fair trial. Ms. Kriho's lack of candor about her experiences and attitudes led to the selection of a jury doomed to mistrial from the start." That is not true. The original trial judge ended matters the moment a government snitch among the jurors slipped a note to the bailiff that Ms. Kriho was deliberating in a way contrary to his instructions, by discussing how long the original defendant might be jailed if convicted. Had the deliberations been allowed to continue, who knows whether she might have been able to convince the other jurors to unanimously acquit? Then no mistrial would have resulted. Clearly, Judge Nieto only approaches the matter from the point of view that -- in Ms. Kriho's absence -- a unanimous conviction must inevitably have resulted ... an attitude typical among government judges these days, I'll admit, but hardly the "presumption of innocence" to which the court still generally pays lip service. In fact, the goal of such judges is precisely to (start ital)avoid(end ital) seating "fair and impartial juries," if we mean by that randomly-selected juries representing an accurate cross-section of public opinion. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1969, in U.S. vs. Moylan, "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. ... If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, ... or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by their decision." The neat solution of the judges of Gilpin County? Simply screen out potential jurors who may hold such unwelcome opinions, by holding the threat of jail over any who fail to VOLUNTEER such opinions in advance. Passive deference to tyranny is not enough for this lot. We must cooperate in their pro-government jury-stacking (start ital)pro-actively(end ital). And it's not only drugs. As the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held in U.S. vs. Dougherty, in 1972: "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge. Most often commended are the 18th century acquittal of Peter Zenger of seditious libel" (the case that gave Americans our freedom of the press) "and the 19th century acquittals in prosecutions under the fugitive slave laws." With randomly-selected juries -- as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights -- no conviction could obtain under any law consistently viewed as unjust or unreasonable by even 9 percent of the populace -- one juror in 12 -- and such current nonsense as imprisoning people for consuming "banned" drugs, or mere possession of "illegal" weapons, would evaporate like a pestilent mist under a bright summer sun. (Start ital)That(end ital) is what black-robed little monkeys like the "honorable" Henry Nieto are really worried about. An appeal is expected. To receive further information on the Kriho case via e-mail, contact the Jury Rights Project at jrights@welcomehome.org. For more information on jury rights, visit the Fully Informed Jury Association web page at http://www.fija.org, or call toll-free for a free informtaion package at 800-835-JURY. Donations may be sent to the Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund c/o Paul Grant, Box 1272, Parker, Colo. 80134. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@intermind.net. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz vin@lvrj.com, (OR:) vin@intermind.net Voir Dire: (n), A French phrase which means "jury tampering." Re-distributed by the: Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) To be added to or removed from the JRP mailing list, send email. Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen http://www.bend-or.com/~mschmitz/laura.html Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: -- Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund -- c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 Email: pkgrant@ix.netcom.com Phone: (303) 841-9649 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *JUS DARE* ======== Perversion of the U.S. Supreme Court *Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law." To subscribe or unsubscribe from *Jus Dare*, send a message to jus_dare@hotmail.com Feel free to include your comments, but indicate that you wish to "subscribe" or "unsubscribe." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dick_Stephan@krinfo.com (Dick Stephan) Subject: Re[2]: NWLibs> Shotgun News comments on Drug War. (fwd) Date: 12 Feb 1997 12:00:52 -0800 This story was fairly widely reported, Chicago Trib & USA Today for example: AGENTS SWARM OKLAHOMA MOTEL QUEST FOR JOHN DOE 2 INTENSIFIES USA Today (US) - TUESDAY May 2, 1995 By: Sam Vincent Meddis; Debbie Howlett Edition: FIRST Section: NEWS Page: 03A Word Count: 1,075 2 MORE HUNTED IN BOMBING OKLAHOMA CREWS USING BACKHOES Chicago Tribune (CT) - TUESDAY, May 2, 1995 By: Timothy J. McNulty, Washington Bureau. Tribune wires contributed to this report. Edition: NORTH SPORTS FINAL Section: NEWS Page: 4 Word Count: 830 TEXT: WASHINGTON - The FBI broadened its manhunt to include two possible "witnesses" to the Oklahoma City bombing Monday and released a new profile sketch of the elusive second suspect. In Oklahoma City, rescue officials refused to formally give up hope of finding survivors 12 days after the bombing, but they stopped sifting through the rubble by hand and brought in backhoes and other heavy machinery to continue the work in the increasingly unstable Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. With the number of confirmed dead rising to 139, officials said they are more concerned with the safety of the rescue workers than the remote possibility of finding any of the 40 or so missing still alive. Fifteen children are among the dead, and four children remain missing. Adding a few details about "John Doe No. 2," the second man suspected in the bombing, FBI special agent Weldon Kennedy distributed a side-view artist's sketch of the man in a baseball cap. Kennedy described him as muscular and very tanned, based on descriptions from other witnesses. He said the suspect may be a weightlifter and is probably in his late 20s or early 30s. The only person charged in the bombing so far is Timothy McVeigh, 27. The Associated Press said a federal official confirmed Monday that McVeigh's fingerprints were found on a receipt for one ton of ammonium nitrate purchased in Kansas. The receipt was found in the Herington, Kan., home of Terry Nichols, a friend of McVeigh who is being held on charges unrelated to the bombing. ..............(snip) ............ In Washington, President *Clinton* lashed out at militia groups who stockpile heavy weapons and call for taking up arms against the government. He called them "the dark underside" of society. "These people-who do they think they are, saying that their government has *stamped* *out* human *freedom*?" *Clinton* said in a speech. "I don't know that there's another country in the world that would, by law, protect the rights of a lot of these groups to say what they want to say to each other over the shortwave radio or however else they want to say it, to assemble over the weekend to do whatever they want to do and to bear arms . . .," he said. *Clinton* has talked repeatedly of the Oklahoma City tragedy, and on Monday he discussed the need for all Americans to address the issue of violence. "We must also stand up against those who say that somehow this is all right, this is somehow a political act, people who say I love my country but I hate my government." On Sunday, Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating appeared to signal that there was no realistic hope for more survivors. He said searchers have "crossed the river" and are resigned to the likelihood that no one is left alive inside the building. Despite the large number of missing, no one has been found alive since the day of the blast almost two weeks ago. Oklahoma City Fire Chief Gary Marrs, however, adamantly refused to give up publicly. He said the searchers were just using different techniques. "We are simply changing the tools to provide a safety factor for our people," he said. "The last thing that any of us . . . wants is to lose a rescuer in that building." Another official confirmed that rescue crews were being rotated faster than usual because of the nature of the tragedy and burnout. Instead of working 10 days at the disaster site, many of the workers are spending only four or five days combing the building before being assigned to other duties. CAPTION: PHOTO: The FBI issued this profile sketch of "John Doe No. 2," sought in the bombing. It is a composite drawn from witness descriptions. PHOTO: Federal agents set up their equipment Monday on a peninsula in a fishing lake near Junction City, Kan. They were searching for evidence that materials for the Oklahoma City bomb were mixed nearby. AP photos. DESCRIPTORS: TERRORISM; FEDERAL; BUILDING; WEAPON; DEATH; STATISTIC; MULTIPLE; CITY OKLAHOMA; PROBE Copyright Chicago Tribune 1995 ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Author: roc@xmission.com at Internet I really need to find the speech where the President made the quote before. I had thought it was in his "purveryors of hate" speech the week after the OKC bombinb. But I'm knee deep in searching the whitehouse web site and can't find that speech or whatever speech this qoute was included in. "Help me out here"... anybody know where to look? -Boyd (An anti gun friend is saying this is just "gun nut paranoia") boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Charles R. Norgaard wrote: snp > > > >SHOTGUN NEWS > >Vol. 50, Issue 33, 1996 -- 3rd issue of November > > > > To the readers of Shotgun News: snip > >}}}} "These people, who do they think they are, saying that their > >government has stamped out human freedom? We need to conduct a nation-wide > >search for these right wing.... purveyors of hate." > > Bill Clinton ssnip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Re: The American Opium Wars: A New Boxer Rebellion? Date: 12 Feb 1997 06:52:50 -0600 Well! I do declare, hmmmn. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: Paul Andrew Mitchell > To: Recipient list suppressed > Subject: The American Opium Wars: A New Boxer Rebellion? > Date: Wednesday, February 12, 1997 7:27 AM > > Hi Boyd et al., > > This thing runs much deeper than appearances, > as is usually the case. The warrants are > being tracked through the banking system by > some pretty powerful software (Inslaw?); > the tracking leads DOJ to real properties > which are ripe for picking, using fraudulent > warrants and a sophisticated sting operation. > The HQ is probably Los Angeles, but there are > most likely "subsidiary" headquarters, particularly > at the Canadian Border, where INS is less well > staffed, as compared with the Mexican Border. > My sources tell me that the Montana State > government is deeply engrossed in heavy drug > shipments across the Canadian Border. There > is a "connection" between the drug war, and > the war on real property. That connection > is becoming much clearer to everyone now, > as time goes by, and as the WOD becomes more > transparent. The people in Billings did not > want me around, and they found some flimsy > pretexts to usher me out. Broderick's group > was less skillful; they put me in a car with > tampered front brakes, and gutted the legal > office I was building. Broderick and Schweitzer > are continuously linked in the press, most > notably in recent weeks when the Southern Poverty > Law Center got in the act, in a big way -- > "The Freeman Tentacle" they called it. I call it > a property conversion racket, being orchestrated > by DOJ with the help of bogus commercial warrants. > There is a split within DOJ, and one side wants to > stop it; Kenneth Starr is on this side. The other > side is running the racket, complete with judges, FBI, > and Marshals, of course. The federal building in > downtown Los Angeles is a virtual sewer of corruption. > Check out the large metal statue in front of the > downtown federal courthouse: tall workmen riddled > with bullet holes. > > Later, okay? I must attend to a memory optimization > problem. > > Thanks for your interest. > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > > > At 06:46 PM 2/11/97 -0800, you wrote: > >OK, now I understand. You think there are people on the list who may be > >interested in this case and want to help apply pressure. That wasn't > >clear to me before, thanks for clearing it up. > > > >On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > > > >> There is no need for a notary here; > >> I have mailed the letter to Mr. Schweitzer, > >> twice now. I deserve an answer, at the > >> very least, for all the work I did on > >> his behalf, and on behalf of the other > >> co-defendants in his case. I do not deserve > >> to be stiffed for all that work, merely because > >> I dispute the Freemen position on apartheid. > >> And so, I have decided to go public with the > >> "situation," shall we say? > >> > >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >> > >> > >> At 01:50 PM 2/11/97 -0800, you wrote: > >> >Why not use a public notary? If you have a traditional bank account, your > >> >bank will provide this service (most likely) for free. Then you can just > >> >keep a paper copy on file and that is -much- more reliable and trusted > >> >then sending unverifiable copies to people you don't know. > >> > > >> >boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. > >> >On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> > > >> >> If you want me to send you a certified > >> >> copy of my letter to Schweitzer, > >> >> I will be happy to fax one to you. > >> >> > >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> At 08:21 AM 2/11/97 -0800, you wrote: > >> >> >I have access at one at work, why do you ask? > >> >> > > >> >> >boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B > >> >> >Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 > >> >> > Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, > >> >> > requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. > >> >> > -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- > >> >> > > >> >> >On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Do you have a fax machine? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> At 07:13 AM 2/11/97 -0800, you wrote: > >> >> >> >Okay, I think I've mentioned before how inappropriate it is to use > >> public > >> >> >> >internet lists as witnessing services and how easy it is to get a > >> notary. > >> >> >> >Did I not mention how easy it is to -FORGE- internet messages? As > >> far as > >> >> >> >I'm conncerned, if I can't judge authorship on content (as I sure > >> can't > >> >> >> >with any of Mitchells posts) I simply picture a black lab tapping at > >> the > >> >> >> >keyboard and move on. Perhaps it would be illucidative for Mr. > >> Mitchell > >> >> >> >if someone did send out some messages with his user name. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 > AC 4B > >> >> >> >Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E > 27 44 > >> >> >> > Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, > >> >> >> > requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. > >> >> >> > -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> SECOND REQUEST > >> >> >> >> (first one on 1/28/97 went unanswered) > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Mr. Leroy Schweitzer > >> >> >> >> c/o Yellowstone County Jail > >> >> >> >> 3165 King Avenue East > >> >> >> >> Billings, Montana state > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> February 10, 1997 > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Dear Mr. Schweitzer, > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I get asked this question quite often, > >> >> >> >> so please do not take it personally, > >> >> >> >> or get offended, because I do believe > >> >> >> >> it is a perfectly good question, and > >> >> >> >> also appropriate during these uncertain > >> >> >> >> times in America. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Are you a federal agent of any kind? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I am not a federal agent of any kind, > >> >> >> >> and I have filed an affidavit to that > >> >> >> >> effect in the United States District > >> >> >> >> Court in downtown Los Angeles, California. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> If you require a certified copy of my > >> >> >> >> affidavit, complete with the Clerk's > >> >> >> >> conforming stamp, I will be happy to > >> >> >> >> provide you with one, free of charge. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I will look forward to your prompt > >> >> >> >> and considerate response. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I think that you owe me at least > >> >> >> >> a few answers. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> copy: The Internet > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > ==================================================================== > >> >> >> >> [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional > spacing @] > >> >> >> >> [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version > 5.0B.] > >> >> >> >> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: > pmitch@primenet.com > >> >> >> >> Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: > http://www.supremelaw.com > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona > state > >> >> >> >> We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code > notwithstanding. > >> >> >> >> Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie > JetMan > >> >> >> >> > ==================================================================== > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> ==================================================================== > >> >> >> [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] > >> >> >> [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] > >> >> >> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com > >> >> >> Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com > >> > >> >> >> Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > >> >> >> We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. > >> >> >> Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan > >> >> >> ==================================================================== > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> ==================================================================== > >> >> [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] > >> >> [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] > >> >> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com > >> >> Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com > > >> >> Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > >> >> We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. > >> >> Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan > >> >> ==================================================================== > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> ==================================================================== > >> [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] > >> [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] > >> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com > >> Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com > >> Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > >> We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. > >> Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan > >> ==================================================================== > >> > > > > > > ==================================================================== > [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] > [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] > Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com > Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com > Ship to: c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. > Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan > ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Jeff Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards" Part 1 Date: 12 Feb 1997 22:44:46 -0500 (EST) To all Second Amendment advocates. Parts 1 and 2 of this post are the complete text of Mr. Jeffrey Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards" first published in 1993. It is, in my sometimes not so humble opinion, in the top 5 of the best essay's ever written concerning the Right to Bear Arms and gun contol. For those of us who have read it, it is well worth reading again. For those of you reading it for the first time, it is an article with few equals in it's field. It is especially timely now, with CCW and self-defense issues on the Congressional agenda Appropriate permissions are contained in the heading to the essay. Please disseminate as widely as possible. It was converted from HTML format to ASCII by me. Any errors or omissions are mine. The original HTML file can be found at: http://www.sss.org/krtraining/KRTraining/cowards.html Regards, Dennis Baron Jeffrey Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards" Reprint permission for the Internet for Jeffrey Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards", has been obtained. It may be reproduced freely, including forwarding copies to politicians, provided that it is not distributed for profit and subscription information is included. I especially encourage you to copy and pass on this strong statement about firearms ownership to friends, colleagues, undecideds, and other firearms rights supporters. Your grassroots pamphleteering can counter the propaganda blitz now going on by introducing some reason to the debate. This essay is one of our best weapons. "A Nation of Cowards" was published in the Fall, '93 issue of The Public Interest, a quarterly journal of opinion published by National Affairs, Inc. Single copies of The Public Interest are available for $6. Annual subscription rate is $21 ($24 US, for Canadian and foreign subscriptions). Single copies of this or other issues, and subscriptions, can be obtained from: The Public Interest 1112 16th St., NW, Suite 530Washington, DC 20036 (C) 1993 by The Public Interest A Nation of Cowards by Jeffrey R. Snyder OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society. And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone. Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self- determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self- determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods? The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property. Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist. The gift of life Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide: He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself. "Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. "Self-respect" implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. "Self-esteem" simply means that one feels good about oneself. "Dignity" used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls. It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers. Do you feel lucky? In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime. Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them. Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first". Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others. Power and responsibility Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong -- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you? Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals? One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence. Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many. The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives. But since we live in a society that by and large outlaws the carrying of arms, we are brought into the fray of the Great American Gun War. Gun control is one of the most prominent battlegrounds in our current culture wars. Yet it is unique in the half-heartedness with which our conservative leaders and pundits -- our "conservative elite" -- do battle, and have conceded the moral high ground to liberal gun control proponents. It is not a topic often written about, or written about with any great fervor, by William F. Buckley or Patrick Buchanan. As drug czar, William Bennett advised President Bush to ban "assault weapons." George Will is on record as recommending the repeal of the Second Amendment, and Jack Kemp is on record as favoring a ban on the possession of semiautomatic "assault weapons." The battle for gun rights is one fought predominantly by the common man. The beliefs of both our liberal and conservative elites are in fact abetting the criminal rampage through our society. Selling crime prevention By any rational measure, nearly all gun control proposals are hokum. The Brady Bill, for example, would not have prevented John Hinckley from obtaining a gun to shoot President Reagan; Hinckley purchased his weapon five months before the attack, and his medical records could not have served as a basis to deny his purchase of a gun, since medical records are not public documents filed with the police. Similarly, California's waiting period and background check did not stop Patrick Purdy from purchasing the "assault rifle" and handguns he used to massacre children during recess in a Stockton schoolyard; the felony conviction that would have provided the basis for stopping the sales did not exist, because Mr. Purdy's previous weapons violations were plea-bargained down from felonies to misdemeanors. In the mid-sixties there was a public service advertising campaign targeted at car owners about the prevention of car theft. The purpose of the ad was to urge car owners not to leave their keys in their cars. The message was, "Don't help a good boy go bad." The implication was that, by leaving his keys in his car, the normal, law-abiding car owner was contributing to the delinquency of minors who, if they just weren't tempted beyond their limits, would be "good." Now, in those days people still had a fair sense of just who was responsible for whose behavior. The ad succeeded in enraging a goodly portion of the populace, and was soon dropped. Nearly all of the gun control measures offered by Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) and its ilk embody the same philosophy. They are founded on the belief that America's law-abiding gun owners are the source of the problem. With their unholy desire for firearms, they are creating a society awash in a sea of guns, thereby helping good boys go bad, and helping bad boys be badder. This laying of moral blame for violent crime at the feet of the law-abiding, and the implicit absolution of violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally infuriates honest gun owners. The files of HCI and other gun control organizations are filled with proposals to limit the availability of semiautomatic and other firearms to law-abiding citizens, and barren of proposals for apprehending and punishing violent criminals. It is ludicrous to expect that the proposals of HCI, or any gun control laws, will significantly curb crime. According to Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) statistics, fully 90 percent of violent crimes are committed without a handgun, and 93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through the lawful purchase and sale transactions that are the object of most gun control legislation. Furthermore, the number of violent criminals is minute in comparison to the number of firearms in America -- estimated by the ATF at about 200 million, approximately one-third of which are handguns. With so abundant a supply, there will always be enough guns available for those who wish to use them for nefarious ends, no matter how complete the legal prohibitions against them, or how draconian the punishment for their acquisition or use. No, the gun control proposals of HCI and other organizations are not seriously intended as crime control. Something else is at work here. The tyranny of the elite Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality, the NRA. Gun owners are routinely portrayed as uneducated, paranoid rednecks fascinated by and prone to violence, i.e., exactly the type of person who opposes the liberal agenda and whose moral and social "re-education" is the object of liberal social policies. Typical of such bigotry is New York Gov. Mario Cuomo's famous characterization of gun-owners as "hunters who drink beer, don't vote, and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend." Similar vituperation is rained upon the NRA, characterized by Sen. Edward Kennedy as the "pusher's best friend," lampooned in political cartoons as standing for the right of children to carry firearms to school and, in general, portrayed as standing for an individual's God-given right to blow people away at will. The stereotype is, of course, false. As criminologist and constitutional lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr. and former HCI contributor, Dr. Patricia Harris have pointed out, "[s]tudies consistently show that, on the average, gun owners are better educated and have more prestigious jobs than non-owners...Later studies show that gun owners are less likely than non-owners to approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc." Conservatives must understand that the antipathy many liberals have for gun owners arises in good measure from their statist utopianism. This habit of mind has nowhere been better explored than in The Republic. There, Plato argues that the perfectly just society is one in which an unarmed people exhibit virtue by minding their own business in the performance of their assigned functions, while the government of philosopher-kings, above the law and protected by armed guardians unquestioning in their loyalty to the state, engineers, implements, and fine-tunes the creation of that society, aided and abetted by myths that both hide and justify their totalitarian manipulation. (end part 1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Jeff Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards" Part 2 Date: 12 Feb 1997 22:45:02 -0500 (EST) A Nation of Cowards (Part 2) by Jeffery Snyder The unarmed life When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to defend his home, when Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer seeks legislation year after year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" whose only purpose, we are told, is to kill people, while he is at the same time escorted by state police armed with large-capacity 9mm semiautomatic pistols it is not simple hypocrisy. It is the workings of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who understand, like our Congress, that laws are for other people. The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way. The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach. The Florida experience The elitist distrust of the people underlying the gun control movement is illustrated beautifully in HCI's campaign against a new concealed-carry law in Florida. Prior to 1987, the Florida law permitting the issuance of concealed-carry permits was administered at the county level. The law was vague, and, as a result, was subject to conflicting interpretation and political manipulation. Permits were issued principally to security personnel and the privileged few with political connections. Permits were valid only within the county of issuance. In 1987, however, Florida enacted a uniform concealed-carry law which mandates that county authorities issue a permit to anyone who satisfies certain objective criteria. The law requires that a permit be issued to any applicant who is a resident, at least twenty-one years of age, has no criminal record, no record of alcohol or drug abuse, no history of mental illness, and provides evidence of having satisfactorily completed a firearms safety course offered by the NRA or other competent instructor. The applicant must provide a set of fingerprints, after which the authorities make a background check. The permit must be issued or denied within ninety days, is valid throughout the state, and must be renewed every three years, which provides authorities a regular means of reevaluating whether the permit holder still qualifies. Passage of this legislation was vehemently opposed by HCI and the media The law, they said, would lead to citizens shooting each other over everyday disputes involving fender benders, impolite behavior, and other slights to their dignity. Terms like "Florida, the Gunshine State" and "Dodge City East" were coined to suggest that the state, and those seeking passage of the law, were encouraging individuals to act as judge, jury, and executioner in a "Death Wish" society. No HCI campaign more clearly demonstrates the elitist beliefs underlying the campaign to eradicate gun ownership. Given the qualifications required of permit holders, HCI and the media can only believe that common, law-abiding citizens are seething cauldrons of homicidal rage, ready to kill to avenge any slight to their dignity, eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless. Only lack of immediate access to a gun restrains them and prevents the blood from flowing in the streets. They are so mentally and morally deficient that they would mistake a permit to carry a weapon in self-defense as a state-sanctioned license to kill at will. Did the dire predictions come true? Despite the fact that Miami and Dade County have severe problems with the drug trade, the homicide rate fell in Florida following enactment of this law, as it did in Oregon following enactment of similar legislation there. There are, in addition, several documented cases of new permit holders successfully using their weapons to defend themselves. Information from the Florida Department of State shows that, from the beginning of the program in 1987 through June 1993, 160,823 permits have been issued, and only 530, or about 0.33 percent of the applicants, have been denied a permit for failure to satisfy the criteria, indicating that the law is benefitting those whom it was intended to benefit -- the law-abiding. Only 16 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been revoked due to the post-issuance commission of a crime involving a firearm. The Florida legislation has been used as a model for legislation adopted by Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi. There are, in addition, seven other states (Maine, North and South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and, with the exception of cities with a population in excess of 1 million, Pennsylvania) which provide that concealed-carry permits must be issued to law-abiding citizens who satisfy various objective criteria. Finally, no permit is required at all in Vermont. Altogether, then, there are thirteen states in which law-abiding citizens who wish to carry arms to defend themselves may do so. While no one appears to have compiled the statistics from all of these jurisdictions, there is certainly an ample data base for those seeking the truth about the trustworthiness of law- abiding citizens who carry firearms. Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very responsible in using guns to defend themselves. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high. It is simply not possible to square the numbers above and the experience of Florida with the notions that honest, law-abiding gun owners are borderline psychopaths itching for an excuse to shoot someone, vigilantes eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless, or incompetent fools incapable of determining when it is proper to use lethal force in defense of their lives. Nor upon reflection should these results seem surprising. Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher. Arms and liberty Classical republican philosophy has long recognized the critical relationship between personal liberty and the possession of arms by a people ready and willing to use them. Political theorists as dissimilar as Niccolo Machiavelli, Sir Thomas More, James Harrington, Algernon Sidney, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all shared the view that the possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny, and that to be disarmed by one's government is tantamount to being enslaved by it. The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed. As Kates has shown, the Second Amendment is as much a product of this political philosophy as it is of the American experience in the Revolutionary War. Yet our conservative elite has abandoned this aspect of republican theory. Although our conservative pundits recognize and embrace gun owners as allies in other arenas, their battle for gun rights is desultory. The problem here is not a statist utopianism, although goodness knows that liberals are not alone in the confidence they have in the state's ability to solve society's problems. Rather, the problem seems to lie in certain cultural traits shared by our conservative and liberal elites. One such trait is an abounding faith in the power of the word. The failure of our conservative elite to defend the Second Amendment stems in great measure from an overestimation of the power of the rights set forth in the First Amendment, and a general undervaluation of action. Implicit in calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment is the assumption that our First Amendment rights are sufficient to preserve our liberty. The belief is that liberty can be preserved as long as men freely speak their minds; that there is no tyranny or abuse that can survive being exposed in the press; and that the truth need only be disclosed for the culprits to be shamed. The people will act, and the truth shall set us, and keep us, free. History is not kind to this belief, tending rather to support the view of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and other republican theorists that only people willing and able to defend themselves can preserve their liberties. While it may be tempting and comforting to believe that the existence of mass electronic communication has forever altered the balance of power between the state and its subjects, the belief has certainly not been tested by time, and what little history there is in the age of mass communication is not especially encouraging. The camera, radio, and press are mere tools and, like guns, can be used for good or ill. Hitler, after all, was a masterful orator, used radio to very good effect, and is well known to have pioneered and exploited the propaganda opportunities afforded by film. And then, of course, there were the Brownshirts, who knew very well how to quell dissent among intellectuals. Polite society In addition to being enamored of the power of words, our conservative elite shares with liberals the notion that an armed society is just not civilized or progressive, that massive gun ownership is a blot on our civilization. This association of personal disarmament with civilized behavior is one of the great unexamined beliefs of our time. Should you read English literature from the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, you will discover numerous references to the fact that a gentleman, especially when out at night or traveling, armed himself with a sword or a pistol against the chance of encountering a highwayman or other such predator. This does not appear to have shocked the ladies accompanying him. True, for the most part there were no police in those days, but we have already addressed the notion that the presence of the police absolves people of the responsibility to look after their safety, andin any event the existence of the police cannot be said to have reduced crime to negligible levels. It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized," a society that stigmatizes the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly cannot claim this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not "civilized" arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstance The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being "civilized," the beliefs that counterviolence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do. In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance, does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly. While gun control proponents and other advocates of a kinder, gentler society incessantly decry our "armed society," in truth we do not live in an armed society. We live in a society in which violent criminals and agents of the state habitually carry weapons, and in which many law-abiding citizens own firearms but do not go about armed. Department of Justice statistics indicate that 87 percent of all violent crimes occur outside the home. Essentially, although tens of millions own firearms, we are an unarmed society. Take back the night Clearly the police and the courts are not providing a significant brake on criminal activity. While liberals call for more poverty, education, and drug treatment programs, conservatives take a more direct tack. George Will advocates a massive increase in the number of police and a shift toward "community-based policing." Meanwhile, the NRA and many conservative leaders call for laws that would require violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their sentences and would place repeat offenders permanently behind bars. Our society suffers greatly from the beliefs that only official action is legitimate and that the state is the source of our earthly salvation. Both liberal and conservative prescriptions for violent crime suffer from the "not in my job description" school of thought regarding the responsibilities of the law-abiding citizen, and from an overestimation of the ability of the state to provide society's moral moorings. As long as law-abiding citizens assume no personal responsibility for combatting crime, liberal and conservative programs will fail to contain it. Judging by the numerous articles about concealed-carry in gun magazines, the growing number of products advertised for such purpose, and the increase in the number of concealed-carry applications in states with mandatory- issuance laws, more and more people, including growing numbers of women, are carrying firearms for self-defense. Since there are still many states in which the issuance of permits is discretionary and in which law enforcement officials routinely deny applications, many people have been put to the hard choice between protecting their lives or respecting the law. Some of these people have learned the hard way, by being the victim of a crime, or by seeing a friend or loved one raped, robbed, or murdered, that violent crime can happen to anyone, anywhere at anytime, and that crime is not about sex or property but life, liberty, and dignity. The laws proscribing concealed-carry of firearms by honest, law- abiding citizens breed nothing but disrespect for the law. As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. A federal law along the lines of the Florida statute -- overriding all contradictory state and local laws and acknowledging that the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens is a privilege and immunity of citizenship -- is needed to correct the outrageous conduct of state and local officials operating under discretionary licensing systems. What we certainly do not need is more gun control. Those who call for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people. At one time this was even understood by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern. This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning that America's gun owners will not go gently into that good, utopian night: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." While liberals take this statement as evidence of the retrograde, violent nature of gun owners, we gun owners hope that liberals hold equally strong sentiments about their printing presses, word processors, and television cameras. The republic depends upon fervent devotion to all our fundamental rights. The end ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: NRA Employs Jack Heeled Thugettes Date: 12 Feb 1997 21:56:02 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01BC192F.898E6860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is my answer to those who insist that the surrender of our right to keep and bear arms should be surrendered to gain the privilege to carry concealed. ___________________________________________________ ------=_NextPart_000_01BC192F.898E6860 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Rkbaneb.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: Rkbaneb.txt (Text Document) Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Rkbaneb.txt" In my original posting one can discuss the two issues presented there: = The Issue of CCW Permits VS RKBA Idealism and the issue of NRA'S = Thugettes (thanks, Fran.) =20 I was addressing the THUGETTE issue. I can understand the difference = in strategy in attempting to reach the same goal and I can honor the = right to discuss it or even oppose one or the other in public and do it = in an honorable fashion. I do not like to be ABUSED by those who should = be my friends on most occasions. Thugette/Lobbyist Tara Riley should go = back to Charm School and stop trying to taking testosterone! The = results of such libation is not becoming for her (a pretty blond) or for = the NRA. Now to the issue of a Permit for CCW Vs claiming the RKBA. 1. I was not claiming the RKBA under the United States Constitution, but = under the Constitution of the STATE of NEBRASKA. In 1988, pro-gun = forces passed an amendment to our state constitution that "guarantees" a = person's RKBA within our state. =20 This guarantee is not limited to resident's of Nebraska or citizens to = the United States as I read it. It just is a guarantee. This is = Article 1, Section 1. In Section 9, there is a provision for the = removal of a person's civil rights through "due process of law." From = this I would understand that it is lawful for Nebraska to refuse to = allow a felon the RKBA. Our RKBA does not put a limit upon the method of bearing, the geography = of bearing, nor the type of weapon that can be born. From this I deduce = that concealed carry is lawful. =20 The RKBA amendment also states that - a. the purpose of government is to secure our rights (RKBA included) b. that the RKBA provision will NOT be denied or infringed. Shortly after enactment of this amendment our courts ruled in three = separate cases that the RKBA and (I assume) all other rights enjoyed by = Nebraskans can be "Reasonably Regulated." The three rulings pertained = to possession of weapons that were either used for a crime or by a = convicted felon. All three embraced Section 1 in their criminal trial = defense. =20 Why the Nebraska Courts would hold that all Nebraskans rights can be = "reasonably regulated" when dealing with criminals I do not know. What = you need to know, though, is that our State Supreme Court has even ruled = constitutional amendments passed by the people of this state as = Unconstitutional under Nebraska law and thrown them out. If you = understand any legitimate founding for such actions you are smarter than = I. Back to RKBA in Nebraska In 1990 our legislature revised the statutes that dealt with Concealed = Carry. They liberalized them in light of the Initiative measure that = added RKBA to our Constitution. =20 In the past it was a Class 4 felony if you carried concealed and if you = could not pose a "reasonable man" defense that you needed to carry = because of business, occupation, or calling. They moved the first = offense of such action to that of a class 4 misdemeanor and second = offense to a felony.=20 They did this in spite of the clear language of our constitution. I = assume they thought that they could get by with it because their had = been no hue and cry over the court rulings. =20 Then in 1993, the city of Omaha, with the encouragement of our Senator = Robert Kerrey (who voted for the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and Brady) and = our Governor Ben Nelson (who was endorsed by the NRA for the recent US = Senate race), passed a very restrictive ordnance relating to carrying = guns in the city of Omaha in ANY manner. You have to go to a safety = school, pay big bucks, and get a renewable license. =20 CLEARLY, OUR COURTS, OUR LEGISLATURE, OUR GOVERNOR, AND THE CITY OF = OMAHA HAVE DENIED AND INFRINGED THE RKBA CITED IN NEBRASKA'S = CONSTITUTION. They have done the very thing that Section one of our = constitution prohibits them from. The next few paragraphs are from a post I made to Mike Riddle of Omaha. = For you "Nobaners" you will recognize Mike. For the rest of you, Mike = is a very good pro gun lawyer . "On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 23:44:50 EST, Larry M Ball wrote: Not being a "practical" or "pragmatic" person, I am compelled to testify against the CCW proposal. At least I am scheduled to visit with my = state senator Chris Beutler about this Friday afternoon. =20 [bobbitt] Mike this is your argument from about a year and a half ago.=20 [bobbitt] Anyway this will be my tack with the Senator and also the Committee next = Thursday if I make it that far and am not assinated by some pro CCW law = person." Mike begins his answer here: "I think someone *has* to make this argument, that the only = constitutionally defensible approach is to amend the CCW statutes to = prohibit CCW only for purposes of furthering otherwise illegal activity, = or by convicted felons. Then point out that we really don't need even that amended law since = it's already a serious crime to use a firearm in the commission of a = felony or for a convicted felon (whose rights have not been restored) to = even possess a firearm. I'm certain the committee won't buy it, but someone has to say it and = get it on the record. Point out that any regulation of the right to = keep and bear arms, etc., is per se *not* reasonable. OBTW: Professor Lott is supposed to be there to testify to the results = of his research." Mike To paraphrase Mike, someone has to make the constitutional argument. =20 Why? Well in my opinion it is because constitutions do not appear to be = worth anything but scrap value any more because no one stands up and = insists that they be obeyed. Don Loftus wrote the following: "The problem is there are two agenda's with a common out come. At the = state level it would be best to have a "no questions asked" carry = system. The NRA is working at the national level and is trying to get = the states aligned with some type of system that shows overall support. = Let me see, what clich=E9 works here; you are both seeing different = sides of the same coin? Yea, that fits! " "What I would do is work for your state position but if it is apparent = that it won't pass, switch to the NRA'S position. " Don Loftus Gainesville, FL Don is being pragmatic. The object for Don, and many people is do = something that attains the desired end. What is the desired end? It = appears to be the CCW permit. HERE IS AN IMPORTANT POINT! Nebraska gunners got our constitution amended to give us an absolute = right to keep and bear arms anywhere we wanted to. Within months our = courts were infringing this right and so was our legislature. The overt = purpose of the amendment was to battle "Morton Groveism" and keep our = cities from infringing RKBA, but you have seen that our largest city = infringed the right with in five years. =20 What did the gunners do? NOTHING! =20 What did the Nebraska Rifle &Pistol organization do? NOTHING! What did the NRA do? NOTHING! Nobody challenged these illegal incursions on our rights!!!!!!!! Now you say and the NRA says and all people of "wisdom" say, let us get = a CCW Permit law passed. That will solve our problem and we can seek = improvement in gaining back our RIGHTS later. Horse Pucky!! Bull = Malarkey! Based upon the historical record such ruminations are pure = fecal nonsense! If we get a CCW law, we will again go to sleep. The "powers of gun = control" will again make incursions and now they will do so with greater = force because they have obtained our support in defining RKBA as a = privilege and not a right. CCW permits will be another surrender of our = inalienable right of self defense. All of you good hearted compromisers = out there are leading us to ruin not victory. You are helping HCI and = the Evil Queen, not hindering. HR 339 =20 "Well" say some of you, "If HR 339 passes then only the states that have = CCW permit laws that allow reciprocity will be able to have their = citizens carry while they travel." I think that this is a bogus argument. But you hear it a lot here in = Nebraska. If our legislature would but affirm that we have a = constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that includes concealed, = then the problem of reciprocity could be worked out. In the first place = our constitutional right does not prohibit out of stators or foreigners = the RKBA. They have the same rights as resident Nebraskans. A = proclamation of our rights and effectuating them does not defeat = reciprocity. CCW IS DOING GREAT THINGS TO THE PRO-GUN MOVEMENT? Again here is Don Loftus. (No, Don, I am not picking on you, you have merely verbalized some good = arguments that I feel like dissembling.) "The right to carry issue is doing great things for the pro-gun = movement. We are winning all over the place and HCI can't stand it. = Rep. Cliff Stearns bill (HR 339) is just the "corner stone" of what will = become a series of "pro-gun efforts." If the above sounds at all = familiar, just change it to anti-gun and you have exactly what HCI was = saying about the Brady Bill. " "If we are to beat HCI into submission, the same way they are trying to = beat us, it will be a death of a thousand cuts. We pro-gunners just want = one big do everything; let's get it over with; recognize my rights; bill = so we can go back to shooting and be left alone. Ain't going to happen = folks!!! This issue will never go away and we have to be committed for = the long haul. Just my 2 cents worth." Don Loftus Gainesville, FL =20 Cancer is a sneaky thing. It is kind of like old age, it puts on a = ghillie suit and steadfastly overtakes and kills you. Believe me that = is what happens to your liberty when you trade in your rights for a = privilege. emmilene posted this argument-- "Forgive me for this ideological transgression, but I think that the idealism involved in the debate over "right to carry" laws is not a helpful thing. You can argue till your tongue goes on strike that the second amendment guarantees your "right" to carry, and a lot of folks on this list will probably agree. It's good rhetoric and possibly correct by the Founding Father's intent... I'm not commenting either way on that... but in a practice, it doesn't wash. You see, our lawmakers, judges, police and the like, don't universally share our views. They are the ones who generally decide what gets done. Rightly or wrongly, the 2nd amendment is just not relevant to the average citizen's gun rights because it is not enforced as such. You may say "this is the real problem! We should go about securing our right to carry by addressing the reluctance of folk to recognize the 2nd amendment. That's the real issue, so it is morally weak to wiggle around it with 'shall issue' permit legislation". Perhaps it is in a higher sense, but from a realistic standpoint, I DON'T think that this approach will win the battle. To win the right to carry, we need to put aside purified ideology and think from a tactical standpoint. " emmilene First off, I am not arguing about the US Constitution but about the = Nebraska Constitution. And I am arguing that our state constitution was = amended in 1988 and that amendment gave us the right to keep and bear = arms. Such RKBA did not limit how, where or what type of arms would be = born. Our constitution does provide for the loss of civil rights by due = process of law, so I assume that RKBA could be prohibited to convicted = Felons. Next it is my position that his right was unlawfully tampered with by = our courts, legislature, and the city of Omaha AND THAT THE PRO GUN = FORCES DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. =20 Emmilene is right to assert that the powers that be do not believe in = our RKBA. NOR DO THEY OR WILL THEY BELIEVE IN OUR RIGHT TO A CCW. As = soon as we get such a privilege (it is not a right at that point) the = courts, legislatures and cities of the US will beginning to regulate it = out of existence. AND AT THAT POINT WE WILL LACK THE MORAL POSITION OF = CLAIMING THE RIGHT BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE ALREADY SURRENDERED THE RIGHT TO = GAIN THE PRIVILEGE. Well this is too long already so I quit for now. If anyone reads this = whole thing, you have my thanks. Cordially, Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------=_NextPart_000_01BC192F.898E6860-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)From the Mother of Bob Starr Date: 13 Feb 1997 07:11:35 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:54:38 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: eplurib@megalinx.net (E Pluribus Unum) >Subject: From the Mother of Bob Starr > >The following is a letter written and delivered to Federal Judge >Duross Fitzpatrick of Macon, Georgia on January 22, 1997 By Helen >Starr, mother of Robert Starr, III. > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D > >The Honorable Duross Fitzpatrick >United States District Judge > >Dear Judge Fitzpatrick > >I am sending this letter to you to plead for my son's life. I hope >you will grant me the courtesy of reading with an open mind what I >am about to tell you. Perhaps when you have finished you may be >able to better understand why my son Robert E. Starr III, does not >deserve to be incarcerated any longer. > >First, and foremost, I know that my son nor his companions >committed any wrongdoing. the only people who did anything wrong >were the "government provocateurs" who introduced and indeed >committed the only criminal activity that was accomplished. > >I knew of my son's beliefs. We (his father, Bobby, and myself) have >had many discussions about this. He felt there are those within our >government that are heading toward "selling us out" to a one world >government" where are Constitution would no longer be valid. This >is believed by a great number of people. I also believe that it is >my right to think this and to prepare myself for these >eventualities. > >Bobby's immediate concerns were our loss of constitutional rights. >We all share these concerns. They are REAL; it is HAPPENING. We are >losing not only our Second Amendment rights but our First, Fourth, >Eight, and Ninth Amendment rights. I, myself, see it happening >every day. You only have to read a newspaper or see a news program. >The rights that Bobby is so concerned about are being taken away >daily by our government. > >We ask a court to "decide" if our President has "time available" to >answer charges against him for sexual misconduct, just because of >his "office". We "excuse" a judge for 15 charges of assault and >attempted rape because he was not acting in his "official >capacity". These persons are citizens subject to the laws of the >land! They are public officials and are entrusted to their >positions based on their moral character. They should be of the >highest moral fiber! They, above all others, should be held >accountable for their actions. > >We allow Food Lion to file charges against a major television >network for sending two of their employees "undercover". These >people gave "false information" in order to be hired and they are >charged with "fraudulent conduct and misrepresentation". > >On the other hand, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms >(BATF) can hire convicted felons to misrepresent themselves and >join a group of men with concerns for their government, introduce >and indeed conduct the only criminal activity. They are "protected" >and my son goes to prison. The obvious fact that these "felons" >*trespassed* on Bobby's land to place these items there and did so >*without* his permission is ignored. In order to accomplish this >they also "offered" an illegal substance, marijuana, to Jimmy >McCranie, in order to induce him to participate and make "peace" >with him because of the violent argument they'd had. Of course, if >Jimmy had resisted and become violent and forcibly put them off his >property he would probably be facing charges and punishment for >that also. > >This only strengthens my belief that government agencies are >running rampant with abuses of power. The legality of your actions >depends on who your employer is. Unfortunately, it did not start >this past year. It's been happening for the past thirty years. It's >been a gradual process, but the offenses have grown to such a >magnitude that we now have "criminals" within our government that >are operating under the "protection" of our government. They firmly >believe they are above the law, and can perform any illegal acts >without castigation as long as they can attribute it to their >"official duties". > >In this particular case the fact that the BAT hired two *career* >felons, who "volunteered" their service without checking their >background is ludicrous unless they were looking for "criminals" to >perform "crimes" for them. Their actions have convinced me this >also. In fact, that seems the conviction to a large number of >people. I, myself, have found that both Barkers, especially Kevin, >have been involved in criminal activity, even *violent acts*, and >convinced of such, over at least 12 years. I am asking that you >yourself verify this information I have provided. The fact that the >BATF would consider using such people, only serves to prove to me >what the BATF has become. In reality, I believe the Barkers lied >and misled the ATF. They were told to either "produce" something or >they would be discharged. This was evidenced by their claims of a >"hit list" that *did not exist*; their claims of PLANS TO BOMB THE >OLYMPICS that were *proven in court to be lies. The only so called >"devices" are those they attempted to build. > >I also am a government employee. I have been through downsizing, >reorganization, transfers of our function from one agency to >another. I can sympathize with the BATF. I know of the talk and >speculation that comes when Congress begins to scrutinize the need >for your existence. I have heard the talk of merging them into the >FBI, and I understand their concerns. I also am aware of what >*extreme* steps departments go to in order to retain their >existence and justify their operating budgets. I believe this whole >case was accomplished just to justify the existence of the BATF >office in Atlanta district and to acquire the funding ($2 million >to the BATF) for Olympic security *just two weeks after my son's >much publicized arrest*. I was told by two Miami, Florida, news >reporters (employed by a major network) that they had been sent >here because their supervisor had been called by the BATF in=7F >Washington, D.C. and told that a story was about to break. This was >to ensure they would be here to cover the story when it occurred. >I know the name of the BATF official in Washington, D.C. that told >the news media this "group" "had plans to bomb the Olympics". *My >son was and still is a helpless pawn in the hands of a government >agency gone haywire!!* > >I feel I must also tell you of the concern that I have one >individual on the jury was "pressured: into performing his duty by >ensuring the other jurors were pushed into a "guilty" verdict. I >believe that's why there was an upset and ill juror that asked to >be removed. The "false fire alarms" that occurred in the middle of >the night at the hotel where the jury was sequestered were *very >suspicious incidents*. This had not happened before nor since the >jurors were there. Yet *no one* investigated this. > >These are all "deeds or misdeeds" that are now over. Next is the >sentencing process and I am afraid that Bobby is going to be used >as an example. My first concern arose when the question was asked >why those people in Arizona were given very light sentences. We >were told that the Federal Guidelines used in the sentencing vary >from state to state. Those must be the only Federal Government >Guidelines that do. As I stated earlier, I also work for the >government. The Congressional Guidelines we follow the DOD >Guidelines we follow, *do not vary* from state to state. They can >be supplemented by lower branches of the Government, but they may >not impose what has not been set at the congressional level. I feel >as though *no one* will tell us the truth. We are treated as though >we are stupid. The Federal Government Guidelines are just that, >federal, and overrule any variations. I do know these Guidelines >are open to interpretation; and this is another area of my concern. > >I also do not understand why "points" are added because my sons >insists on his innocence. We discussed this with him months ago. He >could have made a "deal" if he had been guilty. However, we all >believed (erroneously) that because he was innocent he would be >found innocent. We did not want to compromise himself or his >beliefs (that if you are interested, is where his quotation comes >from; "no compromised, no surrender"; not quite the meaning the >prosecution led you to believe, is it?) He did not want to carry >the stigma of "convicted felon" when he had not committed the >crime. > >I am asking that my son, Bobby Starr, be allowed to return home to >us; his wife, his daughter, his parents, his sisters, brother, >nieces and nephews. He is *no threat* to anyone unless you perceive >a threat from his *political views*. *We* are a very close family. >Our lives have been torn apart by something that should never have >happened. Not a day goes by that we are not affected by this tragic >events. Our lives revolve around visiting Bobby every weekend, >waiting for his phone calls; wondering if something has happened to >him when we do not hear from him; making sure he has money for his >needs and for phones calls. We were *very* upset when we found out >he was sitting in a cell without a blanket. These are tactics of >the Gestapo or the concentration camps. I thought we were in >America. I am finding out to my disillusionment that he would have >been far better off if he had committed a "real crime" such as >murder, burglary, or even rape. He would be probably out on the >street right now. That seems to be a precedent lately; if you are >guilty of a violent crime, they want you out on the street. The >fact that it's virtually impossible to protect yourself against >rape or murder without a weapon seems to be irrelevant, and I have >yet to see a criminal wait while you call a cop. > >I felt as if someone had just taken a knife to my insides when the >guilty verdict was returned; as though he had just been killed, >exactly the same feeling I'd had a month earlier when my twin >sister was killed in an automobile accident. The only difference is >that the dying does not stop; but at the same time the mourning >continues. I worry now that with the sentencing he will be >transported to a distant location where we will not be able to see >him at all. I know this is not *your* problem, but at the same time >I am asking that you please take this into consideration. If he >must serve additional time at least have him near us where we can >retain some semblance of a family life. We all have our jobs and we >must continue to work, and since Bobby's been incarcerated, we have >had to help support his wife and child. Octavia has not worked >since this has all happened. She has existed solely on donations >and family help. She intends to go to work now, but is concerned >that she will not be able to visit Bobby or receive his phone >calls. They had never been separated until this incident. The >adjustments she has had to make have been enormous. They believe in >the traditional family, with her at home rasing their daughter. She >has tried to keep this atmosphere for Logan's sake but if Bobby is >not released this will have to come to an end. > >All our plans will have to change. We have always been a very close >family; meeting and sharing nights, weekends, and every holiday. We >have our internal differences; all families do. We feel we have >been attacked from the outside and we do not like it. We all >support Bobby fully. We believe in traditional family values and >our children are rasing their children with these same values. We >all have the same basic Constitutional beliefs that Bobby has and >believe our government should operate as the republic our >forefathers founded. My concern at this point os that if Bobby has >been targeted because of his outspokenness, will the rest of us >also become "targets" because of our beliefs ? > >We want to have our family back together again. We want to be free >to pursue those rights guaranteed us by the Constitution. Mt >husband and I have planned our retirement around supplying a large >farm for all our children and grandchildren there together. This >will not be possible until this circumstance is rectified. > >I wish that you could talk to him yourself for a few hours. I am >sure your opinion would change considerably. He is not the "nut" >the prosecution would have you believe. He has always been an >honest person. He has always been outspoken. As his parents, we >always encouraged him speak out for his beliefs. He has always been >very patriotic. We have instilled this in all our children. He has >always been interest in history, particularly his own family >history. Bobby is the 13th generation of Starr's in America. He, as >the thirteenth generation of eldest sons, is the only one of our >children in line for membership in the Society of the Cincinnati. >This is a Society founded by officers of the Revolutionary War. In >Order to become a member you must be a descendent of the first born >(each generation) of a Revolutionary War Officer. However, he can >only be inducted upon the death of his father. > >His enthusiasm for his country is not popular right now. In the >60's he would have fit right into the mode. At the time the liberal >movement was the "threat". Now it's the conservatives. If only >those people in our government would learn their history it would >be easier on all of us. In the 60's conservative supported our >military in Vietnam, and did all the "right" things. The liberals >were the "threat". People are placed in office by our trust, >unfortunately some abuse that trust. The power goes to their heads. >They believe it is their right to interpret what "the people" >think. We become pawns to a "powerful few". Our Constitution is >supposed to prevent this. I have always believed that we were >allowed to speak out on our concerns for our country; our >displeasure with politics and/or laws, even to demonstrate for or >against these policies or laws without fear of reprisal. > >The indirect victim here will be the "militia". We have had >militias throughout our history. They are legal, so far. By >"finding" criminal activity within these groups, the government is >setting the stage to "illegalize" them, and in doing so, to limit >our right to assembly. A lot of people do not realize that even a >"hunting club" can be construed to look like a militia group: five >or six guys gathering in the woods in camouflage with guns. Laws >can be changes to allow any Federal investigative agency to pick >and choose which of these groups are "militias" with criminal >"intent". > >When this sentencing takes place it will be a continuation of an >abuse of our judicial system. The real crimes need to be looked at >an Bobby and the other two defendants released with "time served" >while appealing for reversal of unjust verdicts returned by the >jury. > >Thank you for your time and consideration. > >Mrs. Helen E. Starr > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html > >Patriot Personals - for Lovers of Liberty & Hearts that need love >http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/personal/personal.htm > >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787; (614) 836-7650=20 >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) UPDATE ON MELVIN FAGAN Date: 13 Feb 1997 09:05:21 -0800 From Linda Thompson, lindat@iquest.net >RE: Melvin Fagan, vomiting blood, chest pain, blood in his stool and urine >last Wednesday, Feb. 5, in FCI Manchester prison on a "drug charge" he >absolutely didn't do. > >Melvin was NOT taken to the hospital last Wednesday night and the next >morning, even the PRISON DOCTOR said he needed to be hospitalized right >away. It was as if they were determined to kill him because they did NOT >take him to the hospital until MONDAY. At that time, they did an upper and >lower GI series and found something sinister. They then biopsied his >pancreas and took a catscan. The doctors have told him he needs surgery but >have not explained what is wrong. They sent him back to the prison the SAME >DAY. > >That same day, the prison CUT OFF ALL HIS PHONE PRIVILEGES for 120 days for >contacting outsiders. He can't even contact me, his attorney. I have NO way >to know what is going on right now. A petition for restraining order to >make the prison turn his phone on is being filed in Federal Court in London, >Kentucky, but I have little hope this will do any good whatsoever. The >prison "appeal" process would take nearly as long as his phones will be cut >off, so that is useless, too. > >I have known this man for over six years. He was TOTALLY framed, did not do >what he was convicted of (drug charge), there was plenty of proof then and >we have even more now, but it has to be presented to the SAME JUDGE in >Indiana who sent him away, owing to the way the federal laws are set up. > >We have, at this time, ample evidence to show he was WHOLLY FRAMED and >wrongly convicted because he was trying to track down people who murdered a >friend of his and was inadvertently exposing drug running by the local and >Chicago police that also involved at least one assistant U.S. attorney and a >federal judge. He's the father of four, a bus driver for 15 years, >absolutely NO PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY WHATSOEVER at age 46. > >Now, he's permanently disabled from the injuries he got in prison and >developed diabetes from gaining weight being in a wheelchair after he broke >his knee falling in water at the prison. (The roof leaks so much and so >badly there that a sworn statement from one of the guards says it was part >of his "rounds" to put out buckets under the leaks). > >He has had two surgeries on his leg and knee in the prison and was left in >a wheelchair on a SECOND FLOOR room for over a year, with NO pain medication >IMMEDIATELY after the surgery OR ANY ASSISTANCE WHATSOEVER. They would do >the surgery and literally take him back to the prison to his room the same >day. Not even so much as an aspirin or anyone to help him to the bathroom, >nothing. > >To get meals, he had to beg other prisoners to carry him AND his wheelchair >down the stairs. > >The prison also denied him all physical therapy to recover from the two >botched surgeries, too. They wouldn't even let him have weights for his leg >that the doctor prescribed to be used with a physical therapist because >"weights aren't allowed". They told him to tie a box of soap to his foot >and lift that as "weight." > >The DAY he was allowed to get out of his wheelchair and walk with a cane, he >was assigned to WASH WINDOWS ON A SECOND FLOOR SCAFFOLD. > >He filed a lawsuit for his injuries and this treatment and is now in prison >with the people he sued as his guards. This also includes the prison doctor >and at least one physician's assistant, and the warden. > >Last Wednesday, he was given some sort of "medicine" in addition to his >diabetic shot and began vomiting blood and having blood in his urine and >stool about an hour later. This was a life threatening emergency. The >prison would NOT take him to a hospital, or even let him be seen by a nurse, >so he managed to get a call out to his sister more than 15 hours later, and >his sister called me. > >When I was given nothing but a lot of runaround by the prison, I put out >news bulletins about this and called Senators and media. > >The next morning, he was finally seen by prison doctors who said he needed >to be hospitalized. THAT WAS FRIDAY morning. By 1:30 p.m. that day, he was >not at the hospital and I got an anonymous call saying "Melvin's gut has >busted and he's puking blood, do something." > >Media inquiries apparently prompted the prison to have a worker there call >me and tell me "Melvin said not to call the media." THIS WAS A LIE AND A >THREAT. > >At the time, Melvin was also being threatened with being PUT IN THE HOLE for >contacting people outside. > >They FINALLY took him to the hospital -- after consistently lying and saying >everyday he was "going today" since Wednesday -- the NEXT MONDAY (this past >MONDAY). He was brought back to the prison the same day. > >I personally know this man is NOT any sort of faker whatsoever. In fact, in >the entire YEAR they housed this man on the SECOND FLOOR of a prison (with >only STAIRS for access) while he was in a WHEELCHAIR and had to be people to >help him, he did not complain. > >When they didn't give him ANY pain medication after surgery that left him >with four screws in his kneww and 30 staples in his leg, he begged for pain >medication, but filed no complaints. I have his medical records. I can >PERSONALLY VERIFY he was NOT given pain medication after his surgeries. >When he was given something -- a week later -- it was TYLENOL, maybe 2-3 >times a day, period. > >We now have the following proof: > >-- A jail guard who the informant told before Melvin was convicted that >Melvin had been "set up" (the informant was arrested and cooperated in >setting Melvin up in exchange for a 3 year sentence on his own charges. >MELVIN GOT 20 YEARS ON FALSE CHARGES). This witness was threatened before >trial. > >-- A person in the prison who was housed with the man who DID sell drugs and >the man admitted to him that Melvin had been arrested INSTEAD OF HIM in 1991 >and that he knew MELVIN WAS SET UP and thought it was funny. We have his >affidavit. > >-- A photograph which shows that the man the police said was Melvin COULD >NOT HAVE BEEN MELVIN because the man had a cast on his arm which was not >visible on video but is visible in the picture. Melvin had no cast on his >arm. The other man (above) DID HAVE A CAST ON HIS ARM. > >This is the most outrageous case I personally know of, anywhere. > >This guy is a really decent human being whose life has been totally >destroyed. He's not a patriot or political person or any sort of celebrity, >he was just Joe-average, literally. > >This is a HORRID situation. > > >If you want to send Melvin a card or letter: > >Melvin Fagan >03948-028 >FCI Manchester >PO Box 4000 >Manchester, KY 40962 > >Be aware he probably will NOT be able to write you back, due to lack of >physical wellbeing and lack of paper and supplies. (Melvin is also not a >very good writer but he is one of the most humble and nice people you could >ever meet). > >Help Melvin set a record for MOST MAIL IN PRISON, EVER. Let them know >people on the outside DO give a damn!!! > >PLEASE!! CONTACT ANY NEWSPAPERS, TV YOU KNOW OF. PLEASE CONTACT THE STATE >AND FEDERAL LEGISLATORS FOR KENTUCKY. Call 60 minutes!! Call 20/20!! > >PLEASE GET INQUIRIES GOING INTO THIS SITUATION. > >Please call EVERYDAY and find out about Melvin's condition: HOW IS HE? >WHERE IS HE? > >They only care when they KNOW people on the outside care!! > >FCI MANCHESTER PRISON: 606-598-1900 > > > > > > > >Kind regards, > >Linda Thompson > >******************** V *************************** > DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER >*************************************************** >Dr. Linda Thompson >Attorney at Law >Chairman, American Justice Federation >Internet: lindat@iquest.net > >**************************************************** > Remember Waco. > The Murderers are still free. >**************************************************** >Have you seen this yet? > > http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum > > > - 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: READ THIS RE: OKC (fwd) Date: 13 Feb 1997 11:10:04 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- McCurtain, Okla. McCurtain Daily Gazette 11 February 1997 by J.D. Cash Copyright 1997 Reprinted with permission. Sipping iced tea between whispers, she suddenly pauses and her eyes narrow when two men choose a table 15 feet away. "Those are the guys I told you about...they've been following me ever since I left Tulsa," she says. Across the way, the thirtyish pair, dressed in jeans and flannel shirts, place a bag of fries on the table between them and blend with the rush of Turner Turnpike travelers at this McDonald's restaurant. With a knowing look that belies her age, the petite and immaculately dressed 26-year-old pushes back her shoulder-length, sandy blond hair, then turns with a forced smile. "This is the way it's been since they raided my house in December. I'm constantly under surveillance," she says. Her next movements draw solemn stares from both men when she picks up her purse and reaches inside. After she produces a harmless cellular phone, the men appear relieved and turn their gaze back to the sack of fries, which still remains untouched. With a muffled giggle, she points inside her purse and whispers, "See those?" In the bottom of the leather bag are two semi-automatic pistols. "I won't be easy to kill!" Setting her purse squarely in her lap, she turns her attention to a photograph on the table and studies it carefully. "That's Pete Langan, OK, the bank robber. He was one of the leaders, but when I knew him, his hair was long and stringy...and reddish." Curiousity now overwhelms one of the men and he approaches, then bends over a nearby water fountain. Oblivious to the stream of water, he fixes his eyes on the picture laying flat on the table. Eternal seconds pass, then his eyes meet hers. Suddenly, he turns back and rejoins his partner. "He knows I've 'made' him," she offers in a smooth voice, They'll probably be leaving soon." As if scripted, minutes later the two men do head for the door, leaving behind the bag of fries-- cold and untouched. Somewhat relieved, but proud of her uncanny senses which have kept her alive to this point, the former Miss Teenage America semi-finalist puts the cell phone back on top of the two pistols and zips her purse shut. "Sometimes I think this is all just a game to them," she says. DANGEROUS LIASONS Such is the life today of one Carol E. Howe. Her resume reflects numerous accomplishments such as opera debutante, beauty queen, actress and award winning hunter/jumper horse competitor. She was an honors high school and college student. Not listed on that published resume is her stint as neoNazi infiltrator, working under contract for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), when plans to bomb federal buildings were openly discussed in front of her by some of America's most notorious figures in the extreme right-wing. Nor are the numerous lie detector tests she took to prove her truthfulness while working for the BATF mentioned as part of her background. On the run now, Howe has become the prey in a high-stakes game of wits and intrigue. Suddenly the 5-foot, 98-pound blond is among the most sought-out women in America and is dodging the national media, who desperately want to interview her. One of Howe's greatest concerns, though, is about those who might want to kill her before a nation can hear her story. Her cover now "blown" and the Justice Department confirming that she was a paid informant, Howe has so far eluded everyone and done so with the ease of a seasoned undercover agent. Beginning with a Christmas Eve call from this newspaper, Howe's incredible recollections are now making their way around the globe. Until just days ago, details of Howe's work for the BATF, and her firsthand knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy, remained buried from public view by an agency whose very existence may now be threatened by the evidence she once provided it. During a series of clandestine interviews, Howe told the McCurtain Daily Gazette that the BATF knew as far back as the fall of 1994 that the Murrah Federal Building and two other Oklahoma federal buildings had been targeted for destruction by residents of and frequent visitors to an eastern Oklahoma religious cult known as Elohim City. Howe's "handler" was Special Agent Angela Finley of the Tulsa office of the BATF. And, during the interviews, she described in great detail her work for that agent, whom she simply calls, "Angie." Among her more than 70 reports to Finley were warnings that two Elohim City subjects were casing three Oklahoma federal buildings-- and preparing for a subsequent bombing. She now believes that on April 19, 1995, those same subjects-- with the aid of others-- bombed the Murrah Federal Building, the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history. Today, Howe wonders what went wrong. With all the information she gave the agency, why didn't the BATF stop the bombing? It is a haunting question now shared by many Americans, including those who are now for the first time hearing in the national media allegations of what Howe says is the indisputable truth-- that the government had "detailed prior knowledge" of the plot to bomb the building, but somehow failed to stop it. TRUE CONFESSIONS In early December, this newspaper received a tip that Howe had been a regular visitor to Elohim City during the months before the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. The newspaper also learned that while at Elohim City, she had developed associations with several persons who were involved in a string of bank robberies and some involved in the bombing, according to witnesses who spoke with the FBI. Before the newspaper's first interview with Howe, on Dec. 13 the FBI raided the Tulsa residence she shared with a boyfriend. Her boyfriend, James Dodson Viefhaus Jr., was subsequently indicted by a Tulsa grand jury and now faces charges that he willfully made a bomb threat and was in possession of an unregistered destructive device. After the Dec. 24 phone call, Howe began a series of interviews with this newspaper concerning how she came to be involved with members of a radical underground group known as the Aryan Republican Army. Over time, she finally admitted her role as paid informant for the BATF and the information she had passed to that agency before and after the bombing on the Oklahoma City federal building. Early in the interviews, Howe described her dealings with the mysterious "German tourist" and Elohim City security advisor, Andreas Carl Strassmeir. "I kinda had a relationship with him for a while," said Howe. "He was real quiet and reserved...and when he did speak, you could hardly understand him because of his accident." "We talked about relationships once, and he said he wasn't intereseted in settling down with a woman. ALL HE WANTED TO DO WAS BLOW UP FEDERAL BUILDINGS!" "It was also at that same meeting that he shoved his hand down my dress and I thought, well, he was doing something else, but now that I think about it, I think he was feeling for a wire (recording device)." Howe said Strassmeir's best friends at Elohim City were Pete ward, Kevin McCarthy, and Mike Brescia, and that a close Tulsa friend was Dennis Mahon. "Dennis brought me out to Elohim City in the summer of 1994 and introduced me around. After that, I started hanging around with the people there and in December, I moved into a travel trailer he kept out there. But when it got too cold, I moved in with one of the families. I stayed about five weeks that time." Howe said it was during this December, 1994, period that Timothy McVeigh and Mike Fortier visited. ************************************************************** Transcriber's Note: Is this why the ATF did not provide the December, 1994 report on Carol Howe to McVeigh's defence team along with the other documents they were forced to after the Howe revelations? What's in the December report that the ATF is so afraid of? ************************************************************** "Smetime before Christmas a lot of guys showed up at EC (Elohim City). One that I recall was Tim (McVeigh), who I only knew as Tim Tuttle. He was there with a guy who used the name Fontaine, a person I now recognize as Mike Fortier." Referring to McVeigh, she said, "I never even spoke to him. He was considered a 'good soldier' by the members of the ARA, but not a leader; he was just someone you sent out on jobs, because he was reliable." "I never knew much about Fontaine (Fortier). His name was mentioned a lot by the guys when they would be talking in other parts of Andy's house--- you know, making plans they didn't want me to hear the details of." By the third interview with this newspaper, Howe decided to reveal how her goverment informant role developed withing the radical white separatist movement. "I was contacted by Dennis Mahon after I orderd some literature from this group called White Aryan Resistance," she said. "He wanted to have a closer relatoionship than I did, and later he threatened me when I tried to get away from his group. I went down and obtained a protective order from the Tulsa County Court." "Shortly after I got the court order, I was contacted by Special Agent Finley from the Tulsa BATF and she wanted to get even. Angie said she would pay me to set up Dennis....I went along with it." After signing a contract Finley provided, Howe was put on the payroll at $120 per week, beginning in mid-1994. As part of the plan, Howe and Finley went shopping and bought a trunk. Next, they had a tiny surveillance camera mounted inside, with a small hole drilled for the lens, and placed it in Howe's residence. Howe said that she and Finley had bought legal, practice grenades from an army surplus store. "I got Dennis talked into making them real and he did so on camera. Leter, we went out to Elohim City and blew them up." "Angie got the film, and then told me to have Dennis introduce me to the people at Elohim City and get information on Strassmeir and the other radicals." That was how she met Strassmeir and the others, she said. "I started going to as many of their meetings as I could and met a lot of people who were very secretive. But sometime in November there was a meeting and Strassmeir and Mahon said it was time to quit talking and go to war." "I reported all this to Angie." Howe said Finley then wanted her to try to get Strassmeir on film handling grenades, so in the fall of 1994, she invited him to dinner. "He brought in Pete Langan and Kevin McCarthy, the bank robbers. In no time I had them painting the grenades in fron of the surveillance camera and I later gave the film to Angie." But Howe grew increasingly disenchanted with her work. "In March of 1995, I got fed up with the whole thing because of ny negative feelings about Rev. (Robert) Millar and some of the other people at Elohim City," she saiod. "Angie hadn't made any arrests either, and that was frustrating, so I quit going out there...until after the building got blown up!" CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF Howe's recollection of the precise time of her next contact with the BATF is unclear, but she believes agent Finley contacted her within 24 hours following the bombing of the Murrah building. Howe said Finley told her to find Mahon, because he was a subject of the bombing investigation. Next, Finley took her to a secret command post near the Murrah building, Howe said. There, inthe basement of the Oklahoma Publishing Company building at Fourth and Broadway, she was debriefed by BATF and FBI agents, off and on, for the next three days. According to a BATF document dated April 21, 1995, Howe told Special Agents Blanchard and Finley that the sketches of the suspects who rented the truck used in the bombing appeared to be Elohim City roommates of Andras Strassmeir and close associates of Dennis Mahon. Reflected in that report, Howe told the agents, "John Doe No. 1 is either Pete or Tony (Ward) and no one in the world looks more like the sketch of John Doe #2 than Michael Brescia." Howe also told agents that "everyone at Elohim City was reading The Turner Diaries and Mein Kampf." Howe's investigative interviews also indicate that she told authorities: "Reverend Millar was working the people up into a frenzy about a Holy War that he said would come by the anniversary of Waco (April 19)." Further, she said, "Millar warned that they had to strike first or they would end up like David Koresh and his followers." Howe also reminded agents after the bombing about what she had told Finley before, that people at Elohim City had been casing the IRS building in Tulsa and the federal buil;dings in Oklahoma City and Tulsa for several months. In the April 21 post-bombing interview, Howe told agents Finley and Blanchard that she did not recognize the name "Timothy McVeigh." Bolstering Howe's claims about the information she allegedly gave BATF are documents recently discovered that the government was supposed to turn over to the McVeigh defense team as part of the pre-trial discovery process, but which had not been. Bolstering Howe's claims about information she allegedly gave BATF are documents recently discovered that the government was supposed to turn over to the McVeigh defense team as part of the pre-trialdiscovery process, but which had not. The Gazette has learned that Howe's detailed information concerning the bombing conspiracy at Elohim City is contained in monthly reports the Tulsa office of the BATF had accumulated prior to the bombing of the federal building. Contained within those reports is clear and concise intelligence data spelling out Mahon's and Strassmeir's alleged statements about their plans to bomb federal installations and activities involving, among other things, the physical surveillance of the Murrah Federal Building during the months preceding the April 19, 1995 bombing. Her rports reflect that Strassmeir and Mahon made three trips to Oklahoma City to inspect the federal building, in November and December of 1994 and in February, 1995. Furthermore, and potentially lethal to any attempt to discredit her, Howe was roputinely polygraphed by the government furing the time she was making her monthly reports to the BATF. The government's own documents indicate she passed, "showing no deception on her part in any polygraph examination." The government seemed to place an even higher value on the reliability of Howe's information after the Oklahoma City bombing. "While they had me in a motel room in Oklahoma City...they started in about how I needed to go back to Elohim City and get some more information about who was there and some weapons' bunkers at EC. I told them they were crazy-- I'd get killed!" But government documents indicate she finally did agree to return to Elohim City, this time at a far higher rate of pay-- $400.00 per day. "It was a few days after the bombing," Howe recalled for the Gazette. "I went back and there was a lot of talk about being raided...There were a lot of new faces too-- guys who were heavily armed and who were talking about a stand-off with the Feds." Howe said she was supposed to check on who was there and especially to see who or what might be in some small buildings on the back of the property. "I spent about four days at EC, then returned and was debriefed about the situation." And, she, added, "Strassmeir was missing from the compound!" DANCES WITH WOLVES Based upon information received 14 months ago, the Gazette began looking into Andreas Strassmeir and his associations with far-right extremists in this country. A story one year ago detailed the nature of his associations and his connections to bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh, by virtue of a single phone call, McVeigh's phone records indicate was made to Elohim City. A story here last July quoted a high-level, anonymous source in the intelligence division of the FBI who described Strassmeir as an "intelligence asset" of the BATF. Other stories published about that time quoted witnesses in Kansas and Oklahoma who claimed Strassmeir and Brescia were associates of McVeigh's and had been for at least two years. But could there really be two BATF informants at Elohim City at the same time-- Howe AND Strassmeir? A former government undercover agent who played a key role in one of this nation's most publicized sting operations said it wouldn't be unusual. "It is typical for agencies such as the CIA, FBI and ATF to place multiple 'moles' inside a place like Elohim City and play one resource off the other, without either one knowing the identity of the other," the former agent said. "The reasons are obvious. First, there is no way a law enforcement agency is going to risk exposing the life of one of their assets should the other 'resource' succumb to torture or decide to double-cross the agency. And, of course, the monitoring of information can best be verified if neither resource knows who the other is. That's the only way this game works, and it's the only way it succeeds." The Justice Department has consistently told the press, and Judge Richard Match, that Andreas strassmeir is not now and never has been a suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing. Nor was he interveiwed in the aftermath of the attack. As recently as last month, responding to requests by McVeigh's defense attorneys seeking information on Strassmeir, Beth Wilkerson, a key member of the Denver prosecution team, told Judge Matsh that the government had no evidence linking Strassmeir with the Oklahoma City bombing. Therefore, she contended, the government had not withheld anything from the defense concerning Strassmeir or any other possible suspects. However, the Gazette has learned that at least some members of the FBI did indeed consider Strassmeir a suspect immediately after the bombing. High level sources told the Gazette that a cable dated April 28, 1995, was sent to the Secretart of State in Washington, D.C., from the U.S. embassy in Bonn, Germany, responding to a request the previous day from Special Agent Hudspeth concerning information on Strassmeir. That April 29 cable provided detailed intelligence to the FBI, collected from various German law enforcement data bases, concerning Strassmeir's travels and history. Strassmeir is referred to in that "priority cable" as a "suspect" in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, and the Bonn embassy provided photographs of him, plus a list of addresses where he had lived during the previous decade along with assurances that his military records would be dispatched as soon as they were obtained. Also, the Gazette has learned, on March 18, 1996, a special intelligence bulletin was issued by the Diplomatic Security Division, Counter Terrorism Unit, of the Department of State concerning Strassmeir's previous alleged criminal activities while in the United States. The cables states that Strassmeir overstayed his visa in 1991 and was known to have been the militia training officer for a white seperatist group called WAR. Quoting the cable, "He (Strassmeir) has been the subject of several investigations for purchasing weapons, and making the weapons fire on full automatic. Strassmeir should not be allowed to return to the U.S." Strassmeir's North Carolina attorney, Kirk Lyons, says his client was never a suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing and left the United States in January 1996 only because he feared being brought into the Oklahoma City bombing investigation due to statements the McVeigh defense team was making in the press. The attorney says Strassmeir only met McVeigh once, at a Tulsa gun show in the spring of 1993. As to why McVeigh called Elohim City two weeks before the bombing and left a message for Strassmeir, saying he would be visiting soon, Lyons says the whole thing is a mystery. According to NBC News and a prominent London newspaper, Strassmeir has either left Berlin or is avoiding the media since the Howe revelations emerged. Prior to that, the former German military officer had been living in his parents' fashionable Berlin home and freely giving media interviews. Strass,eir's father recently retired as Secretary of State to Berlin, and he is still considered a close confidante of German Chencellor Helmut Kohl. A few days ago, Strassmeir's former roomate at Elohim City, Michael Brescia, was indicted and arrested for his alleged role in robbing a bank in Madison, Wisconsin. The government says that Brescia joined with other members of the Aryan Republican Army in pulling off the August 30, 1995 heist. Dennis Mahon of Tulsa says he considers Carol Howe's truthfulness to be unreliable, and he charges that she has abused drugs in the past. Mahon claims it was Howe who promoted most of the illegal and violent acts discussed at Elohim City. "They want to drag me into this thing," he says, "and I barely remember even meeting Tim McVeigh. It was Strassmeir who was meeting with McVeigh, not me." END OF STORY ***************************************** COMMENT: THEY KNEW, AND DID NOTHING. Gentle readers, the import of the above story-- the revelations of Carol Howe, backed by the Clinton Administration's own documents-- is clear. They knew. The ATF knew. The FBI knew. The Justice Department knew. The White House knew. They knew before the bombing that it could happen, and they took no precautions. They certainly knew after the bombing, and the ignored the bombers. Copy this story. Give it to your friends. Mail it to your congressman. Fax it to your Senator. Get it into the hands of every radio talk show host and every newspaper reporter in the country, with this damning message: THEY KNEW!!!!!! AND DID NOTHING!!!!!!! OKC: THEY KNEW! & DID NOTHING! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: More on the Oklahoma Bombing (fwd) Date: 13 Feb 1997 17:07:25 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Thanks to all paid subscribers, without whose support this effort would not be possible. Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 10 Num. 24 ======================================= ("Quid coniuratio est?") PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL PANEL INDICTS MEMBERS OF "ARYAN ARMY" ========================================================== Link to Oklahoma City Bombing(s) (New Federalist, Feb. 10, 1997) -- Five members of a group called the Aryan Republican Army were indicted Jan. 30 by a Philadelphia federal grand jury for a string of bank robberies in the Midwest. Among the five men, according to a Jan. 31 report in the Washington Post, were Mark Thomas, an Allentown, Penna. white supremacist who has been linked to area skinhead gangs, and Michael Brescia. Brescia has been named in a civil wrongful death lawsuit implicating him in the Oklahoma City bombing. The suit accuses Brescia of having been in collusion with Timothy McVeigh, as well as two other men, Michael Fortier and Andreas Strassmeir. Brescia and Strassmeier were both residents of a compound at Elohim City, Okla., and were reportedly in phone contact with McVeigh on the eve of the bombing..... + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In a related story, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ("Washington had Oklahoma bomb tip-off," Electronic Telegraph, 2/9/97) points to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) informant Carol Howe as having had prior knowledge of an imminent bombing and of her having warned the U.S. government before the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City tragedy. Writes Evans-Pritchard: Next Tuesday the McCurtain Daily Gazette is scheduled to publish how an informant for the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was paid $120 a week to monitor a neo-Nazi compound in eastern Oklahoma, called Elohim City. The informant, Carol Howe, wrote monthly reports for her ATF case officer in Tulsa, warning that the group was planning to blow up a federal building, with a probable target date of April 19, 1995. She told the ATF that the terrorist cell, sometimes known as the Aryan Republican Army, had narrowed down the list of targets to three buildings: one in Oklahoma City and two in Tulsa. Further ramifications of this latest development in the Oklahoma City bombing(s) case were reported by the "John Doe Times" in a special edition ("Mickeymousing Around With The Truth: ABC Covers Up For ATF & FBI in Oklahoma City Bombing Case," by Mike Vanderboegh, 2/6/97): ABC "World News Tonight" with Peter Jennings spiked a story this evening that proves conclusively that the Clinton Administration had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City Bombing. This story would have detailed the case of Carol Howe, a neoNazi "Confidential Informant" in the employ of the ATF who warned her control agent, Angela Finley, of the Tulsa Office of the ATF, about the plot months before the explosion which killed 168 Americans and wounded over 500. [...] The story was pulled at the last minute by the powers-that-be at Disney/ABC even though it was confirmed by Justice Department P.I.O. Leesa Brown. A professional source having a strong background in journalism wrote to me on February 7th, saying he had "quietly confirmed" that ABC spiked the story. According to this source, "the entire news staff [at ABC] is up in arms and has threatened to quit en masse" due to the suppression of the story. The latest twist was provided to me today by another source, one with whom I have talked many times and who has connections with numerous insiders. This source has told me that, not only was Carol Howe providing information to BATF, but that Howe is (or was circa April 1995) an FBI *agent*. Reportedly there is now a mad scramble going on amongst the powerful as to how best prevent this and related news from becoming public knowledge. *Not* known at this time, but logically possible, is that ABC/Disney "News" may give out limited information on the above in upcoming broadcasts. The question arises as to how persons connected to Elohim City, unassisted, could have carried out such a skillful operation as the bombing(s) at the Murrah Building on April 19, 1995. How, for example, would they have been able to get inside the building and place charges against support columns? Does the conspiracy go beyond Elohim City, and possibly involve some Judas who allowed alleged conspirators inside the doomed building? Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief. 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.shout.net/~bigred/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: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)Denver: April 19, 1997 Date: 14 Feb 1997 05:15:42 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:34:28 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: eplurib@megalinx.net (E Pluribus Unum) >Subject: Denver: April 19, 1997 > >Anyone notice the STENCH upon the wind? > > >1.) Over the last couple of weeks, we've been contacted by >NYC Channel One, The Geraldo Show, and The Rolanda >Show. Friends of ours, all over the country, have been >contacted by local and national tabloids. The Geraldo show >is soliciting women for a show called, "Women in the >Militia". The Rolanda Show is soliciting entire families for a >show called, yes, you guessed it, "Militia Families", and >NYC Channel One is attempting to find anyone *ignorant* >enough to allow their camera crews to film Militia training. >And I guarantee you, ALL the film footage will be archived >for the next time something goes BOOM... Not since early >1995 (pre OKC) have the tabloids been in such a frenzy for >Militia film footage. > >2.) The FBI has been all but castrated in the court of public >opinion. Recent media reports have detailed how charges in >dozens of cases could be jeopardized as a result of the >ongoing investigation into mishandling of lab evidence by >the FBI. There has been discussion by the mainstream >media that the FBI's tenuous position could have >widespread repercussions on not only current, high-profile >cases, such as OKC, but will most likely cause a bevy of >appeals. > >========== >2/13/97: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Justice Department >has warned dozens of prosecutors that their cases could be >affected by problems with mishandled evidence at the FBI >crime laboratory. "We have, over the course of this >investigation, informed about 50 prosecutors -- about half of >them state or local prosecutors -- of issues relating to their >cases, that they should consider with regard to their >disclosure obligations," Deputy Attorney General Jamie >Gorelick told reporters Thursday. In plain language, she said >there are problems and the defense must be told of the >problems. > >The article goes on to say, "potentially thousands" of cases >could be affected by the mishandled laboratory evidence. >Asked if the high-profile trial of accused Oklahoma City >bomber Timothy McVeigh could be complicated by the lab >problems, she said only, "We're going to answer every one >of their motions in court." >========== > >3.) Elohim City has risen in stature from a remote covey of >religious separatists to a media-imposed National Security >treat. The media has been deluged with reports of Neo-Nazi, >Skinhead, Christian Jihad, anti-government, extremist (blah, >blah, blah) expose's. The propaganda is so thick that even >the most dim-witted can't miss it. We've not only been >treated to projections that "hate groups" will use bio- >chemical agents to achieve their objectives, the government >and their handlers, namely the media, have made every >attempt to convince the public that there is a nationwide >Neo-Nazi threat and a couple of them, McVeigh and >Nichols, were solely responsible for the devastation that was >visited upon OKC...but their case is falling apart. Too many >people, including surviving victims and federal employees, >are beginning to talk. > >4.) Speaking of Neo-Nazis and the federal government, >perhaps this is a good time to remind everyone of the >overtly racist antics of the BATF at their annual Good 'O >Boys Roundup. Actions that were dismissed by such >"notables" as Morris Dees, of the SPLC. Is it any wonder >that the feds can so easily "infiltrate" supremacists groups? >They are soul mates! This is not infiltration, it is call >collaboration. If Neo-Nazis *were* responsible for the >explosion that killed so many of our fellow Americans, the >Nazi-hunting should commence with federal law >enforcement agencies...namely the BATF. > >5.) What once was being reported only by the foreign press >is now seeping into the American media; namely, the >government not only had prior knowledge of the OKC >bombing, they were more than likely complicit; not unlike >their role in the bombing of the World Trade Center. ABC's >20/20 did an (almost) unbiased expose' on the question of >whether the government had prior knowledge of the OKC >explosion. It appears that they may be posturing >themselves...recognizing a sinking ship when they see one. > >6.) The trial against Timothy McVeigh is scheduled to begin >in late March. It should be well underway by April 19th, the >date that President Clinton has set for all schools and >libraries, nationwide, to be connected to the Internet. The >last time that all schools were focused electronically, was to >witness the tragic explosion of the Challenger spacecraft. > >7.) Provocateurs within the Militia have written up an >unattainable list of grievances against both the federal and >state governments. Their handiwork has been delivered to >government officials, with a demand-deadline of ... April >19th. Of course, none of those responsible for authoring this >treatise had the temerity to attach their names to it, allowing >those who receive it to believe it is a representative opinion >of the true Constitutional Militia. These same elements have >been networking the nation, advocating a first-strike >philosophy, claiming if we wait for the government to move >against us, we will lose. Although a first-strike posture is >completely repugnant to the defensive nature of the >Constitutional Militia, this document can and will be used >against us the next time something goes...BOOM. > >8.) Terrorist organizations notoriously claim responsibility for >their acts of terrorism. Not in this case. No one has claimed >responsibility for the explosion in OKC, which means that >those responsible will go to any length to continue >concealing their guilt, up to and including destroying any >remaining evidence against them; evidence that will all be in >one place at one time... > > The Federal Courthouse...Denver, Colorado > >Patriots beware, we are being played like a fine Stradivarius! > >=========================================================== >E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html > >Patriot Personals - for Lovers of Liberty & Hearts that need love >http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/personal/personal.htm > >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787; (614) 836-7650 >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: NRA EMPLOYS JACK BOOTED THUGS Date: 10 Feb 1997 09:13:48 -0800 (PST) On the other hand, a LOT of us are passionate about our beliefs and very passionate about the work we do for RKBA. I know I've used language like this in the past and particularly with allies I assume they will tell me when I'm being offensive and not get all huffity about it first thing. Maybe Tara would like to come work in Washington (does she like guys? ; ) -Boyd Kneeland boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Military being prepared for assualts on citizens (fwd) Date: 06 Feb 1997 07:13:23 PST On Feb 05, Liberty or Death wrote: >>I'm still not getting anything from the list, but I'll try this anyway. >> >>Looks like it's more than just, "collecting data for a school project", now. >> >>Can anyone verify this? If it's true, it's time to start raising bloody >>hell with our critters. > >Bill, it's too late to expect the critters to do anything. Just do >like my grandfather's WWI medal says: "Trust in the Lord and Keep Your >Powder Dry." > >- Monte I know it's getting late in the game, but it's never too late to raise hell! -- 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: John Curtis Subject: Re: IRS Computers etc. Date: 10 Feb 1997 10:18:35 -0500 > IMHO not a good idea. It is bad enough to give incompetent >govt employees access to that information. I have no desire >to have my tax records available to every fly-by-night low bidder >the IRS can dredge up. I can see it all now. The XYZ Dinky Toy and >Tax Prep Co. sending me dunning notices and Luigi "The Lug" Linguini >Collection Agency and Bocci Ball Fabricators LTD. attempting to seize >my assets. > > As a side note, the WSJ reported on IRS computer fiasco ($8 billion spent without the "intellectual capital" to make it work). They noted that the paper goes to third party archive companies for storage. The labor is all contract labor. No leaks have happened. All the leaks, the peeking, etc. come from the IRS. Maybe I'm a pollyanna, but I bet that *most* instances of banks, brokerage houses, and mutual fund operation leaking customer information is the result of fucking IRS requests, not internal or external malfeasance. > Just shit can the whole damn system. Go VAT or flat. Each has it's >merits and drawbacks. > Obligatory spelling flame: that's shitcan, not 'shit can'. %^). Now you're talking!!!: 15, 17, 19% take your pick. $10K exemption, so the poor folks don't start paying til they at least have the start of a leg up. VAT is too intrusive, in my opinion. Flat tax will shake a *lot* of grey market income back into the system. At 15% it is just plain not worth it to keep money hidden. One good year or two on the stock market and you've made back the tax paid : the price of cheating, both in dollars and in risk just isn't worth it. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 10 Feb 1997 09:18:41 -0600 Lew Glendenning wrote in part: >A bunch of people who believe in our Constitution better get real >radical. As this post points out, there aren't any choices left. You >MUST support the Libertarians. > >They may not be much in the way of gathering votes yet, but they are the >only real party which REALLY supports the Constitution. You moderates >better get radical, or we will need a revolution, with guns, blood, the >whole nine yards. I agree with the majority of what I hear Libertarians say, though by no means all, yet find myself persuaded by their performance in the last Presidential election (0.5% of the popular vote) that they are a good working definition of the phrase "political irrelevance." Please do not misunderstand -- this is not a personal attack -- but the majority of discussions I have had with Libertarians have been profoundly off-putting with regard to that party. In my opinion, the Libertarians are their own worst political enemies. The fact that Libertarians are heavily represented on lists such as ROC masks the fact that they comprise a less-than-single-digit percentage of the body politic. So, what is to be done? How can the Libertarian Party be transformed from political insignificance to a political force? To suggest that the rest of the population must be made to "see the light" is to indulge in the sort of arrogance which will keep people away in droves -- it might be true, but should never be put in those terms for obvious reasons. The fact is, most people are much more worried about making the next mortgage payment than they are about Constitutional guarantees of freedom, which they take for granted. So, what is to be done? Libertarians? Anyone else? The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: WashingtonPost.com: National News (fwd) Date: 14 Feb 1997 08:08:58 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/nat3.htm The Senate is preparing to issue up to 50 subpoenas for DNC documents. A four-part Washington Post series details the recent fund-raising frenzy. Thursday, February 13, 1997 A Justice Department investigation into improper political fund-raising activities has uncovered evidence that representatives of the People's Republic of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee before the 1996 presidential campaign, officials familiar with the inquiry said. Sensitive intelligence information shows that the Chinese Embassy on Connecticut Avenue NW here was used for planning contributions to the DNC, the sources said. Some information was obtained through electronic eavesdropping conducted by federal agencies. The information gives the Justice Department inquiry what is known as a foreign counterintelligence component, elevating the seriousness of the fund-raising controversy, according to some officials.

The sources declined to provide details about the scope of the evidence relating to the alleged efforts by the Chinese representatives. They also declined to specify what foreign contributions might have been involved, but they said the new evidence now being scrutinized in the inquiry is serious.

A Chinese Embassy spokesman denied yesterday that his government had anything to do with improper efforts to influence the administration. "We have done nothing of that sort," the spokesman said. White House press secretary Michael McCurry said yesterday that "to the best of my knowledge, no one here had any knowledge of" the allegations concerning the Chinese. He said the White House would have no further comment. The evidence relating to the Chinese government led Justice Department lawyers and FBI executives to increase the number of FBI special agents working on a special investigative task force from a handful to 25, including several specialists in foreign counterintelligence investigations, sources said. Laura Ingersoll, a Justice Department attorney assigned a leading role on the fund-raising task force, has security clearances to investigate a variety of sensitive intelligence matters, officials said. The new dimension to the fund-raising investigation could result in Attorney General Janet Reno eventually recommending that the matter be turned over to an independent counsel, according to one well-placed source. Reno so far has declined requests for an independent counsel, saying that the Justice Department task force can conduct a full and independent inquiry and that there is no specific and credible allegation of wrongdoing against any of the senior executive branch officials covered by the Independent Counsel Act. Such a finding would have to be made by the Justice Department task force before Reno could recommend appointment of an independent counsel. Washington and Beijing have been at odds over human rights and trade issues, but the Clinton White House has been seeking recently to improve relations. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright is traveling to Beijing later this month, and President Clinton announced in his State of the Union message that he also would visit. He has extended an invitation to Chinese President Jiang Zemin to come to Washington. The Chinese effort to win influence with the Clinton administration can be traced to 1993, one source said. During the Reagan and Bush administrations, the Chinese government felt comfortable dealing with Washington. During the 1992 presidential campaign, authorities in Beijing spoke openly about wanting Bush to win reelection because he was an "old friend" of China. Clinton had criticized the Bush administration during the campaign for "coddling" Beijing and giving China most-favored-nation trade status after the 1989 crackdown in Tiananmen Square. After Clinton defeated Bush, Chinese officials were uncertain about how to deal with the new administration, officials said, even though as president, Clinton essentially adopted the Bush policy toward Beijing. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has long urged the leadership in Beijing to increase its lobbying efforts in Washington, arguing that China has lagged behind Taiwan and Israel in trying to influence U.S. policy. Some investigators suspected a Chinese connection to the current fund-raising scandal because several DNC contributors and major fund-raisers had ties to Beijing. Last February, Charles Yah Lin Trie, a fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee, used his influence with party officials to bring Wang Jun, head of a weapons trading company owned by the Chinese military, to a White House coffee with Clinton. Wang also heads a prominent, state-owned investment conglomerate. Clinton has since said he should not have met with Wang, and $640,000 in checks that Trie delivered to president's legal defense fund has been returned because of questions about the source of the funds. Another reason investigators suspected a Chinese connection was the role of John Huang, a former Commerce Department official and DNC fund-raiser now at the center of the campaign controversy. An American citizen born in China and raised in Taiwan, Huang has said he now has no friends or relatives in China. But Huang is a former executive of the Lippo Group, a highly profitable Indonesian conglomerate owned by the Riady family, who are ethnic Chinese. Lippo has extensive interests in China, including approval to build a power plant in Fujian Province, Huang's place of birth.

In 1993, Lippo sold 50 percent of its holdings in one of its banks, Hong Kong Chinese Bank -- where Huang was a vice president in the mid-1980s -- to a corporation run by the Chinese government.

Huang was not the only Lippo executive to get a job with the Clinton administration. In December 1994, U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor named Lippo's president of securities, Charles De Queljoe, to the Investment and Services Advisory Committee. Huang had sought jobs at the State Department and the National Security Council staff for De Queljoe, a big Democratic giver, in an early 1993 letter to the White House.

Last month, Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Rules Committee, asked FBI Director Louis J. Freeh to investigate Huang and the Lippo Group, with an eye to "potential economic espionage against the United States by a foreign corporation having direct ties to the People's Republic of China."

Solomon said then that he was concerned about Huang's access to intelligence information and dozens of calls Huang made from Commerce to the Lippo Group. He also asked Freeh to investigate apparent discrepancies in the birth date listed on Huang's visa application forms and his government employment forms.

Huang was employed at Lippo for nine years before he joined the Commerce Department as deputy assistant secretary for international economic policy. His severance package from Lippo totaled $788,750.

Huang was given a top-secret clearance at Commerce after what Republicans have called a lax background investigation. Despite Huang's extensive ties to Lippo, the background investigation was limited to his activities in the United States because he had lived here for more than five years. Commerce officials now say they wish a foreign background check had been done, even though it was not required.

In preparation for his job at Commerce, Huang received an interim security clearance while he was still working at Lippo. But Commerce Department officials said that did not entitle him to see any classified information, and they maintain he saw none. Because of a bureaucratic error, the officials said, Huang retained his top-secret clearance after he left the Commerce Department to become a DNC vice chairman in December 1995.

During his 18 months at Commerce, Huang was scheduled to attend 37 intelligence briefings, including briefings on China, and saw more than two dozen intelligence reports.

>From his Commerce Department office, Huang made more than 70 phone calls to a Lippo-controlled bank in Los Angeles. The calls are now being scrutinized by the Justice Department task force.

Huang's message slips from the Commerce Department also show a call from one Chinese Embassy official in February 1995 and three calls from the embassy's commercial minister in June and August of that year.

According to Huang's Commerce Department desk calendar entries, obtained by The Washington Post, he had three meetings scheduled with Chinese government officials. He was slated to go on a U.S. government-sponsored trip to China in June 1995 that was canceled. He attended a policy breakfast at the Chinese Embassy in October 1995 and a dinner there the same month, his calendar shows.

One of the many unexplained records from Huang's files shows an unusual travel pattern in the fall of 1995. His expense account records show he left his Commerce Department office to visit the Indonesian Embassy on Massachusetts Avenue NW on Oct. 11, claiming a $5 reimbursement for taxicab fare. The expense records indicate Huang did not return to his office at Commerce until the following day -- when he took another $5 cab ride, not from the Indonesian Embassy but, according to his records, from the "residence of the Chinese ambassador."

Staff writers Susan Schmidt, Sharon LaFraniere and Lena H. Sun, special correspondent Anne Farris and research assistant Jeff Glasser contributed to this report. Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company Reproduced for non-profit research and educational purposes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 14 Feb 1997 10:29:19 -0500 > > >The fact that Libertarians are heavily represented on lists such as ROC masks >the fact that they comprise a less-than-single-digit percentage of the body >politic. So, what is to be done? How can the Libertarian Party be transformed >from political insignificance to a political force? To suggest that the >rest of the population must be made to "see the light" is to indulge in the >sort of arrogance which will keep people away in droves -- it might be true, >but should never be put in those terms for obvious reasons. > Here's a classic answer: I would estimate that approx. 40% of the voting population identifies as Republicans. Of that, say, 17-23% (to make up some numbers) of those R's identify as at least in sympathy with Libertarians (maybe higher on strictly economic issues). That is : somewhere in the 7-9% of voters are quasi-Libertarian Republicans. I think that these quasi-Libs are actually making themselves heard and gaining respectibility. Bill Buckley is in favor of some drug legalization. That Shotgun News article on drug-war / anti-gun war reflects a strong appreciation of Libertarian values. That 7-9% have just got to keep articulating their positions. Look at the Christian Coalition - those guys are not a numerically overwhelming force, but: they show up, they volunteer, and they consistently articulate their position. So, if you have to be ideologically pure, you're not going to be happy. However, there is some probability of the quasi-Libs pushing through some significant reforms: flat-tax, stop erosion of civil liberties, moderate the drug war, stop the nanny state. My opinion. (look at what the Dem's want: Gephardt wants to amend the Constitution to make campaign reform able to bypass 1st Amendment protections on controlling political speech - those bastards are mainly unreconstituted Socialists and raving statist's.). jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 14 Feb 1997 08:28:06 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, John Curtis wrote: > >The fact that Libertarians are heavily represented on lists such as ROC masks > >the fact that they comprise a less-than-single-digit percentage of the body > >politic. So, what is to be done? How can the Libertarian Party be transformed > >from political insignificance to a political force? To suggest that the > >rest of the population must be made to "see the light" is to indulge in the > >sort of arrogance which will keep people away in droves -- it might be true, > >but should never be put in those terms for obvious reasons. > > > Here's a classic answer: I would estimate that approx. 40% of the > voting population identifies as Republicans. Of that, say, 17-23% > (to make up some numbers) of those R's identify as at least in > sympathy with Libertarians (maybe higher on strictly economic issues). > > That is : somewhere in the 7-9% of voters are quasi-Libertarian > Republicans. > > I think that these quasi-Libs are actually making themselves heard and > gaining respectibility. Bill Buckley is in favor of some drug > legalization. That Shotgun News article on drug-war / anti-gun war > reflects a strong appreciation of Libertarian values. That 7-9% have > just got to keep articulating their positions. Absolutely, and this is directly related to your point below. > Look at the Christian Coalition - those guys are not a numerically > overwhelming force, but: they show up, they volunteer, and they > consistently articulate their position. This -can-not- be overemphasized. And I hope all my born again friends will take heart that I'm with you in Jesus, if not always in politics as I tell you all a little story: I have this friend (see) who's an area chair in his republican district. He grew up pretty much next door to the nice lady who is currently district chair. And went to grade school with the son of the nice lady who is district secretary (the real seat of power in any org. ; ). The chair is retiring to Ariz., and the County chair has bequethed that a church friend of my friends shall be district chair. *Ain't gonna happen* See, while my friend, the current dist. chair, and the Dist. secretary, are all at least nominally "pro choice" on almost all choices, they choose to have co workers who -work- (as do most staffers). In my experience, members of the christian coalition can -always- be identified at party functions. They are the ones who are there an hour after everyone else (often my friend included) has left, running a vacumm over the place. They are the ones who are there an hour early setting up the boxes of leaflets to collate. And they are the ones who have political power way the heck and gone past relation to their numbers. And it's a coalition member who's -actually- going to be the next chair in my friends district, despite the impression the county chair may have. Shooters, Libertarians, -all-of-us- need to take this lesson and run with it. Political power comes from work as much (or in some cases more) as it does from numbers. > So, if you have to be ideologically pure, you're not going to be happy. > However, there is some probability of the quasi-Libs pushing through > some significant reforms: flat-tax, stop erosion of civil liberties, > moderate the drug war, stop the nanny state. This is -totally- where it's at. If you're not sure if you are a Libertarian, read this quote from L. Neil Smith: "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not." Doesn't say in there you have to join the Libertarian Party (though you could), just talks about what you believe. I submit that we live in a world that is not consistent, and so working to make it more Libertarian from within the Republican party makes a lot of sense to me. Actually, it makes sense to the Republican Liberty Caucus too. If you're interested in Liberty you should take a look at the RLC, also you might want to read the Libertarian enterprise which can be subscribed to at: http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/libemain.html snip > jcurtis boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerpint: D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me. AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harrassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: berg stephen erik Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 14 Feb 1997 11:39:11 -0600 (CST) I am one happy to be one of Neil's frequent libertarian leaning conversants. I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. I am not sure that such an entity is even possible, or desirable. Lumping libertarians into a party is sort of like herding cats. I suspect that the best strategy for increasing liberty is to be infiltrating both sides of the major party. We will likely have better success with the Democratic side. They agree with our aims at least as much as their Republican brethren and sistren, and have the advantage of being competent. Since most organizations need sparkplugs to get the majority of members to do anything at all, a elite corps of libertarian moles stands an excellent chance of effecting positive change. Steve z931086@corn.cso.niu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg@hevanet.com (wbg) Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 14 Feb 1997 10:36:47 -0800 (PST) berg stephen erik wrote: > I suspect that the best strategy for increasing liberty is to be > infiltrating both sides of the major party. Valid, as far as it goes . . . > We will likely have better success with the Democratic side. > They agree with our aims at least as much as their Republican brethren and > sistren, and have the advantage of being competent. > Steve Can't buy this part, Steve. Think about it - if in fact "liberty" is the aim, as I assume it to be, then the Dems do _not_ agree with libertarian aims in much of any sense - they are the undeniable party of statism, bigger statism, and more of the same; and the State is and has always been the paramount enemy of liberty. Note that I'm not necessarily suggesting that the R's are much of an improvement - but the very idea that a party composed mostly of folks whose conditioned response to most any "problem" is "more gummint" has any bedrock sympathy with libertarian aims is ludicrous. However you define it, (big "L" or small "l") that loose collection of folk who define themselves as "libertarian" would seem to be the only identifiable "group" today who still care about the Constitution - at least on a fairly consistent basis of caring. The Left and Right profess to care deeply about it, provided that the segment in question furthers their instant aim. The job of those of us who think that consitutional protections are the only bulwark between us and the collapse of the Republic is to incessantly attempt to explain to our friends, neighbors, and whatever audience we can collar, that the Constitution was brilliantly written expressly to be above any concerns of the moment; that we do not have permission from its Authors to pick and choose which parts of it we will honor based on our quotidian concerns - and that _all_ parts of it are very much relevant to our lives today - as much as or perhaps even more so than they were in 1789. An interesting book you might try to find is: _The Frozen Republic_ "How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy" by Daniel Lazare ( A Manhattan journalist of lefty stripe) One of these days I'll get around to writing a review of it for posting to roc, among other venues. Gist is, this moron seems to think it's a terrible thing that the Constitution is "paralyzing democracy", where in fact it was carefully crafted to do just that. Of course that gets in the way of all his pet schemes for improving humanity, curing the common cold, and redistributing wealth from producers to parasites. The usual. Read it. It will piss you off. We all need to be pissed off in this manner. Brewster -- *********************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: making LP a political force Date: 14 Feb 1997 14:53:31 -0800 At 10:29 AM 2/14/97 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >>The fact that Libertarians are heavily represented on lists such as ROC masks >>the fact that they comprise a less-than-single-digit percentage of the body >>politic. So, what is to be done? Ignore them, and rely upon a completely different paradigm. The organization is heavily infiltrated as it is. /s/ Paul Mitchell How can the Libertarian Party be transformed >>from political insignificance to a political force? I doubt very much whether this is even possible, given the current membership. Please don't shoot the one who dares to express this honest opinion. /s/ Paul Mitchell ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0 on Intel 80586 CPU ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Maybe they're having sex Date: 10 Feb 1997 17:02:40 -0600 Joe Gaylord: The Man Behind Gingrich's Fall By Arianna Huffington Joe Gaylord has been called the "master coordinator of the totality of Newt's life" by Republican strategist Eddie Mahe. He has been described as "mysterious, yet everywhere apparent" by Roll Call. In a 1993 memo to Gay Gaines, then the chair of GOPAC, buried on page 422 of the ethics committee report on the Speaker, Gingrich describes Gaylord's role: "Joe Gaylord is empowered to supervise my activities, set my schedule, advise me on all aspects of my life and career. He is my chief counselor and one of my closest friends." It wasn't always this way, but when Jim Tilton, Gingrich's best friend for 30 years, died of pancreatic cancer in 1993, the vacuum he left was filled by Gaylord -- a political consultant whose destructive influence on the Speaker of the House is the untold story in the dramatic collapse of the man once regarded as more powerful than the President. During dozens of interviews over the last few months with Gingrich's friends, associates, and staffers, I was stunned by the intensity of the anger directed at Gaylord -- and equally stunned by the fear he generates, more commonly associated with people in the Witness Protection Program. Not one would allow me to put even the least damning of their torrent of condemnation on the record. They were convinced that nothing would ever dislodge Gaylord and, therefore, he would block their access to the Speaker of the House. "Gaylord will be the last lifeboat left, and sadly that lifeboat will not have Gingrich on it," a close Gingrich friend predicted. "Joe is the last person on the planet Gingrich would drop," said another. "Maybe Marianne is the last person. I'm not sure. It's a close call." So how did this chief counselor counsel Gingrich down to his 15 percent popularity rate -- the lowest for any American politician in recorded history? A close adviser who was ousted by Gaylord explained that "part of Gaylord's power over Gingrich is that he has been there day and night at every crisis, supporting him through it all." The question that no one has asked in public is: How many of these crises did Gaylord create, promote, or allow? Ultimately, of course, the fault is in ourselves, not in our stars or our chief counselors. But history and literature are full of subordinates who led leaders to disaster. Shakespeare's Iago is perhaps the most celebrated, the seductive counselor who uses half-truths to sow dissension and feed Othello's propensity to focus on every slight and injury. Gaylord is a master at this, constantly feeding Gingrich's tendency to whine about the media and his liberal enemies. Many believe there is no decision Gingrich has made -- including shutting down the government -- that had a more devastating impact on his public perception than agreeing to a $4.5 million book deal. And instrumental to this decision was Gaylord. Many of the protesters -- including his press secretary, Tony Blankley; pollster Frank Luntz; and close friends like Vin Weber, Jack Kemp, and Bob Walker -- spoke against the book deal in tones normally reserved for warning a friend about to fall off a precipice. But Gaylord was just as loud and unequivocal, and most important, told Gingrich what he wanted to hear: Go do it. In Gaylord's world, voicing independent opinions is punishable by banishment from the inner circle. "Newt and I used to fight a lot," said a very close former colleague. "But at least with me he knew he was getting independent advice. Now, all who would challenge him have gone. There is only Joe left, and he never throws himself in Gingrich's path." So the inner circle has come down to two: Gingrich and Gaylord in a death embrace in which, at times, there is hardly room for Marianne Gingrich. Memos by advisers urging a greater public role for Marianne have been repeatedly dismissed by Gaylord, who considers even the Speaker's wife a threat to his absolute control. At different times, he has gone after every gifted person around Gingrich whom he could not control, including Blankley; Gingrich's long time scheduler Hardy Lott; and former top GOPAC officials Jeff Eisenach and Gaines. Now they have all left of their own accord -- each giving a different half-truth as the reason for leaving. Dan Meyer, his chief of staff, and Leigh Ann Metzger, his communications coordinator, have also joined the exodus. Gaylord's long-standing practice is to turn on anyone who refuses to concede that he is the only way to Gingrich. A consultant who arranged Gingrich's California schedule for years was instantly and unceremoniously dumped when he dared set up a meeting for Gingrich without going through the official gatekeeper. "There will be no freelancing," is one of Gaylord's driving principles. And to ensure he knows everything that goes on when Gingrich is out of sight, he has an intimate friend, Barry Hutchison, always traveling with the Speaker. Hutchison -- listed in Federal Election Commission reports as Hutchison Consulting -- seems to have as his primary responsibility covering Gaylord's base. Gaylord's tentacles are particularly evident in Gingrich's ethics problems. First of all, he constitutes an ethics violation all by himself. The Congressional Accountability Project filed a formal complaint about Gaylord's interviewing potential staff for official positions, attending Republican leadership meetings, and impacting policy without filing the financial disclosure forms required of all Congressional staffers earning more than $85,000. The ethics committee found that Gingrich's "use of Mr. Gaylord was in violation of House Rule 45, which prohibits the use of unofficial resources for official purposes." According to FEC reports, in the last two-year election cycle Gaylord received $240,000 from the National Republican Campaign Committee even though he is only described as "adjunct staff," $26,000 from the Republican National Committee, where he keeps his office, and $350,000 from Gingrich's campaign, Friends of Newt Gingrich. Of course, since he does not file financial disclosure forms, we will never know who else is paying him and how much. What is certain is that his annual income is substantially higher than that of his boss. When it comes to the case now before the IRS -- whether various Gingrich-affiliated tax-exempt organizations were used for partisan purposes -- there were few with more experience to know better than Gaylord. After all, the American Campaign Academy he created was the subject of a 1989 US Tax Court decision, ruling that it did not qualify for tax-exempt status because it was a Republican rather than a nonpartisan undertaking. If there were such a thing as consultant malpractice, shouldn't someone be suing Gaylord for negligence? Instead, when things went massively wrong, Gaylord's first instinct was to look around for a scapegoat. Jan Baran -- whom Gaylord chose as Gingrich's lawyer -- was an easy target. Many of Baran's friends and clients are up in arms: "Jan did absolutely nothing without Joe's approval," one of them told me. The scapegoating turned ugly, when Gingrich -- at Gaylord's instigation, sources said -- was reported to be contemplating suing Baran for the $300,000 he had been fined. "Gingrich has to stop picking at the scab," James Cole, the ethics committee's outside counsel in the Gingrich case, told me last week. But picking at scabs is a Gaylord specialty. After all, the more Gingrich feels persecuted by the independent counsel, Minority Whip David Bonior (D-Mich), and the "liberal" media, the greater source of solace Gaylord becomes. His view of politics as a blood sport is made clear in a memo he wrote, which was made public last month by a member of the ethics committee. "Shore up our five on the committee," the memo commanded, and "target" two of the Democrats. "Get the Clinton administration under special prosecutor problems," it continues in vintage Gaylordese, "and have the Clinton administration get the House Dems to back down." Continuing the war metaphor, at a Gingrich staff meeting at the Republican National Convention, Gaylord distributed green plastic toy soldiers to pump up the troops. According to several staffers present, he shocked the room with his insensitivity when stepping in front of an African-American member of the staff, he said: "And here is our affirmative action." Gaylord's indifference to human beings is only matched by his mediocrity as a strategist. Consider the "Dare to be Dull" campaign he conceived, which resulted in Gingrich's infamously silly beach volleyball speech at the San Diego convention. The speech ended up attracting considerable news attention for its sheer banality. But Gaylord's influence is far more insidious than bad public relations. The Gingrich-Gaylord codependence goes back to when Gaylord was executive director of the NRCC in the 1980s. Gingrich, together with other Young Turks, was demanding reforms following the NRCC's poor performance in House races and rumors of dubious financial practices. According to a former GOP Congressman, Gaylord attempted to co-opt Gingrich by setting aside NRCC Funds for "Newt projects." It worked, and when the NRCC found itself in serious financial straits in 1993, Gaylord's reward was to be asked by Gongrich to help fix the problems he had helped create. So Gaylord never lost control, and now with the departure of NRCC Chairman Bill Paxon (NY) and executive director Maria Cino, his control is tighter than ever. In 1996, for example, a Republican House Member from California told me how disturbed he was when he asked Gingrich for some funding for Linda Wilde, the former judge who was running against Rep. George Brown (D), only to be told: "See Joe." Gaylord, in turn, told him to forget about her and just help re-elect endangered Rep. Bob Dornan (R-Calif). In the end, Wilde came up about 1,000 votes short. But Gingrich, who has labeled Gaylord "the best student of Congressional campaigns in the country," continued to quote his advice and predictions as though Gaylord were the Delphic Oracle. During a conference call on Election Day, he repeated to disbelieving GOP Members Gaylord's confident forecast that they would "gain at least a half dozen seats, perhaps more." Instead the GOP lost nine seats. Republicans around the country are asking with different degrees of intensity -- the intensity rising the closer you get to Capitol Hill: Can Gingrich recover? Perhaps the question needs to be made more specific: Can Gingrich recover while Gaylord remains his "chief counselor" and "closest friend"? Arianna Huffington is a nationally syndicated columnist and chair of the Center for Effective Compassion. -------------------------------------------------------- [Image] Roll Call Online was designed and created by Online Magic. Copyright © 1996 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Antonin Scalia Date: 14 Feb 1997 15:05:35 -0500 Hmmm. Just finished an article by Antonin Scalia (yes, the Supreme Court Justice) in the 2-10 copy of the National Review. Title is : Vigilante Justices The article is about the dying Constitution and the "evolving" Constitution as the source of its demise. Scalia comes down strongly on the side of strict "original intent", with minimal interpretation. However, some of his writing borders on the bizarrre and makes you wonder, what, if any, principles he is going to follow. "...the record of history refutes the proposition that the evolving Constitution will invariably enlarge individual rights. The most obvious refutation is the modern Court's limitation of the constitutional protections afforded to property. The provision prohibiting inpairment of the obligation of contracts, for example, has been gutted. I am sure that We the People agree with that development; we value property rights less than did the Founders. So also, we value the right to bear arms less than did the Founders (who thought the right of self-defense to be absolutely fundamental), and there will be few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard. But this just shows that the Founders were right when they feared that some (in their view misguided) future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may *like* the abridgment of property rights and *like* the elimination of the right to bear arms; but let us not pretend that these are not *reductions* of rights." [ * * denotes italics in orig.] Phew! This guy is writing as a self-described conservative and defender of "original intent". But he appears to just be gibbering along, jumping to conclusions that "We the People" are happy about property rights abridgement and will cheerfully abandon the 2nd amendment. Is this guy a shill, a setter-up of false arguments for more liberal judges on the court? Or is he so out-of-whack with any liberty loving opinion that he embraces the positions of his oponents? I guess I just come down to the basic, common sense proposition that the Supreme Court is a bunch of politically appointed lawyers and expect little to nothing from them. Very disappointing article. When the gun nuts (that Shotgun News article) makes more sense than a "friendly" Supreme Court justice, then something strange is happening. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Antonin Scalia Date: 14 Feb 1997 17:36:14 -0800 Hi John, May I have your permission to broadcast this to clients of the Supreme Law School? Your analysis is trenchant. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 03:05 PM 2/14/97 -0500, you wrote: > > Hmmm. Just finished an article by Antonin Scalia (yes, the > Supreme Court Justice) in the 2-10 copy of the National Review. > > Title is : Vigilante Justices > > The article is about the dying Constitution and the "evolving" > Constitution as the source of its demise. > > Scalia comes down strongly on the side of strict "original > intent", with minimal interpretation. However, some of his > writing borders on the bizarrre and makes you wonder, what, if any, > principles he is going to follow. > > > "...the record of history refutes the proposition that the evolving > Constitution will invariably enlarge individual rights. The most > obvious refutation is the modern Court's limitation of the > constitutional protections afforded to property. The provision > prohibiting inpairment of the obligation of contracts, for example, > has been gutted. I am sure that We the People agree with that > development; we value property rights less than did the Founders. > So also, we value the right to bear arms less than did the Founders > (who thought the right of self-defense to be absolutely fundamental), > and there will be few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is > held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard. > But this just shows that the Founders were right when they > feared that some (in their view misguided) future generation might > wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and > so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may > *like* the abridgment of property rights and *like* the elimination > of the right to bear arms; but let us not pretend that these are not > *reductions* of rights." [ * * denotes italics in orig.] > > > Phew! This guy is writing as a self-described conservative and > defender of "original intent". But he appears to just be gibbering > along, jumping to conclusions that "We the People" are happy about > property rights abridgement and will cheerfully abandon the 2nd > amendment. Is this guy a shill, a setter-up of false arguments > for more liberal judges on the court? Or is he so out-of-whack with > any liberty loving opinion that he embraces the positions of his > oponents? > > I guess I just come down to the basic, common sense proposition that > the Supreme Court is a bunch of politically appointed lawyers and > expect little to nothing from them. > > Very disappointing article. When the gun nuts (that Shotgun News > article) makes more sense than a "friendly" Supreme Court justice, > then something strange is happening. > > jcurtis > > > > > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0 on Intel 80586 CPU ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)Statement from Paul Grant, Kriho defense counsel Date: 14 Feb 1997 17:15:56 -0500 >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:30:07 -0700 (MST) >From: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Statement from Paul Grant, Kriho defense counsel >To: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com > > PAUL GRANT > ATTORNEY AT LAW > 11911 Highway 83, Suite 205 > Parker CO 80134 > (303) 841-9649 (phone) > (303) 841-9671 (fax) > Email: pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > >February 12, 1997 > >Re: Laura Kriho's Conviction -- First Conviction on Newly Created Crime > > Jury Rights Under Assault > > On February 10, 1997, Colorado 1st Judicial District Court >Chief Judge Henry Nieto found Laura Kriho guilty of contempt of >court, for failure during jury selection, to volunteer >information concerning her opinions and experiences. The court >found Ms. Kriho deliberately withheld and concealed her views on >drug laws and her own prior experience with a drug arrest - >despite the fact she was never asked questions on these matters. > >STATEMENT FROM PAUL GRANT, MS. KRIHO'S ATTORNEY > > A new legal duty has been created in Colorado by the Court >in convicting Ms. Kriho: the duty of potential jurors to >volunteer information during jury selection, concerning their >political beliefs and attitudes, and concerning their life's >experiences, if they think the court wants the information - >despite the fact they are not specifically asked pertinent >questions. > > Laura Kriho is the first person convicted of violating this >newly minted crime of failure to volunteer information during >jury selection. Evidence that Ms. Kriho harbored secret views on >the wisdom of the drug laws was obtained from statements Ms. >Kriho allegedly made during jury deliberations. > > Ms. Kriho was acquitted of perjury during jury selection, >but found guilty of concealing her beliefs. No longer is it >enough to honestly answer the questions you are asked - now you >also have to answer the questions you were not asked, but that >you "knew" the judge wanted answered. > > If this new legal duty is affirmed by Colorado's appellate >courts, future jurors will need to be advised of their rights >during jury selection. Even worse, jurors will need to be >advised that any statement made during deliberations may later be >used against them in a criminal prosecution, for failure to >volunteer an opinion or experience during jury selection. > > One wonders whether Colorado courts will have counsel >available for jurors unable to afford a lawyer. > > Laura Kriho's prosecution and Judge Nieto's vedict will have >a chilling effect on jury service and jury deliberations. Fewer >citizens will be willing to serve, and open and honest >discussion in the jury room will be suppressed. We hope that >Colorado's appellate courts will reverse Laura Kriho's outrageous >conviction, and repudiate the trial court's attack on the jury >system so essential to the American system of justice. > >PAUL GRANT >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Re-distributed by the: > Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be added to or removed from the JRP mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > http://www.bend-or.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > -- Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund -- > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > Email: pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > Phone: (303) 841-9649 > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: berg stephen erik Subject: Re: IRS Computers etc. Date: 14 Feb 1997 11:23:27 -0600 (CST) If you want to make the tax system truly fair, and far more efficient, it can be done by simplifying the paperwork down to a 2 line form. The first one would say how much, in dollar terms, the services performed by the feds were worth to you. The second would be a blank line for you to fill in the amount you were freely donating to their cause. Since all of the current taxes are voted by representative assemblies, there would be no loss of revenue. Statists of course, would be welcome to donate more to their favorite cause. I suggested this in one of my public finance classes, and one of the budding "civil servants" protested that the people would not give enough support to "the right things." When I responded that she was not sounding very democratic, she got rather red in the face. Steve z931086@corn.cso.niu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Antonin Scalia Date: 14 Feb 1997 16:01:16 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, John Curtis wrote: > Hmmm. Just finished an article by Antonin Scalia (yes, the > Supreme Court Justice) in the 2-10 copy of the National Review. > > Title is : Vigilante Justices > > The article is about the dying Constitution and the "evolving" > Constitution as the source of its demise. > > Scalia comes down strongly on the side of strict "original > intent", with minimal interpretation. However, some of his > writing borders on the bizarrre and makes you wonder, what, if any, > principles he is going to follow. > > > "...the record of history refutes the proposition that the evolving > Constitution will invariably enlarge individual rights. The most > obvious refutation is the modern Court's limitation of the > constitutional protections afforded to property. The provision > prohibiting inpairment of the obligation of contracts, for example, > has been gutted. I am sure that We the People agree with that > development; we value property rights less than did the Founders. > So also, we value the right to bear arms less than did the Founders > (who thought the right of self-defense to be absolutely fundamental), > and there will be few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is > held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard. > But this just shows that the Founders were right when they > feared that some (in their view misguided) future generation might > wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and > so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may > *like* the abridgment of property rights and *like* the elimination > of the right to bear arms; but let us not pretend that these are not > *reductions* of rights." [ * * denotes italics in orig.] > > > Phew! This guy is writing as a self-described conservative and > defender of "original intent". But he appears to just be gibbering > along, jumping to conclusions that "We the People" are happy about > property rights abridgement and will cheerfully abandon the 2nd > amendment. Is this guy a shill, a setter-up of false arguments > for more liberal judges on the court? Or is he so out-of-whack with > any liberty loving opinion that he embraces the positions of his > oponents? No. He's just "thinking like a lawyer". He's presenting "another side" of the issues. All lawyers are conditioned by the training to do this; otherwise they get blind-sided by arguments they never thought of. Frankly, I think he is pretty accurate about what the bulk of "We the People" like and want. After all, Slick Willie and his Host of Whores is in control of the Executive Branch, thanks to "We the People." Scalia's final point is: "...but let us not pretend that these are not *reductions* of rights." And in support of this, he starts out "...the record of history refutes the proposition that the evolving Constitution will invariably enlarge individual rights." In other words, "Folks, if you're going to embrace some pretty dumbshit things (and history says you will), and put a gold rope around your own neck, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit to yourself that THAT is what you are doing." Scalia is not engaging in political advocacy in this article, although he is certainly postulating, for the sake of argument, some political observations; he is engaging in "examination of an issue". Bork did this sort of thing as a Law Professor (all law professors and law students do it) and got what he said in that environment resurrected, and then he was flayed alive by the ignoramuses populating the Senate. Since Scalia is Judge for Life, he can engage in "hypotheticals" to his hearts' content, and with impunity. Since Bork wasn't, he became a "never-was". > > I guess I just come down to the basic, common sense proposition that > the Supreme Court is a bunch of politically appointed lawyers and > expect little to nothing from them. About this you are correct, IMO. But there is no basis for concluding this from the excerpt you posted. There is plenty of basis to conclude this from Supreme Court OPINIONS which have long term, and extremely serious, consequences. There is no reason whatsoever to arrive at such a conclusion on the basis of what amounts to an intellectual parlor game, a magazine article. > Very disappointing article. When the gun nuts (that Shotgun News > article) makes more sense than a "friendly" Supreme Court justice, > then something strange is happening. > > jcurtis Remember that it takes TWO ends of a communication for it to "make sense": a transmitter and a receiver. If you are on different wavelengths, that is, the receiver doesn't "think like a lawyer", then, no, it probably won't "make sense". I have not read the entire article, but I CAN say that the "title" alleged to go with it ("Vigilante Justices") appears to have very little to do with the out-of-context excerpt quoted. ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cap Schwartz" Subject: Re: [Fwd: [UWSA] state of the country] Date: 14 Feb 1997 09:17:39 -0800 At 09:18 AM 2/10/97 -0600, Neil Dickey wrote: > >I agree with the majority of what I hear Libertarians say, though by no means >all, yet find myself persuaded by their performance in the last Presidential >election (0.5% of the popular vote) that they are a good working definition of >the phrase "political irrelevance." > As usual, you are exactly right. The problem is that it is a self-perpetuating condition. Until and unless people who say consistently "I really agree with the Libs, but it won't do any good to support them" begin supporting them, this same condition will remain. The Libs are making a difference, though a small one. The more of us who support them, the bigger the difference they/we will make, and the greater the number of people who will join, as a result of the party's growth. cAp_ "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." T. Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria, in On Crimes and Punishment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Antonin Scalia Date: 14 Feb 1997 23:29:07 -0500 (EST) John Curtis writes: >>Hmmm. Just finished an article by Antonin Scalia (yes, the Supreme Court Justice) in the 2-10 copy of the National Review. Title is : Vigilante Justices The article is about the dying Constitution and the "evolving" Constitution as the source of its demise. Phew! This guy is writing as a self-described conservative and defender of "original intent". But he appears to just be gibbering along, jumping to conclusions that "We the People" are happy about property rights abridgement and will cheerfully abandon the 2nd amendment. Is this guy a shill, a setter-up of false arguments for more liberal judges on the court? Or is he so out-of-whack with any liberty loving opinion that he embraces the positions of his oponents?<< I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but that is EXACTLY what "WE the People" want, or at least say they want. One look at people who even remotely subscribe to the views of radical enviornmentalists, gun controllers, social service advocates, Naderites etc. should convince you. And them are a lot of '"We the People". I believe Scalia's point was that even if a vast majority of people agree to the abridgement of basic rights, the Constitution is the mechanism that is in place to prevent "We the People" from doing such assinine things. This pre-supposes of course, that the SC will "read" the Constitution IAW it's original intent, and not "deconstruct" it to fit the popular madness and delusions of crowds. I suspect Justice Scalia's satiric scalpel was quite sharp when he wrote that article, especially the paragraph you referenced. I also detected a note of saddness throughout. Best regards, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: >>> READ THIS <<< Date: 14 Feb 1997 21:00:13 -0800 ****************************************************** The John Doe Times is an on-line, electronic newsletter published by the 1st Alabama Cavalry Regiment (Constitutional Militia) and friends. If your reading this, you probably already know the rest, and we're in a hurry. Sic Semper Rodentia. ***************************************************** AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD CHATS ABOUT OKC COVERUP... (The following transcript was forwarded to the JDT by Ada Coddington, whose continuing support of the effort to find the truth out about OKC is gratefully acknowledged. -- Mike Vanderboegh) [Editors Note: Again my thanks to anonymous for the transcript.] Tuesday, 2/11/97 Quinn in the Morning Show, WRRK 97 FM Pittsburgh, PA; Interview with Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Washington Bureau Chief of the London Sunday Telegraph Q = Jim Quinn, show host P = Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ------------------------------------------------------- Q: On the phone with us this morning from Washington, D.C. is the Washington Bureau Chief from the London Sunday Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Good morning, Ambrose. P: Good morning. Q: Now, we've been talking about you in glowing terms behind your back [Ambrose laughs] because you really have been the person who has--I mean, you've had this Oklahoma thing nailed right from the beginning. You've been telling us for over a year about this stuff, and only now are we seeing people like Andreas Strassmeir and Michael Brescia emerge into the mainstream evening news. P: Yeah, well I got to know an Oklahoma couple, Glenn and Cathy Wilburn who lost two grandchildren in the blast, a long time ago, and I realized that these two people knew what they were doing. They were conducting their own investigation and had been doing so right from the beginning. They didn't believe the official story. And they, in conjunction with an Oklahoma journalist, John Cash from the McCurtain Daily Gazette, have basically been pushing the pace on this and breaking everything open, so I've just piggybacked on them. Q: Well, now as we've seen, yesterday I played two different excerpts from the evening news on Friday. One was the CBS coverage which was all about the Fortiers. P: Oh, that was just a COMPLETE joke! Q: Yeah! That was the government line. That's the damage control that the government is doing now that their OTHER star witness, Mr. Kessenger, is starting to fall apart because he's changed his story. The problem is that these Fortier people have changed their story, too. How much pressure were they under by the government to change their story and come out with this bogus story that they're telling now? P: Well, that's interesting. As far as CBS is concerned, they're so far out to lunch, they don't know what they're doing. The networks, ABC and NBC, have both had two sets of crews working on the story for a long time. One's a documentary crew for NBC Dateline and ABC 20/20, and another set of crews for the nightly news. Q: By the way, can I stop you right there? I understand from Reed Irvine at Accuracy In the Media, I believe it was the 20/20 report--was that ABC? P: That was ABC, yeah. Q: O.K. There was a TREMENDOUS amount of pressure put on ABC not to run that report, and, according to Reed, it came from the highest levels of the Justice Department. P: Well, I think that's been the case for some time, for several months. The teams that have been pursuing this story for the networks have run into incredible resistance at the top. But nevertheless certain things have gotten through. There've been about four different broadcasts, developing the story on prior knowledge, on other people involved in the bombing, a broader conspiracy, and now finally NBC came out on Friday with the story about the ATF informant saying that she was monitoring the bombing from the very beginning for the government. Q: What's her name? Howe? P: Carol Howe. ABC had that story. They'd been talking to her for some time. Q: They had that Friday night while CBS was running this story-- P: No, ABC never ran the story. They killed it. Q: Oh no, that's right! NBC had it! P: Yeah, ABC had it and everybody was waiting for them to go with it. They were waiting for them on Wednesday night--it didn't happen. They were waiting for them on Thursday night--it didn't happen. And finally it was clearly spiked, and NBC nipped in and did it instead, much to the embarrassment at ABC. Now they're going to have to explain to history why they did that. Why did they spike a story of such enormous importance and great NEWS value? Q: Oh, of course! P: And they've now been exposed. Everybody knows about it. It's all over the Internet. One of the producers of the program, he's a consultant producer, Roger Charles, was so furious about it that he came out on a couple of radio shows and denounced his own network, saying they'd spiked the story. So it's completely blown open. And, I don't know--we're going to have to examine why the top of ABC News seems to be willing to do the bidding of the White House so frequently. Q: Well, you know, first ABC News comes under intense pressure not to run the 20/20 piece from the Justice Department, then they RUN it. You can imagine what kind of response they got from the White House after they ran it, so probably these guys are bruised and bleeding and didn't want to do anything else. P: Yeah, I mean [laughs], they're all going to lose some degree of credibility. What CBS did was the worst of all because they ran this trashy propaganda put out by the government on Friday. Obviously the government was in a panic about this informant coming forward, so they said this rubbish about--I've forgotten even what they said now, but it was a completely irrelevant story about the Fortiers. Q: Well, it was about the Fortiers. What's interesting, Ambrose, is that the Fortiers didn't know anything in the beginning. And then after INTENSE 24-hour a day pressure and searches of their home and everything--the whole Richard Jewell treatment--by the FBI, all of a sudden they change their story and they know everything, except everything they know is derived directly from and agrees with things that McVeigh had said in his deposition. So, they tried to build something there. P: Well, I don't think Fortier is going to be as useful as a witness for the government as they think. I think under cross examination he's going to be really destroyed by Stephen Jones, McVeigh's lawyer. You know, the Fortiers are in quite a difficult position because I've read a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he was a full-scale bomber. Q: Who? Mr. Fortier? P: Yes, and they've rather got him over a barrel, haven't they? If the alternative is the death penalty, you know, you're kind of willing to say almost anything, aren't you? Q: Well, anything they ask you to say, yeah. You know, I want to ask you something else, too, and I don't want to scatter our thoughts here too far. But all of a sudden now, like three weeks ago, the FBI was trying to cover up the problems in the crime lab by firing a whistle-blower and three others--ah, Mr. Whitehurst. All of a sudden, like overnight, the FBI seems to have found some utility in coming clean about the corruption in the crime lab. Are they laying the ground work here for dropping the case and saying that the evidence was tainted? P: ARE they coming clean? The last I heard was that they're demanding a criminal prosecution of whoever leaked that information about the report on the crime labs. Q: So they want to continue to persecute the whistle-blowers? P: Oh, I think so, yes. [laughs] I don't see any evidence that they're accepting what's happened at all. Q: Well, Janet Reno came out a couple of days ago and said, well, you know we're going to have to check all this evidence in these major crimes. I think in the Moody bombing investigation he just got found guilty and got the death penalty last night. And in the Oklahoma bombing, we've got to find out if this evidence is TAINTED. I'm thinking to myself, it's real convenient if you can consider this evidence tainted, because you can drop the charges against McVeigh and walk away from this thing without ever bringing up these bogus witnesses who are going to get DESTROYED on the witness stand. P: Well no, I think the whole crime lab issue has just got its own momentum. I think it's independent of this, and I think it's a big problem for the government because they're depending on forensic evidence from the crime lab to convict McVeigh. And I don't think they can really use that much very convincingly anymore because, again, we already know that they tampered with that evidence, or at the very least handled it incredibly carelessly. We know that they cooked up this theory about a 4,000-lb ANFO bomb, NOT from the evidence collected at the crime scene, but from having searched Terry Nichols' house. In other words, they go to his house, they find the fertilizer and so forth, so they then say, 'Oh, it must have been a fertilizer bomb.' It's not taken from the crime scene. They put the cart before the horse. Well, the defense lawyers are just going to run with this. But I'm not sure that they've got anything else to convict McVeigh with because they don't seem to be willing to call any of the witnesses who saw him at the crime scene on the day of the crime. Q: Well, I want to get to that, but I've got to take a break here. Can you hang with us? P: Right. Q: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the London Sunday Telegraph Bureau Chief in Washington, D.C. We'll be right back. Q: And back to our guest, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Sunday Telegraph... P: I'd like to say there's a very important story that's come out today [*Tues. 2/11/97] in the little Oklahoma paper, the McCurtain Daily Gazette. It's the full story of the ATF informant and it's pretty devastating. I mean, for one thing, she cased the building with Andreas Strassmeir, this German. Q: By the way, I saw him on TV. He looks an awful lot like John Doe II--thick lips, bushy eyebrows, same hat-- [Transcriber's note: I think Quinn mistook Michael Brescia for Strassmeir in the TV newsclip.] P: Strassmeir? Q: Yeah, I mean, some people have suggested that maybe he was John Doe II-- P: No-o-o! Q: It was Michael Brescia? O.K. P: No, he's skinny--skinny with very pointed "rabbit" front teeth. Q: Yeah, he's a mean-looking sucker, I'll tell you that. P: Well, he's a strange fellow, but she said that she went with him and a fellow called Dennis Mahan who's a white former Klansman in Oklahoma. Q: And who's denying everything. P: Right, and she actually was WITH them when they went to Oklahoma City and cased the building. Q: Oh my! P: They did it three times, apparently, one of which on one of the occasions she was with them. She told them, told the ATF, that this white supremacist group at Elohim City where Strassmeir lived were planning to blow up a federal building. They had three targets in mind, one was the federal building in Oklahoma City and two of them were in Tulsa--the IRS building in Tulsa, and another building in Tulsa. They had a planned target date of April 19th of 1995 which was the day of the bombing. She provided all this information to them in reports. She submitted a monthly informant's report to her case handler--her case officer at the ATF in Tulsa, Angela Findley. The ATF have admitted that she did work for them. And she outlined a lot of the development of the early stages of the conspiracy. And then after the bomb went off, within 24 hours, she was taken for debriefing at an underground command center in Oklahoma City one block from where the bomb went off. It was actually in the basement of the old Pepco building in downtown Oklahoma. And there she identified John Doe I and John Doe II for the government immediately. They had sketches at this point. I guess it must have been the second day after the bombing. Q: O.K. So John Doe I would be McVeigh? P: Nope. Q: Oh, O.K. who? P: McVeigh never went into that truck rental office. It's all a canard. The government has no case based on that. Q: So McVeigh was never THERE? P: He never went into the truck rental office to rent that truck. HE didn't rent it. It's ALL a canard. Q: So, who are these two guys, John Doe I and John Doe II. P: Well, I know who they are. One of them is Michael Brescia. The other guy, since his name is not being openly put forward in the press, I'd better not mention it right now. But they're all from the same group in Elohim City. It's the Aryan Republican Army, this group that I talked about before--the military wing of the Aryan Nation who conducted the whole operation. It's a large conspiracy. McVeigh was a member. Q: Now are you suggesting that the Ryder truck didn't have a bomb in it? P: No, but the government case is that McVeigh rented that truck using the false name of Robert Kling, a South Dakota driver's license. Q: Right. P: He did not rent that truck, however. He never went into the building [*i.e., the Ryder truck rental building] and the original witness descriptions of the man who rented the truck, John Doe I, is someone who is 5' 10" or 5' 11", I think 5' 10" is the original size they put out-- Q: And he had acne. P: Pock-marked skin, fairly stocky. Well, McVeigh, of course, is about 6' 3", skinny as a rake, 160 pounds, baby faced. It wasn't him. But I can tell you something, I'm not sure if this has come out, but McVeigh was sitting in a McDonalds in Junction City at the time. He's on camera, because they had surveillance cameras, and he was sitting there eating a hamburger. The person who was renting the truck was wearing camouflage fatigues. McVeigh was there in civilian clothes at exactly the same. Q: So, what was McVeigh's role in all this? P: McVeigh was waiting for them to pick up the truck and then they were going to come and join him at the McDonalds and pick him up. But HIS DEFENSE TEAM HAVE GOT THAT FOOTAGE [*Caps used for emphasis, mine] -- the surveillance footage from the McDonalds. Q: Oh, they do? P: Yeah. Q: O.K. Because I understand that there's been SOME surveillance footage that shows John Doe II that's been confiscated be the FBI. P: Well, I don't know about that. What is clear--to me, anyway--is that McVeigh didn't go into the Ryder truck rental office. If he did, I certainly don't think that the government can establish that in any clarity because the original witness statements--now, one of the clerks at the truck rental office, Tom Kessinger, is now saying that he's convinced that it was McVeigh. This is after even monks in the back of the Himalayas know what McVeigh looks like because his photo has already been published. Q: Well, Kessinger was the witness for the government who couldn't recognize McVeigh in the beginning, but now he knows what McVeigh is, right? P: Well, Kessinger has changed his story so many times that he's discredited as a witness. For example, he said that there was a John Doe II who came in and was absolutely convinced about it, and now he's saying that there wasn't a John Doe II, that he was all mistaken, that it was this Army soldier, Tod Bunting, who came in on a different day. Well, the problem with that is, (a) he can't just say this two years later. When his mind was fresh, he was quite clear about it. There was a John Doe II who came in with the person who rented the truck. And (b) he's told a number of people including Glenn Wilburn that the whole thing was a joke, and the government came up with this idea that there wasn't a John Doe II, that it was this soldier. He laughed about it. He ridiculed it and said, "I don't know how they came up with THAT one." Q: Well, it's clear from watching Bunting on TV that he had no idea where he was or why he was THERE! P: He has nothing to do with it. They're desperately resorting to some way to kill off this question of John Doe II. We KNOW who John Doe II is, and we know who the other members of the group are. It's absolutely clear at this point. Q: O.K., well, I know I've got to wrap this up because you don't want to stay any longer than 8:30 a.m. I know you've got things to do. So, where are we now with this case and what are the ramifications for the future of what we discovered. P: Well, at this point, there's no doubt in my mind that it was a penetrated operation. They had some degree of prior knowledge. The question we must determine is whether it was MORE than that. Was it a full-blown sting operation? Andreas Strassmeir was clearly not just observing this from the edges. He was INVOLVED in it. He cased the joint. According to Carol Howe, he was deeply involved in developing and pushing the bombing conspiracy. In which case, who was he DOING it for? He's a former Germany Army officer. He had intelligence training. He told ME that he came to the United States with the intention of working undercover for the Justice Department, and here he is going in and casing the building before it was blown up. So who was he working for? Q: Well, we're told that he came to work for the Justice Department and then the job fell through. P: Well, he said that it was rather an idea he had and he wanted to work for the DEA doing undercover work penetrating cocaine cartels. Q: Yeah, the question is, DID the job fall through or was he acting on the government's behalf in the bombing of this building. It's a terrible conclusion to come to. P: Well, the Wilburn's now feel--they've named him in a civil suit as a co-conspirator with Tim McVeigh--and what they now believe is that he was a full-scale provocateur. Now, if that's true, if the government provoked this bombing and then bungled it at the last moment when they were trying to stop it, that's an INCREDIBLE scandal! We're talking about something far worse than simply having known a bit and then botched it. We're talking about them having put this group up to the bombing in first place. Q: Well, this is almost like the World Trade Center. P: Oh, it's worse, far worse! Q: Incredible... just incredible! P: This is what we have to determine: What was Andreas Strassmeir's role and who was he working for? What did he do? Q: Well, I would suggest to you that Andreas Strassmeir better watch his back. P: Well, he's gone underground. Ever since Carol Howe, this informant, came forward he's disappeared. He won't talk to anybody. He's in Berlin at his parents' house, but he refuses to -- up to now he's been reasonably cooperative, but he realizes now that the cat's out of the bag. He's now going to have to decide what to do. Either he's going to be considered a bomber, or he's going to be considered an undercover agent who did his best to stop this thing and then was let down when they somehow let the bomb through. Q: So, one way or the other, either the government knew about it and blew a sting, or actually had an agent provocateur who precipitated this event in the first place. P: I thought for a long time they had some informant inside this thing and some knowledge, but probably not very precise knowledge. The more we're learning about the role of Strassmeir, I think it goes beyond that. And there's also the question of why they haven't arrested some of the other people mentioned. The informant told them that John Doe II was Michael Brescia two days after the bombing. They didn't even go and talk to him. By the way, McVeigh's former girlfriend also said that she thought that John Doe II was Michael Brescia. And they never interviewed the guy. They conducted 21,000 witness interviews, and they don't interview the person two important witnesses identify as John Doe II. Q: As a matter of fact, they won't even return their phone calls. They don't want to KNOW about it. P: I mean, are they trying to protect the man? Q: And, if so, why? P: And, if so, why? Right. I mean there's SO many questions here. I think it's a huge scandal. Q: Well, let me ask you this. Do you think at some point the government's going to just drop this case so it doesn't have to be heard in court. I mean, look what they're risking by allowing this to be heard in court. Of course, Judge Match is an old FBI guy. He might rule that certain evidence is not admissible. P: I don't know. He was very angry with the prosecution last week. They denied that the ATF had any reports from an informant, and lo and behold, it comes out that they do. He was furious! He told one of the prosecutors, "You lie to me one more time and you'll be off this case!" And demanded that everything be handed over to the defense team. McVeigh's defense team have now got copies of these monthly reports the informant Carol Howe wrote. I don't know. I don't know what the government's going to do. They've got a fantastic mess on their hands. They've boxed themselves into a corner. Q: So, you're not ready to make any predictions as to how this is all going to play out? P: Well, I hope that McVeigh doesn't have an accident in the next couple of days. Q: Yeah, that'd pretty much close it right down, wouldn't it? P: It certainly would make it more difficult, yeah. Q: Make it very tidy. P: Well, you see, one of the members of the group, the Aryan Republican Army, was found hanged in his cell. He was on trial for bank robbery for funding terrorist activities. Q: Where was this? P: Well, that was last year. In Columbus, Ohio, you've got some of them on trial for bank robberies-- Q: Uh huh. P: For 22 bank robberies in the Midwest. It's my belief that they were basically funding the Aryan Republican Army's terrorist activities which included the bombing of the building. Four of them were arrested. One of them committed suicide in his cell after he did the plea agreement. Q: AFTER he pleaded--oh, good! [laughs] P: He was found hanged by a sheet from an air vent. Q: Another "Arkancide". P: Another "Arkancide", and the fifth one, Michael Brescia, same guy, was picked up a couple of weeks ago in Philadelphia for the bank robberies. But they still haven't got around to talking to him about the bombing. [he laughs] Q: Yeah, it's interesting--NBC, when they first broke the story about Brescia being arrested, they said, "And there might--there MIGHT--be a connection to the Oklahoma bombing." Boy, did they back off of that! I haven't heard ANYTHING about that since from NBC and from Tom "Broke-jaw". Well, you know what? We're fresh out of time, Ambrose. I want to thank you for cutting loose some time to talk to us this morning. I'm looking forward to the day when you can come back to Pittsburgh-- P: Right. Q: --and address a whole bunch of us. It was fun having you here. P: Well, thanks. Q: And, let us know what's going on. You are the only guy who's out there REALLY digging on this. And I just find it interesting that Mr. McVeigh's attorney said that, "Once America learns about what really went on, they'll never think about their government the same way again." P: Yes. Q: Ambrose, thank you again. Have a good day. P: Good-bye. - 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: Lew Glendenning Subject: Gangs of gonad clutchers Date: 15 Feb 1997 04:44:28 -0900 Reading about the OKC bombing, knowing that the FBI did the same "agent provacateur bombs building, brilliant detective work leads to bomb conspiracy by devils" in the WTC case, I keep wondering about how things really work now. Clearly, our civics lessons re: two-parties in opposition, separate judicial, legislative and executive branches, and a free press are out of date. Congress doesn't WANT to oversee any of these issues, nor investigate reality, merely generate publicity. The FBI is completely politicized, the Justice dept nearly so, the BATF a bunch of lethal clowns with a penchant for publicity-via-explosions-and-blood. Our federal prosecutors routinely lie to federal judges. Maybe 4 newspapers in the US actually do investigative reporting of federal gov. Yet, "silent coup" is too strong. Justice can keep ABC from airing a story on FBI and BATF conplicity in a coverup, but not NBC nor talk radio. Nobody has been killed among the reporters, yet. So, not a centralized, strong-man leadership, not a completely corrupt group of people in Congress, Judiciary, Executive. But way more than a few bad eggs, so many that they have the power to cow most of the rest. You have to conclude that various agencies and officials have a lot of compromising information on damn near everyone, including each other. "Mutual gonad clutchers" perhaps describes the situation. I suggest once again, the Libertarian Party. Republicans are part of this mess, and are doing nothing substantitive to fix it. Their lead guy is trying hard to destroy the Democrats via investigating finance reform, but this is clearly not the major issue facing us. Chinese espionage of Commerce trade info is bad, but corruption in Justic/FBI/BATF and Reichstag fires are a whole different level of problem. Lew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Interesting Date: 15 Feb 1997 09:30:56 -0600 Ever now and then one of "them" slips up and explains what the problem is. [Image] [Image] [Ima[Home Page, Site Index, Search, Help] Former GOP Official Warns of Rightward Lean By Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, February 15 1997; Page A08 The Washington Post The former finance chairman of the Republican Party, in a bluntly worded letter to major contributors, warned this week that the party's future "is in jeopardy" because of the influence of the Christian Coalition and the "far right" and suggested big donors shift their money to a new organization that will promote a moderate agenda for the GOP. The letter by John A. Moran, who also served as Robert J. Dole's finance chairman, called the election of Jim Nicholson as Republican National Committee chairman a sign of the Christian Coalition's growing dominance and said the current trend within the party will make it virtually impossible for the GOP to recapture the White House. "The Republican Party seems to keep digging a deeper hole among American women," Moran wrote in the Feb. 10 letter. "Bill Clinton was reelected by the female vote in this country. . . . Unless we bring back women and moderates to the Republican Party, it will be a long time before we again see a Republican president." "I'm surprised and I'm disappointed that John would send out a letter like this," Nicholson said yesterday, saying that his goal as chairman is to "expand this party" by enlarging its coalition. Moran's letter reflects an increasingly public argument between the GOP conservatives and moderates over the direction of the party after Dole's defeat in last November's presidential election. One Republican who had seen the letter described it as "a huge shot across the bow" of Nicholson and the party's conservatives. Clinton's overwhelming advantage among women voters last November, along with GOP losses in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest, have alarmed party moderates, whose influence has declined in direct proportion to Republican gains in the South and West. Moran's letter reportedly was sent to many of the RNC's Team 100 members, who contribute $175,000 each over a four-year period, and to some members of the Republican Eagles, who donate $15,000 annually. It comes on the eve of a Team 100 meeting beginning Wednesday in Palm Beach, where Nicholson will outline his agenda. In the letter, Moran, who supported former New Hampshire governor Steve Merrill for RNC chairman, complained that Nicholson's election reflects the growing influence of the Christian Coalition and other "far-right" organizations and represents a "troubling" trend within the party. "Jim is a very pleasant fellow," Moran wrote, "and has been an active Republican for many years. Those of us who have discussed his election, however, feel that he will now be beholden to the far right for their support. Ralph Reed [Christian Coalition executive director] is actually taking credit for Jim's election." Nicholson, who opposes abortion, noted that Merrill also campaigned "as a pro-life conservative," and an RNC official pointed to comments from Reed late last year indicating coalition members looked favorably on Merrill and California Republican chairman John Herrington. Some Christian Coalition allies on the committee shifted to Texas GOP chairman Tom Pauken when he joined the race. On the day of the balloting, Nicholson became the compromise choice, as others dropped out. Reed said that while religious conservatives "played a pivotal role" in Nicholson's election, their votes "hardly constituted a majority" of what he received. He warned against devaluing moral issues: "If those who contribute to the party can drive particular segments of a winning coalition out of the party, that's a recipe for disaster." Mel Sembler, Nicholson's choice as RNC finance chairman, said he was "distressed" over Moran's letter and blamed it on his friend's disappointment at seeing Merrill and Dole lose their elections. "He thought he could bulldoze [Merrill] through just like he thought he could bulldoze Bob Dole through," Sembler said. "I talked to him the other day and suggested to him that he take some time off." Moran argued that the agenda of Christian conservatives runs counter to that of the moderates, who he said make up the party's fund-raising base. "I am distressed when I think about the continued financial support we moderates provide the Republican National Committee, when I know as most of you also know the funds that we are either donating or raising are going to be directed toward a political agenda that we do not subscribe to," he wrote. Sembler responded, "We're a very diverse party, although the press seems to want to paint us as captive of one part of the coalition." Moran urged fellow contributors to consider giving money to a new entity that will promote moderate candidates and ideas, saying the "financial firepower" of Team 100 and the Eagles could create "a formidable political base" to advance a moderate agenda. He encouraged them to offer "concrete suggestions" about the direction in which "we should be moving." © Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company Back to the top [Image] [Home Page, Site Index, Search, Help] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Interesting Date: 15 Feb 1997 08:29:24 PST roc@xmission.com wrote : >Ever now and then one of "them" slips up and explains what the problem >is. > Amazingly! It skips over the significant concept of how much less money needs to be raised when the agenda is in tune with the voters instead of the contributors Jack > > > >[Image] [Image] > [Ima[Home Page, Site Index, Search, Help] >-------------------------------------------------------------------------= >--- > Former GOP Official Warns of Rightward Lean > > By Dan Balz > Washington Post Staff Writer > Saturday, February 15 1997; Page A08 > The Washington Post > > The former finance chairman of the Republican Party, in a > bluntly worded letter to major contributors, warned this >week > that the party's future "is in jeopardy" because of the > influence of the Christian Coalition and the "far right" >and > suggested big donors shift their money to a new >organization > that will promote a moderate agenda for the GOP. > > The letter by John A. Moran, who also served as Robert J. > Dole's finance chairman, called the election of Jim >Nicholson > as Republican National Committee chairman a sign of the > Christian Coalition's growing dominance and said the >current > trend within the party will make it virtually impossible >for > the GOP to recapture the White House. > > "The Republican Party seems to keep digging a deeper hole >among > American women," Moran wrote in the Feb. 10 letter. "Bill > Clinton was reelected by the female vote in this country. . >. . > Unless we bring back women and moderates to the Republican > Party, it will be a long time before we again see a >Republican > president." > > "I'm surprised and I'm disappointed that John would send >out a > letter like this," Nicholson said yesterday, saying that >his > goal as chairman is to "expand this party" by enlarging its > coalition. > > Moran's letter reflects an increasingly public argument >between > the GOP conservatives and moderates over the direction of >the > party after Dole's defeat in last November's presidential > election. One Republican who had seen the letter described >it > as "a huge shot across the bow" of Nicholson and the >party's > conservatives. > > Clinton's overwhelming advantage among women voters last > November, along with GOP losses in the Northeast and parts >of > the Midwest, have alarmed party moderates, whose influence >has > declined in direct proportion to Republican gains in the >South > and West. > > Moran's letter reportedly was sent to many of the RNC's >Team > 100 members, who contribute $175,000 each over a four-year > period, and to some members of the Republican Eagles, who > donate $15,000 annually. It comes on the eve of a Team 100 > meeting beginning Wednesday in Palm Beach, where Nicholson >will > outline his agenda. > > In the letter, Moran, who supported former New Hampshire > governor Steve Merrill for RNC chairman, complained that > Nicholson's election reflects the growing influence of the > Christian Coalition and other "far-right" organizations and > represents a "troubling" trend within the party. > > "Jim is a very pleasant fellow," Moran wrote, "and has been >an > active Republican for many years. Those of us who have > discussed his election, however, feel that he will now be > beholden to the far right for their support. Ralph Reed > [Christian Coalition executive director] is actually taking > credit for Jim's election." > > Nicholson, who opposes abortion, noted that Merrill also > campaigned "as a pro-life conservative," and an RNC >official > pointed to comments from Reed late last year indicating > coalition members looked favorably on Merrill and >California > Republican chairman John Herrington. > > Some Christian Coalition allies on the committee shifted to > Texas GOP chairman Tom Pauken when he joined the race. On >the > day of the balloting, Nicholson became the compromise >choice, > as others dropped out. > > Reed said that while religious conservatives "played a >pivotal > role" in Nicholson's election, their votes "hardly >constituted > a majority" of what he received. He warned against >devaluing > moral issues: "If those who contribute to the party can >drive > particular segments of a winning coalition out of the >party, > that's a recipe for disaster." > > Mel Sembler, Nicholson's choice as RNC finance chairman, >said > he was "distressed" over Moran's letter and blamed it on >his > friend's disappointment at seeing Merrill and Dole lose >their > elections. "He thought he could bulldoze [Merrill] through >just > like he thought he could bulldoze Bob Dole through," >Sembler > said. "I talked to him the other day and suggested to him >that > he take some time off." > > Moran argued that the agenda of Christian conservatives >runs > counter to that of the moderates, who he said make up the > party's fund-raising base. "I am distressed when I think >about > the continued financial support we moderates provide the > Republican National Committee, when I know as most of you >also > know the funds that we are either donating or raising are >going > to be directed toward a political agenda that we do not > subscribe to," he wrote. > > Sembler responded, "We're a very diverse party, although >the > press seems to want to paint us as captive of one part of >the > coalition." > > Moran urged fellow contributors to consider giving money to >a > new entity that will promote moderate candidates and ideas, > saying the "financial firepower" of Team 100 and the Eagles > could create "a formidable political base" to advance a > moderate agenda. He encouraged them to offer "concrete > suggestions" about the direction in which "we should be > moving." > > =A9 Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company > > Back to the top >-------------------------------------------------------------------------= >--- >[Image] >[Home Page, Site Index, Search, Help] > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: NYT re wiretaps Date: 15 Feb 1997 14:03:48 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The New York Times, February 15, 1997, pp. 32, 38. Dispute Arises Over Proposal For Wiretaps Phone Companies Balk At Latest Plan by F.B.I. By John Markoff San Francisco, Feb. 14 -- An old quarrel about the F.B.I.'s plan to modernize its system for eavesdropping on telephone conversations has flared anew. After a contentious meeting earlier this week with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, telephone companies and industry associations are arguing that the new system will be far more intrusive and expensive than the industry had first thought. They said it would give law-enforcement officials sweeping new power to monitor tens of thousands of conversations and data transmissions simultaneously in a metropolitan area. They said, for example, that the bureau's plan would enable the law enforcement authorities in Los Angeles County to expand their surveillance capabilities a hundred-fold beyond their current capacity of 1,360 simultaneous wiretaps. "This is kind of scary," said Tom Wheeler, president of the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, a trade group. "What does the F.B.I. know about our future that we don't?" [...] Based on the latest F.B.I. plan, Mr. Wheeler said, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association calculated that the bureau's historical data [3] had shown that the highest number of simultaneous cellular phone taps ever conducted in the nation by local, state and Federal law-enforcement agencies was 6,070. But the F.B.I. is now proposing that the cellular industry give law-enforcement agencies the ability to monitor 103,190 calls simultaneously nationwide. Privacy concerns notwithstanding, industry executives contend that such surveillance capacity would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and they complain that the F.B.I. is calling for communications companies or their customers to pay the bill. With telecommunications on the brink of a new round of competition in the cellular and local markets, industry officials fear such costs will stifle initiative. "The numbers alone are astounding," said Al Gudari, a lawyer in Seattle, who represents AT&T Wireless Services Inc. "But when you add to that the F.B.I.'s notion that carriers and new entrants to markets must pay for it, the situation becomes even more amazing." Mr. Kallstrom said the bureau was open to working with the industry. "There are no tricks here," he said. "We are willing to work with industry to sort these things out." [End] 1. Latest wiretap plan: http://jya.com/fbi011497.txt 2. First wiretap plan: http://jya.com/fbi051096.txt 3. Tables showing court ordered surveillance 1984-1994: http://jya.com/nrcd1.jpg (1994 only) http://jya.com/nrcd2.jpg (1984-1994) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Fosness Subject: Re: Interesting Date: 15 Feb 1997 13:23:24 -0700 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Former GOP Official Warns of Rightward Lean > (snip) > "The Republican Party seems to keep digging a deeper hole among > American women," Moran wrote in the Feb. 10 letter. "Bill > Clinton was reelected by the female vote in this country. . >. . > Unless we bring back women and moderates to the Republican > Party, it will be a long time before we again see a Republican > president." Compromising to "bring back women" is not, and will not be the answer. IMNSHO, the fundamental point is to working on changes the minds of the women, rather than giving in to some of their mistaken beliefs (ie, the idea of the state as a surrogate husband/father). When women really grasp the concept of self-sufficiency (which is the alleged agenda of feminists) they'll come across. Of course, I may never live to see it......... (snip) > Clinton's overwhelming advantage among women voters last > November, along with GOP losses in the Northeast and parts of > the Midwest, have alarmed party moderates, whose influence has > declined in direct proportion to Republican gains in the South > and West. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: "Burning Money: The Waste of Your Tax Dollars" Date: 15 Feb 1997 18:45:38 -0800 "What does it mean? The end of freedom as we, our parents, and our grandparents have known it -- freedom we've fought wars to protect, we're now throwing away because we tolerate the insidious erosion of our liberties by the uncontrolled growth in government: growth fueled by the empty promises of politicians, the consequences of which we will have to explain to our children. Remember, economic freedom and political freedom are irrevocably linked -- you can't have one without the other." ["Burning Money: The Waste of Your Tax Dollars,"] [J. Peter Grace, Chairman of the President's] [Private Sector Survey on Cost Control] ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0 on Intel 80586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: April 19, 1997 Date: 15 Feb 1997 18:52:55 -0800 I'm getting more concerned by the day; something's up. Here's what I know so far: it's been reported that Clinton has suggested April 19, 1997 as a national "Internet Day," wherein all schools, libraries, etc. would be connected to the Internet at the same time (confirmations of this would be appreciated). Of course, April 19 is the anniversary of Waco, the OKC bombing, and even the battles of Lexington/Concord. We're starting to get the same media hype as we always get for a couple of months before something big and nasty happens; I think we're gonna see the media start to have more & more shows on Terrorism, Racism, Naziism, Militiaism, etc. in the next couple of months. A thing occurs to me, and I know it's occurred to others as well: *why* April 19, way in advance, for a National Internet Day??? Can someone *please* confirm this? Let's say, hypothetically of course, that the Powers That Be decided that they were behind schedule in their plan to implement global socialist government by oh, say, the year 2000. Let's further hypothesize that these elite folks want to declare martial law and get rid of the only folks who are standing in the way of their global plans, i.e. the American patriot community. Let's say the American Patriot community uses the Internet a *lot* and depends upon it for communications nationwide. Have you noticed all the hype lately about nuclear weapons possibly being in the hands of terrorists? Or the same thing re: biological/ chemical weapons? And how the militia/patriot folks are all evil nazi-based racist terrorists? What if those elite Powers That Be intended, hypothetically of course, to set off a small nuke or whatever it might take to finally get martial law declared so they could start eliminating their foes, the evil patriots, and get the show back on the road in time for the year 2000? Lessee, how might they disable the most powerful communications tool those evil patriots have, the Internet? Or maybe they have *other* plans to disable the net on a particular day, but they need something to blame the disablement on, like maybe the fact that millions of people were logged in simultaneously and the net just couldn't take it? And what a coincidence, while the net was down, the evil patriot nazi racist militia set off a nuke? I have a very bad feeling about all this, folks... - 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: iwilsker@ih2000.net Subject: Saturday Night Special article Date: 15 Feb 1997 20:02:44 -0700 (MST) Here is a law review article on the melting point and price debate on "SNS". It is about 180k in length. http://nemo.as.arizona.edu/~swest/economic.html Ira Wilsker iwilsker@ih2000.net http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm OR http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1814/ira.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: April 19, 1997 Date: 15 Feb 1997 20:26:35 PST roc@xmission.com wrote : >I'm getting more concerned by the day; something's up. > >Here's what I know so far: it's been reported that Clinton has >suggested April 19, 1997 as a national "Internet Day," wherein all >schools, libraries, etc. would be connected to the Internet at the >same time (confirmations of this would be appreciated). > >Of course, April 19 is the anniversary of Waco, the OKC bombing, >and even the battles of Lexington/Concord. > >We're starting to get the same media hype as we always get for a >couple of months before something big and nasty happens; I think >we're gonna see the media start to have more & more shows on >Terrorism, Racism, Naziism, Militiaism, etc. in the next couple of >months. Of course they will have to work hard to squeeze them in between all the views of new / heavy / significant war in the mideast > >A thing occurs to me, and I know it's occurred to others as well: >*why* April 19, way in advance, for a National Internet Day??? >Can someone *please* confirm this? > >Let's say, hypothetically of course, that the Powers That Be decided >that they were behind schedule in their plan to implement global >socialist government by oh, say, the year 2000. Let's further >hypothesize that these elite folks want to declare martial >law and get rid of the only folks who are standing in the way of >their global plans, i.e. the American patriot community. Let's >say the American Patriot community uses the Internet a *lot* and >depends upon it for communications nationwide. Sometimes things do not go at all well for these elite folk and their global socialism. The current ECONOMIST is delightful reading ....if one does not like all these elite folk and such. The economy in Germany is collapsing and with it the power of Kohl .....and worse all the cohesion to bring the EMU into existence. One thinks that perhaps that might well amuse the powers that be for a bit. The back of the same issue talks about all the banks in East Asia being head over heels in bad loans .....nearly a trillion dollars all together. Surprisingly the economic miracle of all time: China has nearly as many bad loans in its banks as does Japan. Such a strange contest to want to win. One strongly suspects that the powers that be are suddenly going to have to be very nice to the American Patriot Community .....no matter how much they despise each other. Each day brings war between Israel and Sryia / Egypt much closer and either the powers that be are going to antagonize the world wide jewish community and write Israel off or the US is going to send many tens of thousands of combat troops. However, due to all the sexual harassment nonsense enlistments are collapsing and to make it easy for physically incompetent females standards are collapsing. This is no way to be an imperialistic force: let your infantry go to hell! One could of course as you say declare martial law and start a draft and maybe do away with gender equality and get some infantry that works again but the powers that be are holding this nasty tiger by the tail: A speculative bubble the likes of which has never been seen before. At present the major force keeping the bubble from bursting is a flow of money escaping collapsing economic conditions the world around. I very much do not think that anyone even close to power is going to take a chance on pricking that bubble with martial law ...........and on the other hand if it ever breaks the powers that be will be the enemies of everyone who has lost money ..... that is nearly everyone one. Now, if the powers that be manage to get the economies working in France and Germany over the next 8 to 9 weeks / manage somehow to prevent major war in the mideast / are able to postpone financial collapse in China and Japan then maybe they might like to create some extra trouble in this country. I think you are too close to the trees and should look at the forest for awhile. Jack > >Have you noticed all the hype lately about nuclear weapons possibly >being in the hands of terrorists? Or the same thing re: biological/ >chemical weapons? And how the militia/patriot folks are all >evil nazi-based racist terrorists? > >What if those elite Powers That Be intended, hypothetically of >course, to set off a small nuke or whatever it might take to >finally get martial law declared so they could start eliminating their >foes, the evil patriots, and get the show back on the road in time for >the year 2000? Lessee, how might they disable the most powerful >communications tool those evil patriots have, the Internet? Or >maybe they have *other* plans to disable the net on a particular >day, but they need something to blame the disablement on, like >maybe the fact that millions of people were logged in simultaneously >and the net just couldn't take it? And what a coincidence, while the >net was down, the evil patriot nazi racist militia set off a nuke? > >I have a very bad feeling about all this, folks... > > >- 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- > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Voltaire quote Date: 16 Feb 1997 15:46:03 -0800 >Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:37:24 -0800 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: Voltaire quote > >"The individual who persecutes another because he >is not of the same opinion is nothing less than a >monster." -- Voltaire ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0 on Intel 80586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: OKC - Janet Reno, Whatya Gonna Do Now? Date: 16 Feb 1997 16:42:15 -0800 > SUBJ: OKC > >Secret Pentagon Report on Oklahoma City Bombing--Evidence of an Inside Job? > by J. Orlin Grabbe > > U.S. government attempts to portray Timothy McVeigh as the >"lone bomber" (with assistance from Terry Nichols) in the April 19, >1995, bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City have >completely collapsed with recent revelations of McVeigh's associations >with individuals connected to the Aryan Republican Army,as well as with >a BATF informant and an agent of German military intelligence. > This has lead some to conclude that there has been a U.S. >government (primarily BATF and FBI) cover-up motivated by the >desire to destroy evidence of a "government sting gone bad," much >as with the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. > The secret Pentagon report shows, however, that such a judgment >may be too kind to the agencies concerned. The principal damage to >the Alfred P. Murrah Building was brought about by explosives placed >on five columns of the Murrah Building, according to the Pentagon >report, and not by the ANFO bomb in the truck supposedly driven by >McVeigh. Thus, until the individuals who placed the explosives >on the columns of the Murrah Building are identified, any proposed >explanation of how the bombing came about is woefully inadequate. >The existence of demolition charges placed on some columns >at the third-floor level of the Murrah Building is strongly suggestive >of inside participation by at least some federal employees. > The Pentagon commissioned nine explosive experts to write >independent reports on the bombing, and adopted two of the nine reports >as the "official" report. I spoke to both experts, but they declined >to be interviewed, citing confidentiality agreements with the >Pentagon. Sources familiar with the Pentagon report, >however, have confirmed that the conclusions were similar in >nature to those of a private report prepared by General Benton K. >Partin, dated July 30, 1995, except that the Pentagon report >concludes there were demolition charges placed on five columns, not four >as concluded by General Partin. > Partin's report showed that the pattern of damage to the >Murrah Building was inconsistent with the ANFO truck bomb as a point >source for the explosion, and that the damage sustained by >the columns could not possibly have come from this source. > Explosive pressure drops off approximately with the cube >of the distance. Double the distance, and you reduce the explosive >pressure (pounds per square inch) to one-eighth its original value. > If the 4800 pounds of ammonium nitrate in the Ryder truck bomb >were in a compressed sphere and detonated from the center, it would >have generated a blast wave with an initial pressure of about 500,000 >pounds per square inch. By the time the nearest Murrah Building column >was reached, that pressure would have fallen to about 375 pounds per >square inch. > The rows of columns in the Murrah building can be labeled from >front to back as rows A, B, and C. The rows are about 35 feet apart. >The columns in each row can be labeled from left to right (as seen >by an individual facing the front of the building) as numbers 1 through >11. The third column in the first row would thus be labeled "A3". >The columns are 20 feet apart within each row. > The concrete in the columns had a compressible yield strength of at >least (and probably higher than) 3500 pounds per square inch. Since >this value is almost ten times the strength of the blast wave hitting >the columns from the truck bomb, the blast wave is insufficient >to produce a wave of deformation in the concrete (and thus to >turn it back into its sand, gravel, and clay components). > However, a high detonation velocity contact explosive attached to a >column would have generated pressure of 1 to 1.5 million pounds per >square inch-about 300 times the yield strength of the concrete, >and thus would have pulverized it into sand until the blast wave >front had dropped below the yield strength of the concrete. Left behind >would be a smooth granular surface with protruding steel >reinforcement rods (which have a much higher yield strength). > General Partin's report shows strong evidence of such >contact explosive charges placed on columns B3, A3, A5, and A7. While >the truck bomb itself was insufficient to destroy columns, it was >responsible for ripping out some floors at the second and third floor >levels, Partin concluded. > > The notion of a government-sting gone awry would at best suggest >the idea that BATF or FBI agents planned to arrest McVeigh in a >dramatic flourish of publicity when he pulled up in front of the >Murrah Building in his rented Ryder truck containing the ANFO bomb. >But this story becomes faintly ridiculous when you >consider that demolition charges were placed on five Murrah Building >columns well before McVeigh's arrival. If there was a government >sting in operation, then someone was using their knowledge of the >sting as cover for the actual bombing. Either way, it suggests >an inside job. > Finally, McVeigh was not arrested prior to the bombing. Which >leads one to ask, What government sting? We are basically left >with evidence of government complicity and government cover-up, >but with no evidence of a government sting. Did some government >agency take advantage of the general expectation that something would >happen that day, and, for its own reasons, ensure these fears were >realized? > Prior Knowledge of the Explosion > There are several sources of evidence of a prior expectation >of a bombing to take place on April 19, 1995. > Executed on the day of the Oklahoma bombing was Richard >Wayne Snell for murder of a black Arkansas trooper. Snell had been >involved in a plot to blow up the Murrah Building in 1983. And, >according to Alan Ables, an Arkansas prison official quoted by the >Denver Post, "Snell repeatedly said that there would be a >bombing or explosion the day of his death." The explosion took >place at the Murrah Building, the previous focus of Snell's attention. > Snell's information would appear to have come from Robert >Millar, who was in attendance as Snell's spiritual advisor. Millar >was the founder of Elohim City, a religious commune in Oklahoma >near the border with Arkansas. Timothy McVeigh had made numerous >visits to Elohim City in the weeks before the bombing (see, for >example, William F. Jasper, "More Pieces to the OKC Puzzle," The New >American, June 24, 1996). > A BATF informant named Carol Howe wrote her BATF case officer in >Tulsa that the Elohim City group, or its operational arm the >"Aryan Republican Army", was planning to blow up a building with >a possible date of April 19, 1995 (McCurtain Daily Gazette, >February 11, 1997). Howe said there were three possible targets, >two in Tulsa, and one in Oklahoma City. > (Members of the Aryan Republican Army are currently charged >with bank robberies in Ohio and Pennsylvania. This includes Peter >Langan, on trial in Columbus, Ohio, and Michael Brescia, indicted in >Philadelphia. Witnesses have identified Brescia as "John Doe II", >originally sought by the FBI in the Oklahoma City bombing.) > The BATF says the warnings were too vague to prompt any >actions. Too vague, apparently, to warn security guards at the >Murrah Building, who overlooked all the activity involved in placing >demolition explosives on the building columns. > But not too vague not to warn BATF employees to stay home for the >day. No BATF employee was among the 168 killed in the bombing. - 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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: help Date: 16 Feb 1997 18:06:10 -0800 >Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:05:27 -0800 >To: Charles Stewart >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: Re: help > >I didn't send it. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > >At 04:58 PM 2/16/97 -0800, you wrote: >>Whats this suppose to mean, doofball? >> >>C.S.... >> >> >>On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >>> help >>> >>> ======================================================================== >>> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness >>> email: : Eudora Pro 3.0 on Intel 80586 CPU >>> web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration >>> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best >>> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone >>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this >>> ======================================================================== >>> >> >> >> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0 on Intel 80586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: First the RKBA goes, then... Date: 16 Feb 1997 23:13:48 -0600 This could just as well be the next battle in the war on (some) drugs. --- Electronic Telegraph Monday 17 February 1997 Howard proposes abolishing right to trial by jury By Robert Shrimsley, Chief Political Correspondent=20 A PROPOSAL to take away the automatic right to trial by jury from a range of suspected criminals, including burglars, thieves and some sexual offenders, will be unveiled this week by Michael Howard, the Home Secretary.= =20 The move, which is certain to plunge him into another showdown with the legal establishment, will be one of a series of measures designed to speed up the justice system. The announcement, which is expected on Wednesday, would affect up to 35,000 cases a year where the defendant is given the right to choose trial by jury or a hearing in a magistrates court. The reform, which will be announced as a Government rather than a manifesto measure, comes as Mr Howard is preparing swingeing powers to control very young delinquents by making their parents answerable for them. A Green Paper due in the next few weeks will propose that parents who refuse to control children will face sanctions, including curfews, electronic tagging (see below) and fines. Senior Government sources predict that changing the rules of jury trials will lead to a "significant" fall in their number and savings in court costs and time. There were 89,000 Crown court cases in England and Wales in 1995 at an average cost of =A312,000 each. One concerned a =A32 theft. The proposals that Mr Howard will announce are broadly, though not exactly, in line with those of the 1993 Royal Commission on Justice, chaired by Lord Runciman. These were opposed by senior judges when they were first mooted. Faced with a backlash from leading legal figures, including Lord Taylor of Gosforth, then the Lord Chief Justice, Mr Howard backed away from the proposal, even though he was known to have sympathised with it. He already faces the concerted opposition of the judiciary to his Crime Bill (see below), which seeks minimum sentences for persistent burglars and sex offenders. His proposals to allow the police to break in and bug the homes of crime suspects (see below) and to establish a national register of sex offenders (see below) have also been strongly opposed. He may have concluded that he has nothing to lose by incurring further anger on jury trials. He also believes that the climate of opinion is more favourable to measures that will be portrayed as making life harder for criminals and ensuring that the guilty are punished more rapidly. At present, prosecutions are in three categories: those such as murder or rape which are so serious that they automatically go to a Crown Court; lesser offences always dealt with by magistrates; and those between the two. The "either way" category, as it is known, allows the defendant to choose whether to be tried by magistrates or a jury. Many opt for jury trial under the mistaken belief that it affords a better chance of acquittal. Offences that are categorised as "either way" prosecutions can include some serious crimes, such as indecent assault on a female, unlawful sex with a girl under 16, assault causing actual bodily harm, burglary from a property other than a home, theft, illegal possession of an offensive weapon, and making threats to kill. One factor that determines the category of a case is the likely sentence which would be handed down to the defendant if convicted. Mr Howard will propose that the defendant will have the right to request trial by jury but not a guarantee of it. When defendant and prosecution disagree about where the case should be heard, the suspect will lose his right to insist on a jury trial.=20 The Runciman Commission recommended that instead magistrates would make the decision based on statutory guidelines. The determining factors would include the gravity of the offence, the defendant's record, the complexity of a case and the likely effect on the defendant, including sentence.=20 A criticism of the 1993 plans was that they allowed magistrates to consider the potential damage to a defendant's reputation in deciding whether to grant a jury trial. Judges said this would tilt the balance in favour of middle-class and wealthy defendants with more at stake. Richard Ferguson, QC, then chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said it would "strongly and vigorously" resist curtailment of the right to trial by jury.=20 The 1993 proposals were supported by Barbara Mills, the Director of Public Prosecutions, but provoked widespread condemnation. Lord Taylor led the opposition, saying: "I have already made it clear that I would be totally opposed to the abolition of the right to jury trial in 'either-way' offences."=20 The proposals, thought to have the support of Sir Nicholas Lyell, Attorney General, were drafted by ministers and officials including Mr Howard and David Maclean, the home affairs minister. Government sources stressed that, although the moves were in line with the 1993 recommendations, they were not identical and had been modified and improved. Roger Ede, Secretary of the Law Society's Criminal Law Committee, said it opposed a defendant losing the right to decide where a case involving allegations of dishonesty should be tried. Robert Owen, QC, chairman of the Bar, said of the proposals: "This appears to be yet another encroachment on the rights of defendants which is affecting the fundamental balance of the criminal justice system." =A9 Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1997. Terms & Conditions of reading.= =20 The Second Amendment is the RESET button=20 of the United States Constitution. =20 ---Doug McKay" =20 Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: April 19, 1997 Date: 17 Feb 1997 02:38:02 -0500 (EST) Liberty or Death writes: >>I'm getting more concerned by the day; something's up. Here's what I know so far: it's been reported that Clinton has suggested April 19, 1997 as a national "Internet Day," wherein all schools, libraries, etc. would be connected to the Internet at the same time (confirmations of this would be appreciated). Of course, April 19 is the anniversary of Waco, the OKC bombing, and even the battles of Lexington/Concord.<< snip I don't know if this is tied in but yesterday the NY Times had a big story about hate messages being sent via e-mail on the Internet. Story centered on Asian students at the University of Indiana receiving racially vitriolic e-mail and the difficulty the police had in tracing down the senders. I didn't download the story as it was mostly NY Times PC BS. and blamed the radical right wing (sic). The connection could be made that (they) are setting us up for a fall or are looking for an excuse to place restrictions on e-mail or possible latent tracers injected by police or servers, with or without warrants. Those who read my posts, know I am far removed from a conspiracy theorist, yet this is too coincidental to ignore completely. It do pay to be vigilant. Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Re: NRA Employs Jack Heeled Thugettes Date: 17 Feb 1997 08:02:31 -0600 (CST) I think you are all missing a critical point of the concealed carry laws. Here in Texas when I was a kid, guns were considered just as common and normal as a pickup truck. Most pickups used to have a gun rack with a loaded 30-30 lever action. In fact when the ex-marine went bonkers and was shooting people from the top of the University of Texas tower in Austin he was pinned down by return fire from these same pickup gun owners. Then the gang wars, drive by shootings and Jim Brady changed most peoples minds to think of guns as an evil as bad as booze in the days of prohibition. Even people like my dad who grew up in a small town Bowie Texas where every boy had a single shot 22lr became a supporter of gun control. If the only press for 30 years is negative it starts to get through to people. Here is where the conceal carry movement comes in. In Texas the Liberals predicted carnage and mayhem in the streets, a return to the lawlessness days of the old west. But guess what, it never materialized, now there are thousand of licensed carry people armed all over the place and nothing is happening. This proves to the general public that guns in the hands of well trained honest citizens are not evil. It is positive press and all the license holders will become active supporters and voters of pro-2nd amendment candidates. Paul Watson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Oklahoma City bombing Date: 17 Feb 1997 11:09:44 -0800 TO: Rachelle Chong Federal Communications Commissioner FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell Counselor at Law DATE: February 17, 1997 SUBJECT: Oklahoma City bombing This is an unsolicited request that you take a closer look at important evidence which is now coming forth about the Oklahoma City bombing. You are a communications commissioner, and a graduate of U.C. Berkeley, so I am confident that the technical aspects of what I am about to share with you will be easily within your ability to comprehend. Sound waves travel at a very predictable speed, depending on the ambient air pressure and temperature. A shock wave from an intense blast behaves like any other sound wave -- it propagates outwards in the shape of a sphere, attenuating in proportion to the cube of the distance from the blast origin. If you assume the federal government's allegation about the blast origin (the fertilizer truck), you can then propagate that shock wave outwards, into various structural components of the federal building which was destroyed. The bearing columns are very critical components, because they hold up everything else. Here's the rub: certain columns were completely destroyed, and yet these were measurably a greater distance from the alleged origin of the blast, than several other columns which remained standing after the explosion. Simple science will tell you that it is, therefore, very unlikely (statistically improbable) that such massive destruction could have occurred from a single fertilizer bomb, detonated from a small truck at the front of the building. Another hypothesis is much more worthy of examination, in light of these bearing columns which remained standing, even though they were closer to the alleged blast origin, than others which failed completely, i.e. failed at their base. The fertilizer bomb was a detonator itself, which triggered pressure-sensitive charges which had been drilled into the bearing columns, most probably in the parking basement, most probably of the C-4 plastic variety. A parametric method can be used to compute estimated probabilities for this hypothesis. The blast propagated outwards at a very precise velocity, taking into account the weather data for that particular date and time. The pressure detonators in the column charges had a rated "response" time, i.e. upon detecting a rapid increase in ambient air pressure, the detonators would have a small, but measurable delay before activating. Once activated, these detonators effectively decapitated the columns, right at their bases, causing everything they were bearing to collapse into a heap of rubble, crushing many lives to death. As the larger, secondary explosions propagated their own shock waves outwards, nearby seismic stations picked up distinct rumbles in ground waves. There have been quite a few references to the seismograph readings which show two distinct episodes of shock, a smaller initial one, followed by a larger secondary one. Using elaborate mathematics and a proper computer simulation, this hypothesis can be tested so as to predict the seismograph readings via simulation, and then to compare the simulated results with the actual seismograph results obtained that the fateful moment. The precise delay between the "fertilizer" bomb, and the larger secondary explosions, will carry forward to the seismograph readings, if this hypothesis is correct. Until this kind of analysis is done, and until all the evidence is presented to a lawful grand jury in Oklahoma, I do not believe it is in the public's interest to stifle discussion of such matters as these. It may be in the interests of the federal government to stifle this discussion, particularly if its agents were in any way responsible for the worst act of domestic terrorism this country has ever witnessed. Sooner or later, the truth shall prevail. I say, the sooner the better. The FCC has a preeminent responsibility to the truth, not to encouraging the emergence of a Fourth Reich in this country. Thank you very much for your consideration. Since I do not have the email addresses for the other Federal Communications Commissioners, I would appreciate it very much if you would share a copy of this message to each and every one of them. /s/ Paul Mitchell Counselor at Law copies: Supreme Law School clients, friends, general broadcast lists ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0 on Intel 80586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Clinton's Chinese takeaway (fwd) Date: 17 Feb 1997 10:32:57 -0600 (CST) ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From eplurib@megalinx.net Sun Feb 16 10:38:00 1997 X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Lines: 99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 5012 Clinton's Chinese takeaway By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington CHINA finally replaced the old Soviet Union as the number one enemy last week in the eyes of the US political establishment. If one could date the beginning of the new Cold War, it would be Thursday, February 13, 1996, the day that the Washington Post reported that US counter-intelligence had caught the Chinese embassy plotting to subvert the US political system. The Chinese were overheard discussing plans to funnel money to the Democratic Party before the 1996 elections, an absolute no-no in the hierarchy of Washington sins. It looks as if the avalanche has now begun. A two-month investigation by the cable TV network NET alleges that the Chinese government laundered large donations to the Democratic Party by passing the money through the Lippo Group, an Indonesian financial conglomerate tied into the powerful network of the Chinese diaspora in the Far East. According to the NET report, to be broadcast next week, the Lippo Group has served as a front to assist Beijing in espionage against the United States and to buy influence in Washington. The FBI now has a taskforce of 25 agents investigating the Lippo Group. The prime target is John Huang, the former chief of Lippo's American operations and an emigr=E9 from Taiwan who raised $1.2 million for the Democrats from overseas, which is illegal. This was bad enough, but he also managed to secure a post with a Top Secret clearance at the Commerce Department without being properly vetted. Over a period of 18 months he received 37 intelligence briefings and had access to 15 classified field reports, much of them dealing with China. His telephone records at the Commerce Department show that he was in touch with the Chinese embassy and his colleagues at the Lippo Group. The secret of Huang's success was his friendship with Bill Clinton. This had been cultivated over a long period. The Lippo Group, owned by Mochtar Riady, made a serious investment in Arkansas, and the career of its up-and-coming governor, long before the rest of the world had heard of Little Rock. In 1985 Lippo bailed out the Worthen Bank in Little Rock, shielding the governor from serious political exposure. In 1992 it bailed out Clinton's bid for the presidency, helping to provide an emergency loan of $3.5 million after his campaign ran out of money. Mochtar Riady's son, James, lived in Little Rock in the Eighties during his apprenticeship in American banking, securing personal ties with the Clintons. One of the things that the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee intends to explore this spring is precisely when Lippo entered into partnership with the Chinese regime. According to the NET documentary, Beijing used a proprietary company in Hong Kong called China Resources, a legitimate trading organisation but also suspected to be an intelligence front, to buy shares in the Lippo- owned Hong Kong Chinese Bank in 1992 after a stock issue had flopped. In 1993, after Clinton was elected president, China raised its stake dramatically, paying a 50 per cent premium over the share price. That amounted to a $163 million windfall for the Riady family. Republicans would like to know whether the Lippo Group was just selling a bank, or the promise of access to the Oval Office as well. They also want to know whether John Huang passed on intelligence data. During the 1992 campaign Bill Clinton had castigated George Bush for "coddling dictators" in Beijing. But, once in office, nothing ever came of Clinton's call for a stronger line on human rights. After a lot of bluster the new White House soon adopted the Bush policy of accommodation. In June 1993 it renewed China's Most Favoured Nation trading status. There is no proof so far that the Democratic Party was aware of China's penetration of the Lippo Group when it accepted $4 million in donations from the friends of John Huang. The White House insists that the donations did not influence policy. But was US policy in the Far East put up for sale? At the very least, Bill Clinton is responsible for creating an atmosphere in which the Chinese imagined it possible to buy what they wanted. Had the Chinese kept a low profile and smiled - the Japanese way - they probably could have gained a few more years. Now President Clinton will have to reassure America that he is not on the Chinese payroll. 18 December 1996: Embarrassment for Clintons over legal fund fiasco 22 October 1996: Fresh allegations of illegal funding threaten Clinton=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html Patriot Personals - for Lovers of Liberty & Hearts that need love http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/personal/personal.htm P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787; (614) 836-7650=20 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: musings on parochialism Date: 17 Feb 1997 15:12:56 -0800 Dear America, Email lists can be rather parochial phenomena. Members who find few, if any, to agree with them outside of the Internet, find deep solace in the choirs of uncritical support they get from a few lists, and from the few who contribute regularly to those very small but very mutual admiration societies. The final measure of "agreement" is their willingness to expel any conflicting views, particularly if conflicts arise over "fundamental" matters. Never mind, for example, that one liberty group encourages "democracy" for America, when the supreme Law clearly calls for a Republic instead. Those who would point out such a flaw are put in dire jeopardy by all manner of ad hominem and personal invectives. If that treatment doesn't silence them, forced removal from the email list will surely do the job; never mind that the list was, and remains, open to the public: just enter "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject line. /s/ Paul Mitchell ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0 on Intel 80586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: SLS: Croasmun Report [a change of attitude in federal judges] Date: 17 Feb 1997 12:10:55 -0800 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:07:38 -0800 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: SLS: Croasmun Report [a change of attitude in federal judges] >Bcc: Supreme Law School > >Look for "a change of attitude in federal judges": > >[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] > > >Memorandum > >To: Participants in Conference on Tax Rebellion Movement > >From: Regional Commissioner > Western Region > >Subject: Tax Rebellion in California > > > I am sending you the minutes of our meeting of February 9, >1973, on the Tax Rebellion Movement. These minutes enumerate >action items for the Los Angeles and San Francisco District >Directors and for Regional Office officials. > > I appreciate your past attention to this serious matter and >feel confident that all of us working together can successfully >overcome this challenge to our tax system. > > >/s/ Homer O. Croasmun > >Regional Commissioner > > >Attachment > > > Minutes of February 9, 1973 Conference on > Tax Rebellion Movement in California > > > Participants > >Mr. Croasmun, Regional Director >Mr. Schwartz, Regional Counsel >Mr. Rowe, Regional Inspector >Mr. Kingman, District Director, San Francisco >Mr. Schmidt, District Director, Los Angeles >Mr. McCart, Acting Assistant Regional Commissioner, Intelligence >Mr. Hansen, Chief, Los Angeles >Mr. Howard, Chief, San Francisco >Mr. Monzon, Chief, Enforcement, Regional Office, BATF >Mr. Vargofcak, Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge, San Francisco >Mr. Dvorak, Assistant Regional Inspector >Mr. Pollock, Regional Protective Programs Manager >Mr. Busalacchi, Regional Public Affairs Officer >Mr. Krause, Regional Coordinator, Tax Rebellion Movement > > > Mr. Croasmun opened the conference with a review of the >history of the Tax Rebellion Movement. He stated we should set >up our metes and bounds to achieve our goals; that we do not >have unlimited manpower so we must focus on the total program and >concentrate on the leaders of the movement attacking IRS. > > Mr. Croasmun pointed out that seven months ago we changed >our direction on Tax Rebellion cases from a defensive posture and >have now seized the initiative by infiltration of their >organization so we now know in advance of their plans before they >execute them. This is vital and we must continue to stay >aggressive if we are to enforce the revenue laws and to protect >the Service from attack by tax rebel militants. > > Mr. Croasmun stated that we are not limiting ourselves to >the sanctions in the Revenue Code, but are using all the >available law enforcement machinery whether it be federal, state >or local laws: for example, if a tax rebel leader is violating a >state law by carrying a concealed weapon, we should use state >enforcement to prosecute him; and, if there is a firearms >violation, ATF agents should be alerted. > > Mr. Howard advised that he had been advised by the Detroit >District that since ( ) spoke on the radio in Cleveland, >there had been a flood of General Motors employees submitting >false forms W-4. Mr. Busalacchi stated he had a report that >( ) had been active in Albuquerque. > > Mr. Hansen advised that a ( ) of Ventura County had >attempted to file false forms [sic] W-4; that he is now leading >the Mariposa camp of militants organized by ( ) >the ( ). > > Mr. Vargofcak said the sheriff of Mariposa County had been >checking on the activities of ( ) since May 1972, when >the ( ) bought the Mariposa property from ( ); >that ( ) is a close personal friend of ( ) that >( ) has a state criminal record; that he has three or >four firearms; and that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & >Firearms has a case on ( ). > > Mr. Schmidt pointed out that there are varying degrees of >militancy in the various tax rebellion groups; that in the Los >Angeles District, Taxpayers Anonymous in Orange County, led by >( ) and ( ) is the most militant; and that we >should keep this in mind in deciding our targets. > > Mr. Monzon gave a summary of laws enforced by the bureau of >Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms which could be used on tax rebel >cases. He pointed out it is not a federal violation to carry a >gun unless the person has a felony record; that an automatic >pistol is not an "automatic" gun under the definitions of BATF >unless one pull of the trigger will discharge multiple shots; >that explosives are a federal violation; and, likewise, >"silencers" are a violation. He said he wanted more information >about a report that tax rebels are able to buy silencers in >Phoenix, as this would be a clear violation. > > Mr. Howard advised he has been conferring with state tax >officials who are anxious to cooperate with IRS in the attack on >tax rebels who also do not pay state taxes; often the state can >move quickly to close up a tax rebel's business or revoke his >license; that we should see that the state uses its enforcement >machinery on those cases which are not our targets. > > Mr. Croasmun reported on his discussions with Assistant U. >S. Attorney Couris and Judge Crocker, Fresno, and of their >interest in enforcement of the law in tax rebel cases. Mr. >Hansen commented on the problem of federal judges appearing to be >anti-IRS based on a belief that IRS is "highhanded." Mr. Howard >reported on a change of attitude in federal judges in San >Francisco after he met with a number of them and discussed the >gravity of the Tax Rebellion Movement and the importance of >giving prison sentences as deterrents. > > There was a general discussion of the importance of meeting >with U.S. Attorneys and federal judges to acquaint them with the >full picture of the tax rebellion movement. Mr. Croasmun pointed >out that after his meeting with Mr. Couris and Judge Crocker, >they requested background information on the Movement which was >furnished them. > > Mr. Kingman suggested the possibility of requesting >religious leaders to warn their following against participation >in the movement, pointing to the beneficial effects of Mormon >Church President Lee's message. > > Mr. Howard advised that after his discussion with the >federal judges they said they had not full background information >on some of the defendants to whom they had given light sentences. > > Mr. Schwartz suggested that the Porth-type cases not >prosecuted should at least be considered for fraud penalties or >other civil penalties. > > Mr. Schwartz also advised the district directors that they >should instruct employers who receive false forms W-4 or W-4E >which they know to be false through admission of employee or >knowledge of previous employment that the employer should >disregard the false exemption certificate and withhold on the >basis of zero exemptions or on the basis of a former correct form >W-4. > > There was a general discussion on the problem of detecting >false W-4 or W-4E cases where the taxpayer does not so advise the >government or the employer does not do so; and, particularly so >where the taxpayer completes his action by not filing any form of >1040 at year end, but becomes an "IRS dropout." With the present >limited matching at the Service Centers of the filing index with >prior years' returns, or employers' copies of W-2's with filing >indexes, such cases will probably never be detected. Suggestions >were made that we use all available means to reach employers to >advise them of their responsibility to advise IRS when they >receive a suspected false form W-4 or W-4E. Also, we should use >our liaison contacts with the Tax Executive Institute to get the >message to them of their responsibility in such cases and of >advising employer-clients. Also, we should use trade journals to >reach employers with this message. Also, we should use Circular >E for this purpose. > > Mr. Krause pointed out the importance of close planning on >common targets by the tax rebellion project supervisors of the >Los Angeles and San Francisco districts with planning meetings as >needed. > > > Action Items for District Directors: > > 1. Maintain the initiative in the attack on the tax > rebels. > > 2. Know their plans before they arrive at our door to > execute them. > > 3. Identify the leaders of the Movement and concentrate on > them. > > 4. Have a plan of action in coordination with the Region > rather than hit and miss defensive reactions. > > 5. Continue and step up the infiltration in-depth of the > Movement. > > 6. Use all available federal, state and local laws. > > 7. Use civil penalties on Porth-type cases. > > 8. Wage a campaign to educate U.S. Attorneys and federal > judges with the importance of prison sentences on > cases. > > 9. District Directors to continue to follow up cases of > admitted or known false W-4's or W-4E's to advise > employers of responsibilities in such cases and follow > up to see that proper 1040's are filed at the filing > season. > > 10. Use State taxing agencies willing to cooperate on > enforcement of laws on tax rebels. > > 11. Los Angeles and San Francisco project supervisors to > hold periodic planning meetings on common targets. > > > Action Items for Region: > > 1. Use Tax Executive Institute liaison to inform tax > consultants and their client-employers of their duties > on suspected false exemption cases. > > 2. Consider requesting legislation or an IRS published > ruling to require employers to file with service > centers a copy of amended W-4 or W-4E forms. > > 3. Use Circular E, The employer's Tax Guide on > Withholding, to inform employers of responsibilities on > suspected false exemption cases. > > 4. Use trade journals to reach employers for same purpose. > > > > Supplement 1 (Rev. 3) > RC-W Memorandum 12-24 > > > Regional Objective RC-W4 > > PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE ROLE OF THE > INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE > > > The Service should be acutely aware of its responsibility to >enhance the belief of the American public that Internal Revenue >Service is an effective tax administration body, maintaining the >highest principles of integrity. > > Heads of Office should take positive steps to insure that >appropriate managers are aware of and responsive to concerns and >contacts with professional groups, the communication media and >the taxpaying public. The Service must maintain the capacity to >respond timely and intelligently to concerns or issues raised by >the public. > > > Areas of Consideration > > * Evaluate, appraise and react to the tax mood of the > nation and of local areas. Heads of Office should > impress on all employees the value of effective, > professional tax administration as a counterpoint to > attacks on the self-assessment system. > > * Maintain an effective Public Affairs program designed > to produce pertinent and effective public information > concerning both tax and economic stabilization matters. > > * Recognize the sensitive problems connected with the > organized tax resistance movement. Be aware of the > need for diligent enforcement action against organized > tax protestors who flagrantly violate the tax laws. > > * Heads of Office should be aware of their roles as > public spokesmen in explaining to the general public > and to responsible business and professional groups the > Service's role in the administration of both our tax > system and the economic stabilization program. > > > > Official Use Only > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: musings on parochialism Date: 17 Feb 1997 10:52:50 -0800 Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > > Dear America, > > Email lists can be rather parochial phenomena. [etc. etc.] What would we do without professor Mitchell to share his special insights and walk us through the eternal truths of life regularly. My God, I might have to rely on my own education, experience and judgment. I wonder if Bill (Mother Government) Clinton needs another advisor from the "I know what's best for everyone" school. Have a good one all. You too PAM. Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: musings on parochialism Date: 17 Feb 1997 14:41:40 -0800 You said it, Skip. Don't let me put words in your mouth. Maybe I AM wrong to think that freedom is for everyone. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 10:52 AM 2/17/97 -0800, you wrote: >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> Dear America, >> >> Email lists can be rather parochial phenomena. [etc. etc.] > >What would we do without professor Mitchell to share his special >insights and walk us through the eternal truths of life regularly. >My God, I might have to rely on my own education, experience and >judgment. I wonder if Bill (Mother Government) Clinton needs >another advisor from the "I know what's best for everyone" school. > >Have a good one all. You too PAM. Skip > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: liibulletin -- Court Back in Session, 18 Feb. 1997 (fwd) Date: 18 Feb 1997 08:53:22 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- AN E-BULLETIN LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE -- CORNELL LAW SCHOOL lii@lii.law.cornell.edu SOME IMPROVEMENTS | A QUESTION OR TWO | SUBSCRIBING & STOPPING =============================================================== SOME IMPROVEMENTS AT THE LII WHILE THE COURT'S BEEN IN RECESS =============================================================== The Supreme Court has been in recess and the liibulletin with it. Today the Court will hear oral argument in three cases. In all likelihood it will resume releasing opinions this week and the bulletin will flow again. While the Court has been in recess the LII has completed several changes designed to improve the bulletin and our delivery of Supreme Court decisions via the LII Web site. During the four years the Institute has distributed decisions of the Court it has, until now, relied on the Case Western Reserve ftp site as the source. Beginning with 1997, the LII has contracted for its own direct feed under project Hermes. That step, plus investment in a new server dedicated to the Court, and the development of software to convert decisions as received to highly structured HTML has resulted in a new level of functionality for users of the LII's WWW-based collection of Supreme Court decisions. If you have visited http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ in recent days you have already seen the results. If you haven't, do stop by and inspect the improvements. We have also taken advantage of the Court's recess to upgrade the software that distributes the bulletin. We are optimistic that the new version will improve our batting average in getting issues of the liibulletin to the thousands of subscribers who expect it. And the new direct feed from the Court should speed our getting the bulletin on its way. =============================================================== A QUESTION OR TWO =============================================================== When we launched the liibulletin we created a companion service offering e-mail delivery of decisions, in full text. WWW access was then far less pervasive than it has become. Now that Web browsers and access are widespread and our site offers Court decisions in both HTML and WordPerfect format, we are doubtful that "liideliver" is still needed. If you use it and don't have WWW access we need to hear from you, soon. In addition to having that single focused question, we have countless smaller ones about the layout and tools built into the new Web site. We are eager to hear from bulletin subscribers and Web site users about what they like, but also about what they find puzzling or not yet working as it should. =============================================================== SUBSCRIBING, CHANGING YOUR ADDRESS, OR STOPPING A SUBSCRIPTION =============================================================== Most issues of the bulletin are not burdened with information on how to: subscribe, unsubscribe, or change an e-mail address. Here are those details in a form you may wish to clip and save, for future reference. The subscriptions to the bulletin are maintained by software. With thousands of subscribers we do our best to avoid laying our own hands on the list. Messages subscribing or unsubscribing should be addressed to: listserv@listserv.law.cornell.edu To begin a subscription the message to that address should read subscribe liibulletin followed by your name on the same line To end a subscription the message (sent from the address at which you are subscribed) should read unsubscribe liibulletin To change the address for a subscription one needs simply to unsubscribe from the old address (before losing it) and subscribe from the new one (after acquiring it). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: UN Small Arms Panel Makes Progress/ NRA NGO "Irrelevant". (fwd) Date: 18 Feb 1997 12:48:12 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com The following is taken from the 11 February 1997 issue of BASIC {British American Security Information Council] Reports, No. 56, pp. 4-5. UN Small Arms Panel Makes Progress by Dr. Natalie J. Goldring Diplomats reported significant progress as the United Nations Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms concluded its second formal session in New York on 31 January. Regional workshops and plenary sessions have helped clarify important issues related to the scope of the panel's work and definitions of weapons to be covered in its report. Panel members agree, however, that the toughest tests lie ahead, as the panel seeks consensus on policy recommendations. Members are also concerned that preliminary agreement over issues such as definitions could disappear during debates over other provisions of the panel's report. At the meeting, the panel agreed on the general structure for its report to the Secretary-General, with the first two chapters providing an introduction to the panel's work and an overview of light weapons issues. The three remaining chapters will each address one aspect of the panel's mandate: the types of small arms and light weapons actually being used in conflicts being dealt with by the United Nations; the nature and causes of excessive accumulation and destabilizing transfer of these weapons, including their illicit production and trade; and ways and means to prevent and reduce such accumulations and transfers. (See "UN Experts Panel on Small Arms Faces Obstacles," BASIC Reports #54 for additional information.) Definitions largely resolved The panel has created a draft typology of the small arms and light weapons to be covered in its report, including all weapons, ammunitions, and explosives that are built to military specifications and are being used in conflicts being dealt with by the United Nations. In special circumstances, some non-military weapons that have been used in violent conflict and have been deemed to be destabilizing may also be included. According to a Western representative on the panel, there are still significant questions about the upper limit of the definition of these weapons. The panel has reportedly decided to include all portable weapons, while excluding any weapons that are covered by the UN register of Conventional Arms. However, certain key issues, such as the definition of "portable," remain unresolved. Disagreement over "nature and causes" of excessive transfers Panel members still disagree over the causes of destabilizing transfers of small arms and light weapons. Some panel members interviewed for BASIC Reports emphasized the importance of "root causes," such as socio-economic factors, while others argued that military issues were more relevant. The Sri Lankan representative said that root causes were useful in understanding the factors that drive demand, but described this panel as a "disarmament effort," and said that illicit transfer "is the major issue that is contributing to destabilizing accumulation." While the Colombian representative agreed with his assessment of the importance of dealing with the illicit trade, she emphasized that, "Roots and causes are the starting point to talk about any recommendations and solutions." The Western representatives, concurred, saying "...we have to have the root causes, otherwise the report won't be complete." Recommendations remain contentious According to all of the panel members interviewed by BASIC Reports, it will be difficult to achieve consensus of recommendations. For example, the panel has not yet resolved a dispute over whether the UN Disarmament Commission's guidelines on illicit transfers should be the starting point for its recommendations. In addition, the Western representative said," We can't skew the report to any particular incident in any particular region." The Belgian representative agreed, saying, "The problem we will have to face is also to make general recommendations without specifying one cause in preference with others. We cannot say that the drug problem is the cause everywhere." In interviews, panel members suggested many policy approaches. While some of these recommendations have already been discussed by the panel, there is no consensus on any of these issues. -p. 4- __________________________________________________________________ Recommendations mentioned by panel members included national transparency with respect to the types of weapons in different countries and the weapons that have been captured, as well as stronger border controls and improved training for customs officials. Stressing the importance of strong national legislation, the Colombian representative told BASIC Reports, "We know that if legislation is not strong enough in regard to the arms of a particular country, it is likely that these arms will flow outside the country." Regional options under consideration include regional buy-back programs and using the destruction of weapons in Mali and the proposed regional moratorium on light weapons import, export, and manufacture as a model for other regions. Panel members are interested in regional registers dealing with small arms, but expressed doubts about the feasibility of expanding the global UN Register of Conventional Arms. At the international level, the panel is considering international codes of conduct and an international conference to draw attention to the light weapons issue. NGO controversy continues Controversy over the role of NGOs in the experts' panel's deliberations continued during the recent panel meeting in New York. A representative of the US-based National Rifle Association (NRA), which was granted UN NGO status last fall, demanded to be allowed to brief the panel. Although the request for a briefing was refused, he distributed a paper to several panel members which presented the organization's rationale for involvement in this effort. During the fall 1996 meeting, some panel members seemed intimidated by the NRA's presence; after the January meeting, several panelists dismissed the NRA's relevance to the panel's work. The Colombian representative told BASIC Reports, "It's a national lobby institute -- it's not international." When asked to comment on the NRA paper, the Sri Lankan representative said, "It's irrelevant to our work." The Belgian representative also said he did not think NRA lobbying was having any effect on the panel's deliberations. The Sri Lankan representatives said, "Out mandate is with regard to preventing and reducing excessive and destabilizing accumulations of small arms...The NRA is perhaps overreacting." Regional workshops and next steps As with the regional workshop in South Africa in September 1996, financial constraints prevented many panel members from attending the 16-17 January 1997 regional workshop in El Salvador. Nonetheless, those who attended said the meeting provided useful materials for the panel's report. The Colombian representative said, "They not only talked about the arms that have been there since the Cold War and exacerbated the tensions there. They also talked about the illicit transfer of arms which is taking place right now." Also because of financial constraints, only a few panel members were able to attend a related workshop on light weapons and peacekeeping which was held in Ottawa just after the El Salvador workshop. The expert's panel is scheduled to have a third regional meeting in late May, most likely in Malaysia. Following this workshop, the Japanese government has invited the entire panel to meet in Tokyo from 2628 May. The panel's last formal session is scheduled for July in New York. While the panel is scheduled to report to the Secretary-General shortly after that meeting, one panel member said that the panel might ask for an extension of its charter in order to do more work on policy issues. BASIC -p. 5- -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Incoming!!! Let FEMA be your guide. Date: 20 Feb 1997 00:12:34 -0800 Bill, We are rolling all over the carpeting as we read this one. I have taken the liberty of broadcasting this very VERY widely, hopefully way beyond the outer limits, where the reptilians are assembling their G forces, and hyperspace is flavored like sherbet, on the Yellow Submarine. /s/ I Pobot, the first >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:19:37 -0800 >From: Bill VanMastrigt >To: pmitch@primenet.com, fitzhugh@sonic.net >Cc: bdmmed@dns.ida.net, Pauline.Endecott@SMTPGATE.ANLW.ANL.GOV >Subject: Incoming!!! Let FEMA be your guide. > >Paul, >Have you paid attention to the nonsense being perpetrated in the media >by the purveyors of fear, that life as we know it on this planet is likely to >change abruptly due to the possibility of impacting with an asteroid in the >near future? > >Fear is the weapon of choice when it comes to control of the mind. >Control means the elimination of all intuitive thought processes and the >unquestioned obedience to authority. The mechanism of choice to >effectuate it is the Hegelian dialectic. > >This is the STATE in action, or is it inaction(?). > >In the last couple of months, the idea of such an impact has been gaining >more and more notoriety in the media. All three networks, ABC, CBS and >NBC, have made or are in the process of making made for TV dramas >about it. One network aired such a program the last couple of nights (I >didn't see it). FEMA of course was portrayed as the saving grace, but >only if everyone followed their instructions. > >This whole damn scenario is an insult on my intelligence. The public is >being spoon fed this nonsense in the vain attempt to further float this >nefarious paper money scheme. Scientists are now working (will be >feverishly when the funding is right) on ways to protect us from an >asteroid that may fall on our heads. This will require billions more of this >funny money to circulate, to create more useless jobs and further level >the playing field so that the self-esteem of the mediocre will not be >denied. > >What's going on is pure insanity. And the sheeple fall for it every time. >Who, in their right mind, would so much as entertain such a notion as an >asteroid falling from the sky? Who the hell do these devils think they are? >If one were to impact, I pray it do so on New York and Washington DC, >and perhaps a small bit of it will fall on the California legislature. And if it >fell on my head, oh well, so what. > >Now let's see, shall I purchase a hard hat and wear it whenever I go >outside? Will it be safety tested and approved by OSHA? Surely, it must >not interfere with my peripheral vision, so that I will not miss seeing this >big rock from outer space. This will give me a better chance to escape. >Which way shall I go? To the left? To the right? Forwards or >backwards? Do we have a survival guide on what to do in the event of >an asteroid attack? > >Did I say asteroid? I meant hemoroid. That's what the purveyors of this >claptrap are. > >Bill > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: too cute Date: 18 Feb 1997 22:56:47 -0600 Some of the stuff going on right now is just too cute for words. The big story last week was starr losing four separate mock trials that charged bill/hill with obstruction of justice and perjury. Two in DC, two in Little Rock. Knowledgable pundits hypothicated it as all over. Clinton is saved. Warsaw is free. (que overture, load cannon) I had a dozen calls on the subject from people shedding tears, tearing clothes, wailing 'we've lost.' Get out the ashes and sack cloth, what the hell, it's Lent. Today, Starr shakes his head in dismay. There have been no mock trials. He doesn't know what's going on, screw it, he's going to run the law school at pepperdine. This is the second time the dominant media jumped on a bit of disinformation leaked from Starr's office. The hero at Newsweek, last time, I forget his name. It was bravo du jour for a while. I've said it ten thousand times and I still do not understand one thing. Someone please explain it to me. That Clinton has at least one mole in Starr's staff who's having a lot of fun duping the media, I understand. I don't know if Starr does, but I do. Maybe he wants him there, to see just how tight the presidential spincter can get as evidence piles up. That Clinton is the most adept user of disinformation in the history of the art, I understand. The dons at Oxford taught him well. Burgess, Maclean, Philby and Clinton are their most accomplished students. No problem with that one. What I don't understand is why any of us of the right of center political persuasion, after damning the media for the liars they are a dozen times a day, invariably believe them when they report a story negative to our point of view or negative about one of our members or organizations. They're either liars or they are not. They're not just a little bit pregnant, they're one or the other. There is an old saying that goes: The devil will tell the truth nine times to sneak past one lie. That one lie makes the devil a liar. Substitute the words "dominant media" for the word "devil" in the above adage and you'll understand the deal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Goodbye, Mom. Goodbye. Date: 20 Feb 1997 01:24:12 -0800 ORDERED that all children shall grow up strong and free, laughing and smiling, as they snuggle with parents and friends, beside clear, rushing creeks; ORDERED that each must treat all others as they would treat themselves, with care, love, and respect, as you would a fallen bird with broken wing; ORDERED that the Congress of the United States shall take an obligatory field trip to the local children's hospital, every Tuesday night, to sing happy songs to the children dying of cancer, and drugs, and disease; ORDERED that each will embrace their Mothers for the warmth and life they still give each and every day, knowing that this life is so very short. I miss, you, Mom. You left without saying goodbye. I cry. I cry. /s/ Paul Mitchell ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: musings on parochialism Date: 17 Feb 1997 16:03:55 -0600 Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > > You said it, Skip. > > Don't let me put words in your mouth. > > Maybe I AM wrong to think that freedom > is for everyone. Prisons are full of people who bear witness to the fact that freedom is not for everyone. People who do not understand their freedom ends at another's doorstep have a tendency to lose their freedom, then walk around talking to themselves and wondering why. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: HCI Endorses Ban on Hands Date: 19 Feb 1997 10:38:43 -0500 (EST) THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Encouraged by recent Clintonista-driven gun banning crusades and by recent sweeping gun bans enacted in Australia, Canada and Great Britain, HCI spokesperson Nomo Freedumb stated, "If just one child's life can be saved by enacting a ban on American gun owners' hands, will not such a ban be termed successful?" Mr. Freedumb commented on the notable success of hand bans instituted in both the Islamic Attorneys Republic of the Sue Dan and in the neighboring state of the Islamic Peoples Republic of No Womens Lib-Heah. Mr. Freedumb recalled the dramatic public statement of Sue Dan's Ambassador to the United Nations, Wadya Needhandsfaah, who, in a speech delivered to the General (Motors Freedom Shaft) Assembly in NYC, had stated, "Our `Give A Hand To Allah' program which targeted gun owners was an unmitigated success. Sword dealers and sharpeners supported the program right from the start. Drop boxes were provided outside local police stations where gun owners could leave their hands, no questions asked. The only downside to the program is that we no longer can force handless gun owners to attend government rallies to wave and applaud in support of our freedom crushing policies. But that, my fellow diplomats, is a small price to pay for bringing about true public safety." Mr. Freedumb suggested that the Clinton Administration might soon express overt public support for HCI's new "Hand In Hands Across America" program, a bold move endorsed privately by key Clinton aides, by fat cat bureaucrats at HHS and CDC, by the health care industry and by a diverse Mongol horde (Mongols of all colors, religions and national origins) employed at left wing think tanks. Freedumb stated, "Through the future enactment of reasonable legislation designed to deprive gun owners of their hands and to thereby curb the frequency of `gun owner hand violence' in the U.S.A., we expect to be able to make this Country's streets safe once again. This hand banning will be just one more important step in the right direction." Anti-gun surgeons within the AMA have volunteered to perform free amputations at monthly gun club meetings, nationwide. Anti-gun psychologists have offered free counseling to newly handless gun owners who will no longer be able to applaud when their children score goals during school athletic contests. Gun owners who surrender their dominant shooting hand will receive two round trip first class tickets to Beijing, China, where Wee Willie's dinero-donating cuzzins will give free tours of Tiananmen Square and labor camps where political prisoners are held. Gun owners who come forward and surrender both of their hands at a special White House Rose Garden ceremony hosted by HCI Head Cheese Say-Uh Braydee will be allowed to attend a private DNC fund-raising coffee with President Clinton, a special event co-sponsored by Red Chinese arms dealer Wang Jun, by Clinton "best buddy" and probable Red Chinese agent John Huang, and by Little Rock Chinese restaurant owner Charlie "Here's your big payoff, Wee Willie!" Trie. Handless gun owners attending this coffee will be spoon fed by Hillary and caring AmeriCorps volunteers bused in from the suburbs for the occasion. Veteran anti-gun and anti-freedom politician Congressman Chuckles Schoomer stated, "To say that I'm just wild about `Hand in Hands Across America' would be an understatement. Working closely with like-minded freedom-fearing colleagues in the Senate, I am drawing up legislation to mandate the elimination of all pockets on clothing sold in America. Soon, the few gun owners who still have hands will have nowhere to hide them. Additionally, we plan on using millions upon millions of dollars to form a new federal hand control agency: HAND (Hands Are Needless And Dangerous), another vogue and rogue agency whose special response teams will be trained by BATF's best and brightest, ex-"Showtimers" from the Waco raid. Within months, HAND agents will sweep across the nation and will scan crowds at operas, plays and sporting events to insure that all gun owners are handless, unable to applaud, and must signal approval solely by whistling softly. Also, funds will be allocated to support urban `Hand Piece' programs, the goal of which will be to have handless gun owners who have `gotten their minds right' convince fellow recalcitrant gun owners residing within inner cities to peacefully surrender their hands at local police precincts or to drop them off anonymously in prominently marked `Hand Piece' dumpsters located outside NEA and AFL-CIO offices. Teachers will be encouraged to advise their elementary school students to turn in any gun owning parents who still have their hands by dialing a new 1-800-GUN-HAND hotline staffed by unemployed former Clinton political hit men Craig `The Doughboy' Living-Ton and Tony `The File' Mar-Sick-Ya. Folks, if we work together in a bipartisan manner, we will indeed make the U.S.A. a safer place to live for one and all, a place where the term `hands free cell phone operation' will take on new meaning." Clinton Administration spokesperson Miguelito McCurry Powder, when asked about the President's stance on "Hand in Hands Across America", stated, "The President wholepartedly endorses this exciting new initiative. He entrusts his own gun only to the skilled hands of females who are not so equipped. He wants to see handless gun owners crossing his bridge to the 21st century. He wants to meet handless gun owners on common ground. He wants handless gun owners to comprise an important, diverse segment of his vision of a Clintonized America, truly the land of the (hand) free and the home of the (White House) knave. As you know, the President has stated repeatedly that the Founding Fathers never could have envisioned what the hands of law abiding, responsible gun owners would be capable of doing in today's modern, industrial, developed society, and that those wise men of the 1780's, were they alive today, would gladly surrender their own hands to make our society a safer place for soccer mommies everywhere. Finally, the President knows that HAND's job will indeed be a rough, chapping one. Accordingly, he has appointed both Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers to act as special assistants to the director of that agency. In summary, the President has a dream, a dream of a safe nation where gun owners will be judged not by their responsible behavior, but solely by the stumps at the ends of their arms. No, not firearms, arms, as in `body parts', catch my drift? When all gun owners from Maine to Alaska and Hawaii are 100% handless, the President will know that his wholeparted support of HCI's `Hand in Hands Across America' program will have been a worthwhile endeavor." When asked to comment about HCI's latest initiative, disgraced former Clinton advisor and "hooker K-9 corps" member Dick Morris stated, for the record, "Gun owners are a big pain in the President's rear end. They support freedom's preservation unwaveringly and they will not compromise in any way, shape or form. They deserve and will surely get a royal HAND job, soon, Bill Clinton style." THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) NBC IS IN ON THE PROPAGANDA AGAIN Date: 19 Feb 1997 09:00:53 -0800 Forwarded from Linda Thompson; anybody else notice the propaganda starting up again? I have... - Monte >Here's another sudden "inquiry" from the SAME TIRED ASS PROPAGANDA MONGERS, >in the latest flurry of such "inquiries." > >Guess the second string propagandists weren't cutting it. The expert fraud >mongers at NBC have been called in on the act. > >Anybody need any more clues from the clue box? > >This is my reply to the post I received from Steven Shapiro at NBC. >Steven.Shapiro@MSNBC.COM today followed by Shapiro's post. > > > >============================================== >Re: Your "black helicopters" post. > >NBC? > >Owned by GE? The DEFENSE CONTRACTOR? The SAME COMPANY who is able to fly >execs in BLACK HELICOPTERS which are OWNED BY THE MILITARY? Gonna do an >EXPOSE' on their BREAD AND BUTTER? > >Nah, say it isn't so. You people again? > >Isn't it just TOOOOO painfully obvious at this point what finely-tuned >violins of fraud NBC is? Do we need a roadmap? Don't you think this >pattern of advance propaganda before some so-called "terrorist" event in the >U.S. is wearing a little thin? > >What terrorist event is NBC prepping the country for this year? > >Is it JUSTA COINCIDENCE so many in the SAME MEDIA WHO HAVE CONSISTENTLY >COMMITED FRAUD, three years in a row, are doing trash >"conspiracy/patriot/militia" stories about now? > >Sure, sure it is. > >And you just HAPPENED to call me, out of the blue. SURE you did. > >The black helicopters are no secret and have not been for years. If you >intend to do anything but more of NBC's usual BULLSHIT, then go to Ft. >Campbell, Kentucky and visit the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. >Go see the Pratt Museum there. > >See the pictures of the 160th in Somalia. See the training film where they >learn to fire on civilians as a diversion. Then see NBC's footage that LIED >ABOUT AMERICANS BEING "ATTACKED" IN SOMALIA WHEN IT WAS THE 160th WHO FIRED >ON A CROWD OF CIVILIANS IN A FOODLINE -- just as they were "trained" to do. >They're now supposedly "attached" to the "National Guard" (to avoid those >nasty laws against using the MILITARY FOR A POLICE FORCE) so they can be >used on Americans. Hope you enjoy all the sensationlist footage that ought >to give you. > >Don't suppose it occurs to you that this is fascist? > >Talk to Col. John Sheldon at the Pentagon, now in charge of Special >Operations, former head of Task Force 160 (The 160th Special Operations >Aviation Regiment), now in charge of "Special Ops." Yeah, and I'm sure you >don't know about Henry Luce (grandson of TIME founder, Henry Luce) in DIA, >either, right? > >THE 160th SPECIAL OPERATIONS AVIATION REGIMENT: > >THE UNIT THAT PROVIDED THE HELICOPTERS THAT FIRED DOWN ON CHILDREN IN WACO >ON FEBRUARY 28, 1993 THAT YOUR BULLSHIT LYING DOG NETWORK HELPED COVER UP. > >Has the black helicopters. They are tasked to JTF 6 in Florida, among other >places. They have 300. The color black is only significant because it >identifies the unit -- the 160th, the "Nightstalkers," whose motto is "Death >Waits in the Dark." They even have a webpage with their Unit Crest and Unit >Patch: Death, on horseback. > >Talk to Mr. Drug Czar, McCaffrey, former head of Southcom, Special Ops in >Panama about the 160th's role in Panama > >WHERE YOUR BULLSHIT TELEVISION STATION LIED TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT >EVERYTHING DONE THERE AS THESE SO-CALLED "AMERICANS" DECIMATED PANAMA AND >MURDERED HUNDREDS. > > >Talk to Mr. Coffey at the D.C. "ORGANIZED CRIME DRUG ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE" >and have him explain how the FBI got their funding -- which they did not >have to account for -- through OCDTF for "task forces" before the Crime Bill >made it easy for them and how the FBI can create a "task force" out of any >federal "asset," INCLUDING MILITARY (which is illegal as hell, but who >cares, particularly not NBC) and the 160th is the FBI's taxi service. Go to >D.C. Watch the BLACK LITTLE BIRD HELICOPTER LEAVE THE TOP OF THE FBI BUILDING. > >Go to Department of Defense's Webpage. See the part about the "LITTLE BIRD" >helicopter. NOTE IT IS ONLY FLOWN BY THE 160th. > >NOTE THERE IS FOOTAGE OF THE LITTLE BIRD AT WACO. > >Military, being used on American citizens. > >See "America Under Siege." See "Panama Deception." > > >YOU ARE NOTHING BUT THE HANDMAIDENS OF SUBVERSIVE, MURDEROUS DOGS. > >Language isn't strong enough for me to express my contempt for you, your >network, and it's total lack of any semblance of decency or ethics. > > >In the meantime, I know good and well you and your LYING NETWORK HANDLERS >have absolutely no interest in doing anything but ANOTHER piece of >"conspiracy" trash or will attempt to put some stupid-ass "UFO" slant to >whatever garbage you are putting out, in efforts to help prevent the >American public learn that they are being taken over by a FASCIST MILITARY COUP. > >Say, when do you plan to mention the MISSILE WARNING that American civilian >pilots have been given, since the NON-shoot down of TWA flight 800? > >When does NBC plan to mention the FBI's ROLE IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBING? > >When does NBC plan to mention its FRAUD in putting a fake, digitized tape on >TV to attack MY tapes which were TRUE about the MILITARY'S USE OF FLAME >THROWING TANKS AT WACO? > >WHEN IS NBC GOING TO APOLOGIZE FOR LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, TIME AND AGAIN? > > >GO SEE THE WACO WEBPAGE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS MESSAGE. > >Then, kiss my great-big-fascist-hating, God-loving, freedom fighting ass. > > >> >>>---------- >>>From: Shapiro, Steven >>>Sent: Monday, February 17, 1997 10:12 PM >>>To: 'Lindat@iquest.com' >>>Subject: FW: black helicopters >>> >>> >>> >>>---------- >>>From: Shapiro, Steven >>>Sent: Monday, February 17, 1997 10:10 PM >>>To: 'jimlippard@skeptic.com' >>>Subject: FW: black helicopters >>> >>> >>> >>>---------- >>>From: Shapiro, Steven >>>Sent: Monday, February 17, 1997 10:07 PM >>>To: 'jimlippard@msnbc.com' >>>Subject: black helicopters >>> >>>Hi Linda. This is Steve Shapiro from MSNBC (NBC News cable channel) I >>>am researching a report on black helicopters. I would love to talk to >>>you about this project,. Please feel free to email both myself at >>>Steven.Shapiro@MSNBC.COM and/or my colleague Marc Piesanen at >>>Marc.Piesanen@MSNBC.COM. Marc is the producer who will ultimately be >>>putting this piece together. You can also call me at 201-583-5045 or >>>Marc at 201-583-5493. We look forward to hearing from you. >>> >>>Steve Shapiro >>> >>> >>> >> >> >Kind regards, > >Linda Thompson > >******************** V *************************** > DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER >*************************************************** >Dr. Linda Thompson >Attorney at Law >Chairman, American Justice Federation >Internet: lindat@iquest.net > >**************************************************** > Remember Waco. > The Murderers are still free. >**************************************************** >Have you seen this yet? > > http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum > > > - 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: Jack@minerva.com Subject: ever more intrusive government Date: 20 Feb 1997 09:13:36 PST This is really good. And it does not even mention that if a missle brought down TWA800 that no amount of taking the rights of the passengers would have made any difference at all. What better illustration of our evil government: Pushing its own agenda of trashing the constitution instead of responsible government which might explore how to keep missiles from bringing down passenger aircraft Jack A AA AAAA The A-Infos News Service AA AA AA AA INFOSINFOSINFOS http://www.tao.ca/ainfos/ AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAAA I am forwarding this as it raises important issues ******************************************* Subject: Fle 4--Coalition Letter on Privacy and Airline Security A HTML version of this is available at http://www.epic.org/privacy/faa/airline_security_letter.html February 11, 1997 Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. The White House 1600 Pennsylvanpia Ave, NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. Vice President, We are writing to you to express our views on the serious civil liberties issues raised by recent government activities in the name of airline security. These include recent orders issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, and also proposals recommended by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security and the FAA Advisory Aviation Security Advisory Committee. Many of these proposals were developed in the highly-charged atmosphere following the still-unsolved crash of TWA Flight 800 and reflect a misguided rationale that something had to be done, no matter how marginal in value or violative of individual rights. We all feel strongly that air travel must be safe - nobody wants to feel that to set foot on an airplane or an airport is to take a substantial safety risk. However, basic civil liberties protected by the Constitution should not be sacrificed in the name of improving air safety, especially where the potential benefits are questionable. At the airport ticket counter, passengers check their luggage, not their constitutional rights. Identification One area of concern is a secret FAA order issued in August 1995 and apparently revised in October 1995. The FAA order purportedly requires airlines to demand government-issued photo identification from all passengers before they can board an airplane. It remains unclear whether a passenger must provide that identification and what discretion an airline has to allow, or refuse, any passenger to board if they refuse to provide identification or simply do not have any available. Americans are not required to carry government-issued identification documents. Any requirement that passengers show identification raises substantial constitutional questions about violations of the rights to privacy, travel, and due process of law. The Supreme Court has consistently struck down laws that interfere with the constitutional right to travel. The Court has also overturned laws in a variety of circumstances that require an individual to provide identification in the absence of any specific suspicion that a crime has been committed. In addition, it is unclear that requiring passenger boarding an aircraft to identify him or herself actually makes the people with whom they travel any safer. A bomber with a fake ID is just as effective as a bomber with no ID. We urge the FAA to withdraw its directive and to notify airlines that identification should not be requested for security reasons. At a minimum, the FAA should require airlines to post notices telling passengers that they cannot be denied boarding just because they fail or refuse to identify themselves. Computer Databases and Profiling Another major concern involves the proposed increased utilization of the practice of "profiling" passengers to determine whether they pose a security risk and should thus be searched. This would require the collection of personal information on passengers prior to their boarding a plane. Information that may be collected includes a picture or other biometric identifier, address, flying patterns with a particular airline, bill paying at a particular address, criminal records, and other information. This, and information gleaned from observing the persons with whom the passenger was traveling, would be fed into a computer data base that would be used to decide whether the passenger "fits the profile" and should be subjected to heightened security measures. Under this proposal, the checked luggage of people selected by the computer would be scanned by new sophisticated scanning devices. The risks to privacy are enormous and run not only to those who "fit the profile." For this system to be useful, it must apply to every person who might take a flight, i.e., to everybody. A new government dossier on everyone would have to be created, computerized, and made accessible to airline personnel. In addition, for the system to be useful, it would have to be linked to other data bases and constantly updated. Each time a person changes their address or takes another flight, or does anything related to the characteristics about them deemed significant by the profiling system, the government would track it. All of our experience with the creation and updating of such ever-changing data bases teaches us that the likelihood of inaccuracy at any given moment is high.. The FBI, for instance, recognizes that data in its computer system of criminal records has an inaccuracy rate of 33 percent. Such inaccuracy would lead to both a breach of safety and to violations of the rights of innocent people. This proposal is a quick fix that won't fix anything. The proposal also violates a central principle of the Code of Fair Information Practices and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C =A7 552a): information given to the government for one purpose ought not be used for other purposes without the consent of the person to whom it pertains. The use of criminal records in such a data base, particularly where those records include arrests that do not result in convictions, is particularly troubling. Profiling also frequently leads to discriminatory practices. Already, we have received numerous reports of discrimination against individuals and families with children who have been refused entry onto aircraft because their names appeared to be of Middle-Eastern origin. In the well publicized example of security guard Richard Jewel, reports indicated that the FBI profile led the police to unfairly target Mr. Jewel for the incident, even in the absence of other evidence. This incident vividly shows the limitations of basing a law enforcement decision on a profile. We urge the FAA and airlines to discontinue the use of passenger profiling. X-Ray Cameras We also view with concern proposals to install in airports new cameras which can depict highly detailed images of individuals' bodies under their clothes. Existing scanners, the development of which was partially funded by the FAA, already show a revealing and invasive picture of a naked body in high detail and the technology is likely to improve. This is clearly a search under the Fourth Amendment and is far more intrusive than a standard metal screening device. Passengers should not be subject to an "electronic strip search" in order to board an aircraft. To expose travelers' anatomies to the general public or even to selected (not by the victim of the unreasonably intrusive search) strangers is extremely embarrassing and shocking to the conscience. We urge the FAA to reject proposals to use body scanners capable of projecting an image of a person's naked body. Secrecy Much of the key decision-making surrounding these proposals has been shrouded by secrecy. The FAA has claimed that it is exempt from open government laws and has refused to release its directives on profiling and identification. Relevant meetings have been closed to the public or limited to participants who can afford to pay expensive fees. We urge the FAA to publish its directives and open all further decision making open to public scrutiny. Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that these proposals raise grave constitutional issues and are likely to produce only minimally beneficial results to improve airline safety. We urge the FAA and the advisory commissions to focus their efforts on improving security in a balanced and rational manner that is open to public scrutiny and consistent with constitutional rights. Sincerely, Houeida Saad American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Greg Nojeim American Civil Liberties Union Maher Hanania American Federation of Palestine James Lucier, Jr., Director of Economic Research Americans for Tax Reform Aki Namioka, President Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Lori Fena, Executive Director Electronic Frontier Foundation David Banisar, Staff Counsel Electronic Privacy Information Center Ned Stone Friends Committee on National Legislation Judy Clarke, President National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Kit Gage, Washington Representative National Committee Against Repressive Legislation Audrie Krause, Executive Director NetAction Sharisa Alkhateeb North American Council of Muslim Womem Simon Davies, Director General Privacy International Robert Ellis Smith, Publisher Privacy Journal Evan Hendricks, Chairman US Privacy Council and Publisher, The Privacy Times Enver Masud Executive Director The Wisdom Fund John Gilmore Civil Libertarian and co-founder, The Electronic Frontier Foundation ------- David Banisar (Banisar@epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 * PGP Key http://www.epic.org/staff/banisar/key.html =20 ***A-INFOS DISCLAIMER - IMPORTANT PLEASE NOTE*** A-Infos disclaims responsibility for the information in this message. ******** The A-Infos News Service ******** COMMANDS: majordomo@tao.ca REPLIES: a-infos-d@tao.ca HELP: a-infos-org@tao.ca WWW: http://www.tao.ca/ainfos/ Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: correction Date: 20 Feb 1997 19:42:37 -0800 [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] For Immediate Release February 18, 1997 Federal Judge Impeachment Sought Payson, Arizona. The misconduct of an Arizona federal judge in an IRS case last year has led to a formal request that Congress impeach him for over 100 felonies in the course of that one case. Paul Mitchell, Counselor at Law and federal witness, has submitted to Congress a Formal Request to institute impeachment proceedings against United States District Judge John M. Roll, stationed in Tucson, Arizona state. Last spring, Judge Roll was assigned to preside over the enforcement of a federal grand jury subpoena served upon a local retail health food chain, the New Life Health Center Company. The company retained Paul Mitchell to oppose the subpoena. Mitchell responded with a Private Communication and mailed it via Registered U.S. Mail, restricted delivery and return receipt requested, to the foreperson of the federal grand jury. The Private Communication never arrived at its intended destination, however, because Judge Roll conspired with the local Assistant U.S. Attorney, Robert Miskell, to obstruct the correspondence. After tracing the fate of the undelivered registered mail, Mitchell then followed with a Formal Request that the grand jury investigate Judge Roll and AUSA Miskell for probable violations of several federal laws, including obstruction, jury tampering and conspiracy. This request was mailed via Certified U.S. Mail, restricted delivery and return receipt, but it too was obstructed by the same persons. At a subsequent hearing on the matter, Judge Roll admitted to having intercepted the mail, but qualified his admission by saying that he had not opened the mail. AUSA Miskell then announced, on the record, that he had received the mail from the judge, and that he had also opened the mail, only to find that it was a formal request that the federal grand jury investigate possible violations of federal law by Robert Miskell himself. Miskell never did deliver either of the two written communications to their intended destination, the foreperson of the federal grand jury. At that point in the litigation, Paul Mitchell felt it was appropriate to place the foreperson on the Service List for all subsequent pleadings that would be filed in that case. Altogether, some 26 separate pleadings were prepared and filed, several of which contained affidavits and verified material evidence concerning such matters as the defunct Performance Management and Recognition System ("PMRS"), the original Thirteenth Amendment, and the historial evidence proving that the "IRS" is just an alias for the Federal Alcohol Administration, domiciled in Puerto Rico as Trust #62. As expected, Judge Roll obstructed each and every one of the 26 pleadings, in addition to the two original communications, which were mailed to the grand jury foreperson. Paul Mitchell has recently filed a formal complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Roll, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c), charging him with 28 counts of obstructing mail, 28 counts of jury tampering, 28 counts of obstruction of justice, and 28 counts of conspiracy to commit all of the above. # # # ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: CLINTON STATEMENT ON THE DEATH OF DENG XIAOPING Date: 20 Feb 1997 21:05:06 -0600 Forwarded for your entertainment. When Orwell made up the term "doublespeak," he must have been looking at Clinton. <;^) ----- Begin Included Text ----- 220 1167 <97021904.TXT-gov.news.summary.48hours-aab@ZipNews.com> article Path: uunet!in2.uu.net!205.185.79.4!super.zippo.com!zdc!usenet Newsgroups: zipnews.gov.news.summary.48hours Lines: 57 Sender: root@linda.zippo.com Approved: news@zippo.com Message-ID: <97021904.TXT-gov.news.summary.48hours-aab@ZipNews.com> Xref: uunet zipnews.gov.news.summary.48hours:1167 *97021904.TXT TEXT: CLINTON STATEMENT ON THE DEATH OF DENG XIAOPING (Pays tribute to late Chinese senior statesman) (320) Washington -- President Clinton has called the late Deng Xiaoping "an extraordinary leader on the world stage and driving force behind China's decision to normalize relations with the United States." Clinton praised Deng, who died February 19, for spurring "China's historic economic reform program, which greatly improved living standards in China and modernized much of the nation." Following is the text of the President's statement, released during his February 19 visit to Boston: (begin text) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary (Boston, Massachusetts) February 19, 1997 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT On the Death of Deng Xiaoping I was saddened today to learn of the death of Deng Xiaoping, China's senior statesman. Over the past two decades, Mr. Deng was an extraordinary figure on the world stage and the driving force behind China's decision to normalize relations with the United States. His historic visit to our country in 1979 laid the foundation for the rapid expansion of relations and cooperation between China and the United States. Mr. Deng's long life spanned a century of turmoil, tribulation and remarkable change in China. He spurred China's historic economic reform program, which greatly improved living standards in China and modernized much of the nation. China today plays an important role in world affairs in no small part because of Mr. Deng's decision to open his country to the outside world. The continued emergence of China as a great power that is stable politically and open economically, that respects human rights and the rule of law, and that becomes a full partner in building a secure international order, is profoundly in America's interest -- and in the world's interest. I want to convey my personal condolences to China's President Jiang Zemin, to Mr. Deng's widow Zhuo Lin, and to the Chinese people. (end text) NNNN ----- End Included Text ----- _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Partin's letter to Lott Date: 20 Feb 1997 20:18:07 PST Letter from Gen. Partin to U.S. Sen. Trent Lott Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.) 8908 Captains Row Alexandria, Virginia 22308 703-780-7652 July 30, 1995 Sen. Trent Lott United States Senate 487 Senate Russell Office Building Washington, DC 205102403 Dear Sen. Lott: The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level. Weapons Experience: I do not offer such an analytical conclusion lightly. I have spent 25 years in research, design, development, test and management of weapons development. This included: handson work at the Ballistic Research Laboratories; Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory, and ultimately management responsibility for almost every nonnuclear weapon device in the Air Force (at the Air Force System command, Air Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) levels). I was also the first chairman of the OSD joint service Air Munitions Requirements and Development Committee. (A more detailed resume appears at Tab 1.) Observations in Oklahoma City: To verify earlier analysis, I visited Oklahoma City during the last week of June. There I had the opportunity to view hundreds of photographs taken throughout the cleanup operation as the layers of debris were cleared away. The photos present irrefutable evidence that at least four demolition charges were set off at four critical columns of the reinforced concrete structure at the floor level of the third floor. Conclusion: Based on my experience in weapons development and bomb damage analysis, and on my review of all evidence available, I can say, with a high level of confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb. The total incompatibility of this pattern of destruction with a single truck bomb lies in the simple, incontrovertible fact that some of the columns collapsed that should not have collapsed if the damage were caused solely by a truck bomb, and, conversely, some of the columns were left standing that should have collapsed if the damage had been caused solely by the truck bomb. It is my hope and request that, as a Member of Congress, you will support a Congressional investigation to determine the true initiators of this bombing, which could not have occurred the way in which it has been portrayed as having happened. Further, it is requested that you defer action and reserve judgment on socalled antiterrorism legislation that has serious civil liberties implications, and which would not be passed except for the Oklahoma City bombing until the causes of the Oklahoma City disaster are determined by independent investigators. Both the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the Trade Center in New York (See New York Times, October 28, 1993, p. A1) show evidence of a counterterrorism sting gone wrong. No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a counterterrorism sting operation, sabotage or terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency. If an aircraft crashed because of a bomb, or a counterterrorism sting or an FAA Controller error, the FAA would not be permitted to gather and bury the evidence. The National Transportation Safety Board would have been called in to conduct an investigation and where possible every piece of debris would have been collected and arrayed to determine cause of failure. To remove all ambiguity with respect to the use of supplementary demolition charges, the FBI should be required to release the high quality surveillance color TV camera tape of the Murrah building bombing on April 19, 1995. It is my observation that the effort required to bomb the A. P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City pales in comparison with the effort to cover up evidence in Oklahoma and the media's withholding of vital information from the American people. Sincerely yours, Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.) BKP:aw Enclosure Resume of Brig. Gen. Benton R. Partin USAF (Ret.) OKC Bomb Report Index Page Home-Contacts-Top-Matrix-Nebula-Enigma-Dossier Resume of Brig. Gen. Partin USAF (ret.) BENTON R. PARTIN 8908 Captains Row Alexandria, Virginia 22308 (703) 780-7652 Biographical Notes Thirty one years active duty in the Air Force. Progressively responsible executive, scientific and technical assignments directing organizations engaged in research, development, testing, analysis, requirements generation and acquisition management of weapons systems. Assignments from laboratory to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Personal contributions made in the fields of research and development management, weapon system concepts, guided weapons technology, target acquisition aids, focused energy weapons, operations research and joint service harmonization of requirements. Retired as a Brigadier General. White House appointed Special Assistant to the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration. Personally designated to prepare the White Paper on the Federal Aviation Administration for the 1989 Presidential Transition Team. This included development of policy initiatives on FAA/USAF joint use of the Global Positioning System (GPS), operational life for commercial aircraft, antiterrorism, airport and airway capacity, requirements in the FAA acquisition process and FAA leadership and management development. Military Command Pilot and Command Missleman with 4000 hours (37 combat.) Education: B.S. Chemical Engineering; M.S. Aeronautical Engineering; Ph.D. Candidate, Operations Research & Statistics (Academics Completed.) Publications/TV Sino-Soviet Conflict. Competition and cooperation: Risks in Force Structure Planning A Reduced Upper Limit for Sequential Test Truncation Error. Frequent TV Talk Shows on the Voice of Freedom. Honors: Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit thrice, Distinguished Graduate - Air War College Community Affairs: Chairman, United States Defense Committee Member of the Board, In Touch Missions International Member of the Board, Front Line Fellowship Founding Chairman of the School Board, Engleside Christian School Washington Representative for the Association of Christian Schools International (1981-1983) Chairman Fairfax County Republican Party (1982-1986) Lifelong Professional Challenge: Continuing studies and analyses to anticipate and forecast the future course of world military /political/economic transforming processes. Oklahoma City Bomb Report Index Page Home-Contacts-Top-Matrix-Nebula-Enigma-Dossier [Email Reply] New Man Could be Clintons' Nightmare-in-Waiting by John Crudele NEW YORK POST 02-19-97 KENNETH STARR'S plan to leave as Whitewater independent counsel could turn into the White House's worst nightmare. That's because the guy likely to take over -- deputy independent counsel Hickman Ewing -- is a tough-as-nails criminal prosecutor who won't be nearly as politically sensitive as Starr has been. If Ewing had been in charge of the Whitewater probe from the start, Bill Clinton probably wouldn't be in the White House right now, because an array of charges -- including possible allegations of cocaine use and racketeering -- would have surfaced long before last November's election. With his home in Memphis, Tenn., and his office in Little Rock, Ark., Ewing just isn't fazed by the Washington politics that have been keeping Starr at bay. And since few people, even in the media, know his name or influence, Ewing has been able to avoid becoming the lightning rod for criticism. And worse for the White House is that Ewing flat-out thinks Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton are corrupt. I know, because I've discussed the matter with him. And the minute he can prove it, Ewing will be bold enough to bring the First Couple to trial. Remember that it was Ewing who was in charge of last year's trial of Jim and Susan McDougal and former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker. At that trial, Bill Clinton was forced to testify on videotape. "This is very bad for the Democrats," says a source of mine in Arkansas who is very close to Ewing. "Their nightmare is Hick Ewing. If he is the lead prosecutor, this is their WORST nightmare." Starr has been handling the Whitewater investigation for 2 1/2 years, all the time expanding its scope as more evidence of wrongdoing surfaced. Starr's decision to join Pepperdine University in California next August was met with subdued elation by the White House, where anonymous sources were quoted widely as wondering aloud how the probe could continue without his involvement. Starr's answer: Federal prosecutors leave their jobs all the time without their cases being aborted. If you could have gotten him to expound a bit more on the subject, Starr probably would have admitted that it was Ewing, and not he, who was handling all the prosecutions -- and that matters concerning the president are leaving the investigation stage and being readied for a grand jury. The only legal document Starr has written in the Whitewater case came in the unsuccessful effort to have Gov. Tucker's next trial moved up from its current date of mid-September. Most of the grunt work has been coming out of Ewing's Little Rock office. Ewing hasn't been available for comment since Starr's announcement. But it is clear that if Ewing wants the job, as far as Starr is concerned, it is his. He and Starr met yesterday for hours in Ewing's Little Rock office. The meeting started at 9 a.m. and didn't even break for lunch. The two men ordered in. Starr and Ewing also spent a lot of time together last week in Little Rock. One of my sources says the two men met late into the night last Tuesday. At the time, none of us knew what was going on. Now it is clear that Starr was planning his succession strategy. Starr also will be leaving behind a staff of extremely competent associates to help Ewing out. Steve Parker is a homicide investigator who previously worked with Ewing in Memphis, and was recently shifted temporarily from the probe of White House aide Vince Foster's death to the continuing investigation of Webster Hubbell. Then there are newcomers Thomas Dawson, who was recently hired as an associate independent counsel because of his experience prosecuting organized crime, and Solomon Wisenberg, whose expertise is the prosecution of financial crimes. Both are Southerners who have worked with Ewing -- not Starr -- in the past. Ewing's influence has been expanding. Jackie Bennett, an associate independent counsel who worked with Ewing in Arkansas, is scheduled to move to Washington soon to become the second-in-charge at that office. Bennett will probably play second fiddle to Ewing if Ewing gets the top job. "Ewing doesn't care if you are a Republican, Democrat or Independent. If you break the law, he believes you ought to be prosecuted. He's a very fair, but very tough prosecutor," says his friend. Don't believe it? Friends of Ewing are quick to tell the story about how Ewing had been influenced by the failings of his father, Hickman Ewing Sr., who was one of the winingest high-school football coaches in the South but also a corrupt small-time politician. Ewing Sr. went to jail, and that -- friends say -- made the son the toughest anti-corruption prosecutor they know. "He is a most zealous prosecutor," Edgar Gillock, a former state senator who Ewing pursued for 10 years and sent to prison for two, told the Wall Street Journal in a feature on Ewing that ran last summer. "If I were the president of the United States, or anyone else that Mr. Ewing is pursuing, I'd say that you're in great danger, "said Gillock. A panel of three federal judges appointed Starr and the judges will have the final say on his successor. This may not be a bad time for the White House and its attack dog James Carville to pull the newspaper clips on Hickman Ewing Jr. -- and see what they might be up against. Posted here February 19, 1997 Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Clint Eastwood on Waco, etc. (fwd) Date: 21 Feb 1997 08:17:24 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From Playboy via a libertarian party press release.... Carol Moore in D.C., belly of the beastie boys cmoore@capaccess.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 For release: February 18, 1997 For additional information: George Getz, Deputy Director of Communications Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: 76214.3676@CompuServe.com Clint Eastwood announces: I'm a "libertarian" WASHINGTON, DC -- Watch out liberals and conservatives -- Dirty Harry is a libertarian. That's what movie star Clint Eastwood announced this month in Playboy magazine. In an interview in the March issue, the Oscar-winning actor and director candidly affiliated himself with the growing libertarian movement when he was asked: "How would you characterize yourself politically?" The laconic Eastwood answered, "Libertarian" -- and then went on to explain the philosophy in simple terms: "Everyone leaves everyone else alone." He also took a swipe at the Republicans and Democrats, noting that neither of those political parties "seems to have the ability to embrace that sort of thing." "Talk about making my day," said the Libertarian Party's National Director, Perry Willis. "Having Clint Eastwood declare himself a libertarian is better than a fistful of dollars. We hope his announcement will have a sudden impact on the public's awareness of the libertarian philosophy -- and the Libertarian Party, too." However, voters shouldn't expect to see "Dirty Harry For President" bumperstickers appearing soon; Eastwood flatly rejected a career in politics. "Being a politician is about the last thing I'd want to do," he said. "It's a lot of work and a lot of frustration." But if the star of the new movie "Absolute Power" ever changes his mind, Willis says he'd love to sit down and talk to him. "If Mr. Eastwood ever decides to join the Libertarian Party or seek public office on our ticket, we'd be happy to discuss with him how that could advance the cause of liberty in America," he said. "Until that time, however, we're delighted that he's on our side philosophically." The 66-year-old Eastwood has been an increasingly outspoken critic of government abuse in recent months -- echoing the Libertarian Party's criticisms of the federal government's role in the bloodbath at Waco, Texas, and the shooting of Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. In an essay he wrote for the January 12, 1997 issue of Parade Magazine, Eastwood noted: "Abuse of power isn't limited to bad guys in other nations. It happens in our own country if we're not vigilant." For example, he wrote: "At Waco, was there really an urgency to get those people out of the compound at that particular time? Was the press going to make it look heroic for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? At Ruby Ridge, there was one guy in a cabin at the top of the mountain. Was it necessary for federal agents to go up there and shoot a 14-year-old in the back and shoot a woman with a child in her arms? What kind of mentality does that?" And Eastwood displayed a keen cynicism about the lure of political power. "Those in power get jaded, deluded, and seduced by power itself," he wrote. "The hunger for absolute power and, more to the point, the abuse of power, are part of human nature." Eastwood joins a growing number of individuals in the entertainment industry who have identified themselves as libertarians. Included on that list are TV star John Laroquette, humorist Dave Barry, author P.J. O'Rourke, movie actor Russell Means, magician Jillette Penn, author Camille Paglia, TV reporter John Stossell, and comedian Dennis Miller. Since 1954, Eastwood has appeared in dozens of movies and become one of the leading box office draws in the world. His films include "A Fistful of Dollars" (1964), "Dirty Harry" (1971), "Any Which Way You Can" (1980), "In the Line of Fire" (1993), and "The Bridges of Madison County" (1995). His 1992 Western "Unforgiven" earned him Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director. His one foray into politics was as mayor of Carmel, California, from 1986-1988. -- The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008 Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 For subscription changes, please mail to with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) New Book ==> "No More Wacos" Date: 21 Feb 1997 14:29:04 -0800 >No More Wacos by David B. Kopel and Paul H. Blackman. The definitive book >on Waco. Uses the Waco disaster as the starting point for a comprehensive >investigation of the increased militarization, violence, and lawlessness of >federal law enforcement in the 1990s. The book uses a narrative format to >examine the events at Waco. Each chapter focuses on a particular general >topic (e.g., the search warrant, the BATF raid, the April 19 tank assault), >and uses the topic to investigate not only what went wrong at Waco, but >also how Waco is illustrative of general problems with federal law >enforcement. > >While the book is about Waco, dozens of other cases of federal law >enforcement abuse are brought into the discussion, including a lengthy >analysis of the Randy Weaver shooting, as well as many lesser-known cases. >As each problem is presented, the authors propose specific solutions. Over >the course of the book, more than one hundred specific solutions are >presented, ranging from the most comprehensive (banning military >involvement in domestic law enforcement) to the technical (changes in the >kind of statements that may be used in search warrant applications). >The book concludes with a comprehensive chapter of policy analysis which >looks at institutional problems in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and >Firearms; the FBI; other federal agencies; and the national media, and >proposes additional remedies. These remedies include reform of federal >forfeiture laws, and removing federal law enforcement from fields for which >it has no Constitutional authorization. > >The appendix is a comprehensive Federal Law Enforcement Improvement Bill, >which proposes specific statutory language to address each one of solutions >discussed in the book. A second appendix provides the only summary >available of the fifty-one days of negotiations on a day-by-day, >conversation-by-conversation basis. Finally, there is comprehensive >bibliography, which includes discussion and evaluation of various sources. > >The bibliography includes not only the usual types of citations, but also >videos and Internet sites. > >Meticulously documented, with over 2,000 endnotes, No More Wacos is >scrupulously careful to analyze all sides of the argument, and to discuss >conflicting evidence. > >What is the central thesis of the book? Waco did not come about either as a >result of a conspiracy or a fluke. Waco represents the worst-case scenario >of problems that are now pervasive in federal law enforcement, including >militarization, judicial rubberstamping of search warrant applications, >aggressive and unnecessarily violent arrest procedures, indifference to >religious beliefs, and politicized, incompetent media and congressional >investigation of abuses. Four years after the Waco disaster, this is the >book which explains how and why the tragedy occurred, and shows America how >to prevent future such tragedies by putting federal law enforcement back >under the rule of law. > >Why is this book different from all other Waco Books? This is only book >which offers specific solutions for how to prevent another Waco, and how to >fix the general problem of which Waco is the visible tip of a very large >iceberg. Placing the Waco disaster in the context of the increasingly >militaristic, violent, lawless federal law enforcement, the book offers >numerous examples of other federal law enforcement abuses. Every place in >the book where a problem is found, a specific remedy is proposed. The >appendix to the book ncludes a proposed comprehensive federal law >enforcement reform bill, which can set the law enforcement agenda in >Congress for the remainder of the century. > >No More Wacos is better documented than more journalistic accounts; more >balanced than books which refuse to acknowledge David Koresh as anything >worse than an innocent victim; broader than the collections of scholarly >essays concerned with the nature of the Branch Davidians' religious beliefs >and the need for respect for freedom of religion (of course we do address >this important issue, in detail); and less partisan than Republican >evaluations and investigations. > >The authors' backgrounds in law and criminology help them lay out the >evidence in an accessible, methodical manner. Where the evidence is >conflicting, they carefully analyze the pros and cons of each possible >explanation. The careful analysis of both sides of the evidence stands in >marked contrast to almost everything else ever written about Waco, and >makes the book especially valuable for library or academic purposes. > >The book contains the clearest, most thorough explanation of topics such >as: >* why the arrest and search warrant were flawed; >* how ignoring the differences between religious > and ordinary criminal suspects led to a > deadly BATF raid >* how the FBI deceived the Attorney General to > justify an unnecessary and deadly chemical > warfare assault to end the siege on April 19th; >* and how the Congressional investigators and > most of the national media failed to expose > and correct the problems manifested at Waco. > >In contrast to every other Waco book, No more Wacos offers specific >solutions for >every problem identified. As the millennium approaches, there is a very >high risk for more "cult" activity, and more federal confrontations with >unconventional religious >groups. This is the only Waco book which looks forward, and sets forth a >detailed agenda which can ensure that there will never again be a Waco. > >Coming soon to a Lancer near you... > >-- >Jack McPherson >Lancer Militaria >jakmak@inetp.com > > > > > > - 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: Liberty or Death Subject: Georgia Sentencing Date: 21 Feb 1997 15:02:35 -0800 Militiamen Sentenced -------------------- Starr gets 8 years in prison; McCranie, Spain get 6 1/2 years in bomb conspiracy By Eric Velasco The Macon Telegraph Bob and Octavia Starr trembled. The husband and wife stood side-by-side - possibly the last time they would be allowed to do so for at least six years - and begged leniency for the 112th Georgia Militia leader who was convicted in a pipe-bomb conspiracy. Overcome by emotion, they had to take turns reading a statement Octavia Starr had prepared about her 36-year-old husband, who was awaiting sentencing in federal court in Macon. Afterward, she hugged Starr and moaned, "I love you Bobby. I love you. My heart's with you." Starr, an electrical contractor and "major" in the loosely organized 112th Militia, was sentenced Thursday to eight years and one month without parole in federal prison. He will get credit for the time he's served since his April 26 arrest. If he's incarcerated the minimum time - federal defendants must serve at least 85 percent of their sentence - he'll be released in mid-2003. Co-defendants Jimmy McCranie Jr., 30, and Troy Spain, 28, were each sentenced to 6 1/2 years without parole. With credit for good behavior, they can expect to be released in early 2002. The sentences capped an emotional day of testimony in which relatives and friends of the defendants asked U.S. District Judge Duross Fitzpatrick to send the defendants home, saying they were good, honest family men. Supporters of Starr and McCranie also stuck by their convictions that the men were innocent. They said the defendants had been railroaded by an overanxious prosecution and two confidential informants who instigated the militia's interest in pipe bombs. The three men were convicted in November of conspiring to use pipe bombs in a crime of violence and possessing pipe bombs. McCranie admitted making and detonating five experimental pipe bombs, and agents found two caches buried on Starr's property with enough components to make at least 14 more bombs. [note - the BATF informants admitted under oath that they planted the caches without Starr's knowledge or approval] The prosecution contended the militia was arming itself for war with the government. Informants secretly recorded militia meetings in which members discussed trying to obtain weapons for an anticipated "invasion" by United Nations troops and U.S. law agents. They planned a defensive war. The prosecution said the defendants were potentially dangerous terrorists who threatened federal officers. They also claimed the militia members planned an armed confrontation with social workers when Spain was accused falsely of child abuse. But Starr and McCranie were acquitted of threatening a federal officer, and evidence showed Starr and Spain turned tail and fled when they saw law officers on their way to the social workers' office. Starr said he wanted a peaceful political group and was running a sting on the informants, brothers Danny and Kevin Barker. He said he believed they were violent extremists who needed to be weeded out of the group. "I'm not anti-government," Starr said Thursday. "Nobody in our group was anti-government. ... I do dearly love my country. I had no intention of hurting anybody." During the trial, all the defendants claimed the tapes showed a group of big talkers who were capable of little - if any - violent action. Spain was one of the biggest talkers in the group. As head of the Special Operations squad, he weaved unlikely scenarios like robbing drug dealers and National Guard convoys for money and weapons. He also talked about an assassination squad to take out top political leaders after the "invasion." "I did say and do a lot of stupid things," Spain said in a brief statement Thursday. The results could have been much worse. They were acquitted of violating a conspiracy law passed after the Oklahoma City bombing that could have earned them a 30-year prison term. Before trial, they were told to anticipate spending up to 22 years in prison if convicted of all charges. But after looking at the specific circumstances - for and against the defendants - of the crime and convictions, Fitzpatrick was left with a sentencing range. He sentenced each man at the low end of that range. Fitzpatrick said he was moved by the "heart-rending testimony" of the defendants' families and supporters, including McCranie's father and grandfather. But the judge said he couldn't be swayed by the fact that Starr has missed one-fourth of his daughter's life while in pretrial detention or that McCranie has lost custody of his children since his conviction. "The defendants made some extremely unwise decisions in the winter and spring of 1996," Fitzpatrick said. "The court can only conclude the judgment of these good and decent (men) ... was clouded by their unjustified paranoia that made them feel they had to arm themselves against fellow citizens. "We must pay the consequences for the decisions we make, whether the decisions are wise or unwise." - 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: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Smuckwap Newsflash-Mourning Deng Date: 21 Feb 1997 15:24:21 -0800 >Flash- Clinton Declares National Day of Mourning for Deng > >Smuckwap News Service > >Smuckwap Global Scoop Snooper >Edwin Parkernoia-on location at the White House > >Begin Audio - This is Ed Parkernoia reporting from the >capitol in Washington D.C., where, directly behind me, droves >of reporters are quickly donning black armbands being >distributed by Hillary and Chelsea Clinton and Al Gore. > > The reason for this sudden display of collective grief >is an executive order signed by Clinton this afternoon >declaring February 28th a National Day of Mourning for Deng >Xiaio Ping. > > The president's heartfelt grief at the loss of Deng was >apparent as he eulogized China's last "Paramount Leader" for >the press at this just concluded, impromptu press conference. > > "I loved the man," Clinton croaked, wiping a tear from >his eyes as he went on. "He was personally responsible for >helping bring China from a poor, primitive, free republic to >its superpower status today in a barbaric communist >dictatorship. If I only accomplish for America half of what >Deng did for China, I'd still be prouder than Brezhnev was >when I graduated from Moscow U," Clinton said, referring to >his time spent in Moscow as a student of economics, and >glowing letters he received from Leonid Brezhnev. "Besides that," >Clinton yowled, "He owes me $250 grand!" > > Clinton admonished the press during his announcement of >Executive Order 696,969,696 for not showing enough grief for >Deng. "When I was in school, and our leader died, we had to >show more respect. Respect was ingrained then. When a leader >spoke, you listened and you clapped. And you didn't stop >clapping till everyone else did. You NEVER wanted to be the >first one to stop clapping and you never wanted to be the >last one to start clapping." Clinton did not specify if he >was referring to the death of John Kennedy or Nikita Kruschev >or Leonid Brezhnev, or in which school he had had to clap. > > Following the press conference, during which Clinton did >not accept any questions, there was thunderous applause. > > Outlined in Executive Order 696,969,696 are new Federal >guidelines for a suitable display of mourning. While these >guidelines and the entire executive order are classified, the >press was told that severe penalties for violations of these >rules will be applied by an expanded funereal unit of the >FBI. This unit, established by the order, has been the >subject of numerous debates on Capitol Hill previously. > > Lawmakers argue that the Feds are just trying to >federalize the funeral business while federal officials claim >that America must adopt proper displays of mourning so as not >to offend our neighbors in this country or in the global >village. A declassified summary of the order indicates that >schoolchildren will be instructed to sing "We Miss You Deng >and Mao," a recent release by rock group Flatwood Meek. > >At the Capitol-this is Ed Parkernoia reporting for >Smuckwap News Service's Global Scoop Snooper..... > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with >"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) >Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman > - 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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: the problem with the post office Date: 21 Feb 1997 22:49:45 -0800 [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] c/o P. O. Box 6189 San Rafael, California Postal Zone 94903-0189/tdc August 16, 1992 Eileen Casady Mill Valley Post Office 751 E. Blithedale Mill Valley, California Republic Postal Zone 94941-9998/tdc Dear Eileen: Thank you for your interest in our research. Yesterday, you may recall that you asked me about my use of the letters "/tdc" after ZIP codes. I am sorry that the Post Office was too busy for us to discuss it on the spot. I want you to know that I have noticed the cheerful efficiency with which you serve the public at your counter, and do so with remarkable consistency. So, it is with great pleasure that I am now able to return the favor of your kindness and consideration. The problem which I am about to describe to you has its roots in old Europe, where many generations of banking families made a lucrative discovery centuries ago. They found that banks could profit more by loaning huge sums to governments, than by making lots of small loans to individuals like you and me. Governments, of course, are in a unique position to borrow huge sums, and they have the police power to extract repayment from their people. In 1913, our Congress got in bed with these same European banking families and passed legislation which created a private credit monopoly known as the Federal Reserve System. This system is no more federal than Federal Express. Moreover, there is no "Reserve". These banks are privileged to loan money which they don't have, through a special privilege known as "fractional reserve banking". What really happened was that Congress extended to this monopoly the privilege of counterfeiting money. Congress benefits from this monopoly by borrowing huge sums from it every year. You see, for decades now, Congress has been spending much more money than it collects from taxation. It "balances" the budget every year by putting ink on pieces of paper and calling them bonds. These bonds are usually put up for sale in the open bond market. But the federal deficits have become so huge, there are not enough working people like you and me to buy up all of these bonds every year. So, Congress walks across the street to the Federal Reserve, which buys them from Congress by printing ink on pieces of paper and calling them "Federal Reserve Notes". Take a look in your wallet now, and you will see an example of a Federal Reserve Note (or "FRN"). The New York banking establishment refers to these bills as Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Devices (F-R-A-U-D). It is bad enough that this private credit monopoly has been given the privilege to "counterfeit" money. (They call it "credit creation via bookkeeping entries".) What makes the whole scam so intolerable is that the American people get stuck with the interest payments. Congress was forced, in effect, to "lien" on the land and labor of all Americans as collateral for these huge bank loans. Enter the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is really just a collection agency for the Federal Reserve banks. The FED pumps money and credit into the economy, and the IRS sucks it out of the economy, like two pumps, working in tandem. If we had only one pump injecting money into the economy, without a balancing pump to remove it from the economy, the value of our dollar would diminish rapidly as inflation climbed like a sky rocket into the stratosphere. This happened in Germany just prior to World War II, so the bankers learned an important lesson from that grotesque experiment in hyper-inflation. What does all this have to do with ZIP codes, you ask? Well, under American Law never repealed, Congress does not have authority to obtain controlling interest in all Americans, such that it can compel our specific performance to discharge any third-party debt or obligation. Imagine walking into a department store to buy a new toaster, and having the store clerk send the bill to Willie Brown. In this example, you are Congress; the store is the Federal Reserve; and Willie Brown represents the American people (some of the time). Willie Brown gets stuck with a transaction to which he was never a party. In fact, he didn't even know about it! Congress needs to deceive Americans into believing that they are all "subjects" of the "United States". If you are subject to the jurisdiction of the "United States", then you can be compelled to pay taxes which are used to discharge the interest payable on the huge principal deficit which Congress has amassed. But, here's the rub. The Supreme Court in 1945 defined the term "United States" to have three separate and distinct meanings. These meanings are: (1) the name of our sovereign nation, occupying the position of other sovereigns in the family of nations (2) the federal government and the limited territory over which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority (3) the collective name for the States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America The second of these three definitions is the most interesting. It includes such areas of land as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, but it does NOT include the 50 States of the Union, like California, and Florida, and New York. Now, if you were born in one of the 50 States of the Union, you were born outside of the area defined by the second definition of "United States" and you are, therefore, born a free Sovereign. A Sovereign is the opposite of a subject. If you were born a Sovereign, there is no way you can be "subject" to the jurisdiction of the "United States" (unless you volunteer), particularly when the "United States" in this context means only the very limited territory over which Congress exercises its exclusive authority. Congress does not exercise exclusive authority over any of the 50 States of the Union. That's the American Law which has never been repealed. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's definition of the three "United States" was written in 1945, at the peak of the first nuclear war on this planet. People had other things on their minds! One of the ways in which Congress deceives all Americans into thinking they are its "subjects" is to utilize jurisdictional traps like the ZIP code. In the DMM, you will find that ZIP codes are actually optional (see DMM 122.32). If we utilize this optional "benefit" which Congress is providing for us, we are presumed to be volunteering ourselves as "subjects" of Congress. That may sound pretty stupid, at first glance, but it gets worse. Federal judges are now under so much pressure to keep the money flowing into the banks, they have developed a technique called "silent judicial notice". That's a fancy way of saying they don't have to tell you that you made yourself a subject of Congress by using ZIP codes. And the government is always fond of telling people that ignorance of the law is no excuse. But, of course, this is fraud and it's just as illegal for the government to do it as it is to counterfeit money. Now, we finally arrive at "/tdc". You cannot be compelled to honor or perform under any contract if you were under threat, duress, or coercion ("tdc") when you entered the contract. It's like extortion: you aren't really "cooperating" when someone extorts your cooperation. Actually, a criminal commits a serious crime against your person to extort your cooperation for anything. The ZIP code is like extortion, on a small but real scale. Postal clerks tell us our mail will move a lot slower if we don't use ZIP codes, and they are probably right. You would know! But we have to pay the same amount for first class, whether or not we use a ZIP code, and remember that ZIP codes are defined as optional in the DMM. So, if we use ZIP codes, our mail moves a lot faster, but the federal government is thereby entitled to treat us as subjects and force us to pay interest on their huge federal deficit. If we don't use ZIP codes, our mail moves much slower (the "duress"), we still have to pay the full postage due, but at least we avoid becoming "subjects" of Congress. Being free of Congress is our right as Americans, even when Congress is nowhere nearly as corrupt as it is now. In fact, I think it is fair to say that in the 200+ years of our brief history as a nation, this is probably the most corrupt Congress we have ever had in America. The way around this dilemma is to use ZIP codes under threat, duress, and coercion. Specifically, we are being threatened with subjugation (slavery?) to Congress for utilizing a neat sorting scheme which expedites the delivery of everyone's mail. This threat also means that we did not enter the "ZIP code contract" voluntarily, because we had to pay the full postage regardless of whether we used the ZIP code or not. But at least we retain our right to avoid becoming a slave to the Federal Reserve banks. The whole situation would be different if there were a different rate for mail addressed without ZIP codes, and if the federal government would fully disclose the jurisdictional trap which it has created with ZIP codes. The federal government's failure to disclose fully all the terms and conditions attached to its contracts means that the federal government is guilty of fraud, pure and simple. And fraud nullifies, or "vitiates" everything it touches, all the way back to the beginning, even if that's your original birth certificate, or your original SS-5 Social Security application (not the SSN or SS card, but the application for an SSN). Recall now that the New York banking establishment refers to our money as Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Devices (F-R-A-U-D). For your information, I have enclosed some additional information on this problem. Please feel free to share these materials with anyone you choose. Our research is open and available to the public, because we have nothing to hide. We are passionate and dedicated to restoring Constitutional government to America, whereby the rights of individuals are supreme. Governments at all levels should be our public servants, because we are the public and they are the servants. They should not be permitted to utilize threat, duress, and coercion to extort our cooperation with their fraudulent debt schemes. It is just as illegal for them to do it as it is for you and I to do it! Thanks so much for your interest and for keeping an open mind at this most difficult time in our nation's history. Sincerely yours, /s/ John E. Trumane Account for Better Citizenship # # # c/o P. O. Box 6189 San Rafael, California Postal Zone 94903-0189/TDC December 26, 1992 Eileen Casady Mill Valley Post Office 751 E. Blithedale Mill Valley, California Republic Postal Zone 94941-9998/tdc Dear Eileen: Happy Holidays to you! This letter is a follow-up to my previous letter to you, dated August 16, 1992. At that time, you may remember asking me about my use of "/tdc" on mailing labels. Among other things, in my letter I explained how ZIP codes do expedite the delivery of mail (you would know!) and how the unqualified use of ZIP codes creates a legal presumption that the user is "subject" to Congress. I also explained why a failure to use ZIP codes can and does delay the delivery of mail. Enclosed please find a photocopy of an envelope which I recently received in San Rafael. This envelope arrived with an extra adhesive sticker on the front of the envelope with the following text: YOUR MAIL HAS BEEN DELAYED DUE TO INCORRECT ADRESS AND/OR ZIPECODE As you can see from the attached photocopy, I have spelled the words on this adhesive sticker exactly as they are shown. By any chance, does the USPS now refer to them as "zippy" codes? This photocopy is, therefore, conclusive proof that the U.S. Postal Service does discriminate against the non-use of ZIP codes, contrary to the "Postal Reorganization Act", Section 403, (Public Law 91-375). Sincerely yours, /s/ John E. Trumane Account for Better Citizenship attachment # # # ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: YEEEHAW!!! Idaho Observer Update Date: 21 Feb 1997 20:47:27 -0800 Ladies & Gentlemen, your attention, please! The February Idaho Observer has found its way to the Idaho Observer webpage at http://www.proliberty.com/observer Come one, come all! Read the latest touche' by the owner of the Petros Winery in his fight against the Big Bad Bank that tried to rip off the wrong guy! Read about president Klinton's new "Sporterized" Secret Service! Read about why a Republic is not a Democracy! And thank you all for your continued support :) - 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: Liberty or Death Subject: John Doe Times Date: 22 Feb 1997 10:13:27 -0800 >John Doe Times >Volume IV, No. 5, Attachment #1 >21 February 1997 > >"TIME" FOR THE PARTY LINE > >"The Empire Strikes Back:" > >TIME Magazine Bites the Hand that Fed Them & Parrots the ATF Line on Carol >Howe > >Bruce Willingham, McCurtain Gazette Editor/Publisher, Replies to TIME Smear. > >TIME MAGAZINE >24 February 1997 > >THE WHITE CITY ON A HILL > >Out of a supremacist religious enclave emerges a provocative tale about the >Oklahoma City bombing. > >By James L. Graff, Elohim City > >Travel six miles up a dirt road in Oklahoma's Ozarks and you will reach a >400-acre, semi-religious encampment called Elohim City. There you will find >a vine-covered structure roofed over with polyurethane foam, looking oddly >like the cottage in the tale of Hansel and Gretel. This is the Worship >House. Within it Elohim's spiritual father, Robert Millar, 71, preaches a >mix of Christian Scripture and hetrodox tales of Germanic, Celtic and >Scandinavian tribes-- the true Israelites who will provide God's terrible >soldiers at Armageddon. Lately, though, the elfin, white-bearded patriarch >of the Christian Identity compound has been making a big point of how Jesus >ministered to outcasts. "My King ate with publicans and sinners and had a >prostitute wash his feet," Millar told TIME last Week as he sat in a black >Lincoln Continental near Elohim City. The reason for these scriptural >lessons may be that Millar has also been "fellowshipping," as he would put >it, with disreputable characters, including an errant government informant >who may become a wild card in the Oklahoma bombing case. > >Millar was born in Canada and raised a Mennonite before "heeding a call" to >the U.S. in the early 1950s. In 1973 he moved to the Ozarks with 17 >followers, including his four sons, and founded his city, giving it the name >Elohim, which means God in Hebrew. His religious retreat has its own >liturgy, its own calendar (the year begins with the spring equinox) and its >own clock (the day begins at noon). The city's guest list over the years has >been a veritable Who's Who of the radical right. Tim McVeigh called Elohim >two weeks before the Oklahoma bombing. Some reports link him to former >Elohim resident Andreas Strassmeir, a mysterious German weapons buff with >neo-Nazi ties. And up a wooded slope in the settlement, marked by a simple >white cross, is the grave of Richard Wayne Snell, a fanatic who allegedly >conspired to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building 12 years earlier. He >was executed the night of April 19, 1995, about 12 hours after the explosion. > Kevin McCarthy, who has admitted his role in the Aryan Republican Army's >Midwest gang of bank robbers, stayed in Elohim City several times, where he >was visited by many of his co-accused. > >One of the most tantalizing mysteries of Elohim City, however, is the >controversial notion that a young visitor named Carol Howe heard advance word >there about the Oklahoma City bombing and warned the federal government. > Howe, a former honor student at Tulsa Metro Christian Academy, fell in with >Tulsa's Skinhead set. Before long she found herself at the side of Dennis >Mahon, leader of White Aryan Resistance and the purveyor of Tulsa's >Dial-A-Racist phone line. Mahon, 46, who until recently kept his Airstream >trailer at Elohim, claims that his first contact with Howe was a letter she >sent him in the spring of 1993. "She wrote that she was 23, pure Aryan, >considered beautiful and wanted to fight for her race and culture," says >Mahon. "So, hey, I sent her some tapes." Mahon says he was soon sexually >involved with Howe, and he started taking her out to Elohim City in early >1994. By late summer, though, their relationship had soured, and Howe filed >a restraining order accusing Mahon of threatening to "neutralize" her when >she tried to leave the movement. > >Howe has since secluded herself, reportedly at her grandfather's ranch near >Austin, Texas > >********************************** >JDT Commentary: Not enough to say she's in hiding, TIME has to finger her >for possible assassination by neoNazi goons. >*********************************** > >(TIME's repeated attempts to speak to her, relayed to her lawyer, have gone >unanswered.) > >*********************************** >JDT Commentary: And THAT'S what really chafes their butt-- that J.D. can >talk to her and the vaunted Time Magazine can't get to first base. >************************************ > >But in the interim she became an informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco >and Firearms and is the purported source of contentious variants in the story >of the Oklahoma bombing. > >************************************ >JDT Commentary: "Purported source"? "Contentious variants"? Read: "The ATF >has told us not believe her story, so we don't. After all, they're the >government and they never lie." >************************************ > >Last week the McCurtain Daily Gazette, an Oklahoma newspaper published what >it said was an interview with Howe > >************************************ >JDT Commentary: "What it SAID was an interview..." !!?!?!?!?! Why you >stinking, lying bastards! They played TAPES of the interviews for your >reporter to prove that what J.D. had written was in fact 100% correct. These >tapes were in the interview form of questions by J.D. Cash and answers by >Carol Howe. Unless TIME is prepared to say that the voice on the tapes is >not that of Carol Howe (and it can be easily proven to be), or that the tape >was faked in some way (and it wasn't-- also easily provable) then the fact of >the interview taking place is indisputable. >************************************* > >by J.D. Cash, whose work has also appeared in the antigovernment press. > >************************************* >JDT Commentary: "the antigovernment press" indeed....Which, because of the >shameful inaction of "mainstream" liberal publications like TIME, is almost >the only place the truth about Oklahoma City has been given any >consideration. This gratuitous smear of the guy who TIME begged to help them >when they couldn't get to first base with Howe....the guy who shared with >them freely what he had on her case to assist them in writing this >story.....is certainly a perfect example of biting the hand that fed you. > What TIME knew, but neglected to mention, is how respected J.D.'s work has >become to a growing number of once-skeptical "mainstream" journalists who >write for papers like The Columbus Dispatch, The Denver Post, The >Philadelphia Inquirer, The Kansas City Star, etc., as well as reporters and >producers for NBC and ABC. > >From all that terror teaches, >From lies of tongue and pen, >From all the easy speeches >That comfort cruel men, >From sale and profanation >Of honor and the sword, >From sleep and from damnation, >Deliver us, good Lord. > >-- G.K. Chesterton: A Hymn > >Doubtless Chesterton was a TIME magazine reader. >******************************************** > >In Cash's interview, Howe says she learned that Mahon and Strassmeir (whom >she claimed she "kinda had a relationship with") were casing the Murrah >Building and two other federal buildings. In Cash's account, Howe insisted >she had reported this to the ATF. > >Sources in the Federal Government admit that Howe was a paid ATF informant >from August, 1994 until March 1995, but they say her surreptitious tapes >contained no evidence of a bombing conspiracy in the works. > >*********************************** >JDT Commentary: Note the ATF is screamingly silent to TIME about the >employment of Howe subsequent to 19 April to re-infiltrate Elohim City, at >substantially more money than they had been paying her: $400.00 per week. > This is verified in the documents released by the ATF to the McVeigh defense >team. Those documents also back up her statements about prior warning to the >ATF of the bombing conspiracy, even down to the specificity of 19 April as a >possible date. > >In addition, notice TIME is equally silent about this little factoid: CAROL >HOWE PASSED 14 POLYGRAPHS DURING THE TIME OF HER "SNITCHING" FOR THE ATF & >FBI WITH NO DECEPTION NOTED. > >If, as the ATF claims further down in the story, that she was "erratic and >unreliable", the fact of the matter is that the polygraphs alone should have >made them act on her information in the days following the bombing to go out >to Elohim City and interview at least Strassmeir and Brescia....to go to >Tulsa and interview Mahon. With all the hype about thousands of agents >dispatched to hundreds of thousands of interviews with witnesses and taking >millions of notes, THEY NEVER BOTHERED TO ASK STRASSMEIR, MAHON, BRESCIA OR >ANY OF THE OTHER PROBABLE BOMBERS FINGERED BY HOWE A SINGLE QUESTION. WHY? > >More importantly today, why didn't TIME ask that question of the government? >************************************ > >Only when she was debriefed two days after the bombing, government sources >say, did she claim that Mahon and Strassmeir had discussed bombing government >buildings. Agents familiar with the interview considered her answer >speculative; in any case, she offered no additional details. > >************************************* >JDT Commentary: This is a tissue of lies and half-truths. I trust TIME got >their names, so that when these ATF liars are finally called by some future >Congressional or Senate investigative committee to testify, TIME may then >compare what they were told with what is said under oath. They will then be >"shocked, shocked!" that they were lied to with a bald-face. Lies that any >other reporter (having the contrary evidence in hand) would have challenged >them on. For TIME, it seems, even after Ruby Ridge and Waco, the ATF's word >is good enough for them. >************************************** > >Government sources say that Howe's tapes didn't even provide evidence for >busting Strassmeir or Mahon on weapons charges. In autumn 1994, Howe invited >Strassmeir and other Elohim residents to her apartment in Tulsa. She asked >them to paint three unarmed grenades orange and green like Halloween >pumpkins. They obliged. But when she asked them to help her arm the >grenades, they refused, as Mahon says he later did too. "I knew she was >bent," he says. "She was the one always talking about killing and bombing," >in an attempt, he contends, to entrap others at the compound. > >*************************************** >JDT Commentary: Some of those "unarmed" grenades were later taken out to >Elohim City by Howe and Mahon and detonated, according to Howe (whose story >is bolstered by the ATF documents provided McVeigh's defense team.) Liar, >liar, pants on fire. >*************************************** >Howe's charges, if they are substantiated, may bolster McVeigh's defense. >************************************** >JDT Commentary: Howe's charges, if they are substantiated will: >a. Prove prior government knowledge of the OKC bombing. >b. Lead to the unravelling of the coverup of same. >c. Eventually lead to the abolishment of the ATF and the curtailment of FBI > cowboy actions by strict congressional oversight. >d. Lead to the largest damage award in the history of America civil law (the >Edye Smith civil suit). >e. Lead to the downfall of the Clinton administration, making him America's >first expatriate ex-President. >f. Cause historians to shake their heads at how culpably stupid TIME Magazine >was in having this story handed to them, and blowing it. >*************************************** > >But it is unclear if his lawyer Stephen Jones will risk calling her to the >stand. Her testimony could be effectively attacked by prosecutors, citing >ATF records that show she was fired as an informant because of erratic >behavior and unreliability. > >**************************************** >JDT Commentary: Haw!! Wishful thinking there, to be sure. First of all it >has yet to be demonstrated that the prosecution team can "effectively attack" >anything except their own credibility. And a full disclosure of the ATF >records that the trial is sure to bring will not only bolster Howe's story, >but show that Strassmeir was an ATF snitch/provocateur as well. >**************************************** > >Still, Jones believes the government has proof that Strassmeir and Mahon were >involved in a bombing plot and was "obligated" to disclose it. At any rate, >in the wake of recent reports about faulty FBI lab procedures, the government >does not need Howe's tales to muddy the case. > >**************************************** >JDT Commentary: "Tales"??? So TIME has decided for the record that she can >be discounted? Good, very good. Because the truth will come out in any >case, and TIME will be exposed for the Clinton Administration mouthpiece it >is. As for "muddy(ing) the case", the government could hardly make it any >more muddy than it already has. >**************************************** > >In Elohim City "Grandpa" Millar deplores the entire episode, saying it is >another opportunity for the media to besmirch Christian Identity. The >settlement has been declared off limits to the press. But speaking from the >front seat of the Lincoln parked in the rain-drenched gravel of a >country-store parking lot near the settlement, Millar says he would welcome >Howe back. "It was not unusual for unstable people to seek us out," he says. > "The Church of Jesus Christ exists for such people." And so, apparently, >does Elohim City. > >With reporting by Patrick E. Cole/Tulsa and Elaine Shannon/Washington. > >************************************** >JDT Commentary: The ATF party line in this story doubtless came by way of >Elaine Shannon, who mostly is known for her stories on the drug war, and thus >lives and breathes with the DEA and ATF heirarchy in D.C. In this case, it >was apparently more important not to bite the hand that feeds HER. >*************************************** > >AND NOW, THE BEST LITTLE NEWSPAPER IN OKLAHOMA RESPONDS TO THIS SLICK >BIG-CITY MAGAZINES' SMEAR: > >Below is a personal column of McCurtain Daily Gazette editor-publisher Bruce >Willingham, which appeared in the Friday, 21 February issue of the small >southeastern Oklahoma daily newspaper. > >Bruce faxed me this column with this kind note: "Thank you, Mike, for all >that you have done! May your tribe of 'troublemakers' increase! If there >were enough 'troublemakers' around, it would go a long way toward ensuring >better reporting and better government." > >And as modest and self-effacing as all my friends know me to be, I must say I >agree with him about troublemakers, especially in the context of the Oklahoma >City bombing story. > >-- Mike Vanderboegh, Editor, The John Doe Times. > >*********************************** > >Bruce Willingham, Editor-Publisher >McCurtain Gazette >21 February 1997 > >This week's edition of TIME magazine includes a story on Elohim City and >mentions this newspaper's recent article detailing interviews with ATF >informant Carol Howe. Unfortunately, the magazine's editors decided to take >some cheap shots, despite our trying to help them in every way. > >Here's the rest of the story: > >TIME was unable to get an interview with Howe, so when TIME reporter Patrick >Cole wrote his piece, he said, "Last week the McCurtain Daily Gazette, an >Oklahoma newspaper, published what it said was an interview with Howe by J.D. >Cash, whose work has also appeared in the antigovernment press." > >Wow, two shots in one sentence. > >First of all, Mr. Cole called the newspaper, skeptical that we had actually >been able to interview Howe (since he had made every effort but been unable >to). So we played him parts of the tapes of those interviews. But >apparently even that didn't convince him, judging by the skepticism in his >wording. > >Second, while it's true that part of Cash's work (early stories before the >Elohim City connection became apparent) has indeed been picked up by some >off-beat publications, it has also appeared in The Denver Post, the >Philadelphia Inquirer, the Columbus Dispatch and other nationally known >newspapers. For some reason, Mr. Cole didn't think that worth mentioning. > >We have been expecting that some people would take shots at our stories, >though the stories have been entirely accurate. frankly, though, we expected >the shots to come from government sources, not media outlets. > >we are also beginning to learn that the truth in this case is so horrendous >that, accurate or not, some will go to almost any lengths to suppress it. > >One of the recent casualties is a guy by the name of Roger Charles. A couple >of weeks ago, he and others at ABC produced a piece similar to the one we >published here last Tuesday. > >Charles: "It was a fairly simple story. We weren't drawing any conclusions. > We were simply saying, 'Hey, look. This paid, undercover informant was >reporting to her case officer, whose name we had from the ATF, months >beforehand that these wackos were threatening to blow things up, and >specifically, federal properties and installations in either Tulsa or >Oklahoma City." > >"Here we've got this great story that the government finally cannot >deny...that this girl's information was right, that she was telling her ATF >handler that these wackos out there are talking about blowing up federal >property in either Tulsa or Oklahoma City months before the attack on the >buidling in downtown Oklahoma City-- what we would call stategic warning." > >"And it appears there was also tactical warning, in the sense that there were >bomb squads out on streets that morning that are not normally there. There >were other indications of law enforcement activity that were not routine." > >Charles says the new information was even mopre newsworthy because the chief >prosecutor has firmly denied that the government had either any general or >specific warning of a threat of any kind at Oklahoma City." > >But an hour before Charles' piece was to air on "World News Tonight," the >segment was ordered to be killed. Why? > >Charles: "They were uncomfortable with it after a series of phone calls from >high-level Justice Department and ATF people, saying that well, yes, the >story is right, but you're going to draw the wrong conclusions unless we can >explain it." > >Charles felt it was an extremely important piece, and kept pushing for its >airing. He has been sharing information with our reporter, J.D. Cash, and he >also assisted us in fact-checking the story we carried. But his big mistake >was going on an MSNBC talk show and making the comments you've just read. >ABC fired him. And the piece has never aired. > >It's sad when people with principles are those who lose their jobs. Think of >the message that sent to others in the news division at ABC. > >Because AP has yet to use our story, J.D. Cash this week went on KTOK, a talk >radio station in Oklahoma City. Some phone calls from the families of >bombing victims followed, and the story is now being circulated among many of >those most directly affected by the bombing. > >By the way, McVeigh's trial is scheduled to start on March 31, and the >two-year staute of limitations on any government tort liability in the >bombing will expire in a few weeks on April 19. > >*********************************** > - 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: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Test-nothing in here Date: 22 Feb 1997 20:36:53 -0500 (EST) test ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: CIA Lie (fwd) Date: 23 Feb 1997 15:08:25 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Washington Post, February 20, 1997, p. A22: Domestic CIA Snooping The CIA's assertion on its Web page that the agency does not keep files on Americans is not in fact true ["In the Loop," Federal Page, Feb. 12]. The agency opened a file on my client, Daniel Tsang, a political activist and librarian at the University of California at Irvine, in the 1980s and recorded his constitutionally protected activities. When we sued the agency, we discovered that no agency directives prohibit the maintenance of such files and the CIA lawyers made the extraordinary claim that it is legal for the agency to keep files on Americans, including on citizens' First Amendment activities. The CIA claimed that it is exempt from Privacy Act restrictions on such practices. While the CIA eventually agreed to expunge Mr. Tsang's file and promised to refrain from opening such files on him in the future, it refused to acknowledge any limitation on its authority to keep files on other Americans. It should do so now. Kate Martin Washington The writer is director of the Center for National Security Studies, a project of the Fund for Peace. ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: the bank racket Date: 23 Feb 1997 18:32:25 -0800 The Bank Racket Imagine a world with banks so rich, they can pay mightily to create a huge deception -- that their tax collectors deposit those taxes into the government's general fund when, in fact, they deposit those taxes instead into foreign bank accounts, after funneling them through various trusts, which launder the money first, using an effective and powerful soap film, to hide their true intentions. This is the world in which we live -- one big giant soap bubble, deflecting light away from an empty and corrupt vacuum, just waiting to encounter a sharp needle, and then burst. ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Portents from the Knoxville, TN, Lincoln Day Dinner Date: 23 Feb 1997 19:37:34 -0500 (EST) Fred Thompson was much hyped while Lamar Alexander was nowhere to be seen. Speculation is that the (Howard) Baker machine is dumping Lamar and pushing Fred. bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: the bank racket Date: 23 Feb 1997 18:59:11 -0800 Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > > The Bank Racket > The prevalent attitude in socialist USSR, I've read, was characterized by, "If my neighbor owns a cow and I don't, the solution is to kill my neighbor's cow." If bankers make enough money to make you envious, why don't you become one. It shoud be a piece of cake for someone with a BA, MS, unquenchable arrogance and a gigantic ego. Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: the bank racket Date: 24 Feb 1997 00:42:02 -0800 Seriously, what do you hope to accomplish with this kind of message? I am not making this up: the Grace Commission found that ALL income tax revenues go to pay for income transfer payments, and interest. Now, where would those interest payments be going? Ad hominem arguments add absolutely nothing to this important subject. If anything, they do little except to distract from the real issue here, namely, where is all that money really going, if it is not going to pay for ANY government services? Perhaps you would like to contribute some facts to the discussion? So far, you haven't. Please spare us the ad hominems. They are getting really old, to tell you the truth. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 06:59 PM 2/23/97 -0800, you wrote: >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> The Bank Racket >> > >The prevalent attitude in socialist USSR, I've read, was characterized >by, "If my neighbor owns a cow and I don't, the solution is to kill >my neighbor's cow." > >If bankers make enough money to make you envious, why don't you >become one. It shoud be a piece of cake for someone with a BA, MS, >unquenchable arrogance and a gigantic ego. > >Skip > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: the bank racket Date: 23 Feb 1997 20:34:28 -0800 >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> The Bank Racket >> > >The prevalent attitude in socialist USSR, I've read, was characterized >by, "If my neighbor owns a cow and I don't, the solution is to kill >my neighbor's cow." > >If bankers make enough money to make you envious, why don't you >become one. It shoud be a piece of cake for someone with a BA, MS, >unquenchable arrogance and a gigantic ego. > >Skip Skip, for a man as wise as you are, that was a silly thing to say. Paul's point is simple; all the money collected by the IRS (which is *not* a legal federal agency) is, in fact, sent to private banks. *None* of it goes to pay for *anything* in America; no roads, no defense, no nothing, only Federal Reserve Theft. Over 500 billion a year is collected by the federal government in gasoline taxes alone; *that's* what's running our country. But all that money you've sent off grumblingly but faithfully to the IRS year after year - ALL of it - is now in the hands of mostly-foreign bankers. It was *stolen* from you, Skip. I don't think envy has anything to do with it; righteous indignant anger comes to mind, however. Baaa-aaa-aaah. Baaa-aaaa-aaah. - 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: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: the bank racket Date: 23 Feb 1997 20:49:34 PST roc@xmission.com wrote : > >Skip, for a man as wise as you are, that was a silly thing to say. > >Paul's point is simple; all the money collected by the IRS (which is >*not* a legal federal agency) is, in fact, sent to private banks. >*None* of it goes to pay for *anything* in America; no roads, no >defense, no nothing, only Federal Reserve Theft. It was only during the last year that the holdings of foreigners of Treasury paper exceeded a trillion dollars. So, at best one dollar in 7 of what is paid in debt goes out of the country. You would be surprized as to how much goes to fund pensions in this country > >Over 500 billion a year is collected by the federal government in >gasoline taxes alone; *that's* what's running our country. But all >that money you've sent off grumblingly but faithfully to the IRS >year after year - ALL of it - is now in the hands of mostly-foreign >bankers. It was *stolen* from you, Skip. Not to be nasty or anything but 500 billion a year in gasoline taxes is just too divorced from reality it needs some comments. I have no idea what the actual figure is. On the other hand the country consumes about 16 million barrels of oil a day and about half of that ends up as gasoline. For simplicity take 50 gallons per barrel and we have about 400 million gallons of gasoline a day or close to one and half gallons per person per day. If there were 10 cents a gallon in Federal tax that would be only 40 million dollars a day or a bit less than 16 billion dollars a year. Even doubling the tax to 20 cents a gallon at the federal level would only give 32 billion a year. At the present time the corner station has gasoline for 1.20 a gallon so even if the price was all tax....nothing for oil and nothing for the refiner or station doing the selling one would only have about 192 billion in tax Jack > >I don't think envy has anything to do with it; righteous indignant >anger comes to mind, however. > >Baaa-aaa-aaah. Baaa-aaaa-aaah. > > >- 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- > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Re: the bank racket Date: 23 Feb 1997 22:25:19 -0800 (PST) > >>Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >>> >>> The Bank Racket >>> >> >>The prevalent attitude in socialist USSR, I've read, was characterized >>by, "If my neighbor owns a cow and I don't, the solution is to kill >>my neighbor's cow." >> >>If bankers make enough money to make you envious, why don't you >>become one. It shoud be a piece of cake for someone with a BA, MS, >>unquenchable arrogance and a gigantic ego. >> >>Skip > > >Skip, for a man as wise as you are, that was a silly thing to say. > >Paul's point is simple; all the money collected by the IRS (which is >*not* a legal federal agency) is, in fact, sent to private banks. >*None* of it goes to pay for *anything* in America; no roads, no >defense, no nothing, only Federal Reserve Theft. > I was just noticing recently that my IRS Master File shows my taxable activity as "payments to principal"? Principal? Who, pray tell, is the "Principal" to whom i am indebted, and please show me the signed document which makes me so indebted. IRS has refused comment. Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: the bank racket Date: 23 Feb 1997 23:34:55 -0800 >Not to be nasty or anything but 500 billion a year in gasoline taxes >is just too divorced from reality it needs some comments. I have no idea >what the actual figure is. Me neither, actually; 'twas just a number I probably mis-heard the other day. The point is still valid, though. Our income taxes do not go to pay for anything in America, they go to fill the accounts of a bunch of very wealthy elite bankers, via the Federal Reserve, which is *also* not part of our federal government. Some of these people are in America, some are not. But *none* of your tax money is doing anything for America. Myself, I don't care how much money those bankers have; money means little to me, as long as I have food to eat and a roof over my head. But I *don't* like being lied to and stolen from, and when I first realized that all those thousands of dollars I've paid to the IRS over the years simply made a bunch of rich global elitists richer, I was not a happy guy. And I haven't gotten any happier about it. - 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: Safire on Clintons' Data Base (WHODB) (fwd) Date: 24 Feb 1997 08:08:34 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- jw-rh@ix.netcom.com, bigred@duracef.shout.net, jlavis@communique.net, liberty@gate.net, vikbob@halcyon.com, virkkala@olympus.net, cato@cato.org, akimery@citizen.infi.net, pwatson@utdallas.edu, garb@ix.netcom.com, maddog6@flex.net, edb@interport.com, wdmann@ix.netcom.com, germanic@netcom.com, eric@remailer.net, sandfort@crl.com, loboazul@icsi.net, bdolan@use.usit.net, stitch@defraudingamerica.com, L.L.Grabbe@theol.hull.ac.uk, JMcCorm215@aol.com, zns@interserv.com, tbyfield@panix.com, drdean@bio.win.net, rpedraza@sierra.net, kalliste@aci.net, chuck44@juno.com, KWhite9472@aol.com, rcathlst@mail.cdc.net, triton@pta6000.pld.com February 24, 1997 ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE Clintons' Data Base WASHINGTON -- You've long heard about "Emily's List"-- a legitimate fund- raising operation created to elect women. You'll soon be hearing more about "Hillary's List"--an unprecedented abuse of Federal power in political fund-raising. Officially called the White House Data Base (WhoDB), this computerized list of 355,000 names was compiled over the past four years at taxpayer expense to help the Clintons raise money to stay in power. This political cybercorruption was directed from the top: "Both the President and the First Lady have asked me to make this my top priority," wrote White House aide Marsha Scott on Dec. 7, 1993. "Bruce [Lindsey] will be kept fully informed." Fifteen months later, Mrs. Clinton's personal involvement in building her base is documented in a staff memo to Ms. Scott: "During the demo the First Lady mentioned that she would like to see the Miles Rubin rapid response list in the database." Everybody who got favors or gave money was inputted. Lincoln bedroom overnighters, Democratic National Committee fat cats in the Kennedy Center box, private guests at radio talks -- all are still going in at a rate of 10,000 a month, many with children's names, dietary restrictions, special interests, and almost all with Social Security numbers and addresses. Never has technology been married to power greed to produce such political gain. Despite an early planner's assurance that the data base was "government property and cannot be given to or used by a campaign entity," its central purpose has been fund-raising, and it has been wrongfully used by D.N.C.- paid White House "volunteers" to get payment for Clinton favors bestowed. Representative David McIntosh told NBC's Lisa Myers "the taxpayer was fleeced"; his committee will focus on how Erskine Bowles built the Mailing List From Hell. But misappropriating $1.5 million to match donors with favors is not all. What has gone unremarked is the rape of individual privacy. Coded notations on thousands of files indicate whether somebody on the WhoDB is black, Jewish, Catholic, Hispanic, of Ukrainian or Chinese or other ethnic descent. You want a printout of Italian Jews from California who are gay and got a Clinton holiday greeting? Just click on the demographic icon and cross the religious and ethnicity fields. If you are in her data base, you may think that surely your file, containing private information about race and religion that universities and companies are prohibited from collecting about you, will be denied to anybody outside the White House. You may be mistaken. Clinton lawyers have written Congress repeatedly that "the Privacy Act [5 U.S.C. 552a] does not apply" to the White House Office. Unless successfully challenged, that means that the data will go on to the Clinton Library in 2001. There it will be available to all. Think about that. Maybe you don't want everybody to know you're a Buddhist, or that you were in Washington on a certain weekend, or that you could afford a $100,000 night in Lincoln's bed. Too bad: Hillary's list was created by public money and is a public record. Think further. Suppose some unscrupulous Republican is elected President next time. He would have, by modem to the library, a vast and instantly retrievable "enemies list"--and know whom not to invite to a state dinner, or whom to solicit for how much to "get well" with him. Ah, but maybe some upright archivist will insist the vulnerable half- million listees be protected from scholars, journalists, reformers and right-wing kooks. Too late; I'll bet Hillary's data already have been copied to other CD-ROM's. And some mean hacker is getting set to attack the White House data base to download all the dossiers to the Internet's webhubbelsite. If you're on Hillary's list, at best you'll be getting legal defense fund solicitations and offers to buy Clinton memoirs at irresistible discounts. At worst you'll be harassed by global telemarketers who will know your political inclinations, children's nicknames and donor history. Enjoy it. You'll know which First Lady to thank. Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: U.S. Court of Appeals Challenge of FBI Surveillance Techniques (fwd) Date: 24 Feb 1997 08:11:33 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ACLU of Illinois, Center for National Security Studies Ask DC Court to Reconsider FBI Surveillance Case FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, February 12, 1997 CHICAGO -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and the Center for National Security Studies have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reconsider a decision in its case challenging FBI surveillance techniques. The ACLU and CNSS allege that the decision compromises the First Amendment rights of their clients the J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation and its former president Lance Lindblom. The court's December 24th ruling in J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation v. FBI allows the FBI to amass a national record-keeping system on the political and associational activities of innocent Americans. The Court held that the federal Privacy Act does not prohibit the FBI from permanently keeping intelligence files on the lawful First Amendment activities of innocent citizens, though the government has no current need for the information. Under the ruling, if the information was "pertinent" to a lawful investigation when collected, the FBI can forever keep a file on the innocent person. The dissenting jurist, federal Circuit Judge David Tatel, wrote ominously, "Congress passed the Privacy Act to give individuals some defenses against governmental tendencies towards secrecy and `Big Brother' surveillance...The fewer unnecessary files describing First Amendment activities the government keeps on law-abiding citizens, the lesser the chance of any future abuse of those files." The decision legitimizes an alarming FBI policy discovered during the course of the litigation. The FBI creates and forever maintains files on the political activities of Americans who simply happen to speak or otherwise associate with someone who is of foreign intelligence interest to the FBI. The Bureau keeps these files on the off chance that the information might be useful some day. Such files will be reviewed in connection with many kinds of federal employment applications, and can be shared with state and local governments as well as agencies of foreign governments. "It is critical that we challenge this decision because it gives the FBI carte blanche to build dossiers on tens of millions of U.S. citizens," said Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois and one of the attorneys representing the MacArthur Foundation and Lindbloom. "It is ironic that as our citizens have increased contact with persons from other countries, under this ruling the number of files on the First Amendment activities of innocent U.S. citizens will increase as well," Grossman said. "While these citizen-to-citizen relationships are wonderful opportunities to spread our values of democracy and freedom, many of these contacts with foreign nationals easily will fit within the governments broad view of the scope of national security investigations. The result will be permanent intelligence files on innocent people which will chill the exercise of associational rights and compromise the freedom of all Americans." "Under the broad justification for record-keeping, there are no limits to the FBI," said John R. MacArthur, a director of the MacArthur Foundation and publisher of Harper's magazine. "This is the kind of mind set that allowed the East German police to eventually have intelligence files on almost all of their citizens." "This is a very chilling ruling," said Lance Lindblom, one of the plaintiffs in the case. "It approves intelligence gathering practices which cross the threshold from a free society to a police state." Apart from the rule of law raised in the case, the ACLU and CNSS also allege that the integrity of the decision was undermined because of the unreliability of the FBI's key witness. One day before the Court issued its ruling, Justice Department attorneys advised the Court by letter that the government's primary witness, FBI Agent Earl Edwin Pitts, had been arrested on charges of espionage. Though government lawyers argue that Pitts' testimony was not necessary for the FBI to prevail in the case, the plaintiffs challenge the assertion and believe that both trial court and appeals court decisions are tainted by Pitts' testimony. Pitts was the FBI agent who determined that the files should remain classified and not be released. ACLU and CNSS also have filed a motion in the federal district court asking that the original decision be vacated due to the taint of Pitts' testimony. "Because Pitts' testimony was the only evidence offered by the FBI to justify collecting information on our clients, we believe that this case needs to be reopened and reevaluated," said CNSS Director Kate Martin who also represented the plaintiffs. "We will raise this issue on behalf of Lindblom and MacArthur in asking the Court to reconsider its decision." The MacArthur Foundation and Lindblom filed a federal Freedom of Information Act request in 1988 seeking access to their FBI files. They received 23 pages from FBI dossiers. Much of the material was blocked out, some for "national security" reasons. The file revealed that the FBI collected information on Lindblom's contacts with South Korean dissident Kim Dae Jung. Lindblom, as part of a group of persons, including a U.S. Congressman and a former U.S. State Department official, accompanied Kim when he returned to South Korea in 1985 after two years in exile in the United States. Lindblom tried for two years to secure a complete, uncensored version of the file. Since 1990, the ACLU of Illinois and the CNSS have represented the Foundation and Lindblom in the suit against the FBI. Filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, the suit alleged that both the collection and maintenance of intelligence files by the FBI violates the Foundation's and Lindblom's First Amendment right to associational freedom as well as Lindblom's right under the federal Privacy Act. The plaintiffs argued that under the First Amendment, the FBI should create and keep files on U. S. citizens and residents only if there is some evidence of wrongdoing. After reviewing the files outside the presence of the plaintiffs or their attorneys, the trial court granted summary judgment for the FBI. The court noted in its ruling that Lindblom and the Foundation were not the primary subjects of investigations but had come into "incidental (and, to appearances, innocent) contact" with such persons. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At the appellate level, the Foundation and Lindblom narrowed their arguments, contending that even if the information about them was lawfully collected by the FBI, the agency must have independent justification (a current need) for maintaining the records of that investigation. On December 24, 1996, the appellate court affirmed the lower court ruling against the foundation and Lindblom by a 2-1 vote. The J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation, founded in 1976 and headquartered in Niles, Illinois, specializes in funding projects concerning human rights and free expression. Among the best known projects the foundation has supported are Africa Watch and Asia Watch (now referred to as Human Rights Watch), which monitor human rights violations in those continents; the legal defense of the Contemporary Arts Center of Cincinnati against obscenity charges arising from its exhibition of photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe; and documentary films such as "Roger and Me" and "Witness to Apartheid." The Foundation's present efforts are focused on the MacArthur Justice Center housed at the University of Chicago School of Law. The Foundation board of directors are Gregoire MacArthur, a journalist and television producer, Solange MacArthur, a physician and John R. MacArthur, a writer and publisher of Harper's Magazine. Lindblom headed the foundation from 1984, when founder J. Roderick MacArthur died, until 1994. He is now a program officer at the Ford Foundation. Richard O'Brien, Susan Davies and Joseph Miller of the Chicago office of the law firm of Sidley & Austin also represent Lindblom and the Foundation in the appeal as ACLU volunteer attorneys. Excerpted ACLU News 02-13-97 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Gun Control Kills (Again) In The Empire State (Building) Date: 24 Feb 1997 13:16:20 -0500 (EST) Well, folks, now it appears that a "Palestinian national" cut loose on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in NYC and killed a Danish tourist and wounded other tourists, including a few kids, as disarmed and unarmed New York City residents and unarmed Empire State Building "mall cops" radioed for Rudy Giulani to send help and then ran for cover. Once again, Americans disarmed by a tyrannical NYC local government had to stampede like buffalo being picked off by a sharpshooter when a 69 year old Palestinian with false teeth decided to head north to meet Allah and to take some innocent people with him on his last trip. What a needless tragedy. New York City's gun control laws prevented Americans present at the scene from lawfully carrying concealed firearms and reacting to put the Palestinian nut case out of business as soon as he cranked off his first round. But, alas, it was not to be. Americans who dare to fight back in NYC get the "Bernard Goetz" treatment. So, the "slaughter of the innocents" continues as people are denied the right to defend themselves in The Big Apple. And in Bill Clinton's America. Oh, and isn't it interesting how "CIA HUMINT expert" NYC Mayor Rudy Giulani is already announcing that the dead killer has "no known ties to terrorist organizations" ... gee, did 007 Giulani check this out with his Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah buddies? Just wondering. If the shooter had been a rancher from Indiana and had been wearing just one piece of camouflage clothing, you can bet that Giulani and every gun and freedom hating politician from Washington to NYC would have been on TV calling for a nationwide "round up" of "domestic terrorists", most of whom can be readily identified by four characteristics: 1) their belief in the right to keep and bear arms 2) their belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 3) their tendency to lock up their wives and daughters when Bill Clinton visits their home towns 4) their tendency to be responsible, law abiding people and good neighbors. So, in the final analysis, gun control kills, once again, in The Empire State. When terror strikes, disarmed people become dead people. Just ask the family of the poor Danish tourist who may have died needlessly because no lawfully armed New Yorker or other armed American was nearby to save him when Yasser Arafat's kissin' cuzzin decided to cut loose. What a needless tragedy. What an avoidable tragedy. When will this sheer, utter madness of government not trusting Americans to carry firearms for self-defense and defense of loved ones, friends, neighbors and fellow Americans cease? When, I ask you, when? My inquiring, nobanning mind wants to know. Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Gun Control Kills (Again) In The Empire State (Building) (fwd) Date: 24 Feb 1997 13:28:00 -0500 (EST) The NYC Mayor's last name is spelled correctly, this time around. You can tell that I am American-American and not Italian-American. Oh well. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: roc@xmission.com Well, folks, now it appears that a "Palestinian national" cut loose on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in NYC and killed a Danish tourist and wounded other tourists, including a few kids, as disarmed and unarmed New York City residents and unarmed Empire State Building "mall cops" radioed for Rudy Giuliani to send help and then ran for cover. Once again, Americans disarmed by a tyrannical NYC local government had to stampede like buffalo being picked off by a sharpshooter when a 69 year old Palestinian with false teeth decided to head north to meet Allah and to take some innocent people with him on his last trip. What a needless tragedy. New York City's gun control laws prevented Americans present at the scene from lawfully carrying concealed firearms and reacting to put the Palestinian nut case out of business as soon as he cranked off his first round. But, alas, it was not to be. Americans who dare to fight back in NYC get the "Bernard Goetz" treatment. So, the "slaughter of the innocents" continues as people are denied the right to defend themselves in The Big Apple. And in Bill Clinton's America. Oh, and isn't it interesting how "CIA HUMINT expert" NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani is already announcing that the dead killer has "no known ties to terrorist organizations" ... gee, did 007 Giulani check this out with his Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah buddies? Just wondering. If the shooter had been a rancher from Indiana and had been wearing just one piece of camouflage clothing, you can bet that Giulani and every gun and freedom hating politician from Washington to NYC would have been on TV calling for a nationwide "round up" of "domestic terrorists", most of whom can be readily identified by four characteristics: 1) their belief in the right to keep and bear arms 2) their belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 3) their tendency to lock up their wives and daughters when Bill Clinton visits their home towns 4) their tendency to be responsible, law abiding people and good neighbors. So, in the final analysis, gun control kills, once again, in The Empire State. When terror strikes, disarmed people become dead people. Just ask the family of the poor Danish tourist who may have died needlessly because no lawfully armed New Yorker or other armed American was nearby to save him when Yasser Arafat's kissin' cuzzin decided to cut loose. What a needless tragedy. What an avoidable tragedy. When will this sheer, utter madness of government not trusting Americans to carry firearms for self-defense and defense of loved ones, friends, neighbors and fellow Americans cease? When, I ask you, when? My inquiring, nobanning mind wants to know. Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: foster_3.html (fwd) Date: 24 Feb 1997 15:00:34 -0600 (CST) Reuters New Media Monday February 24 5:44 AM EST Sources: Starr to Say Foster Death Was Suicide WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Sources familiar with the Whitewater investigation saidthey fully expect that independent counsel Kenneth Starr will conclude former White House aide Vincent Foster committed suicide. They said Starr would reach the same conclusion as his predecessor as independent counsel, Robert Fiske Jr., who found in June 1994 that Foster killed himself because he was depressed. The sources said Starr had not done any investigative work on the Foster phase of his investigation for a long time and "all things must end," but were unable to confirm that Starr had actually completed the report. The Los Angeles Times reported Sunday that Starr had concluded Foster was not murdered and that PresidentClinton and his wife were not involved in a cover-up. Based on "exhaustive inquiry," the as-yet unreleased report into the events surrounding Foster's July 1993 death by handgun knocks down repeated conspiracy theories by right-wing organizations that Foster was murdered, the newspaper said. A White House spokeswoman declined comment on the newspaper report. A call to Starr's home in Washington was eventually returned by Debbie Gershman of his Little Rock office, who said there would be no comment on the report. How to deal with the Foster report was one of the first decisions facing Starr as he addressed the larger challenge of restoring confidence in his probe after his announcement last week that he would step down as Whitewater counsel to take a post at Pepperdine University, the paper said. Starr's report would be the third examination of Foster's death. Earlier findings of suicide were returned by a coroner and Fiske and the U.S. Park Police, but conservative political groups continued to allege that the president and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton were implicated in Foster's death. "They feel they have to reinvent the wheel and not rely on what Fiske did, so now we will have two full studies," one source familiar with the probe told Reuters. The sources also said Starr had not yet submitted the report for comment by people mentioned in it. Under the law, an independent counsel must submit a final report to a special U.S. court of appeals, which then makes it available for comment by various parties before releasing it. The Times said the report would be released soon, although Starr has not indicted when it will be made public. Foster, who served as deputy White House counsel, was a close friend of both Clintons and a former law partner of Mrs. Clinton. Among his other duties, he helped prepare the tax returns of the Whitewater Development Corp., the controversial Arkansas real estate venture involving the Clintons. Starr announced last week he would step down as Whitewater counsel to take a post at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, but then abruptly promised to stay on when the decision provoked a torrent of criticism. The idea that Foster's death involved foul play and that the Clintons were implicated in the alleged crime has been heavily promoted in part by groups that receive financial assistance from a foundation headed by Richard Mellon Scaife, a long-time member of the Pepperdine Board of Regents. Starr told reporters Friday that he was aware the Scaife Foundation provided the funds, but he indicated he saw no conflict of interest, even though the foundation has financed organizations that have used media to promote various theories about criminal conspiracies involving the Clintons. _________________________________________________________________ Earlier Related Stories * Sources: Starr to Say Foster Death Was Suicide - Sun Feb 23 11:22 pm * Report: Starr Concludes Foster Wasn't Murdered - Sun Feb 23 4:55 pm * Report: Starr Declares Foster Death a Suicide - Sun Feb 23 9:13 am _________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ___________ Help _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: Federal Agents Hunt Links in Atlanta Bombings Next Story: Netanyahu Goes on Offensive Over Probe _________________________________________________________________ [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited Questions or Comments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: ALERT--NRA BoD Election Date: 24 Feb 1997 16:55:35 -0800 (PST) Posted at the request of Mr. Friedman. ----- "ONE SIMPLE QUESTION" by Joel Friedman (mochi1@ix.netcom.com) NRA Benefactor Member An event of critical importance that will have an effect on every firearms owner for years to come is about to happen. The event is this year's election of our Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. The NRA is the flagship of the pro-firearms movement. Like it or not, this is a fact of life. We the members have always been told that the NRA's power is in its members. The time has arrived for all of us to prove that this statement is true. You might say that a "little change" at the top can't hurt us, or that the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on ANY one person or a few persons. In most cases, this is usually correct. But keep this in mind: HOW we say what we believe--the WAY we get our message out to the public--determines the NRA's reputation and image. As Executive Vice President, Mr. Wayne LaPierre has competently and successfully maintained and promoted the NRA's reputation and image. If, in some way, we ever begin to resemble a type of "fringe" organization, or start to lose our reputation of representing the "50% of households that own firearms," then nothing the NRA says or does will matter. Don't kid yourself. This is extremely serious business. The recent attempts at changing the NRA's leadership are NOT merely "little changes." If successful, the attempted changes will have a monumental effect on all of us. Further, I believe that the changes will eventually impact upon us much more negatively than we can presently imagine. Simply put, the Directors control what the NRA does. We members have very limited access in this ongoing process. However, we do have complete control over WHO the Board members will be. This is the only check and balance we members have and we can only exercise this once a year when we vote for the Board of Directors. Any member that is a 5-year member, a Life Member (or above) can vote. Voting for the Board of Directors has always been a difficult job. Many of us do not personally know the people running for the Board. In the absence of personal knowledge about a candidate, all we have to guide us in our choices is the 150-word biography printed in the NRA magazines. The other alternative we have is to look at a slate of candidates written by someone we know, or know of and accept their recommendations blindly. Faced with this dilemma, many of us might feel it is too difficult to choose, or that it really does not matter who we choose, because the candidates seem like they are all "pretty much the same." This year the situation is different. Drastically different. In voting for the members of Board of Directors, there is really only one issue, one simple question: DO YOU WANT WAYNE LAPIERRE TO BE THE EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION? Developments at the last Board meeting have clearly proven that this is the only real issue we members should be addressing in the upcoming election. A segment of the current Board of Directors have decided that Wayne La Pierre is at fault for most--if not all--of the NRA's problems. At the last Board meeting, these dissatisfied Directors tried to pass a change in the NRA's bylaws that would have allowed a simple majority of the Board to fire any officer without established due process provisions. These provisions require that notice be given to the officer; that the officer has a right to a hearing; and that the officer has the right to be represented by counsel. Translation: the dissatisfied Directors wanted a quick means to fire Mr. LaPierre. And some of these people were so insistent that they were apparently (although I am not an attorney) willing to violate New York non-profit corporate law to see this happen. The people who voted against this by-law change, and who wanted to KEEP Mr. LaPierre as the Executive Vice President, are as follows: Thomas Arvas David Bennett Donna Bianchi Robert Brown Raymond Cahen David Caplan Sue Caplan Jeff Cooper Donn DiBiasio Manuel Fernandez Joe Foss Sandra Froman Marion Hammer Steve Hornaday Susan Howard Roy Innis T.J. Johnston Cynthia Julian Sue King Herbert Lanford John Milius Ernie Padgette Barbara Phillips Edie Reynolds Kayne Robinson Wayne Ross Al Rubega William Steigers Bruce Stern Harry Thomas The people who voted for this by-law change and who want to FIRE Mr. LaPierre as the Executive Vice President are as follows: Robert Baer Micheal Baker Michael Beko Irv Benzion Sally Broadbeck Bryan J. Anthony Richard Carone C.P. Chaconas James Church Weldon Clark Ronin Colman John Cushman Bill Davis Haward Fezell Daniel Fiora Thomas Geiler Wesley Grogan David Gross Don Henry Robert Hodgdon Russell Howard Colleen Hyden Phillip Journey Michael Kindberg Neal Knox Kenneth Oehler Joe Olsen M.M. Pace Leroy Pyle James Ramm Albert Ross Harold Schroeder John Sigler G. Sitton Michael Slavonic Wayne Stump Paul Till Miles Ugarkovich Glen Voorhees The Board members that did not attend the meeting were: Robert Corbin Larry Craig Fritz Dixon Fielding Greaves Ted Nugent David Oliver Dave Workman Having not spoken personally to these people, I cannot tell you what their feelings are concerning Mr. LaPierre. In any case, we NRA members have a clear choice. If the name of a Board member that is up for election is on the above "keep Mr. LaPierre as EVP list", (except for the ones not in attendance), then voting for this candidate should be a vote to retain Wayne La Pierre as EVP. If you have any doubts about a Board candidate's position on this, you should contact them directly and ask the "One Simple Question." If the name of a Board member who is up for election is on the above "fire Mr. LaPierre list," then that person voted to fire Mr. LaPierre (again, except for the ones not in attendance). If a candidate has not been on the Board of Directors, it is simply a matter of contacting them and asking them the One Simple Question, Do you want to see Mr. LaPierre remain EVP of the NRA? If you cannot contact them, then vote ONLY for the candidates you are sure of. It is important that you vote for 25 candidates so that you do not give any candidate an advantage over the rest. I am currently trying to practice what I preach. As I keep reaching CANDIDATES I will try to present a more complete update. This however, should not stop everyone of us from doing the same thing prior to voting. Do not let your mind get clouded with side issues and tangential arguments. There are many matters that concern us, but after long and careful reflection, it is my opinion that it all boils down to just this "one simple question": DO YOU WANT WAYNE LA PIERRE TO BE THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION? I am not going to list all of Mr. LaPierre's valuable accomplishments since he became Executive Vice President. Each of us undoubtedly has some opinion about Wayne, but each of us must now ask ourselves: Based on all the circumstances that have transpired since Mr. LaPierre took office, could anyone have done a better job? The "rest of this story" is up to everyone reading this. Please cross post this letter freely--to other lists, BBS's, and commercial network services. Try to reach collectors, sports people, target shooters. Send copies of this to your local groups' newsletters. Make a hardcopy and use it to talk with your fellow firearms owners. Historically, only a small percentage of our membership vote for Directors. This time we all need to do our best to insure a dramatically larger voter turn-out. We will get back exactly what we actually put into this. If any of us chooses not to vote, we will have no one but ourselves to blame for any future problems our organization, the NRA, will face. The choice is crystal clear. It's ONE SIMPLE QUESTION, and it's time for each and every one of us to stand up and be counted. DO YOU WANT WAYNE LA PIERRE TO BE THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION? [End.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: JPFO Scores Again Date: 25 Feb 1997 08:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received via my AOL Newsprofiles. Aaron Zelman's group has hit another bullseye. JPFO has struck again. My compliments to them. This article, to the best of my knowledge, is not copyrighted. Please disseminate as widely as possible. Regards, Dennis -------- Subj: Schindler's List: Made Possible by 'Gun Control' MILWAUKEE, Feb. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- According to the JPFO, "gun control" promoted the Nazi genocide against 6 million Jews and 7 million Gentiles. Genocide becomes possible only after intended victims are disarmed. Thanks to "gun control," the Nazis quickly got an iron grip on Germany in 1933. They used lists of firearm-owners prepared under a (pre-Nazi) law of 13 April 1928 to disarm non-Nazis. Under the Nazis' Weapons Law of 18 March 1938, regulations of 11 November 1938 -- issued one day after the Night of Broken Glass (Kristallnacht) -- forced Jews to surrender their firearms. One of "Schindler's Jews," Californian Maurice Markheim, observed that, "At that time, if someone told me, 'You gonna die any way' and give me a gun in my hand, I would go and kill. But there was nobody who gave us the gun ..." (Elinor J. Brecher, Schindler's legacy: true stories of the list survivors, 1994, p. xxiii). The Nazi genocide is but one example of how "gun control" has promoted genocide. Between 1915 and 1994, "gun control" cleared the way for officials of governments "gone bad" -- in Ottoman Turkey, Soviet Russia, Nazi-run Europe, Mao's China, Guatemala, Idi Amin's Uganda, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Hutu-run Rwanda -- to murder at least 57,000,000, including millions of children. Most recently -- in 1994 -- "gun control" promoted 800,000 murders in Rwanda, in just 103 days (7 April to 19 July). Enforcement of a "gun control" law of 21 November 1964 alone explains how so few murdered so many so fast. Dozens of published survivor eyewitness reports show that after rifle-toting troops or police had shot rock-throwing resistors, the murderers hacked their victims with machetes. "Gun control" explains Rwanda's Genocidal leaders' belief that genocide was feasible. Only those blind to 20th Century history back "gun control." Those who watched Schindler's List and who want to prevent genocide -- rather than just weep for the victims -- will reject "gun control." Ask yourself: is not universal firearms-ownership in all civilized countries the only way actually to prevent genocide? JPFO offers a free copy of a book review by the New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law (1995), which summarizes JPFO's hard evidence that "gun control" promotes genocide. For more information, contact Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc., 2874 South Wentworth Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53207. Tel: 414-769-0760 / FAX 414-483-8435. CO: Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership ST: Wisconsin IN: SU: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fingerprint Repeal - repost]] (fwd) Date: 25 Feb 1997 08:45:54 -0600 (CST) > Posted to texas-gun-owners by Brian Carter > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > That was great! > > Is anything similar being attempted in Texas? And what about cataloging > SSNs under the guise of finding deadbeat dads? > Well the IRS is giving us heck in the University world. They audited some university and claimed that all the visiting professors that come in from all over the US and the World for 1 to 3 day presentations of research papers are really employees and made them pay 33% with holding taxes for everyone they had ever had for several years back. Now we are having to come up with 10 page questionnaire forms with 20 detailed questions to determine if they are considered employees or consultants. We now have to have a SS# or federal tax ID# for any vendor and they have to provide the SS# for all owners or stockholders of 10% or more of the company on any order over $5000 with state funds for the State to check and see if they are past due on child support. You have to provide a SS# to get the new computerized hunting license and for your driver license and a thumbprint that is stored electronically. The hunting license is because of a new law on past due child support. The driver license is from a national law on the motor vehicle code that requires all states to get the SS# or loose federal funds. The GATT trade agreement requires all children to have a SS# and made the tax law change on 401K and IRA's with some kind of sur-charge for having more than a certain amount and not with drawing and paying taxes on it by a certain age. I think part of this is related to the Tax law treaties. The SS# for kids is related to the UN treaty on the universal rights of children or what ever it is called that has not been ratified by our Senate yet. It says something to the effect that all children will have a tracking number so the member state can track that they are getting the proper support and legal rights. I know a few Fathers who had to literally sneak out of a hospital back door with their new-born to get out of filling out a SS# form for their babies. It seems that this is now required by all hospitals as part of their check out paperwork. Yes George Orwells 1984 is alive and well and for those of you who are big on the Bible it sure sounds like the Mark of the Beast all will be required to have in order to conduct business that everyone is always talking about. Regards, Paul Watson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: NRA Versus CTSGV on "Cochran & Grace" TV Show ... And "About Liberal Hate Groups" Date: 25 Feb 1997 11:02:50 -0500 (EST) For those who missed it, Chip Walker of the NRA went nose to nose last night against the legal counsel for the "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence", whose name escapes me. Lawyers Cochran and Grace were both "anti-gun" moderators. The lawyer from CTSGV was a real piece of work. Condescending. Arrogant. Dismissive of fact. Contemptuous of rational debate. Intent on disarming America, completely. A smug, sneering, smarmy, freedom-hating, yuppified Schoomerite. Folks, these people *HATE* our freedom as much as we LOVE our freedom. It is that simple. Anyone who believes that any amount of compromising or reasonable "giving in" will appease these jackals is going to be eaten by the media hyenas while HCI jackals wait in the background to clean up the leftover scraps. In summary, this is a political WAR to defend freedom. Yes, a political WAR. And it is time for us to worry less about appealing to soccer mommies who already do not value freedom (and who never will) and to educate the children of America about the true value of freedom, if it is not already too late. I know that the deck is stacked against us, but we can never give up. Never. Never. Never. ______________________________________________________________________________ Hey, is there is any merit to begin to use the opposition's terminology and to call them "hate groups" ??? When asked what we mean, we could look surprised and then answer, "Why, they hate Americans who love freedom. They hate the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. They hate the Declaration of Independence. They hate not being able to control *your* thoughts and *your* life. HCI are CTSGV are indeed "hate groups" in the same mold as the KKK and the Aryan Nation. HCI types just hate *all people* who love freedom instead of hating people of certain ethnic or religious backgrounds. HCI's hatred is much more broad-based than that of the KKK and other such groups which advocate focused hatred. Think about it. `Liberal hate groups' believe in hating many Americans liberally." (Ashen-faced reporter collapses as his/her TV camera crew struggles to destroy taped coverage.) What do you think of this thread? I have tried it out on an academic campus and I had three ultra-liberal, freedom-hating professors stuttering and sputtering and shuddering and quivering and stammering as I kept repeating that dangerous "liberal hate groups" were going to need to be "looked at very closely" by the FBI as posing "possible threats" to the very freedom on which this Country was founded. By the time I had finished my little speeches (smiling all the while), a few Clintonistas were darn close to going into cardiac arrest! Warning! Is there a liberal "hate group" out there which hates you, your family and wants to take away your freedom, just because you value freedom? Dial 1-800-LOUIE-LOUIE-FREEH, and get the Bureau on the case muy pronto. Hate is a very dangerous thing, especially when the people who are hating others are liberals who hate liberally! (Oh, this could be fun. Yes, it could. Perhaps "liberal hate group" ... or maybe "liberal supremacist hate group" ... oooohhhh, I like the sound of those words, yes, I do. Enjoy.) And remember not to hate the misguided fools who hate us, just because we love freedom. Freedom lovers are not, by nature, "hating types." We must never allow ourselves to become angry enough to hate those who hate us. For if we do, we may have lost the battle to protect freedom. We must take and hold the moral high ground, at all costs. Until the battle to protect freedom has been won. Christopher C. Ferris (a nice guy who hates nobody) Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: With Regard To The Empire State Building Shooting Incident ... (fwd) Date: 25 Feb 1997 14:22:57 -0500 (EST) Minor typo corrected. Reforwarded. Please delete first copy received. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: roc@xmission.com Isn't it interesting that foaming-at-the-mouth New York politicians and their socialist sheep, freedom-fearing followers have: 1. Not hinted that the Palestinian shooter could possibly be linked to a PLO terrorist cell working within the U.S.A.? 2. Not called the shooter an "extremist" of any type, shape or form? 3. Not called the shooter a "terrorist" of any type, shape or form? 4. Not called the shooter a "right wing militia gun nut" from "rural Egypt", where Hee Haw is allegedly quite popular and where Garth Brooks is reported to have a large following? 5. Not commented on how well disarming New Yorkers and other Americans visiting the Empire State Building worked to keep a Danish tourist alive? (Hint: the disarming did not work. The Danish tourist, sadly, died.) 6. Not hinted that the shooter was anti-Semitic, a "hate group" member, and not mentioned that ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center press conferences would soon be held to expose the "naked hatred" of the dead, maniacal shooter and his "Palestinian extremist" pals worldwide? 7. Not called for a federal investigation of the alien shooter involving the FBI, the CIA, the INS and last, but not least, the BATF? (Not to be confused with "Bill's Asian Trust Fund", now stored in banks in Jakarta, Indonesia and Beijing, People's Republic of China.) 8. Not screamed "foreign terrorism!", loudly and often? 9. Not yet ruled out that the shooter might possibly be Tim McVeigh's mentally challenged Palestinian uncle who hid in the attic when Tim was growing up? 10. Not hesitated to show "on screen" the eleven forms that one has to fill out before being turned down when one applies for a NYC pistol permit, onerous forms which demand inclusion of private tax-related information and answers to multiple essay-type questions? I noticed that NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani was oh so proud of these forms. Oh so very proud. (Only in The Big Apple, where unarmed innocents die as sleazy politicians lie.) 11. Not hesitated to fail to mention that the shooter violated numerous laws before travelling north from Florida to NYC with his Beretta .380. 12. Not missed a chance to portray Florida FFL dealers as unsavory, seamy characters and to portray rural Florida as the land of "white trash" in general? 13. Not missed a chance to focus on "the gun" as opposed to "the criminal" who killed an innocent man and wounded other innocent persons? 14. Not missed a chance to stamp their feet and to scream that nationwide gun control would have stopped this crime from happening? 15. Not missed a chance to show America's responsible gun owners that they (the pols and their socialist followers) do not know the difference between a Perazzi over/under 12 gauge trap shotgun and a Beretta Model 21 semi-auto .22LR mouse gun? I could go on and on and on ... you get the point. If this killer had been "Billy Bob Jones" from rural Illinois, had worn a faded marsh camo parka, had committed the crime with a duck gun, had two daughters named "Melisha" and "Freeda", and had recently attended the Super Bowl and rooted for the "Patriots", well, El Supremo WJC would now be holding a Rose Garden press conference, flanked by scowling Cabinet members, during which press conference he would announce steps to be taken to root out the "scourge" of "domestic terrorism" ... and you know that I am right on the mark with this speculation! Right on the mark. Does that now make me a right on the mark wing extremist? Tell me it ain't so, because it ain't. Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Waco Update: Feb. 25, 1997 (fwd) Date: 25 Feb 1997 17:10:19 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- WACO UPDATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1997 Committee for Waco Justice in Washington, D.C. My apologies for taking so long to get out another Waco Update. Sunday night I watched "Schindler's List." At the very end Schindler breaks down crying about all the Jews he could have saved if he hadn't spent the money on personal pleasure. At first I thought, "this is so fake." But later it reminded me how little I'd been able to do for the Davidian survivors and prisoners the last year due to health and money woes. And recently both my computer and my news groups/web service died. (Luckily my housemate lets me use his.) Unfortunately, it is difficult for most of us to do all that we would like to do on so many fronts. But we do what we can for liberty and justice. FEBRUARY 28, 1993 ANNIVERSARY PROTEST On Friday, February 28 at noon members of the Committee for Waco Justice will demonstrate in front of BATF headquarters at 650 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C. Everyone is invited! At least 8-10 of us will protest the federal government's ongoing coverup of BATF crimes against the Davidians, including the murder that day of six Davidians: the mortal wounding of David Koresh's father-in-law, Perry Jones as he stood unarmed at the front door with the unarmed Koresh; shots from helicopters that killed Winston Blake, Peter Gent, Jaydean Wendell, and Peter Hipsman; and the ambush and murder of Michael Schroeder as he approached Mount Carmel on foot later that day. While it's a bit late to start organizing, I encourage any one who has a local BATF office to go down with a sign and let them know Americans still care that BATF thugs murdered 6 innocent civilians and so far have gotten away with it. MARCH 22 MEMORIAL: THE COVERUP QUILT On Saturday, March 22, 1997 Virginia-based Parents Against Corruption and Coverup (PACC) is creating a memorial to those family members murdered and denied justice because of flawed police or federal investigations or coverups. It will be held on the Washington, D.C. mall between 7th and 12th streets (across from Janet Reno's office) on Saturday, March 22. Organizers are hoping "The Coverup Quilt" will be a vivid symbolic representation of the extent of the coverup problem in the United States. PACC has invited families of Branch Davidians to participate and a number of them are sending quilts. Photos of quilts made by families of fire victims Sherri Jewell and Floyd Houtman are already on their web page at www.clark.net/pub/tburkett/pacc/PACC.html. E-mail: tburkett@clark.net for more information. OKLAHOMA BOMBING TRIAL AND WACO The trial starts March 31, 1997. According to news reports, Michael Fortier, a friend of defendant Timothy McVeigh who is the government's star witness, alleged McVeigh was motivated to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in retaliation for the BATF/FBI attacks on the Branch Davidians. A government summary of Fortier's confession said, "Tim wanted to wake up America to the danger of our federal government and their intrusion on our rights." Unfortunately, the government may use this trial as another attempt to trash the Davidians, and thereby trash McVeigh for being seen as a supporter. I know the Committee will be keeping our eyes on this and doing what we can to get the Davidians' side of the story to the public and press. (I am currently sending copies of my book The Davidian Massacre to major news reporters who will be covering the trial. If anyone is going to be at the trial for a day or two, perhaps you might help in that effort. Please contact me.) One can only hope that those who think they are doing the Davidians a favor by blowing up buildings, etc. to "avenge" crimes against the Davidians will stop doing so. They only hurt the Davidians in the minds of the public and press. Some media may be becoming more sympathetic to the Davidians. On a recent NBC-TV cop drama HOMICIDE, a Baltimore cop complains when he hears that BATF and FBI are being brought in on a case. "Oh, no, not those wackos from Waco!" APRIL 18 and 19 ANNIVERSARY PROTESTS This year April 19th is a Saturday, a great opportunity for organized protests with speakers, tables, etc. Or even a picnic with friends and watching a few Waco videos. If you would like to hold a press conference, however, you might consider doing so on Friday, April 18th, since the press is less likely to show up at one on a weekend. The Committee for Waco Justice has gotten a big turnout at all our April 19th press conferences at FBI HQ in D.C. So consider doing one at your local FBI office next April 18th. For the fourth year in a row the Committee will be setting up 82 crosses for all the Davidian killed from 11am to 5pm on April 18th and 19th on the Ellipse, just south of the White House. We will hold our April 18th press conference there and then may go to the FBI and Justice Department six blocks away for a small demonstration. We encourage those who'd like to spend a day in D.C. to come by on the 19th , and we'll have an informal gathering with picnic lunches. If there's enough interest, some of us can get up and say a fe with the system by not appealing. At least ten people who read my e-mail called or wrote the warden to complain about this maltreatment and evidently the word was sent down to the guards to stop abusing Fagan, a small, well-spoken but defiant black minister and social worker from England. He has not complained since. He did write a January letter to other Davidians, cc: the sentient universe, about his response to David Koresh's failure to "come back" on December 14, 1996, 1335 days after his death at Mt. Carmel. (The letter should be available soon at Mark Swett's "The Research Center" at www.ime.net/~mswett.) It was one of several dates upon which Davidians believe Koresh might return, though they believe the timetable is "up to God." (PBS radio even ran a news item to announce that David Koresh had *not* returned as hoped.) Fagan's message of keeping to the faith of what Davidians experienced at Mount Carmel is somewhat different from the "new light" being presented by Davidian survivor and prisoner Renos Avraam in his big new book The Seven Seals. (See www.sevenseals.com for more information. The author and his editor are unnamed on the web page.) That book has given the Davidians many things to ponder, though prison bars prevent them from questioning Avraam on its many points, as they could if they were all free and together again. ANOTHER MALICIOUS FIRE AT MT. CARMEL As many know, Amo Roden, ex-wife of former Davidian "leader" George Roden, himself institutionalized in a mental institution, has been living in a shack at Mount Carmel since soon after the 1993 fire. Since then vandals twice snuck in and burned the old buses still remaining on that property. Last month, while Amo was away on honeymoon, vandals again struck, burning down her living shack and two small museum shacks on the property. Whether it was kids, deranged people or government agents, it is emblematic of the government's complete destruction of the group. The few surviving followers of David Koresh outside prison, mostly elderly people, nevertheless have almost collected enough money to build a small concrete chapel at Mount Carmel. (They will be holding April 19th services there again this year.) If you would like to contribute to their efforts, please send contributions to: Mount Carmel Survivors Memorial Fund, Inc., P.O. Box 120, Axtell, TX 76624. If you need their number, e-mail me since it is a private phone. You can earmark money for the prisoners needs, if you like. DAVIDIAN CRIMINAL APPEALS As you may remember, in August of 1996 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of six Davidians. Renos Avraam, Brad Branch, Jaime Castillo and Kevin Whitecliff had received 40 years each for aiding and abetting voluntary manslaughter and carrying a weapon in commission of the crime of conspiracy to murder federal agents--a crime of which the jury found them innocent. Found guilty on illegal weapons charges, Graeme Craddock received a 20 year sentence and Paul Fatta 15 years. There was some good news. The three judge panel ruled that four Davidians could have 25 years cut off their sentences unless (the very anti-Davidian) District Court Judge Walter J. Smith found evidence in the trial record that each of them carried an illegal weapon on February 28, 1993. (This because of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Bailey case.) The Fifth Circuit later rejected the Davidian motion that the whole circuit court hear the appeal. According to one Davidian attorney, the prisoners have filed petitions to the Supreme Court asking it to hear their cases, based on the fact that other circuit courts have found that *only* the jury can decide if defendants had illegal weapons while the Fifth Circuit has now ruled the judge can make that decision.. Judge Smith is probably waiting on their decision before issuing his decision on sentencing. Meanwhile, Davidian Paul Fatta had been hoping for relief under the U.S. vs. Kirk case, in which the defendant argued the United States government had no right under the commerce clause of the Constitution to ban the manufacture of machineguns--the kind of charges of which Fatta was convicted. Three Fifth Circuit judges upheld the ban; the whole Fifth Circuit then decided to hear the case--but split 8 to 8 on whether to uphold it, leaving the three judge ruling to stand. Kirk is appealing to the Supreme Court. (The transcripts of the 1994 Davidian trial are being assembled at http:/domain.flash.net/~wyla. There is also an important letter from Davidian survivor Sheila Martin there.) JUDGE SMITH REFUSES TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM CIVIL SUITS While federal agencies, Congress and the press have excused, ignored or suppressed crimes against the Davidians, jurors in the Davidian civil suits may take them more seriously. The 1.5 billion dollar civil suits, which are handled by Ramsey Clark, the Cause Foundation, and the Houston firm of Caddell & Conwell, all allege negligent or intentional murder by federal agents and officials. Attorneys will produce ample evidence during the civil trial, assuming that prejudiced District Judge Walter J. Smith does not dismiss most or all of the pending civil suits, as he did the first one presented to him two years ago. (He just refused to recuse himself from the case, as appellants had demanded.) Attorneys do hold out hope that Smith will not be able to dismiss suits for wrongful death on February 28th. In these cases the government has not yet figured out how to claim that all the Davidians killed themselves or each other. Davidian attorneys, with the help of a sympathetic judge, finally got BATF to cough up the full "official" video taken inside the Blackhawk helicopter. Full footage clearly shows that as a lead helicopter veers off to the right, the Blackhawk is diving down towards the back of the building and may have flown directly over it, as Davidians claim. Also, during this approach several sounds like gunfire can clearly be heard on the BATF video. A civil suit attorney calculates that these sounds only could have come from the helicopter. The fuller BATF video also reveals that a second video was taken by BATF agent Ted Royster, seen shooting footage with his camera after the helicopters land. BATF claims this is Royster's personal video tape, even though it was taken by a government employee while he was on the job. BATF refuses to release it, claiming it contains no incriminating or "Brady" material. Of course, government attorneys were the ones who decided whether the video contained evidence of crimes by BATF agents! SENATE WILL NOT ISSUE WACO REPORT The Senate held two days of Waco hearings Oct. 31- Nov. 1, 1995. It still has not released the transcripts of that hearing--or of the much longer one on Ruby Ridge. (A clerk said the Senate had had higher priority budget hearing transcripts to publish!) And neither Senator Hatch's office nor the publications clerk believed there would be a separate Senate report on findings of the hearing. There were only a few revelations during that hearing--most importantly FBI negotiator Clifford Van Zandt's agreeing with Davidian prisoner and hearing witness Graeme Craddock that every time the Davidians cooperated with negotiators, the FBI hostage rescue team would punish them through some hostile action. But over all it was a forum for BATF and FBI spokes people to assure senators that "Waco will never happen again." Time will tell. If you want to encourage the committee to hurry up and get those Senate transcripts out, call the Senate Judiciary Committee, 202-224-5225. ANALYSIS OF HOUSE WACO REPORT One of the many things I never got around to was writing a full analysis of this very flawed report after it was issued last summer. (My long report after the 1995 hearings is still on some web pages or can be e-mailed. I've heard the whole report and the hearing transcripts are available on the Thomas government documents site.) A few brief comments here about the most obvious failings or instances of congressional complicity in the coverup of crimes against the Davidians. In the report Congress spent much time ascertaining that someone at BATF lied to the military about the Davidians being involved with drugs in order to get help from Special Forces and to get other military aid. But they never took the crime seriously enough to find out just who told these lies. They admitted that military staff at Fort Bragg were not made available to them or have been pre-interviewed, but not consider this to be the obvious obstruction of justice that it is. And they only whined because BATF wouldn't allow interview of agents before hearing. They seem to forget that it is their job to get the truth out of these people--especially when they are responsible for the deaths of so many civilians. Congress went along with BATF's assertions the Davidians were waiting in ambush and fired first. As for shooting from helicopters, they blithely stated that there was none because National Guard helicopter pilots denied it and said BATF agents were unarmed. Of course, report writers forgot that BATF agent Davy Aguilera admitted at the hearings they were armed and had been given permission to fire in self-defense if necessary. They accepted the Department of Justice's sorry excuse that it just could not afford to test the Davidians guns to see if they REALLY were illegal machine guns, or if the FBI was falsely claiming so. And this was after they allowed Justice to shut down a truly y a private company, just because the N.R.A. would be paying for it. And, of course, Congress concluded that the Davidians started the fire, parroting false FBI claims, and concluded there is just no evidence tanks inadvertently started any fire. Evidence of an incendiary device exploding at the back of the gym after the first fire started was ignored. The hearing transcript was missing two important pieces of documentation. One was the several pages of memos and handwritten notes submitted proving that prosecutors were refusing to interview BATF agents because they might make incriminating statements that would help the Davidian defendants. The Justice Department's press release in response to them *was* included. The other was a response to Rep. Howard Coble's request the army send the House its proof of alleged damage to army tanks from Davidian gunfire on April 19, 1993. The House had asked for that evidence months earlier and not received. One staffer told me they did finally receive that material; if so, it was not included in the transcripts, as requested by Mr. Coble. NEW WACO MOVIE On Saturday, January 18 producers of the new documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" premiered the movie at the prestigious Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah. The color movie is 165 minutes, directed by William Gazecki and produced by William Gazecki and Michael McNulty. I have not seen the film and do not believe it will be available in video format until after it finds a theater distributor. The video uses film never adequately used by the major media, Davidian home video, Infra-red (FLIR) video and FBI amateur video. Producers conclude, from analysis of the FLIR tape, that the FBI did fire on the Davidians and that the fire was started by the an FBI CS gas grenade. (Assumedly the one which apparently is shot into the back of the gymnasium, however, that is seen several seconds after the first fire is spotted in the second floor bedroom.) Check out their web page at www.waco93.com/index.htm. USUAL DISGUSTING PLEA FOR MONEY Since the Committee for Waco Justice is a very low income group, we still don't have a bank account. Nevertheless, please feel free to help the Committee pay its modest debt and modest expenses by sending cash or a check written to CAROL MOORE (since banks won't accept those to the Committee), P.O. Box 65518, Washington, D.C. 20035. Those contributing over $25 will receive a free copy of my book THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE, and a WACO, NEVER AGAIN or FREE THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS button, if you specifically request either or both. (Buttons are $2.00 each otherwise.) Despite new developments in the 14 months since it's publication, the book remains factual and on target. (I can e-mail you the long advertisement if you like for the regular pricing.) PLEASE FEEL DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE TO FRIENDS, LISTS AND NEWS GROUPS Waco, Never Again! Carol Moore in D.C., the belly of the beastie boys cmoore@capaccess.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Student humor Date: 25 Feb 1997 20:17:51 -0800 You're all gonna love this... >This assignment was actually turned in by two of my English students: >Rebecca and Gary >English 44A >SMU >Creative Writing >Prof Miller > > In-class Assignment for Wednesday > >Today we will experiment with a new form called the tandem story. The >process is simple. Each person will pair off with the person sitting >to his or her immediate right. One of you will then write the first >paragraph of a short story. The partner will read the first paragraph >and then add another paragraph to the story. The first person will >then add a third paragraph, and so on back and forth. Remember to >reread what has been written each time in order to keep the story >coherent. The story is over when both agree a conclusion has been >reached. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > At first, Laurie couldn't decide which kind of tea she wanted. The > camomile, which used to be her favorite for lazy evenings at home, now > reminded her too much of Carl, who once said, in happier times, that he > liked camomile. But she felt she must now, at all costs, keep her mind > off Carl. His possessiveness was suffocating, and if she thought about > him too much her asthma started acting up again. So camomile was out > of the question. > > Meanwhile, Advance Sergeant Carl Harris, leader of the attack squadron > now in orbit over Skylon 4, had more important things to think about > than the neuroses of an air-headed asthmatic bimbo named Laurie with > whom he had spent one sweaty night over a year ago. "A.S. Harris to > Geostation 17," he said into his transgalactic communicator. "Polar > orbit established. No sign of resistance so far..." But before he > could sign off a bluish particle beam flashed out of nowhere and > blasted a hole through his ship's cargo bay. The jolt from the direct > hit sent him flying out of his seat and across the cockpit. > > He bumped his head and died almost immediately, but not before he > felt one last pang of regret for psychically brutalizing the one woman > who had ever had feelings for him. Soon afterwards, Earth stopped its > pointless hostilities towards the peaceful farmers of Skylon 4. > "Congress Passes Law Permanently Abolishing War and Space Travel." > Laurie read in her newspaper one morning. The news simultaneously > excited her and bored her. She stared out the window, dreaming of her > youth -- when the days had passed unhurriedly and carefree, with no > newspapers to read, no television to distract her from her sense of > innocent wonder at all the beautiful things around her. "Why must one > lose one's innocence to become a woman?" she pondered wistfully. > > Little did she know, but she has less than 10 seconds to live. > Thousands of miles above the city, the Anu'udrian mothership launched > the first of its lithium fusion missiles. The dim-witted wimpy > peaceniks who pushed the Unilateral Aerospace Disarmament Treaty > through Congress had left Earth a defenseless target for the hostile > alien empires who were determined to destroy the human race. Within > two hours after the passage of the treaty the Anu'udrian ships were on > course for Earth, carrying enough fireer to pulverize the entire > planet. With no one to stop them, they swiftly initiated their > diabolical plan. The lithium fusion missile entered the atmosphere > unimpeded. The President, in his top-secret mobile submarine > headquarters on the ocean floor off the coast of Guam, felt the > inconceivably massive explosion which vaporized Laurie and 85 million > other Americans. The President slammed his fist on the conference > table. "We can't allow this! I'm going to veto that treaty! Let's > blow 'em out of the sky!" > > This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature. My > writing partner is a violent, chauvinistic, semi-literate adolescent. > > Yeah? Well, you're a self-centered tedious neurotic whose attempts at > writing are the literary equivalent of Valium. > > You total $*&. > > Stupid %&#$!. > - 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: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)CAUTION: Jury Duty Date: 26 Feb 1997 06:12:01 -0500 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:13:16 -0700 (MST) >From: Jury Rights Project >Subject: CAUTION: Jury Duty >To: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com > >***** Colorado Legal Eagles Issue Alert ***** > >February 25, 1997 > >The Colorado Legal Eagles >PO Box 506 >Nederland, CO 80466 > >Contact: Joe Vigorito (joe@eagle-access.net) > > Jury Duty: The Latest Governmental Mousetrap > > The Colorado Legal Eagles are advising U.S. citizens of a >new governmental mousetrap: jury duty. > On February 10, 1997, former juror Laura Kriho was convicted >of contempt of court by First Judicial District Chief Judge Henry Nieto. >Judge Nieto took four months to write a nine-page ruling to >convict Laura of contempt of court for: obstructing the >administration of justice by failing to volunteer information >about her opinions, beliefs, and attitudes (without >being specifically asked) during jury selection. > For the entire ruling: http://eagle-access.net/index3.html > > For that reason, the Eagles are advising all those called >for jury duty to ask the court to appoint legal counsel to >represent them throughout jury selection. > > The necessity of asking for legal counsel when called for >jury duty is unfortunate. It is widely believed by legal experts >that Judge Nieto's ruling will be overturned by a higher court, >thus protecting the rights of jurors. However, these appeals >procedures may take one to three years. Until such time, >citizens should be advised that they may be prosecuted after >their service as a juror, not only for replies made when asked a >direct question during jury selection, but for failure to >volunteer information that wasn't specifically asked. > > The gist of Judge Henry Nieto's ruling is that jurors do >-not- have the right to remain silent, but anything a juror may >say can be used against him in later prosecution. Not only will >this chill free and open deliberations in the jury room, but it >puts prospective jurors in an untenable position. > To protect yourself, you may wish to call counsel to go with you >for jury duty. If you can't afford that, you may wish to ask the court >for guidance. > It could be as simple as this: > "Your honor, I have been made aware of the case of a juror in >Colorado who was convicted of contempt of court for failing to >volunteer information during jury selection. I have no desire to >offend the court in any way, but I do not understand my legal >rights as a juror. I fear I may be prosecuted for what I say or >fail to say. For that reason, I am unwilling to make any >statements on the record until I have obtained legal counsel." > "Since I cannot afford a private attorney, I am requesting >that the court appoint me an attorney to represent me throughout >jury selection, so that I can understand my legal rights and >obligations as a juror." > > It is unclear how the judge will respond. S/he clearly has no >statutory duty, though s/he does have the authority to >appoint counsel in a civil matter. However you won't answer any more >questions, so it is doubtful you will be sitting on that jury. Unless of >course you have the advice of counsel. Please be careful and relate any >experiences to: joe@eagle-access.net. > > The truth is that judges and prosecutors want to intimidate >juries into becoming their rubber stamp. And they have been >mostly successful. Judging by the jurors who testified against >Kriho at her trial, most jurors are already willing slaves of the >government. Kriho's conviction is an attempt to quash the >few forgotten remnants of juror independence in this country. > > That is why those of us who care about the right to trial by >jury should not let the ruling in the Kriho case make us shun and >avoid jury duty. We need to demand our rights, not surrender >them. > > The Legal Eagles do have great faith that the higher courts >will not tolerate this type of malicious prosecution of jurors. >However until this situation is fully heard and rectified, >citizens should be aware that the time-honored tradition of >service through jury duty has been rendered just another in a >long list of governmental mouse traps. > >Joseph Vigorito >The Colorado Legal Eagles >(303) 258-3990 >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Re-distributed by the: > Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be added to or removed from the JRP mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen >Nine-page ruling convicting Kriho: http://eagle-access.net/index3.html > Donations to support Laura's appeals can be made to: > -- Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund -- > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > Email: pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > Phone: (303) 841-9649 > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Plague vaccine and Vietnam (fwd) Date: 26 Feb 1997 07:34:02 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hi All, I believe that the only time the plague vaccine was used on a large scale other than in the Gulf, was in Vietnam, this is interesting as it could give us a clue as to whether this vaccine caused any problems amongst the Nam Vets, there may even be some medical papers on its use in Nam. If any Nam Vets out there could add to this I would sure be happy to hear from you. All the best cheers Dave Austin - UK GulfVets - "In Pursuit of the Truth" The UK GulfWeb: http://www.ozbod.demon.co.uk/uk.html also at: http://www.gulfwar.org/UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Red Chinese Opening Giant Base In Former U.S. Naval Harbor Date: 26 Feb 1997 11:02:46 -0800 A great cover for infiltrating Red Guards right into Long Beach, California. Why didn't I think of that?? Perfect weather, almost year-round. I am sure they will all have valid green cards, yes? (Or, should I have said, "red cards"?) Pardon me for asking the really tough questions. None will dare to call it treason, now will they? /s/ Paul Mitchell At 11:19 AM 2/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >Confirmation of this one would be a good idea. Anybody here anything else >about this? Patty > > >Return-path: >>Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:08:11 -0500 >>From: Terry >>Subject: [Fwd: Red Chinese Opening Giant Base In Former U.S. Naval Harbor] >>X-Sender: maverick@mailbox.iwaynet.net >> >> >>>Hi Tom: >>> >>> Mike Blair reveals The New World Orders plans to bring China into the >>>Utopian World of the Global Plantation. >>> >>> Many Californians have long been asking why the Clinton administration >>>decided to close the bustling Long Beach Naval Station in 1994 and the >>>vital, national security-wise, Long Beach Naval Shipyard next September. >>> >>> Some think they have the answer with the announcement that a contract >>>has been signed with Red China to build a 145-acre shipping terminal at >>>the Naval Station. >>> >>> The giant shipping center, which will be built by the state-owned China >>>Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), will encompass all of the station's 134 >>>acres, plus 11 acres north of the naval installation on Terminal Island, >>>site of a federal prison complex. >>> >>> According to the Port of Long Beach, the new Red Chinese facility will >>>have berthside water depths of 50 feet and six immense gantry cranes >>>capable of reaching across at least 18 rows of ship container units. >>>The terminal is being built specifically to accommodate a new Chinese >>>fleet of container ships. >>> >>> "The terminal will have direct access to the open seas and a two >>>unit-train dockside rail yard to handle COSCO's intermodal shipments to >>>the U.S. Midwest, Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard," a spokesperson for >>>the Port of Long Beach said. >>> >>> The turning over of the naval station to the Red Chinese raises the >>>question whether it was part of what appears to be on-going relations >>>between the Clinton White House and the Red Chinese, which have been >>>linked to campaign contributions given by those with Peking connections >>>to the reelection campaign of President Clinton. >>> >>> The building of the terminal comes at a time when Red Chinese goods >>>exported to the United States have taken hundreds of thousands of jobs >>>from American workers, as well as running up America's annual trade >>>deficit in the billions of dollars. >>> >>> While it is claimed that the new shipping terminal will provide about >>>1,600 high-paying jobs in the engineering, environmental and >>>construction fields, as well as from 300 to 600 permanent jobs, they >>>will fall far short of the untold thousands that will be lost to >>>Americans as a result of making trade to America still easier for the >>>Reds. The communists are well known for their unfair trade practices >>>and the use of free slave labor. >>> >>> In addition, there are concerns about making it easier for the Red >>>Chinese to smuggle goods into America, particularly illicit drugs, for >>>which Peking has proven to be deeply involved. >>> >>> It was also recently revealed that the Red Chinese arms exporting >>>business, also owned by the government and in this case China's >>>military, had been caught attempting to smuggle 2,000 AK-47 assault >>>rifles into southern California for sale to "street gangs." >>> >>> Those connected with this arms trafficking were wined and dined at the >>>White House by Bill Clinton and his reelection cronies. >>> >>> WHAT DID CHINA GET FROM WHITE HOUSE? >>> >>> In the wake of a Justice Department investigation tying Red Chinese >>>political contributions to Bill Clinton's reelection campaign, >>>investigators are looking for signs of what China got in return. >>> >>> Even though the probes are in the early stages, many think they have >>>come up with some answers. >>> >>> For example, the state-owned China Ocean Shipping Company is building a >>>145-acre shipping terminal at a site of a closed naval station in >>>California. >>> >>> In addition, the Chinese are believed to be interested in a project at >>>a military air base in the California desert, according to reports from >>>the scene. >>> >>> One of Clinton's recent appointment's included moving North Carolina >>>businessman Erskine Bowles into the White House as chief of staff. >>>Bowles headed the Entergy Corporation prior to his appointment. >>> >>> The Democratic fund-raiser who funneled some $3.4 million dollars to >>>Democrats in tainted Asian contributions during the 1996 election, John >>>Huang, has a link to Entergy. >>> >>> According to publisher Alyn Denham, Huang worked with Entergy >>>Corporation to buy sophisticated computers, software, electronics and >>>tele-communications technology to be used in Red Chinese missile >>>guidance systems. >>> >>> In September 1995 and again in May 1996, intelligence aides warned the >>>president that "highly sensitive electronic and computer equipment is >>>being shipped to the People's Republic of China from the North Carolina >>>based Entergy Corporation." >>> >>> Clinton reportedly told aides that the Pentagon had assured him that >>>only obsolete equipment and software were being shipped. But the aides >>>could not find anyone in the Pentagon to verify Clinton's account of the >>>conversation, Denham says. >>> >>> The Justice Department picked up electronic intercepts which reports >>>say is evidence China wanted to direct funds from foreign sources to the >>>Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the presidential campaign. >>> >>> Clinton was forced to admit this raises "a serious set of questions." >>>He claims to have had no prior knowledge of the fundraising tactics. >>>White House E-Mail tells a different story. >>> >>> According to published reports, Clinton gave Red oilmen a private >>>audience after a radio speech. He banned photographers because he >>>didn't want you to know who was giving him Asian advice. >>> >>> Tomy Lake, Clinton's choice to head the CIA, was one of these present. >>>Although he considered the players "hustlers" to be "treated with a >>>pinch of suspicion," he put cash for Clinton's reelection ahead of >>>national security considerations >>> >>> "To the degree it motivates [a rich Asian-American who gave $366,000 to >>>the DNC] who am I to complain?" Lake aides have quoted him as saying at >>>the time. >>> >>> Gary......... >> >> > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with >"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) >Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT! (fwd) Date: 26 Feb 1997 13:09:25 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This is a VERY IMPORTANT Forwarded Message. Repost EVERYWHERE, especially to California acquaintances!! -- Michele =============================================================== >Subject: OPENING FRIDAY IN SAN FRANCISCO: Waco, The Rules of Engagement > >See the FBI's FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) footage from Waco, >incontrovertible evidence that the FBI _set_ the fire and _machine gunned_ >the Davidians attempting to escape, murdering 86 men, women, and children. > >Investigative Journalist Dan Gifford's > "Waco, The Rules of Engagement" >opens February 28 at the Roxie Theatre >3125 - 16th. Street >San Francisco >with showings at 1 PM, 4:15 PM, and 7:30PM >more information from the web site > >or from the theatre 415-431-3611 > >Dan Gifford will be interviewed on KQED-FM (88.5 FM) by Michael Krasny 9-10 >AM, February 28, Friday. For those of you who asked for further information: I am JUST a writer/reviewer who feels strongly that people need to see this film, and I have no connection with the film makers or producers. I do not have film showing schedules, nor do I have access to videos. (I don't even know if they're available yet.) For more information, check http://www.waco93.com You can also contact Fifth Estate Productions at (310) 289-3900 or e-mail them at info@waco93.com. Sundance Film Festival can be contacted at: PO Box 16450 Salt Lake City, UT 84116 (801) 328-3456 I have compiled a long list of interested people, so if you do find out any interesting or relevant information, please let me know. Thanks! I hope at least some of you get to see the film! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: WACO: FLIR expert analysis (fwd) Date: 26 Feb 1997 17:38:12 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This is Dr. Edward Allard's analysis of the Waco FLIR (Forward Looking InfraRed) video. The first 4 points describe his experience, in 6 through 12 he describes FLIR events, and in 13 gives his conclusion. While Dr. Allard describes only a few FLIR muzzle flashes here, the defense team has now identified 66 shots almost all toward the building, 44 of which are after the fire. -- Ian Goddard UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Civil Action No. H-95-587 Judge Atlas DEBORAH BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. Defendants DECLARATION OF EDWARD F. ALLARD, PhD. Edward F. Allard declares and states as follows: 1. My name is Edward F. Allard. I have worked for many years in the field of radiation physics related to thermal imaging, thermal signatures, thermal suppression and especially in aspects of those subjects relating to Forward Looking Infrared [FLIR] military systems. 2. My experience is set forth in my curriculum vitae, which is attached to this declaration. I received my Bachelor of Science in physics from Boston College and my doctorate in physics from the University of Missouri. I hold Patent No. 4,413,668 on a device to suppress thermal signatures and Patent no. 5,013,092 on a microdischarge image intensifier. My inventions and studies will enable use of uncooled thermal imagers with predicted performance better than the current TOW antitank missile night sight; design and calculation for these required an expert knowledge of photocathodes, photo detectors, signal detection, noise, charge transfer and optics for thermal imaging devices. 3. I began my career in this field as a supervisor at the Defense Department's Night Vision Laboratory, later becoming Deputy Director, Systems Development. My team developed and defended a variety of programs in the area, including L3TV systems, the thermal night sight for the Dragon antitank weapon, the night sight for the TOW antitank missile system, and other programs. NVL pioneered the Common Module System that is the foundation of the thermal imaging systems used in Operation Desert Storm. 4. As a defense contractor and government employee, I have analyzed a number of thermal imaging devices. These include comparisons of L3TV with thermal imagers, comparisons of American and foreign imagers, analyses of the thermal imager for the M1 tank, design of thermal pointing systems, construction of a T-62 thermal target for tank gunnery, and countermeasures to completely hide an M60 tank from enemy FLIR and to reduce FLIR signatures of tents, trucks, ships, and individual soldiers. The interpretation of FLIR imagery requires skill and experience. As but a few examples, materials which reflect sunlight and thus seem bright in the visible spectrum will often appear indistinct, or even dark, to a thermal imager; the very reflective properties that make them bright to the eye make them appear cool, and thus dark, to FLIR systems. Interpretation of thermal images requires a knowledge of the reflective properties of both natural and man-made objects. 5. I have reviewed a FLIR tape depicting the events outside Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993, which tape was obtained from one of the defense attorneys involved in the criminal cases that arose out of those events. My analysis of the tape follows. All times given are those shown in the timeclock shown in the tape. All directions are given from the standpoint of the viewer. 6. At 11:24:31, the FLIR is recording events in the rear of the building, where the Combat Engineering Vehicle [CEV] has partially demolished the area known as the "gymnasium." The FLIR shows several flashes appearing from a point to the left of the CEV. These are elongated in shape, several feet long, and appear and disappear at a regular rate with regular spacing between them. I note five flashes from one point, appearing and disappearing at the rate of 7-10 per second. At this location some non-flashing movement also appears visible. There is no natural explanation for these flashes. Natural phenomena do not heat and cool in fractions of a second. My expert opinion is that these flashes appear to be the muzzle flashes of a fully- automatic firearm, firing at about 500 rounds per minute cyclic rate. Carefully examined, in slow motion and by frame-to-frame observation, the flashes originate to the left and progress to the right, indicating that they are being fired from a source outside the building, and fired into the building. 7. At 11:42:56, the aircraft bearing the FLIR is circling the side of the building. A hot image is visible inside the side, ground floor, window of the "corner tower." As the aircraft continues its movement the image vanishes, underscoring the fact that the image is a hot object inside the room, the sight of which is lost as the aircraft moves on and alters the perspective through the window. 8. At 11:44:52, a momentary flash of radiation is seen to the rear of the central "tower." This may be at a location in the open area to the immediate rear of the building. The flash is visible for ten frames, approximately a third of a second, much longer than the flashes described above. It is not possible with these data to determine the cause or source of the flash. 9. At 11:47:50, the FLIR is recording events at the front of the building. A CEV has driven into the building, withdrawn, and has a large piece of rubble lodged on the front of the vehicle. An individual is dimly visible exiting the vehicle, walking to its front, and dislodging the rubble. The CEV is at this point halted within a vehicle length, perhaps twenty feet, of the front of the building. 10. At 12:07:40-42, the aircraft bearing the FLIR is circling past the right tower. A heat source, long and narrow in form, quickly appears across a window of the tower. Upon careful examination, slow motion and frame-by- frame, I believe this is more likely to be a heat source outside the window, than one inside it. It is noteworthy that the image does not vanish or fade as the aircraft flies past, in contrast to the heat signature noted at 11:42:56. 11. At 12:08:32, the FLIR depicts events at the rear of the building, where the large "gymnasium" structure has largely been demolished. Two very bright thermal flashes are visible near to or in the window at the center, in front of and to one side of the CEV which is stopped there. I see no natural explanation for these flashes. They would not, for instance, be reflections of sunlight off glass. 12. At 12:08:52 there are again radiation flashes, which I believe to be firearms fire, from the side and rear of the CEV. Again, when carefully examined they appear to move in the direction of the building. 13. In brief, my examination of the FLIR tape indicates: a. An analysis of the tape, field by field, reveals thermal flashes occurring that have pulse times and time intervals between them consistent with the intervals of automatic weapons fire. Pulses of approximately 1/15 second occur. There are no naturally- occurring phenomena that could explain these events. b. Other thermal flashes of radiation, approximately 1/3 second in duration, occur in various areas of the building complex. Again, no naturally-occurring phenomena can explain this. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Edward F. Allard, Phd. Dated this 1 day of Feb, 1996. For more on the Waco FLIR, visit: http://www.waco93.com *********************************************************************** IAN GODDARD (igoddard@erols.com) Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard _______________________________________________________________________ TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: FYI: The Judge Who Sued Himself (really!) Date: 26 Feb 1997 19:07:27 -0800 "I object (to myself!)," said Judge Lovell Headed. "Sustained!!" said Judge Lovell Headed. "NO!! OVERRULED!!!" retorted Judge Lovell Headed. ("Where is Lovell Headed, anyway?") ("Montana, I think," whispered Pobot the Robot.) [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] MEMO TO: Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit FROM: Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law DATE: January 7, 1997 SUBJECT: Ninth Circuit Docket #96-36101 Lower Court Docket #CV-96-00050-CCL I am in receipt of the ORDER dated December 18, 1996, in the matter described above. It was delayed for having been mailed to Box 80446 in Billings, Montana. Given the nature of this action, I agree completely with your disposition of the case. Permit me respectfully to request that the record show the exact sequence of events, from My point of view. I first filed a FOIA request for the credentials of United States District Judge Charles C. Lovell in Helena, Montana. Upon receipt of that FOIA request, Judge Lovell opened a case to adjudicate that request, effectively suing himself. Upon receipt of My routine administrative appeal, Judge Lovell then formally appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit. As the original FOIA Requester, it is My option to bring a civil complaint to compel production of the document(s) requested in My original FOIA request, or not to bring such a complaint. That option is not available to Judge Lovell, in particular because it is a clear conflict of interest (suing himself) and because it constitutes the practice of law, in violation of 28 U.S.C. 454 (a high misdemeanor). I have documented My objections to Judge Lovell's misconduct in My NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE, mailed to you and to all other interested party(s) on December 19, 1996. I presume that you have already received said NOTICE via U.S. Mail. I hereby record My formal intent to bring a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against Judge Lovell, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c), as soon as My busy schedule will permit it. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law and federal witness c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state Postal Zone 85719/tdc email: pmitch@primenet.com (586/Eudora Pro) tel: (520) 320-1514 (private line) (please request permission to share) fax: (520) 320-1513 (dedicated Internet line) (call: 520-320-1514 first to switch software) copy: Charles C. Lovell, U.S.D.C., Helena, Montana state Corina Drozio (sp?), Deputy Clerk, Ninth Circuit # # # [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state zip code exempt Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION IN RE: ) Case No. MCV-96-50-H-CCL PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL ) Appeal No. [none assigned] FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ) NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE: REQUEST ) FRCP Rules 9(b); 12(b)(1),(2); ) 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B); ) Petition Clause; Full Faith ) and Credit Clause; 28 U.S.C. ) 372(c), 454, 955, 1746(1); ) Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of ) Evidence ________________________________) COMES NOW Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law (hereinafter "Requester"), to provide formal Notice to all interested party(s) of this, Requester's formal Refusal of the alleged ORDER of the honorable Charles C. Lovell, United States District Judge, issued erroneously on October 10, 1996, and filed erroneously on October 15, 1996, in the instant case. Requester refuses said ORDER for fraud, and for all of the following valid causes, to wit: 1. This honorable Court erred by opening a case sua sponte to adjudicate Requester's document request, dated September 22, 1996, submitted under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 1 of 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and by forwarding a certified record of the instant case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (hereinafter "Ninth Circuit"), in response to Requester's administrative Appeal, dated October 8, 1996, also submitted under authority of the FOIA. 2. A FOIA request and appeal are both administrative, not judicial, remedies which the FOIA has made available to state Citizens such as Requester. If and when the FOIA request and/or appeal are denied and the pertinent statutory deadlines have passed for production of the requested document(s), the Requester's administrative remedies are then exhausted. At that point, it is up to Requester, and not the Courts or their clerical staff(s), to file the requisite civil complaint to compel production of document(s) improperly withheld and to enjoin the withholding of document(s) properly requested. Requester's administrative Request and Appeal were both proper. 3. Initiating such a civil complaint is not within the province of the courts or their administrative personnel. On the contrary, the practice of law is expressly prohibited to federal judges and clerks. See 28 U.S.C. 454, 955. Pursuant to Section 454 supra, the practice of law by federal judges is a high misdemeanor. Criminal conduct on the bench is a sufficient ground for automatic recusal and for a judicial complaint, filed with the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit pursuant to local rules promulgated under 28 U.S.C. 372(c). Requester hereby places all interested party(s) on formal Notice of Requester's intent to prepare and file such a complaint with all deliberate speed. Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 2 of 5 4. The Clerk of the United States District Court, sending United States Mail from 301 South Park, Room 542, Federal Building, Drawer 10015, Helena, MT [sic] 59626 [sic], has erred seriously by attempting to invoice Requester for a "Filing and Docketing fee" of $105.00, "pursuant to Notice of Appeal filed 10/16/96." Said invoice was dated "10/18/96". Because the instant case is entirely fraudulent on its face, for want of subject matter jurisdiction and of a complaint properly verified and filed by a litigant with standing, among many other reasons, Requester objects strenuously to the Clerk's attempt to compel payment of said fee, and to use United States Mail in this fashion. This is mail fraud, namely, to transmit a fraudulent invoice to Requester through the United States Postal Service. 5. For the benefit of this honorable Court, and pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, Requester hereby incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, an executed copy of Requester's comparable NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE as filed in the related case of People of the United States of America ex relatione Paul Andrew Mitchell v. United States et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. CV-96-163-BLG, District of Montana, Billings Division. Said NOTICE explains fully that the United States District Court ("USDC") is not the court of original jurisdiction over civil suits brought to compel production of documents requested under the FOIA, or to enjoin the improper withholding of said documents. The court of original jurisdiction is the District Court of the United States ("DCUS"). Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 3 of 5 See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). Therefore, this honorable Court never had subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance. 6. Requester respectfully demands mandatory judicial notice of the attached NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS, which is incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. Requester was unable to prepare and file the instant NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE until now, due to mail fraud. REMEDY REQUESTED Requester respectfully requests that the instant case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that the Clerk of Court be ordered to withdraw the Invoice for $105.00 which has been mailed in error to Requester, and that the dismissal ORDER be served on the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with all deliberate speed. VERIFICATION I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America [sic], without the "United States" [sic], that the above statements of fact are true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). Executed on December 18, 1996 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, and Relator in People v. United States et al. all rights reserved without prejudice Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 4 of 5 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law, do hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States", that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE: FRCP Rules 9(b); 12(b)(1), (2); 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B); Petition Clause; Full Faith and Credit Clause; 28 U.S.C. 372(c), 454, 955, 1746(1); Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence by placing one true and correct copy of same in first class U.S. Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to: Attorney General Clerk of Court Department of Justice United States District Court 10th and Constitution, N.W. 301 South Park, Room 542 Washington, D.C. Helena, Montana state Solicitor General Clerk of Court Department of Justice Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 10th and Constitution, N.W. P.O. Box 193939 Washington, D.C. San Francisco, California Office of the U.S. Attorneys United States District Court Federal Building Helena, Montana state Chief Judge Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals c/o P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, California state Postmaster United States Postal Service Helena [59626] MONTANA STATE Executed on December 19, 1996 /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, and Relator in People v. United States Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 5 of 5 # # # ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: The Free Market On-Line Date: 26 Feb 1997 23:18:07 -0600 The monthly libertarian newsletter _The_Free_Market_, published by the Ludwig von Mises Institude, is now available on the Worldwide Web. The URL is: http://www.mises.org/fm.html Now I don't have to transcribe it! An excellent essay on secession is to be found in the June 1995 issue ("When To Revolt," by Wesley Allen Riddle). I suggest browsing the whole _TFM_collection, as well as the rest of the LvMI site, for an excellent source of educational and source materials. FWIW, the late Murray Rothbard was a prolific anti-Fed scholar; much of his work is available through LvMI. Happy reading. -- Bob _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: SLS: Habeas Project for Political Prisoners Date: 27 Feb 1997 07:31:11 -0800 [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] For Immediate Release January 2, 1997 Supreme Law Firm Announces Habeas Project for Political Prisoners by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved (January 1997) Payson, Arizona. The founder of a new legal cooperative -- the Supreme Law Firm -- today announced a new project to bring their Supreme Law School into federal prisons, for the benefit of all political prisoners. The Habeas Project, founder Paul Mitchell's brain child, will leverage the growing enrollment of the School to identify sponsors who will forward study materials to prisoners, on a one-on-one basis, and act as mentors and counselors. "The incarceration rate in this country is a national scandal of immense proportions," Mitchell stressed. "The silver lining is that most political prisoners now have more reading and study time than ever before. We intend to restore freedom to each and every one of these prisoners, by teaching them the Supreme Law of the Land." Paul Mitchell points to former inmate Alan Stang, who found time in federal prison to write the ground- breaking book Tax Scam. Stang was jailed for a "tax crime." Mitchell recently launched the Supreme Law School, an Internet-based advanced curriculum for students and advocates of new developments in American Constitutional Law, as applied to current state and federal cases. Enrollment in the School is pre-paid in increments of one month, with a sponsor credit system for students who enlist others to enroll as well. Students can "drop-in" or "drop-out" as often as they want. Credits can be converted to cash or assigned to other projects of the Supreme Law Firm. For example, credits can be assigned to purchase postage for prisoners, who always need help with the simple expenses of answering mail and filing legal papers. "We are looking for generous and conscientious Americans who will enroll in the Supreme Law School, and then sponsor one or more political prisoners, whose special needs they will address," added Mitchell. "We want the Freedom Movement in America to remember those who were swept under the rug by a cruel and unusual regime of star chambers, entrapment, lies, extortion, and pseudo authorities. This regime is fast approaching a fascist dictatorship, and education in Law is a necessary ingredient to restoring the constitutional Republic which America was always designed to be, and to remain." More information about the Supreme Law Firm, and the Supreme Law School, can be obtained by directing electronic mail ("email") to , or writing to: Supreme Law School: Internet Group Attention: Habeas Project c/o 2509 North Campbell Avenue, #1776 Tucson, Arizona Republic Postal Zone 85719/tdc # # # ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: SLS: new additions to Supreme Law Library Date: 27 Feb 1997 08:40:47 -0800 Dear Friends, Please help yourself to the new additions to the Supreme Law Library at URL: http://www.supremelaw.com /s/ Paul Mitchell ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chuckrn@aone.com (Charles R. Norgaard) Subject: Robert LeFevre on the Civil War (fwd) Date: 27 Feb 1997 07:14:50 -0800 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:02:12 -0800 (PST) >From: Bob Tiernan >To: "Charles R. Norgaard" >Subject: Robert LeFevre on the Civil War (fwd) > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:03:03 -0800 >From: Bob Tiernan >Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa >Subject: Robert LeFevre on the Civil War > > > >>From "The Fundamentals of Liberty", by the great >libertarian teacher Robert LeFevre: > > >pp. 351-2 > > >At Lexington, and in the ensuing years of battle between the American >colonies and their government, the concepts of the rights of man >triumphed. That event signaled the belief that individual human beings >could be right and their government could be wrong. The Northern victory >in the Civil War turned back the clock. It reaffirmed the concept that >the government is always right and anyone who opposes it is wrong. > >A second shot was heard around the world. The message of this second >explosion was the opposite of the message conveyed in the first. America >was tarnished. We were now to be a governed people, not a free people. > >Prior to the Northern victory, Americans were accustomed to boast of >their great country because the government was small and tractable and >they were free. Today, the boast is that we have a marvelous government >that does almost everything for us, assumes our own responsibilities, >looks after us unceasingly, and is concerned in ways we can't even yet >conceive. > >But historians are prone to write their views from the position of the >throne room. And the side that controls the propaganda has it within its >power to make it appear that every victory is a victory for virtue. It >is not always so. > > >-- Robert Lefevre (1911-1986) > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Metaksa v. Brown v. Lautenberg Date: 27 Feb 1997 14:52:36 -0500 (EST) Kudos to Tanya Metaksa for holding her own, keeping her cool and projecting professional dignity in the face of outrageous an "ad feminam" attack rendered by Denise Brown (Nicole Brown Simpson's sister) on CNN this morning. The subject was "Domestic Violence and Guns." Brown was hysterical, rude and out of control. I know that she is distraught that her sister was slain, but her verbal attack against Tanya was "way over the line." Lautenberg was a typical U.S. Senator, i.e., no defender of freedom, if not a member of Senator Lott's "Our-Yawn Republican Army", an alleged "extremist group" which sleeps and snores under clean white sheets in locked Capitol cloakrooms instead of defending freedom overtly and without apology. (Sorry for the satirical "shot" at Senate Repubs. But they probably deserve it.) Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Metaksa v. Brown v. Lautenberg (fwd) Date: 27 Feb 1997 15:44:15 -0500 (EST) Minor typo fixed. Sorry about that, folks. This final draft will make more sense. :-) Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Kudos to Tanya Metaksa for holding her own, keeping her cool and projecting professional dignity in the face of an outrageous "ad feminam" attack rendered by Denise Brown (Nicole Brown Simpson's sister) on CNN this morning. The subject was "Domestic Violence and Guns." Brown was hysterical, rude and out of control. I know that she is distraught that her sister was slain, but her verbal attack against Tanya was "way over the line." Lautenberg was a typical U.S. Senator, i.e., no defender of freedom, if not a member of Senator Lott's "Our-Yawn Republican Army", an alleged "extremist group" which sleeps and snores under clean white sheets in locked Capitol cloakrooms instead of defending freedom overtly and without apology. (Sorry for the satirical "shot" at Senate Repubs. But they probably deserve it.) Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: All Points Bulletin: 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2 Date: 27 Feb 1997 14:41:51 -0800 This is an All Points Bulletin ("APB") for the regulations at 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2, which are now missing from federal depository libraries, pursuant to Executive Order. Please fax said regs to (520) 320-1256 as soon as possible. This is a dedicated 24-hour hard-copy fax machine. Thank you. /s/ Paul Mitchell ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Clinton Anti-Drug Plan Features Gun Control Date: 27 Feb 1997 23:09:47 -0600 Once again, the ruling elites try to bash law-abiding gun-owners and innocent youngsters in their continuing assault on the Bill of Rights. Once again the Clintonistas trot out the old horse, Guns = Drugs = Violence Against Children. You know the drill; light up those phone/fax/e-mail lines. Note in the attached USENET news clipping the new figures attributed to the Brady Act. Note also the proposal to expand unconstitutional drug testing, in direct vio- lation of our Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections. BTW, USIA is the United States Information Agency (try a Web search). I guess that US_D_A was already taken. Yours in the Struggle, Bob L. _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| ----- Begin Included Text ----- 220 1266 <97022501.LAR-gov.news.summary.48hours-aab@ZipNews.com> article Path: uunet!in1.uu.net!205.185.79.4!super.zippo.com!zdc!usenet Newsgroups: zipnews.gov.news.summary.48hours Lines: 272 Sender: root@linda.zippo.com Approved: news@zippo.com Message-ID: <97022501.LAR-gov.news.summary.48hours-aab@ZipNews.com> Xref: uunet zipnews.gov.news.summary.48hours:1266 *97022501.LAR TRANSCRIPT: CLINTON ANNOUNCES 5-PART ANTI-DRUG STRATEGY (Hails success against drug trafficking in region) (2540) WASHINGTON -- President Clinton, in announcing a new five-part anti-drug strategy, said his administration has had some success against drug traffickers throughout South America and in the Caribbean. At a ceremony at the Old Executive Office Building where he unveiled a proposed $16,000 million anti-drug effort for the next fiscal year, Clinton said that during his first four years in office more than 100 tons of cocaine a year were captured throughout South America and the Caribbean. He said that the Coast Guard's Operation Frontier Shield in the Eastern Caribbean between Oct. 1 and Dec. 1 of last year seized 14,000 pounds of illicit drugs, compared to 5,400 pounds for the entire previous year. "We can do better with interdiction, and we're learning to do it," Clinton added. With his drug czar, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, and Vice President Al Gore looking on, Clinton said that "we are committed to cooperating with our friends in Latin America. That's one of the reasons why I asked (Thomas) Mack McLarty to be my special envoy to the Americas. We want to cooperate with them, but we want them to cooperate with us as well. We want to reduce our demand for drugs, but we are determined to reduce the supply as well." The following is the text of Clinton's remarks: (begin transcript) REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN ANNOUNCEMENT OF DRUG STRATEGY Room 450, Old Executive Office Building 11:37 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. First of all, thank you, Nathan, for your introduction and your commitment, and I thank all the young people who are here from the Boys and Girls Club, from the DARE programs. I want to thank the members of the President's Drug Policy Council who are standing here behind me and those out in the audience who have been introduced by the Vice President and by General McCaffrey; and I thank the members of Congress for being here and their support, and all the rest of you who are involved in this battle. Let me say a special word of appreciation to General McCaffrey. He has literally been tireless in developing a national strategy to reduce illegal drug use and more importantly, to implement it in a way that makes a difference in the lives of all Americans. I knew that he was well-suited for the job. I had had a lot of exposure to General McCaffrey before I asked him to do this job, but even so, I have been surprised by the increased intensity of his tenacity and focus; and for that I am grateful. I think it gives us a chance to turn this situation among our young people around, with all of your help. Let me say at the outset, one of the things that I have tried to do, and one of the reasons I like this drug policy so much is that it is focused on children and, therefore, it is a part of what I think ought to be our overall mission, which is to give our children a safe, wholesome, constructive upbringing that begins with a drug-free life, appropriate health care, safe streets and a decent education. I want to thank the Attorney General -- today, the Justice Department has announced something else that I think is important. I'd just like to begin, because I think we need to look at this in terms of the safety of our children. Today, the Justice Department announced that in the first 28 months since the Brady Bill went into effect, another law directed to the safety of our children, more than 186,000 felons, fugitives, and stalkers were blocked from buying guns over the counter -- more than 186,000, from March of 1994 to the end of June of 1996. And more than 70 percent were rejected because the applicant was an indicted or convicted felon. Now, it seems to me that, for all those who are still out there campaigning against the Brady Bill, those of us who support it can now rest our case. It's the right thing to do for America. It's making us safer. It's giving these children a chance to grow up drug free. And I ask all of you in law enforcement to redouble your efforts to support it and to do what we can to defend it. Our five-part drug strategy is another part of making America safer for our children. In 10 years, a young person, a young man or woman Nathan's age, will be in his or her early twenties, a time when a person should be well on the road to becoming a contributing member of society, an adult with responsible duties. Those 10 years, they're a pivotal 10 years. We're learning all the time about how formative the young years are in a person's life when intelligence is formed, but we also need to concentrate on the formative years when not only intelligence but good judgment is formed, and decisions are made about whether people will be good citizens, good workers, good parents and, among other things, drug free. What happens to people in those 10 years should be an integral part of every drug strategy. This is an urgent issue. You know, there is hardly a day that passes when we don't read in the newspaper about yet another child becoming a victim of violence. Every American should be angry that a nine-year-old child cannot make her way safely to her grandmother's door in a Chicago housing project -- angry that she was brutally attacked and left for dead. That child will suffer with great physical and emotional pain for the rest of her life. A portion of her childhood was taken from her. And whenever an attack like that happens, a portion of our humanity is taken from all of us. Last week in Chicago, Hillary asked that anyone who has information about that attack, contact the local law enforcement officials. I want to extend that call today and ask that all of us do more to keep watch over our children. We have to become angry whenever any child -- one single child -- becomes prey for drugs or violence or abuse, and we should use our anger to take action. Last week I unveiled our Youth Violence Strategy to keep gangs, guns and drugs off our street and called for new protections for our children, including safety locks on guns and extending the Brady Bill to violent youthful offenders. But, fundamentally, this course will only change if all of us can teach our children right from wrong, and if all of us can help them to steer away to a more productive, positive life. That is what we have to focus on in this Drug Strategy. We know what works. We know what works. There are people here who have been working in this vineyard for years and years and years. We know that bipartisan cooperation works. We know persistence and community action works. All were factors in reducing illegal drug use by half in the last 15 years. But we also know that during this time, drug use by adolescents, almost unbelievably, went up. And I might add, until last year so was the crime rate by young people going up while the overall crime rate was dropping. And the two things were clearly related. This is not a problem confined only to the poor or to those in inner-cities. It cuts across from rich to middle class to poor, from urban to suburban to rural. In each of these places, there are children who are getting in trouble when they ought to be choosing a better life. Among 8th graders, in the last few years, drug use is up 150 percent. An 8th grader, typically, is 13 or 14 years old. That's why prevention is important at that age, and indeed considerably younger. If we teach our children well, more of them will live well away from harm's way. Our drug strategy must be more than a year-to-year approach, but a guide to action for the next decade, for those critical 10 years of these young people's lives -- to reduce drug use and its consequences, and to keep our young people out of the kind of harm that the invasion of drugs into their bodies will cause. We should first begin by giving our children the straight facts. We know that the more children are aware of the dangers of drugs and believe the facts, the more likely they are to avoid them. We propose to add up to $175 million to seed a far-reaching media campaign to get out the facts and shape the attitudes of these young people. We'll be seeking matching funds from the private sector for a total of $350 million, because this must be a shared responsibility. If a child does watch television -- and what child doesn't -- he or she should not be able to escape these messages. And again, let me say I want to thank General McCaffrey for bring this idea to me and pointing out how much we had permitted public advertising aimed at young people about the dangers of drugs to decline over the last few years. That is one of the seminal contributions that he has made to my understanding of this issue, and I appreciate it, and I ask the Congress to help us to get this job done. Second, we must reduce drug-related crime and violence. Drug-trafficking supports gangs and sets off gang warfare. A million Americans are arrested every year for violating the drug laws. Let me say that again: a million Americans are arrested every year for violating drug laws. Three-quarters of the growth in the number of federal prison inmates is due to drug offenses. We will enforce the law vigorously, but we have to do more than make more jail space. I saw yesterday that two of our largest states, Florida and California, now have prison budgets bigger than their higher education budgets, that prison construction is growing all over America much faster than constructions in our colleges and universities, even though enrollment is going up and older people are trying to go back to college. We have to do more to prevent these things from occurring in the first place. More to take the guns out of hands of criminals and juveniles, more to use the criminal justice system to reduce drug demand and break the cycle of drugs and violence. Drug courts and mandatory drug testing and treatment are effective. I'm pleased to announce that the Justice Department is providing $16 million in grants to more than 125 communities across our nation for planning, implementing or improving drug courts. I have seen them work. I know they will make a difference. Third, we have to work to eliminate the social consequences of illegal drug use. A third of all AIDS and HIV cases are drug-related -- a third. More than 3.6 million Americans, as the General said, are addicted to drugs, and drugs kill 14,000 of our fellow citizens every year. Often, people who use illegal drugs are people who go to class or hold jobs or have families. They drain our productivity. We can begin to reduce these consequences if we can further decrease the number of casual drug users and if we can help chronic users to overcome their dependency. It is important that we try to do both. Fourth, we have to do more to shield our frontiers against drug-trafficking. We all know that this is a very difficult task. Hundreds of millions of people enter our nation every year. Hundreds of millions of tons of cargo are shipped here every year. Just one-millionth of all that cargo is illegal drugs. One-millionth of all that cargo is illegal drugs. But that is still far too much, and an awful lot of cargo. Our job is to stop it without hurting the legal commerce and movement that makes us the trade leader of the world. Along our border to the south with Mexico, crime and violence linked to drugs must be brought under control. Our 1998 budget will bring considerable reinforcement to that border. Fifth, we have to reduce drug cultivation, production and trafficking abroad and at home. We've made a start by supporting alternatives to drug crops. In Peru, coca cultivation dropped by 18 percent. In the next decade, we want to completely eliminate the cultivation of coca for illicit consumption. If we help with alternative crops that is a viable policy in many cases. We've also had some successes against trafficking. The Coast Guard's Operation Frontier Shield in the Eastern Caribbean between October 1st and December 1st of last year seized 14,000 pounds of illicit drugs, compared to 5,400 pounds for the entire previous year. It seized seven smuggling vessels and achieved an 80 percent interdiction rate, versus 20 percent in the previous year. We can do better with interdiction, and we're learning to do it. Throughout the Caribbean and in South America we've captured more than 100 tons of cocaine a year. With the cooperation of other nations and with regional organizations, we're committed to building on our record of success. And when Secretary Albright returns from her trip this afternoon, we'll be looking at certification on counternarcotics operations. We are committed to cooperating with our friends in Latin America. That's one of the reasons why I asked Mack McLarty to be my special envoy to the Americas. We want to cooperate with them, but we want them to cooperate with us as well. We want to reduce our demand for drugs, but we are determined to reduce the supply as well. Finally, let me say we have to do more to work together here at home. On May 21st, I will host the first White House Mayors Conference on Drug Control to bring together not only mayors, but police officers and prosecutors, too, to make sure that in every community we are doing the very best job we can. I want parents, teachers, law enforcement and other community leaders to help us. I want our young people to help us, most of all. We did not create this problem overnight, and it will not be solved overnight, but over that critical decade of these young people's lives who are here, we can lift a whole generation away from the grip of a terrible menace. Thanks to the efforts of many people, we now have a rational, coherent and long-term strategy. Its ultimate success will depend upon the support it receives from every American. And, ultimately, it will depend upon the willingness of our young people to listen, to learn, to be strong and to find support. The rest of us have to be that support. There is no more urgent priority. Thank you very much. (end transcript) NNNN ----- End Included Text ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Shapiro stabs, or stags, you in the back ;-) Date: 28 Feb 1997 07:02:42 -0600 Well, I never! Can you imagine a Senator trying to regulate a PRIVILEGE? According to Neal Atkins, you all in Tejas have your PRIVILEGE and have nothing to worry about and if us'ns in Newbrasky and Kansas and elsewhere what to wrangle about our RIGHTS then that is so much the worse for us, because, by inference, you all in Tejas have yourn and could care less about the rest of us. Especially them that want to wrangle about RIGHTS. Well, I see it now and infant saw it before, you SLOP a politician enough to make IT strong and when you fall IT will eat you. Kind of like defecating in a HOG yard, you are likely to be eaten by the HOGS. The Concealed Carry Permit is a Trojan Horse, folks. The Politicians know that we were to weak and lazy to fight for our rights to keep and bear arms but strong enough to help them get elected, so they toss us a bone, CCW. Then, since we acknowledge, by pushing for a privilege, that RKBA is dead, they then start whittling away. Soon we will not even be able to own a Soda Straw for fear that we will use it for a blow gun and blast Snot balls through it. Wake up you Tejicans! Wake up all of us. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: "Northern Wealth Outlaw Wing" Formed To Combat Anti-Freedom Hate Groups Nationwide Date: 28 Feb 1997 09:54:08 -0500 (EST) THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Prominent pro-freedom attorney Les Reeses-Pieces, a distant cuzzin of rabid freedom-hater More Deeses-Pieces, has recently founded the "Northern Wealth Outlaw Wing" (N-WOW) to complement the efforts of Deeses-Pieces' Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a well known left wing hate-but-no-think-tank. Commented N-WOW founder Les Reeses-Pieces, "I know that the `N-WOW' name is totally absurd, but it makes about as much sense as the name of cuzzin More Deeses-Pieces' `Southern Poverty Law Center.' The SPLC is not exactly a poverty-stricken group. It is rolling in dinero pumped in by fat cat Clintonistas who pretend to be interested in fighting `hate groups' but who seem, just the same, to spend an awful lot of time and money hating freedom-loving Americans, and not just condemning racists, neo-nazis and skin-heads, fools who surely deserve to be condemned for their bigotry and intolerance." Les Reeses-Pieces outlined some of N-WOW's new, exciting initiatives, as follows: To complement the SPLC's KLAN-WATCH program, N-WOW has developed the following programs: MAN-WATCH: to track pro-government white (house) supremacists, some of whom are alleged to be "pin heads" who sport dark black attire, and many of whom allegedly work out of a well known White (Supremacist) House located in downtown Washington, D.C. BAN-WATCH: to track federal government efforts to ban anything related to freedom or, for that matter, anything you like. TAN-WATCH: to track the tan lines of young twenty-something female visitors to Camp David whenever Hillary is on the West Coast promoting her book, "It Takes A Village (To Keep Bill Satisified.)" SCAM-WATCH: to track White House and DNC fund-raising scams. (This group has been working overtime lately.) CAN-WATCH: to monitor federal prison entrances to determine the frequency of entries made by shackled and cuffed Clintonista felons. To complement the SPLC's MILITIA TASK FORCE, N-WOW has also developed the following program: MELISSA TASK FORCE: to monitor the safety of all pretty young women named Melissa, aged fifteen-thirty, who should happen to come within one mile of Wee Willie Clinton at any time. MTF members who are husbands, dads, boy friends, moms and grandmothers, will be watching all Melissas with care to insure that no innocent Melissas are subjected to the roving eyes and roaming hands of WJC. MTF members have been specially trained by Paula Jones to identify Presidential camouflage and his assault weapon of choice. Les Reeses-Pieces invites persons interested in contributing to N-WOW's success to funnel monetary contributions to any and all organizations devoted to protecting freedom against the recurring assaults of Clintonista regulators. ______________________________________________________________________________ THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: "Northern Wealth Outlaw Wing" Formed To Combat Anti-Freedom Date: 28 Feb 1997 09:15:15 -0800 We are treading perilously close to a blatant copyright violation here. "NWOW" has already been claimed as the New Word Of the Week Winner (or is that NWOWW?). Oh, never mind! :) /s/ Paul Mitchell /s/ N-HOW anybody? At 09:54 AM 2/28/97 -0500, you wrote: >THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE > >Prominent pro-freedom attorney Les Reeses-Pieces, a distant cuzzin of rabid >freedom-hater More Deeses-Pieces, has recently founded the "Northern Wealth >Outlaw Wing" (N-WOW) to complement the efforts of Deeses-Pieces' Southern >Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a well known left wing hate-but-no-think-tank. > >Commented N-WOW founder Les Reeses-Pieces, "I know that the `N-WOW' name is >totally absurd, but it makes about as much sense as the name of cuzzin More >Deeses-Pieces' `Southern Poverty Law Center.' The SPLC is not exactly a >poverty-stricken group. It is rolling in dinero pumped in by fat cat >Clintonistas who pretend to be interested in fighting `hate groups' but >who seem, just the same, to spend an awful lot of time and money hating >freedom-loving Americans, and not just condemning racists, neo-nazis and >skin-heads, fools who surely deserve to be condemned for their bigotry and >intolerance." > >Les Reeses-Pieces outlined some of N-WOW's new, exciting initiatives, as >follows: > >To complement the SPLC's KLAN-WATCH program, N-WOW has developed the >following programs: > >MAN-WATCH: to track pro-government white (house) supremacists, some of whom >are alleged to be "pin heads" who sport dark black attire, and many of whom >allegedly work out of a well known White (Supremacist) House located in >downtown Washington, D.C. > >BAN-WATCH: to track federal government efforts to ban anything related to >freedom or, for that matter, anything you like. > >TAN-WATCH: to track the tan lines of young twenty-something female >visitors to Camp David whenever Hillary is on the West Coast promoting her >book, "It Takes A Village (To Keep Bill Satisified.)" > >SCAM-WATCH: to track White House and DNC fund-raising scams. (This group >has been working overtime lately.) > >CAN-WATCH: to monitor federal prison entrances to determine the frequency >of entries made by shackled and cuffed Clintonista felons. > >To complement the SPLC's MILITIA TASK FORCE, N-WOW has also developed the >following program: > >MELISSA TASK FORCE: to monitor the safety of all pretty young women named >Melissa, aged fifteen-thirty, who should happen to come within one >mile of Wee Willie Clinton at any time. MTF members who are husbands, dads, >boy friends, moms and grandmothers, will be watching all Melissas with care >to insure that no innocent Melissas are subjected to the roving eyes and >roaming hands of WJC. MTF members have been specially trained by Paula >Jones to identify Presidential camouflage and his assault weapon of choice. > >Les Reeses-Pieces invites persons interested in contributing to N-WOW's >success to funnel monetary contributions to any and all organizations >devoted to protecting freedom against the recurring assaults of >Clintonista regulators. >___________________________________________________________________________ ___ > >THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE > >Christopher C. Ferris >Litchfield NH >ferriscc@mainstream.net > > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: House to consider Dornan vote Date: 28 Feb 1997 10:49:55 -0600 (CST) [U.S. News..............]__ 02/27/1997 07:55 EST [IMAGE] House To Mull Dornan Vote WASHINGTON (AP) -- A House panel has decided to proceed with an inquiry into former Rep. Bob Dornan's challenge of the election in which he was ousted by Rep. Loretta Sanchez last November. ``There are very serious allegations of illegal voting in California,'' said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., chairman of the election task force of the House Oversight Committee. ``We owe it to voters to examine that fact. ``We need to get more information and the way to get more information is to conduct a field hearing,'' he said Wednesday before the panel's 2-1 vote to keep the inquiry alive. Hearings are now expected in California's 46th District in late April or early May. Dornan, an outspoken Republican conservative who lost to his Democratic challenger by 979 votes, wants the results overturned. He claims that Sanchez supporters illegally registered hundreds of noncitizens for the Nov. 5 election. Sanchez was declared the winner after an official recount. She originally asked that Dornan's challenge be dismissed, but wrote a letter to the committee earlier this month asking that consideration of her dismissal request be delayed until after hearings are held in the district. She said she was confident an impartial review of the evidence would confirm that her election had been legitimate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: BILL TO LIBERATE ENCRYPTION FROM ANTIQUATED COLD-WAR REGULATIONS INTRODUCED (fwd) Date: 28 Feb 1997 16:25:44 -0600 (CST) ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From owner-crypto-news@panix.com Thu Feb 27 21:48:45 1997 Sender: owner-crypto-news@panix.com Reply-To: crypto-news@panix.com ======================================================================== PRO-CODE BILL ANNOUNCED TODAY BILL WOULD LIBERATE ENCRYPTION FROM ANTIQUATED COLD-WAR REGULATIONS February 27, 1997 Please widely redistribute this document with this banner intact until March 15, 1997 From the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Voters Telecommunication Watch (VTW) ________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS The Latest News What You Can Do Now Background On Pro-CODE What's At Stake For More Information / Supporting Organizations ________________________________________________________________________ THE LATEST NEWS Today, a bi-partisan group of seventeen United States Senators, led by Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), introduced the "Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era (Pro-CODE) Act", a bill designed to promote privacy and security on the Internet by relaxing government controls on encryption technologies. Encryption technologies are the locks and keys of the Information age -- enabling individuals and businesses to protect sensitive information as it is transmitted over the Internet. Pro-CODE aims to enable this by removing some of the regulations that currently prevent Americans from using this technology. A short summary of the bill and background on the encryption policy debate are attached below, along with information on what you can do to help ensure that Congress takes action on this important issue. ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW 1. CALL THE Pro-CODE SPONSORS AND THANK THEM FOR THEIR EFFORTS Members of Congress tend to hear from their constituents only when they do something constituents don't like. Today however, several Senators have taken a stand on an issue of critical importance to Internet users. It's crucial that we encourage them with phone calls of support. If you live in any of the states listed below, please take a moment to give these Senators a call. Allard (R-CO) Ashcroft (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Brownback (R-KS) Burns (R-MT) Craig (R-ID) Dominici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Faircloth (R-NC) Grahms (R-MN) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhoffe (R-OK) Kempthorne (R-ID) Leahy (D-VT) Lott (R-MS) Murray (D-WA) Nickles (R-OK) Thomas (R-WY) Wyden (D-OR) Please take a moment to give these Senators a call. You:Senator Mojo's office please! Sen:Hello, Senator Mojo's office! You: SAY I heard that the Senator introduced Pro-CODE to add more privacy on THIS-> the Internet. Please thank the Senator for me and I support efforts to fix antiquated encryption export laws. I live in . Sen:Ok, thanks! 2. ADOPT YOUR LEGISLATOR If you were one of the thousands of people that have adopted their legislator at http://www.crypto.com/, you would have received a personalized letter telling you that your legislator announced his or her sponsorship of Pro-CODE today. These personalized letters contain all the phone numbers you need, and we'll send them to you any time your legislator takes any action that would have a significant impact on the net. The Adopt Your Legislator campaign is the most effective method of mobilizing grass-roots support available today. Since late last year, VTW and CDT have been building a network of thousands of Internet users who are active and engaged in the fight for privacy and security on the Internet. By focusing our efforts on the constituents of specific legislators as well as on the net as a whole, we can ensure that members of Congress know that they have support within their district as well as throughout the Internet community. You can adopt your legislator at http://www.crypto.com/adopt/ ________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND ON THE PRO-CODE BILL The Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era (Pro-CODE) Act is similar to a bill introduced by Senators Burns (R-MT) and Leahy (D-VT) last year (then S.1726). Pro-CODE enjoyed broad bi-partisan support in the Senate and was the subject of 3 hearings, including 2 which were cybercast live on the Internet. This year's Pro-CODE bill (no bill number yet available) is designed to encourage the widespread availability of strong, easy-to-use encryption technologies to protect privacy and security on the Internet. Specifically, Pro-CODE would: 1. Encourage the widespread availability of strong privacy and security products by relaxing export controls on encryption technologies that are already available on the mass market or in the public domain. This would include popular programs like Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) and World Wide Web browsers like those made by Netscape and Microsoft. Current US encryption policy restricts export of encryption products with key-lengths of more than 40 bits. A recent study by renowned cryptographers including Whit Diffie (one of the fathers of modern cryptography), Matt Blaze, and others concluded that 40 bits is "woefully inadequate" to protect personal and business communications. Over the last eighteen months, several examples of the weakness of 40-bit encryption have been demonstrated by college students with spare personal computers. 2. Prohibit the federal government from imposing mandatory key-escrow or key-recovery encryption policies on the domestic market and limit the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to set standards for encryption products. 3. Require the Secretary of Commerce to allow the unrestricted export of other encryption technologies if products of similar strength are generally available outside the United States. For more information on the Pro-CODE bill, background information on efforts to pass encryption policy reform legislation last year, and other materials please visit: For more information, see the Encryption Policy Resource Page at http://www.crypto.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT'S AT STAKE Encryption technologies are the locks and keys of the Information age -- enabling individuals and businesses to protect sensitive information as it is transmitted over the Internet. As more and more individuals and businesses come online, the need for strong, reliable, easy-to-use encryption technologies has become a critical issue to the health and viability of the Net. Current US encryption policy, which limits the strength of encryption products US companies can sell abroad, also limits the availability of strong, easy-to-use encryption technologies in the United States. US hardware and software manufacturers who wish to sell their products on the global market must either conform to US encryption export limits or produce two separate versions of the same product, a costly and complicated alternative. The export controls, which the NSA and FBI argue help to keep strong encryption out of the hands of foreign adversaries, are having the opposite effect. Strong encryption is available abroad, but because of the export limits and the confusion created by nearly four years of debate over US encryption policy, strong, easy-to-use privacy and security technologies are not widely available off the shelf or "on the net" here in the US. Because of this policy problem, US companies are now at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. All of us care about our national security, and no one wants to make it any easier for criminals and terrorists to commit criminal acts. But we must also recognize encryption technologies can also aid law enforcement and protect national security by limiting the threat of industrial espionage and foreign spying. What's at stake in this debate is nothing less than the future of privacy and the fate of the Internet as a secure and trusted medium for commerce, education, and political discourse. ________________________________________________________________________ FOR MORE INFORMATION / SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS This alert was brought to you by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Voters Telecommunications Watch. http://www.cdt.org http://www.eff.org http://www.vtw.org There are many excellent resources online to get up to speed on the crypto issue including the following WWW sites: http://www.crypto.com http://www.privacy.org Please visit them often. Press inquiries should be directed to: Jonah Seiger of CDT at jseiger@cdt.org or +1.202.637.9800 Stanton McCandlish of EFF at mech@eff.org or +1.415.436.9333 Shabbir J. Safdar of VTW at shabbir@vtw.org or +1.917.978.8430 (beeper). ________________________________________________________________________ End alert ======================================================================== ----- End Included Message ----- -- ======================================================================= --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in | | compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, | | "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" | --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Wow! Date: 28 Feb 1997 22:25:22 -0800 Wow is about all I can say; call the toll-free number mentioned below... > Heads Up > > A Weekly edition of News from around our country > > February 28, 1997 #24 > > by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net > >---------------------------------------------------------- > Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html >---------------------------------------------------------- > > >SOME TRUTH FROM D.C. > We have said repeatedly that the next >great American leader -- the next Washington, Jefferson, >Madison or Franklin -- will probably not come from our >current crop of politicians. The group we have running >the country today is more interested in the control of >the people than the freedom of the people, more >interested in keeping their over-paid positions secure >than bothering to obey the Constitution. > Oh sure, there are some lights that shine >a little brighter than others in Washington. Senator >Fred Thompson comes to mind. But, there are none >championing the Constitution. Nor do we see any of them >showing an interest in reinstituting those unalienable >rights once guaranteed the American citizen by our >Constitution. > But folks, sometimes even the cynic on this >end can be pleasantly surprised. > In the mix, our very busy fax and e-mail >line received a message from Congress. The message said >to call 1 (888) 322-1414 for a "toll free Legislative >Update." So, OK, why not? It was free, and who knows, >it might be about something suitable for "Heads Up." > Then, out of that dark maze of overpowering >inequity in the Capitol Building came a message shining >as bright as an over-lit one-hundred foot tall billboard >at midnight. This, folks, was definitely not the type of >message one normally gets from Congress! Rather, it was >closer to the type of message we *dream* of hearing from >Congress, but have not in our lifetimes. > The recorded message was misnamed "The >Coming Police State." And the word "misnamed" is used >here only because the message did a very excellent job of >outlining the basics of the police state that we already >have. > This was Texas Representative Ron Paul >telling it like it is. There was no equivocation, no >excuses, and no political obfuscation. Just the facts of >the matter are given. Better yet, the speech was first >given on the floor of the House of Representatives, and >so is part of the official record. > Paul's message will be available until >Monday morning. Take the minute or two to listen. It >is well worth the time. > He will have recorded messages available >24 hours a day and, according to the tape, they will >change every Monday morning. - 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: John Curtis Subject: Great Quote Date: 28 Feb 1997 09:57:31 -0500 Lifted the following quote from Jeff Cooper's latest commentary. It just rings so true, that I had to pass it on. jcurtis "The fear and hatred of crime and criminals by the right, and the fear and hatred of the right by the left, serve to enlist both sides of the conventional political spectrum in promoting the new police state. The avoidance of publicity about the abuses of federal police agencies tends over time to normalize such behavior in the minds of citizens; to legitimatize it and to render it a routine part of government functions." - Samuel Francis in Chronicles