From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Jan 1998 07:02:01 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 -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: >>> Game <<< Date: 01 Jan 1998 18:28:19 -0800 From the January 1998 edition of The Idaho Observer; y'all need to get copies of this game - it's wonderful! ----- Board Game Begats IRS Audit While Barbara Fix was negotiating with conservative talk radio personality Chuck Harder’s organization For the People to mass produce her "politically incorrect" board game "Waking Up America," Fix was notified by the IRS that she and her husband were about to have their finances for 1993, 1994 and 1995 audited. The object of the game is to sell out your country. The impetus for the board game came in 1993 after Fix, who was at that time an executive for an Palmer, Alaska, cellular phone company, had attended a conference on the future of telecommunications in Orlando, Florida. "At that time I was totally apolitical," said Fix, but after listening to telecommunications gurus such as Robert K. Heldman tell conference attendees that the responsibility of telecommunications was, among other things, to promote the advent of a cashless society, Fix immediately began to change. "Although I managed to hide my feelings, I was shaking inside. I raised my hand and, playing the part of the ‘dumb blonde,’ which I am quite capable of doing," Fix said with a smile, "I asked Mr. Heldman, ‘Shouldn’t we be a little bit worried about privacy?’" "I will never forget his response," said Fix. Heldman, author of Global Telecommunications: Layered Networks, Layered Services (MacGraw Hill, 1992) and then director of technological strategies for US West Communications, said, in a most classical example of the arrogance displayed by elitist social planners, "It will be good for the people." When she got back home, Fix, who could no longer consider herself to be "apolitical," began contacting "politically astute" people that she would have labeled "conspiracy theorists" only days before. "People had said things to me over the years and I had basically dismissed them as being crazy. But, when I found out that the telecommunications industry was indeed conspiring to create a cashless society, I thought, ‘Oh my God, they were right!’" "I began to study, I began to attend ‘People for the Constitution’ meetings in Anchorage and started listening to talk radio which I didn’t even know existed until then," explained Fix, who describes herself as a "born again patriot." Fix was learning in leaps and bounds the depths of what can only be described as the systematic betrayal of the American people through the usurpation of our God given, inalienable rights. Fix, an extremely intelligent Christian mother of six children, was exposed at all times to the views and opinions of teenagers. Unable to keep what she was learning to herself, Fix continually confronted her teenagers and their friends with what she was discovering. “The most common attitude of teenagers would be to say, ‘Yeah, I know, but I don’t wanna hear about it,’" said Fix. Fix knew that the future of America and our way of life depended upon finding a way to educate as many people as possible and as fast as possible. So, instead of bashing people over the head with the undiluted facts, she thought that an effective way to reach the largest amount of people would be to do it “with a little humor." "The Clintons really created my game," said Fix in response to questions of how she could have designed such a complex and witty game in such a remarkably short time. Three months is all it took for Fix to have a prototype of the board game "Waking Up America." By fall, 1995, the game was being introduced to Chuck Harder’s "For the People." For the People was negotiating with Fix to produce 10,000 copies of the game through its merchandising director. The director died unexpectedly and Harder himself continued negotiations with Fix but would only commit to 1,000 games. "Only producing 1,000 games increased the cost of production from $11 to $22, which would not have been cost-effective, said Fix, who then contacted Rush Limbaugh, Mike Reagan, Gordon Liddy and the Black Avenger Ken Hamlin in an effort to market Waking Up America. Though the game was announced and advertised on the air by Limbaugh, Liddy and Reagan, there were no serious commitments forthcoming through those notoriously conservative radio personalities. "One of the options presented to me by more than one person was to have the game produced in China. Out of principle, I will never allow this game to be made in China," said Fix. The undaunted and, according to people who know her, the perpetually energetic Fix contacted Anchorage computer software engineering company Anntech in an effort to make the game more affordable and accessible to Americans by making an interactive version available on CD-ROM. "We had signed a contract with Anntech owners Ann Heisler and Tom Heisler to develop and produce the game on CD. It was an exciting opportunity because the cost of producing 10,000 games had dropped from $110,000 as a traditional board game, to $40,000 on CD-ROM. On September 15, 1996, Fix received a one-sentence letter from the Heislers which informed Fix that Anntech was formally relinquishing all rights, control and responsibility to and for the game. Enter IRS. By the time Anntech had done an about face and refused to have any further contact with Fix and Waking Up America, the Fixes were embroiled in an IRS audit which began while negotiating with For the People. "I don’t want to sound paranoid, but if you get on the bad side of public officials, we have heard that you can expect a visit from the IRS," said Fix who, though she can’t exactly prove it, is certain that the IRS audit was initiated in response to her "politically incorrect" board game. "A retired IRS agent friend of ours with over 28 years of field experience told me with certainty that we were ‘being taught a lesson,’" remembers Fix. A number of strange things began to happen to the middle-class Fixes and a determination that they owed the IRS $18,000 was one of them. "I was operating a bed and breakfast at our home and claimed all of the same start up cost exemptions that every other bed and breakfast operator in the state of Alaska traditionally claims." IRS Auditor Rosalee Holcomb determined that because of the rules found in Section 280a of the IRS Code, none of the start-up expenses for her home-based business would be allowed. Fix also noted that her case was being used in IRS agent workshops throughout the country as a precedent setting tool to "legally" disallow tax write-offs of capital expenditures for home-based businesses. "Such tactics by the IRS are a tremendous abuse of power," stated Fix. By this time, the Fixes had filed an appeal to the $18,000 IRS judgment against them and had sold their home in Palmer, Alaska, and had moved to Wallace, Idaho. The Fixes petitioned the IRS to move their appeal to a location more convenient to their new home. They also hoped that a new contingent of IRS agents would listen to reason where the Alaska IRS agents would not. The IRS repeatedly denied the Fixes request for a change of venue until Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) compelled them to do so. "Chenoweth played an integral role in having our appeal moved closer to home and we are very thankful to her for that," said Fix. "Unfortunately, the IRS transferred our appeal to Seattle and coincidentally transferred the IRS agent who was handling our appeal, Denise Mountjoy, to the Seattle office." The IRS handled the Fixes appeal internally and, not surprisingly, failed to find that the original audit was unfair or incorrect. In October, 1997, the Fixes were notified that their appeal had been denied and that they still owed the IRS $18,000 for incorrectly itemized deductions for the years 1993-1995. Fix went on to explain that "Right about the time our CPA informed the IRS that, since the IRS had chosen to deny the appeal, the Fixes will be taking the IRS to federal tax court, the IRS sent us another ‘love letter’ which, without much in the way of explanation, arbitrarily tacked on an additional $13,000." Fix publicly aired her story at the Chenoweth IRS hearings which were held in Coeur d’ Alene, Idaho, December 10, 1997. When asked if she thought the hearings would have any effect on diminishing the IRS’ power to terrorize the American public through the application of rules that it seems to make up as it goes along, Fix said that she doesn’t think that it will help her case, but IRS abuse did get into the dominant media and that "might help people to realize that they are getting taxed out of at least 50 percent of their income." Though Waking Up America has yet to become produced commercially so that it can be found in retail outlets all over the country, the game is so sarcastic and so true and so funny, Fix is willing to offer interested people a more informal, yet complete and playable version for $15. Please call Barbara Fix at (208) 753-1015. Some examples of playing cards: --- Socialist Lotto Drawing Cards - Your firm has been carefully selected to perform drug testing on the presidential staff members. Collect $65 in hush money from the Peoples’ Bank. The EPA has found you disturbing a nesting site while building your dock. Pay $75 to the Peoples’ Relief Fund. Your land has been seized for inadvertently running over a kangaroo mouse. Pay $40 to the peoples’ relief Fund for legal retainer fees. --- Money Matters Drawing Cards - You’ve just turned in your neighbor to the BATF on trumped up charges. Collect $100, your 10% of seized property, from the neighbor (player) to your left. Get out of the Peoples’ Reeducation work Camp free. This unfortunate incarceration isn’t your fault. It must be related to your repressed childhood. Save this card for future bailout. You have won a government contract to supply 25-horsepower paper shredders. Collect $20 from the Peoples’ Bank. --- Stuff Happens Drawing Cards - Your high school student can’t read or write due to Outcome-Based Education. Pay $35 in tutoring fees to the Peoples’ Relief Fund. The IRS has swept your bank account for monies you don’t owe. Pay $35 for NSF check fees to the Peoples’ Relief Fund. Your three-person hunting party has been found guilty of forming a militia. Go directly to the Peoples’ Reeducation work Camp or pay $100 to the Peoples’ Relief Fund for bail money. The BATF has confiscated your .22 rifle, which mysteriously turned into a fully automatic machine gun. Go directly to the People's Reeducation Work Camp. Do not pass Go Figure, Do Not collect $220.00. --- And don't forget your G.A.T.T. Certificate from the New Age Institute! - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: OUR HELP IS NEEDED (fwd) Date: 01 Jan 1998 23:23:02 PST On Jan 1, 1911a1@gte.net wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hello folks, Please do me a BIG favor & post this far and wide....place on every list you can think of. Thanks! -Chris W. Stark JPFO announces their NEW web site! http://www.JPFO.org e-mail: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org 12/30/97 Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) Aaron Zelman - Executive Director 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53207 Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 ****IMPORTANT!!!**** ****************************************************************** IF YOU HAVE WEB LINKS TO THE OLD JPFO WEB SITE, PLEASE BE SURE TO UPDATE YOUR LINKS WITH OUR NEW WEB SITE URL, AND E-MAIL ADDRESS! THE OLD WEB SITE WILL NOT BE OPERATIONAL SOON! ****************************************************************** We are proud to announce our NEW web site for JPFO, along with many new improvements, and additional areas of interest for all freedom loving Americans. All of our changes are not yet present as we write this announcement, and are due to appear soon. You must go to the web site often to see the continuing updates for yourself! We would like to thank ALL of our friends who have made this possible, for without their support and help, this major step would have not been possible. We would especially like to thank Leroy Pyle, the former web master for pioneering and forging the path on the internet for us. Leroy has sacrificed when he simply did not have the time to lend us. Our sincere gratitude to you, Leroy! Best regards, AND a happy new year!! ************************************************************** Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Chris W. Stark - Director of Electronic Communications P.O. Box 1924 Crosby, TX 77532-1924 Voice: (713) 217-0649 e-mail: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership." ** Beware the Stober ** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: 4TH AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK Date: 02 Jan 1998 11:30:21 PST This was in TPD this morning. It seems to be the type of outrageous thing to be distributed here and there Jack I thought this might be of interest to you. A friend of mine got this notification recently. It would seem our rights are violated here. Search without a warrent. I have to wonder, is this America anymore? I understand they'll use a camera for their records, going into drawers, closets, boxes, all personal items. Please repost to any list to get the word out. emmilene 4TH AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK Hi. My name is Richard Welsh and I live in Addison, Illinois. Addison is a small but growing Chicago suburb. I rent an apartment here in Addison, Illinois. It's a nice three bedroom apartment in a typical urban neighborhood. Not great but not bad. In short, it's livable. Our city government, however, appears to hate apartments and apartment- dwellers. They do not feel that the either the state or federal constitution applies to those folks who choose, for whatever reason, to live in an apartment. I have been informed that on January 13th, 1998, that my apartment will be inspected. Below is the text of the letter that the owner of the building I live in received and passed on to us. (beginning of document) Re: ANNUAL HOUSING INSPECTION Dear Sir: In order to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the public, there will be an annual inspection of all apartment buildings in the Village of Addison. Your area is currently a part of this program. If you are unable to keep the following appointment, please contact me to make arrangements for another appointment. Time 01:30 PM Please have management present for inspection. Also, please notify the tenants that their apartments will be inspected. All tenants should be present or leave keys with the management. Very truly yours Community Development Director and Community Development Inspector (end of document) The following is the reason for this inspection (this is a transcript of a letter that I have received from the village.. (beginning of document) Purpose: The purpose of this program is to provide for the inspection of rental residential property so as to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the people of the Village including: a.To protect the public health and safety by insuring rental unite comply with minimum housing standards of Village Ordinances. b.To protect the character and stability of residential areas c.To correct and prevent housing conditions that adverse;ly effect or are likely to adversely affect the life, safety, general welfare and health including the physical, mental and social well being of persons occupying dwelling. d.To prevent the overcrowding of dwelling by requiring compliance with minimum space standards per occupant for each dwelling unit. e.To facilitate the enforcement of minimum standards for the maintenance of existing rental residential buildings and thus to prevent slums and blight. f.To preserve the value of land and buildings throughout the Village Scope: Rental residential buildings containing three (3) or more dwelling units are inspected on an annual basis. Each year, exterior and interior inspections are performed. The purpose of the inspection is to ensure that the maintenance of existing buildings and premises is in accordance with the provisions of Codes and Ordinances of the Village. (end of document) These would seem to be good things to do. However, to automatically assume that I am breaking codes and then to search based on that assumption would appear to be a violation of the constitution. The forth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. These searches are clearly a violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution of the United States of America. I am going to refuse inspection. I am going to ask for a warrant. If the warrant complies with the 4th amendment, I will allow this inspection. This will have to include a list of specific violations that I am suspected to be committing. I have asked the village for information about what constitutes a violation. I am told that there is no list but that I must use 'common sense.' Does anyone know of any problem of using an extension cord to plug something in that is far away from an outlet? Well, according to the village of addison, this is a safety violation. No extension cords can be used. I asked for a reason and was told this could cause a fire. I then asked how many fires had been caused this way and was told none but we don't want to take a chance. How, I asked, am I to keep up to code when this code cannot be reviewed or supplied. I can buy a complete set of codes from the village. I have been able to view copies of the forms that were filled out by the inspector as to what are considered violations. The best example of this nazi movement here in Addison is one couple were cited for having two coffee cups on a dining room table. This was the only thing the inspector could find. The couple were cited for poor housekeeping. Yes.. poor housekeeping. I have also found out that the inspectors bring cameras into the inspection to take pictures. I have also been told that houses are not inspected in this way. This would include houses that are rented out. It would appear that only buildings with three or more units are included in this but I may be wrong. I have been told that these inspections have been taking place since 1979. You may be asking why I have done nothing until now. Well, we only moved here in august of 1997 and thus knew nothing about this. Please let the village of Addison know of your opposition to these violations. Ask them why the decision of court decision 8D-4834N of Jenne Picard has been ignored. Jenne (who also lives in my building) refused to let the inspectors in and was fined 500 dollars. She appealed the fine to a court. The judge thru the fine out and told the inspector that this search was illegal. Yet the village still does this. Please ask them why? Below is the statement I will be making at the next village board meeting RE: Inspection of Apartments on 01/13/98 This letter is to address the concerns that have come up with respect to the inspection that is to take place on 01/13/98. At the December 15th, 1997 board meeting, a report was requested from the city attorney about the legality of the apartment search program. This report is to be given on January 5th. The inspection is to take place on January 13th. This gives tenants with any concerns no rebuttal opportunity. Please consider this a request to postpone this inspection until all concerns are addressed. These inspections are unfair and unjust and directed at those residents of Addison who, for whatever reason, live in apartments. The argument given at the last village board meeting was that we should all want to feel safe by knowing that our neighbors are keeping a clean home. If this is the case, then why aren't single family homes also inspected? I would think that as a homeowner, I have a much bigger stake in how my neighbor keeps his home because I am the owner rather than just a tenant in a rental facility.. While the notification of the scope of the inspections remain unclear, there is evidence that pictures are taken of apartment areas and these inspections can even take place without the tenants being present. When requests have been made as to what regulations apply to apartment tenants, none have been forthcomimg. A vague list of requirements that could cover just about anything is produced. These tactics were used in communist Russia or Nazi Germany. They should not be used in the United States of America This is not right. Our landlord (who by the way just bought the building this past September) has been very helpful and has made several improvements to our building. He has made sure hallways are well lit and the landscaping work that has been done to the area surrounding our building has made our building a much nicer place to live. He has also been very responsive with dealing with any problems that have occurred. It is also our understanding that these inspections can only take place if the landlord or tenant file a complaint against a specific problem in a specific unit. This would cover private areas and not public areas such as hallways and the laundry room. Article 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Thus it is contented that these searches are a violation of Article 4 of the bill of rights contained in the Constitution of the United States of America and therefore should be ceased immediately. We feel that if these searches are to take place, then warrants for each unit should be issued with the alleged violation or violations clearly stated. Note; I am attempting to get several of the folks in our building to sign this and I will then present this to the village at their next meeting. What I am asking for here is your help. Below are the numbers to call.. Village of Addison phone (630)543-4100 and fax (630)543-5593 Ask for the building inspectors. Addison website is www.addisonadvantage.org Please note(remember this is the state of roby ridge): I am not crazy. I do not own unregisted firearms I do not deal or take illegal drugs and have no illegal drugs in my posession. I have no intention of resisting arrest I do take both heart and diabetes medications. I have no intention of taking my own life Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: 4TH AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK Date: 02 Jan 1998 11:56:42 -0800 (PST) Anybody remember what month in '92 Clinton ordered the searches of Chicago HUD housing? That was the slap in the face that woke me up to the abuse of power in this country. Clinton's order to find "a way around... the constitution" and some of the replies I got from conservatives on my reaction to that event were the backhand that really got me thinking. So I owe the president and a lot of internet folks a very big thank you. My sympathies to the renter in this case. I sincerely hope he will stand by his rights and be able to -move-away- should his rights be crushed (as I pessimistically suspect they shall). Good luck to us all. Boyd Kneeland - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Colt CEO's Editorial: (fwd) Date: 02 Jan 1998 11:20:59 PST On Jan 02, Paul Nixon wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] (I don't recall if this has been posted here. If so, I apologize for the duplication) >From American Firearms Industry, December 1997 p18 THIS MONTH'S GUEST EDITORIAL by Ron Stewart, CEO and President of Colt's Manufacturing Millions of American Citizens own firearms. For the most part these citizens enjoy the use of their firearms in a safe and responsible way for hunting, skeet shooting, trap shooting, target shooting and other recreational sports. Over the last few years, however, the "gun control issue" has gained center stage due to the relentless, negative campaign launched by the gun control lobby. They want to put us all out of business, manufacturers, dealers and distributors, and eliminate our Second Amendment rights. Ironically, with the exception of the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban which passed last year, no gun control legislation passed in Congress this year and the much-touted Washington State referendum failed. Given this recent reprieve, one could almost believe the debate has ended and the gun control lobby has been silenced. Unfortunately, a November 20, 1997 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Big Guns in the Media Take Aim Against Firearms" reminds us that the gun control lobby is more determined than ever to put firearms manufacturers out of business, and they are devising new methods to achieve their goals. The reality is that we are about to be hit by a new wave of attacks on our industry and the key battleground is that of public opinion. Failure to address this issue aggressively could be devastating. The question that begs to be answered is why is the gun industry being so singularly targeted when statistics and public opinion appear to be on our side? In my opinion, the answer is simple: the anti-gun lobby argument focuses on the fact that innocent people, including children, are occasionally the victims of firearms. The gun control lobby has become dangerously adept at using manipulative public relations campaigns and high powered public relations firms to portray the fireams industry as villainous and self-serving. By contrast, the firearms industry has consistently and ardously taken the lead in advocating the implementing strong [sic] measures to improve weapons safety. Despite this fact, we have not been successful in presenting our case to the public. We have allowed ourselves to sit back and ignore the problem, thus becoming part of it. Silence is acceptance. Our responses to the anti-gun lobby are ill-postured, defensive and pathetically inadequate when we accept watered down versions of their agenda and nod our heads in agreement to their publicity stunts while, we as an industry, do abhor the unsafe use of handguns. It would be a grievous mistake to allow the next wave of attacks by the gun control lobby to back us into a corner and for us to respond as we have in the past. The time has come to take the high ground and pre-empt their next strike. We need to focus on two fronts: advocate programs that promote safe firearm practices and take the lead in developing new technologies to improve firearm safety. Today's reality requires that consumers and industry work together to responsibly address the issue of gun safety. Given the skillful manipulation of public perception by the anti- gun lobby, we need to rally our large base of support to make certain that our message and, most importantly, our actions, are getting through to the public. To accomplish this I offer the following five courses of action: 1) The creation of a research and development program to further firearms technology toward more advanced methods that promote safety (such as personalized firearms). While technology such as this should not be mandated it should be an option for the consumer. If we can send a motorized computer to Mars, then certainly we advance our technology to be more childproof. 2) The passage of a comprehensive federal firearms law, including the creation of a federal gun permit, that would pre-empt the hodgepodge of local ordinances. I heard several manufacturers complain to the Attorney General in Massachusetts that we already have serial numbers on our firearms so why do we need a second set of serial numbers. If he and the others mandate hidden serial numbers then we would likely have to live with 50 different state regulations. Why not federalize this standard - isn't that a protective measure that prevents illegal ownership if a firearm? 3) Emphasize responsibility and accountability where it belongs. We ought to give serious consideration to gun permit requirement that would necessitate each permit holder to undergo thorough firearms training and pass a uniform examination. The law also should require that dealers qualify as certified firearms instructors and actively participate in training the public concerning the safe the [sic] appropriate handling of guns. The distribution chain should embrace this as it should stimulate sales. 4) We believe that legislative reform should ensue to prohibit the bringing of so called "defectless" product liability cases, such as the Hamilton case, against the firearms industry. We as defendants, need to take the offensive in gun cases, which remedies should include obtaining sanctions against certain plaintiffs for bringing frivilous lawsuits, and, when warranted, seeking REDRESS [emphasis in original] against those persons failing to safeguard weapons used to cause wrongful injury or death. 5) The creation of a joint industry commitee to study firearms technology and safety mechanisms. I challenge the industry to respond; to work together and act upon this proposed course of action, NOW. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Colt CEO's Editorial: (fwd) Date: 02 Jan 1998 12:21:41 -0800 (PST) Astounding, reading his concise and right on the money description of our opponents success (through high power, high capacity PR surrounding innocent deaths) I was well on my way down to buy that new Colt pony I've been eyeing. Then he answers that we must meet this with technological advancement and legislation. Huh? We have to win the hearts and minds of the voters, moving the middle toward liberty. New technology isn't going to do it, national ccw isn't going to do it (I'm not arguing for or against any of these), persuasive marketing is what our opponents have used to great advantage but we seem almost unable to even say the words! Who better to spearhead marketing about the -positive- effects of -current- gun safety technology and training then the president of a company -doing-it- (colt)? Well, better luck next time Mr Stewart. (anyone have an email address for him?) -Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: [Humor] Kennedy's New Legislation (fwd) Date: 02 Jan 1998 22:53:39 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- #Newsgroups: alt.true-crime #Subject: Kennedy Death Spurs Legislative Initiative #Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 22:44:03 GMT BOSTON, Mass. (AP) - Sen. Ted Kennedy announced here today that he will introduce a bill limiting access to skis and ski poles. The "Winter Sports Safety Bill" is believed to be a reaction to the recent death of the Senator's nephew Michael Kennedy in a skiing accident. "When skis were invented, they were made out of wood," Kennedy said. "Today's skis are simply to powerful and dangerous to be in the hands of people. There is no constitutional right to skiing. We feel that people will have to sacrifice some of their freedoms for the protection of society as a whole." One provision will license all dealers in skis. These licenses will involve fingerprinting, background checks, body cavity searches, and photographs of anybody wishing to be in the business of selling skis and ski poles. Another section of the bill bans any ski pole under 36" in length and any ski which is not at least 48" in length. The bill also addresses ski wax. Studies have shown that some waxes actually make the skis go faster, creating a greater danger of death to the skier. Skiers also use the faster skis to outrun the ski patrol, which is not an acceptable practice. A five day waiting period will be required for all ski and ski pole sales. People will be required to provide their social security number and floor plan of their homes before being permitted to purchase skis. "There are simply too many people getting excited about skiing. Easy access to skis is the major reason people get killed on those things. They should have to wait before they can pick up their skis. I am sure that this 'cooling off period' will save lives," Kennedy said. Another bill has been introduced that will ban 'ski carrying devices' on tops of cars that have a capacity of greater than ten skis. "There is simply no reason why anybody needs more than ten skis. You can't ski on more than two at the same time. People with more than ten skis are simply up to no good," said Kennedy. Statistics quoted by the Center for Disease Control show that skiing was second only to drowning as the leading cause of death for people close to the Kennedy family. OTHER RELATED STORIES: - Ted Kennedy Denies Driving Michael to Aspen. - Study Links Skiing to Suicides. - Clinton Calls for Restrictions on "Cop Killer" Ski Poles. - Washington DC to Buy Back Skis for $2 Each. - Dianne Feinstein Vows Defeat for the National Skiing Association. -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: ACLU,EFF and EPIC comments on Digital Telephony/wiretapping (fwd) Date: 02 Jan 1998 23:08:50 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of=09=09=09) =09=09=09=09=09)=09=09CC Docket No. 97-213 Communications Assistance for=09) Law Enforcement Act=09=09) Reply Comments of the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center and Electronic Frontier Foundation Introduction =09The American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") is a non-partisan organization of more than 250,000 members dedicated to preserving the freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights. The Electronic Privacy Information Center ("EPIC") is a non-profit public interest research center that examines the civil liberties and privacy implications of new technologies. The Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF") is also a public interest organization devoted to protecting civil liberties in digital media. =09The ACLU, EPIC and EFF respectfully submit comments in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") on implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act ("CALEA") to urge the Commission to exercise its conferred authority by extending the deadline for compliance with the Act to no earlier than October 24, 2000. =09Law enforcement has derailed the implementation process from the statute's inception, and neither the public, nor the telecommunications industry are in a position to comprehend the scope of the capacity and surveillance requirements sought by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). We believe that the impasse in the enactment process alone makes the implementation of CALEA impossible under the current statutory deadline of October, 1998. =09Moreover, we believe that because the most pertinent issues, the actual technical standards that may be adopted by industry, are not addressed in this NPRM, the Commission must extend the deadline for compliance to allow for the public scrutiny contemplated by CALEA. In short, we base our conclusions on the foregoing: I.=09To date, the FBI has not met its public capacity notice requirements under the Act which require law enforcement to quantify the actual and maximum capacity technical needs, including projections with the number of anticipated interceptions. Industry, the public and the Congress need an accurate assessment of the capacity requirements to provide meaningful oversight and to ensure that they do not exceed the statutory scope. No implementation of CALEA should proceed without compliance with this statutory requirement. II.=09Law enforcement was not permitted to dictate system design under CALEA, but has placed a choke hold on the process by repeatedly preventing the adoption of industry standards and creating a "wish list" of technically infeasible and costly requirements. In addition, it has become abundantly clear that the FBI is seeking unprecedented surveillance capabilities never envisioned by the Congress. Simply put they have consistently requested that industry provide numerous capabilities for surveillance that go far beyond the current court-authorized electronic surveillance under the provisions of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and CALEA. Thus, the Commission must engage in detailed review of this process by extending the compliance date. III.=09Congressional limitations on information subject to interception have been disregarded. CALEA required the strengthening of privacy protections so that carriers do not intercept or disclose any information they are not authorized to. The additional surveillance features sought by the FBI contravene the Congress' intention to maintain current levels of surveillance and not expand them. We also address some incorrect assumptions in the NPRM that would expand CALEA's application. We conclude that these issues preclude "reasonably achievable" implementation of the Act. Background on Surveillance and CALEA =09Today, the revolutionary development of electronic infrastructures, that make it possible to easily communicate in a variety of ways, also make possible new forms of government intrusion and surveillance. Additionally, the actual use of government surveillance has grown faster in recent years than ever before and in past 10 years, the number of interceptions per year has more than double= d. =09According to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Department of Justice: =09=85the use of electronic surveillance for criminal and national security =09investigations increased substantially in 1996; =09=85court orders for electronic surveillance by state and federal agencies for =09criminal purposes also increased, from 1058 in 1995 to 1150 in 1996 (a =09nine percent increase); =09=85for the first time in eight years, a court denied a surveillance application; =09=85extensions of surveillance orders increased from 834 to 887. In all, =09interceptions were in effect for a total of 43,635 days in 1996. =09The report also shows that the vast majority of interceptions continued to occur in drug-related cases: 71.4 percent (821 total) for drug investigations; 9.9 percent (114) for gambling; 9.1 percent (105) for racketeering; 3.5 percent (41) for homicide and assault and a few each for bribery, kidnapping, larceny and theft, and loan sharking. No orders were issued for "arson, explosives, and weapons" investigations. =09Moreover, the according to the report, electronic surveillance continued to be relatively inefficient. Overall, 2.2 million conversations were captured in 1996. A total of 1.7 million intercepted conversations were deemed not "incriminating" by prosecutors. Each interception resulted in the capture of an average of 1,969 conversations. Prosecutors reported that on average, 422 (21.4 percent) of the conversations were "incriminating." Federal intercepts were particularly efficient, with only 15.6 percent of the intercepted conversations reported as "incriminating." =09Notwithstanding the increase in government surveillance, in 1994, responding to FBI pressure and allegations that new technology hampers the ability to conduct electronic interceptions, the Congress enacted CALEA. The law was enacted during the final days of the 103d Congress amidst fervent opposition from the ACLU, EPIC, EFF and other concerned organizations that believed that the FBI had not substantiated the need for extraordinary government surveillance capabilities. We adhere to those views even today. Furthermore, the dramatic rise in the number of interceptions conducted rebuts the government claim that new technologies frustrate wiretapping abilities. =09CALEA requires telephone carriers to ensure continued government interception capabilities despite changes in technologies by October, 1998. The legislative history of CALEA makes clear that the Act was intended "to balance three key policies: (1) to preserve a narrowly focused capability for law enforcement agencies to carry out properly authorized intercepts; (2) to protect privacy in the face of increasingly powerful and personally revealing technologies; and (3) to avoid impeding the development of new communications services and technologies." To maintain that balance, Congress established detailed guidelines on how industry standard setting organizations would accomplish the costly mandate of CALEA and imposed several obligations on law enforcement to facilitate the process as well. =09Section 107 of CALEA, in pertinent part, provides that an industry association or a standards-setting organization will set the technical standards; the Attorney General must consult with the standards-setting organizations, with representatives of users of telecommunications equipment, facilities, and services, and with State utility commissions, "to ensure the efficient and industry-wide implementation of the assistance capability requirements." =09Section 107 further provides that if technical requirements are not issued by industry standards-setting organization or if any person believes any standards issued are deficient, the Federal Communications Commission may establish such requirements or standards. The Commission has promulgated the current NPRM in response to an impasse in the implementation process and the failure of law enforcement to effectively cooperate and fulfill its statutory obligation in providing detailed notice of its technical capacity requirements so that industry can promulgate technical standards. =09Section 50 of the NPRM states that this proceeding is being undertaken irrespective of the actual industry standard requirements to determine whether it is "reasonably achievable" to enact CALEA within its compliance period. The NPRM section 50 specifically states: Because it is not clear whether requests for extension of time of the Section 103 compliance date will be forthcoming, we do not propose to promulgate specific rules regarding requests at this time. We propose to permit carriers to petition the Commission for an extension of time under Section 107, on the basis of the criteria specified in Section 109 to determine whether it is reasonably achievable for the petitioning carrier "with respect to any equipment, facility, or service installed or deployed after January 1, 1995" to comply with the assistance capability requirements of Section 103 within the compliance time period. We seek comment on that proposal. We also seek comment on what factors, other than those specified in Section 109 of CALEA, the Commission should consider in determining whether CALEA's assistance capability requirements are reasonably achievable within the compliance period. =09The NPRM, section 45, sets out several statutory factors that the Commission may consider in determining whether CALEA's capability requirements are reasonably achievable within the compliance period. The legislative history of CALEA makes clear that the factors provided by Congress were "designed to give the Commission direction so that the following goals are realized: (1) Costs to consumers are kept low, so that 'gold-plating' by the industry is kept in check; (2) the legitimate needs of law enforcement are met, but that law enforcement does not engage in gold-plating of its demands; (3) privacy interests of all Americans are protected; (4) the goal of encouraged competition in all forms of telecommunications is not undermined, and the fact of wiretap compliance is not used as either a sword or a shield in realization of that goal." =09Our comments address these and other factors in concluding that the FCC should extend the compliance deadlines as permitted by Congress. I. CALEA's Capacity Notice Requirements: =09Section 104 of CALEA directed the Attorney General to issue a notice of capacity requirement to industry not later than one year after the law's enactment. Hence the deadline for the notice was October 25, 1995. Carriers were provided with a deadline of three years after notification by the Attorney General to install capacity that meets the notification requirements. Under the timetable that Congress proposed, industry's deadline would have been October 1998. =09Specifically, section 104(a)(2) requires the Attorney General to identify capacity required at specific locations, and to base the notice on the type of equipment or service involved, or by the type of carrier. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to provide a numerical estimate of law enforcement's anticipated use of electronic surveillance for 1998. The statute also defines the maximum capacity as the largest number of intercepts that a particular switch or system must be capable of implementing simultaneously. The initial capacity relates to the number of intercepts the government will need to make on the date that is four years after enactment. =09By mandating the publication of numerical estimates of law enforcement surveillance activity, Congress intended CALEA's notice requirements to serve as "mechanisms that will allow for Congressional and public oversight. The bill requires the government to estimate its capacity needs and publish them in the Federal Register." Congress made it clear that "[t]he purpose behind the provision is... to ensure that carriers receive adequate and specific notice from the Attorney General about the needs of law enforcement...". a. The First FBI Notice =09In October, 1995, the FBI, operating under delegated authority by the Attorney General, issued a first proposed capacity notice. The Notice was criticized for; (1) failing to comply with the notification and public accountability provisions mandated in CALEA; and (2) failing to substantiate the proposed capacity requirements with adequate documentation. Ultimately, it was withdrawn by the Bureau for these reasons. =09The FBI's Federal Register notice failed to identify the "actual number of communications interceptions" that the Bureau estimates will be needed by the end of 1998. Instead, the capacity requirements were "presented as a percentage of the engineered capacity of the equipment, facilities, and services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications." 60 Fed. Reg. 53643. =09Furthermore, in EPIC's comments on the initial FBI notice, they stated: "[t]he Bureau's "percentage" approach to capacity requirements allows neither telecommunications carriers nor the public to 'know the required level of capacity.'" The percentages contained in the Federal Register notice (e.g., maximum capacity of one percent of "engineered capacity" for geographic areas falling within Category I) also engendered a great deal of public confusion concerning the Bureau's proposed requirements and their impact on the privacy of personal communications. =09The confusion became readily apparent after an article appearing on the front page of November 2, 1995, New York Times interpreted the Bureau's notice as requiring "the capacity to monitor simultaneously as many as one out of every 100 phone lines." Asked about the issue at a press briefing later that day, Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said "there appears to be some misunderstanding or miscommunication as to the implications of what is contained in [the Federal Register] notice." In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Director Freeh asserted that, "We have not and are not asking for the ability to monitor one out of every 100 telephone lines or any other ridiculous number like that. ... Information supplied by the FBI was simply applied in a manner not intended to reach erroneous conclusions." b. The Second FBI Notice =09The FBI offered a revised NPRM in January, 1997, but has yet to publish rules as a result of the proceeding. The second NPRM was also rejected by industry and privacy groups alike for requiring greater capacity for interceptions by carriers than actually required today. The second FBI notice called for substantial increases in surveillance of both landline and wireless communications over the next ten years, with a total maximum capacity of 57,749 simultaneous intercepts to be conducted in the United States. Calculating out the percentages provided by the FBI, by 1998 the FBI anticipates an increase of 33 percent of landline interceptions and 70 percent of wireless phones. By 2004, the Bureau estimates a total increase of 74 percent in interceptions of landline phones and 277 percent in wireless phones. =09The second notice also implied that every carrier serving a particular region would have to install capacity sufficient to meet the total surveillance needs for that area, even if the carrier only served a portion of the customers in the area. Such a plan would not only be cost prohibitive, but would provide for unauthorized and unnecessary capabilities. Moreover, the second notice failed to make any distinction between the interception of call content and call-identifying information, even though this too was expressly required by Congress. From both constitutional law and privacy perspectives, this distinction is critical since the interception of call content is inherently more intrusive than the interception of call-identifying information. Any number of innocent individuals, conveying private information could be subject to unwarranted invasions by allowing call content information without court authorization. It is for this reason that CALEA limits the type of information that may be intercepted under pen register and trap and trace authority. c. Law Enforcement is Actually Seeking Enhanced Surveillance Capabilities =09It is now three years since the CALEA's enactment and to date the government has not promulgated final rules. The Bureau's refusal to provide the actual capacity requirements in its Federal Register notice denies any possibility of meaningful public oversight. Recently, the FBI has stated that it intends to promulgate a final notice January, 1998. Even if final regulations are promulgated at this late date, it will be impossible for industry to adopt technical standards accordingly under the current deadline of October 25, 1998. If the Congressional mandate for "public oversight" of the FBI's implementation of CALEA is to be realized, it is incumbent upon the Bureau to make available additional information concerning its proposed capacity requirements and then for the Commission to require sufficient time for public review. =09Underscoring this point, on October 23, 1997, several representatives from the telecommunications industry testified before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on the implementation of CALEA. The consensus of each of the industry speakers was that the Bureau's failure to provide rules in a timely fashion has prevented CALEA's implementation. =09Roy Neel, President and CEO of the United States Telephone Association stated, "[t]he FBI's delay in announcing its final capacity notice has been a significant obstacle for industry standard setting organizations. Throughout 1995 and early 1996, industry participants often postponed resolving certain issues pending the release of the capacity regulations and the equally anticipated Electronic Surveillance Interface." =09Furthermore, it has become clear that the actual requirements that the FBI seeks go well beyond that authorized under CALEA. As we discuss below, we believe that the standards and the petitions submitted by industry and CDT/EFF make clear that the FBI has asked for capabilities not provided for by CALEA. =09The expanded capabilities sought by the FBI, along with their non-compliance with CALEA's capacity notice requirements warrant a Commission order delaying implementation. Additionally, since this NPRM does not address the actual technical standards being considered for industry adoption, the Commission must extend the deadline for compliance pending public review. =09It is entirely possible that industry and the FBI may achieve a compromise on the standards, but even if industry is strong-armed by the FBI into complying with their requests, we intend to petition the FCC to engage in through review of the issues not included in this proceeding. II. Law Enforcement Has Prevented Industry Adoption of Authorized Standards By "Gold Plating" its Stated Needs =09Congress expressly denied law enforcement agencies the authority to dictate the design of telecommunications networks under CALEA by conferring this authority to industry associations. Industry has proposed several standards proposals which may be adopted in the near future. However, industry organizations have publicly acknowledged that law enforcement agencies have played an extensive role in the process and have thwarted the opportunity to adopt reasonable standards. =09Realizing that industry could not promulgate standards in light of the FBI resistance, on July 16, Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association petitioned the FCC to assume the authority over standards adoption. The petition indicates, the organizations were compelled to adopt FBI requests. More recently, in hearings on the implementation of CALEA before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, October 23, industry groups explained how the FBI has prevented adoption of reasonable standards. Many members of the Committee were critical of both the Act and the FBI. Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), who chaired part of the hearing, bluntly stated that the legislation would not have passed in the Republican 104th or 105th Congresses. =09A major area of contention was the FBI's demand for added features not required by the 1994 law. These include an enhanced ability to track geographical locations of cell phones, the ability to monitor conference calls when the targeted party has left, and the ability to separate out content from signaling data of packet-based communications. =09The FBI's efforts to lobby against the industry designed standards during a vote on the specifications also came under fire. The Bureau organized a campaign to vote down the industry-developed standards, which was described in the hearing as "ballot stuffing." Twenty-eight police agencies filed the same 74-page ballot comments, including a sheriff in Florida who included the FBI's letter requesting that he file the comments. CTIA's Wheeler described the FBI's actions as "rolling a hand grenade under the table." =09Another controversial issue was the FBI's effort, during its negotiations with the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) over the wiretap standard, to petition the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to revoke the standards-settings authority of TIA after 50 years. The FBI apparently withdrew the request after several months. =09Jay Kitchen, President of the Personal Communications Industry Association explained that the impasse in the CALEA process was due in large part to FBI interference. He stated: "Unfortunately, a breakdown of monumental proportions has occurred. As of today, final standards have not been set, in large measure due to the actions of law enforcement officials. Initially, the FBI waited almost one and one-half years after the enactment of CALEA to submit its recommendations to standards setting bodies. After the submission of this list, industry representatives and the FBI were able to reach consensus on standards that provided, by PCIA's estimates, 90 percent of the capabilities that the FBI had requested. Since then, however, the FBI has held up the entire standards setting process in order to ensure that every capability on its "wish list" is made part of the standards." =09Similarly, Matthew J. Flanagan, President of the Telecommunications Industry Association, stated that industry concessions to FBI demands have been rejected by law enforcement and they have been pressured to concede even more: "During these meetings, industry made several concessions to law enforcement, agreeing to include features in the standard that many in industry were convinced were not required under CALEA. For example, law enforcement requested that it be provided with continuous information about the location of an intercept subject's cellular phone, irrespective of whether the phone was being used or not. Industry refused to provide this feature, finding that it greatly exceeded what CALEA permitted. In a compromise, however, industry agreed to provide law enforcement with the location of a cell phone at the beginning and end of each call -- even though many industry participants felt that even this compromise exceeded the scope of CALEA." =09As a result of all of the concessions, the proposed industry standard goes well beyond a fair reading of CALEA and incorporates several of the additional features and capabilities requested by law enforcement prior to CALEA's passage but which were rejected by the Congress. III Congressional Limitations on Information Subject to Interception Have Been Disregarded =09Congress stated that CALEA was meant to preserve and not expand government surveillance capabilities. To guarantee that surveillance is not expanded, CALEA requires telecommunications carriers to protect user privacy and security of information they are not authorized to intercept. =09Section 103 of CALEA, Assistance Capability Requirements, specifically imposes four industry requirements to protect privacy while assisting with law enforcement interceptions. Carriers are required to ensure that their systems are capable of: (1) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area...; (2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier-- (A) before, during, or immediately after the transmission of a wire or electronic communication...; and (B) in a manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which it pertains, except that, with regard to information acquired solely pursuant to the authority for pen registers and trap and trace devices (as defined in section 3127 of title 18, United States Code), such call-identifying information shall not include any information that may disclose the physical location of the subscriber (except to the extent that the location may be determined from the telephone number); (3) delivering intercepted communications and call-identifying information to the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, in a format such that they may be transmitted by means of equipment, facilities, or services procured by the government to a location other than the premises of the carrier; and (4) facilitating authorized communications interceptions and access to call-identifying information unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with any subscriber's telecommunications service and in a manner that protects-- (A) the privacy and security of communications and call-identifying information not authorized to be intercepted; and (B) information regarding the government's interception of communications and access to call-identifying information. (emphasis added) =09This section makes clear that Congress specifically limited the type of information that could be permissibly provided by industry to the FBI under CALEA by distinguishing between call content and call identifying information. Thus, we disagree with assumptions made in the NPRM that broaden the scope of communications information that may be intercepted. Section 20 states: "We tentatively conclude that providers of exclusively information services, such as electronic mail providers and on-line services providers, are excluded from CALEA's requirements and are therefore not required to modify or design their systems to comply with CALEA....[W]e seek comment on the applicability of CALEA's requirements to information services provided by common carriers. We also note, however, that Congress anticipated that calling features such as call forwarding, call waiting, three-way calling, speed dialing, and the "call redirection portion of voice mail" would be subject to CALEA's requirements. We tentatively conclude that calling features associated with telephone service are classified as telecommunications services for the purposes of CALEA, and carriers offering these services are therefore required to make all necessary network modifications to comply with CALEA." (emphasis added) =09Congress explicitly rejected any application of CALEA to information services including electronic mail and on-line services recognizing that interception of those communications is the equivalent of "call content" and is therefore, subject to a much higher degree of protection under the Constitution. The NPRM, however, incorrectly assumes there is a distinction between carriers that exclusively provide information services and common carriers that provide information services. There is absolutely no basis for such a distinction under CALEA. Congress did not exclude such services based on the carrier offering the services, but on the nature of the services and a recognition that content of communications has always been accorded greater protections. =09Furthermore, the tentative conclusion that calling features associated with telephone services are subject to CALEA as "call identifying" information is incorrect. CALEA restricts recording or decoding of electronic impulses to dialing and signaling information that relates to call processing only. Congress explicitly rejected the inclusion of "other dialing tones that may be generated by the sender that are used to signal customer premises equipment of the recipient are not to be treated as call-identifying information." Thus, the addition of these features is an expansion of current surveillance abilities and not permitted. =09Not addressed in the NPRM are nearly a half-dozen other features that Bureau contends are "call identifying" features and thus subject to CALEA. As the Response Comments on the Petition for Rulemaking of the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, August 11, 1997, correctly point out, the FBI has sought the addition of the following features not considered by Congress: =09(1) packet switching information =09(2) wireless telephone call location information =09(3) packet data content delivery information =09(4) multi-party monitoring information =09(5) an expanded definition of call identifying information =09(6) pen register information =09(7) feature status messages =09Instead of addressing these threats to privacy, Section B of the NPRM frames the discussion of privacy protection in solely in terms of the type of record keeping procedures to be used by telecommunications carriers that conduct interceptions on behalf of law enforcement. However, Congress made clear that protecting the privacy of innocent individuals from surreptitious surveillance was of paramount importance and charged the Commission with the task of seeing to the necessary safeguards. The additional surveillance features sought by the FBI contravene Congress' intention that the law would maintain current levels of surveillance and not expand them. These issues must be addressed by the Commission before the implementation of CALEA can be accomplished and before record keeping and industry security procedures are determined. Conclusion =09Before rushing to embrace any proposals to enlarge the capability of government surveillance of its citizens, the ACLU and EPIC urge the Commission to take note of words written nearly 70 years ago -- that remain true even today. As Justice Louis Brandeis so aptly stated in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928): The evil incident to invasion of the privacy of the telephone is far greater than that involved in tampering with the mails. Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all conversations between them upon any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. Moreover, the tapping of man's telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone of every other person whom he may call, or who may call him. As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wiretapping. =09The expanded capabilities sought by the FBI, along with their non-compliance with CALEA's capacity notice requirements warrant serious Commission response. Congress envisioned the implementation process as an open process to ensure that law enforcement did not surreptitiously gain unprecedented surveillance capabilities. Thus, before the adoption of industry standards, there must be careful scrutinization of law enforcement's capability requirements. We believe the only way to accomplish this task is for the Commission to extend the compliance deadline to October 24, 2000 under the authority provided by the Congress. Respectfully Submitted, Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director A. Cassidy Sehgal, William J. Brennan Fellow American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004 (212) 549-2500 Electronic Privacy Information Center 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301 Washington, D.C. 20003 (202) 544-9240 Electronic Frontier Foundation 1550 Bryant Street, Suite 725 San Francisco CA 94103-4832 USA (415) 436-9333 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: (fwd) Army admits using VX gas on livestock. (fwd) Date: 03 Jan 1998 08:33:19 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Feds finally admit that nerve agent was found near 1968 sheep kill Salt Lake Tribune SALT LAKE CITY (January 2, 1998 00:18 a.m. EST http://www.nando.net) -- The Army has for years had proof that nerve agent was found in the area where 6,000 sheep were killed in western Utah in 1968, according to a newly found report. The information is no surprise to the people who were first on the scene. Then-Tooele County Sheriff Bill Pitt, in recalling the frightening scene of convulsing sheep and a near-hysterical shepherd, says "We didn't know what was going on. Then we got a call that said the Army had been testing nerve gas. It put a shock in all of us." From that first day -- March 14, 1968 -- it was apparent that a deadly nerve agent from the Army's Dugway Proving Ground in western Utah drifted off the base and killed the sheep in Skull and Rush valleys. It never has been acknowledged by the Army, however. But the report describes the evidence of nerve agent as "incontrovertible." "Agent VX was found to be present in snow and grass samples that were received approximately three weeks after the sheep incident," said the 1970 report by researchers at the Army's Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland. The 1970 report acknowledges difficulty calculating how much VX the sheep were exposed to on March 14, 1968, but concluded: " ... it is possible that the quantity of VX originally present was sufficient to account for the death of the sheep." Originally stamped "confidential" and distributed to a few military libraries, the document was declassified in 1978. It apparently has not been distributed outside the military since its release. This and other follow-up reports submitted after the sheep-death controversy subsided were simply filed away. The Army never has done a detailed retrospective of the accident to finally resolve what happened. "To the best of my knowledge, this is the first documented admission" that VX killed the sheep, says Steve Erickson, spokesman for a military watchdog group known as the Downwinders. "It's not news in the sense that everyone knows the Army did it." The closest the military has came to an official admission was a press release issued by the U.S. Department of Defense on April 18, 1968. It conceded that evidence collected in the month after the incident "points to the Army's involvement in the death of the sheep." But the statement said too many unanswered questions remained to conclusively place blame. That remains the Army's position today. Col. John Como, commander of Dugway Proving Ground, this week issued the following statement: "The Army did not, and still doesn't, accept responsibility for the sheep deaths in Skull Valley. There has been a lot of conjecture, but extensive efforts by Utah State and Department of Agriculture scientists never identified the precise causal chain that led to the deaths of the sheep. "The Army's own investigation revealed that an open-air test of a lethal chemical agent at Dugway on 13 March 1968 MAY HAVE (his emphasis) contributed to the deaths of the sheep. The Army's investigation, as well as the investigations by all the other government bodies involved, concluded the Dugway personnel were not negligent in the test in question. As a result of this incident, a special committee chaired by the Surgeon General of the United States reviewed the test procedures at Dugway, and the Army adopted subsequently new controls on open air testing," wrote Como. VX is a nerve agent so powerful that a single drop on the skin can result in death within about 15 minutes. It works by disrupting the nervous system and causing breathing to stop. VX has a thick, oil-like consistency that allows it to be sprayed on plants prior to enemy troops marching through an area. It remains toxic for at least several days. GB is the other common form of nerve agent. It vaporizes quickly when exposed to air forming a deadly gas. GB dissipates rapidly. The 1970 report confirming the presence of VX adds another piece to the mountain of evidence that nerve agent killed the sheep. The Army's initial investigation into the sheep deaths, a more than 1,000-page document released in 1968 by Brig. Gen. William W. Stone, hinted that nerve agent may have been found in the area. It said scientists had isolated probable "traces" of a "nerve agent or similar organic compound" in environmental samples collected where the sheep died. Stone's investigation also disclosed that a chemical found in the blood, stomach and liver of the dead sheep was "related to nerve gas samples" from Dugway. Experts questioned whether there was enough to kill the animals, however. And a 1972 report, also produced by the Edgewood Arsenal, found that laboratory sheep fed grass contaminated with VX showed exactly the same symptoms seen in Skull Valley. Sheep fed grass contaminated with several common insecticides exhibited different symptoms, said the Edgewood report. This refuted military suggestions soon after the incident that insecticides might have caused the Utah deaths. Although the Army never accepted responsibility for the sheep deaths, the government later compensated ranchers for their lost animals. Worldwide publicity about the incident contributed to then-President Nixon's decision to ban all open-air testing of chemical weapons in 1969. Federal officials four years ago launched a program to find and test the sheep burial sites to determine whether any hazardous substances remain hidden beneath the surface. Testing of recently discovered burial pits on the Skull Valley Band of Goshute reservation is scheduled to begin within the next few months. Danny Quintana, attorney for the Skull Valley Band of Goshute, says a detailed re-analysis of the 1968 sheep deaths may shed new light on the long-term environmental and physiological consequences of chemical weapons. Tribal leaders note that several older persons living on the reservation died soon after the sheep incident. "They think it was related to this, but we are never going to be able to prove it," says Quintana. Careful study of the Dugway incident also could help unravel questions about health problems reported by Gulf War veterans who believe they were exposed to nerve agents, adds the attorney, and help the nation be better prepared for possible chemical weapon attacks by terrorists. "The best way to do it is learn what happened with the sheep," Quintana says. The Dugway sheep incident is loaded with symbolic value in Utah. It is brought up regularly at public hearings as one of two reasons Utahns distrust the Army and -- to a lesser degree -- all other federal agencies. The other frequently cited cause of distrust is federal lies about the safety of open-air nuclear weapon testing at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s and 1960s that sent clouds of radioactive fallout drifting into Utah. The Stone investigation shows that on March 13, 1968 -- the day before the sheep died -- Dugway employees conducted three activities with nerve agents. One was a test of a single artillery shell filled with a chemical agent, and another was the disposal of about 160 gallons of nerve agent in an open burn pit. The sheep deaths usually are linked to the third activity -- a test in which a low-flying jet fighter sprayed nerve agent in a barren target area about 27 miles west of Skull Valley. Later reports indicated one of the tanks malfunctioned and some of the nerve agent continued to be sprayed as the jet finished its run and began climbing high into the sky. Dugway's meteorological reports indicated the wind was blowing out of the northwest at the time of the test, but later shifted to the west as a small storm front passed. These west winds could have carried nerve agent directly over the sheep herds. "There were scattered cumulus clouds in the general area at the time of the test and scattered rain showers developed during the evening," said the Defense Department's 1968 press release. "One of these rain showers could have washed this airborne agent out of the air and deposited it on vegetation and the ground." Sheep are believed to have been hit hardest by nerve agent because they were eating contaminated grass and snow. Sheep are one of the few domestic animals that can get enough water from snow to survive. A few dead birds and rabbits also were found. Shepherds and other people in the area were examined by doctors, but military experts reported no indication of illness related to nerve agents. At least one Skull Valley rancher who ate snow during this period has complained of chronic health problems since the incident. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Wootan" Subject: Need e-mail address for Larry Ball Date: 03 Jan 1998 09:31:03 -0800 Please excuse the bandwidth. Larry, I don't have any e-mail saved right now with your e-dress. Please drop me a line at wootan@dmi.net. I have some questions regarding Nebraska CCW. Thanks, Jerry Wootan - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: DOD would like to command your cops Date: 04 Jan 1998 01:00:55 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.usnews.com US NEWS Online January 12, 1998 WASHINGTON WHISPERS Taking civil liberties? The Pentagon's strong role in domestic disaster training is drawing fire from civilian agencies. In 1996, Congress gave the Defense Department $52 million to conduct the nation's largest civil-defense effort since the cold war. With help from the FBI and other agencies, military specialists are training emergency workers in 120 cities to cope with an attack from biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. But the training--conducted in seven cities to date--has sparked conflicts over lines of authority. "The military just doesn't understand the police and firefighter worlds," complains one law enforcement official. "They don't even understand the civilian federal community--they just charge ahead no matter what anyone says." DOD officials counter that they have the government's top expertise in coping with weapons of mass destruction and that's why Congress gave them a leadership role. But some officers may be going too far. After one field exercise, overenthusiastic DOD officers were bluntly reminded that they do not command civilian officials. Coordination of the disaster training has now sparked an investigation by the General Accounting Office, which will issue a report early this year. BY DOUGLAS STANGLIN WITH KENNETH T. WALSH, JULIAN E. BARNES, RICHARD Z. CHESNOFF, DAVID E. KAPLAN, GORDON WITKIN, AND SHAHEENA AHMAD - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Judge clears way for US to seize Sweeney Estate Date: 04 Jan 1998 07:15:29 -0500 Anybody heard about this one? >Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 23:37:55 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Judge clears way for US to seize Sweeney Estate > >Judge clears way for US to seize Hamilton estate of defiant couple=20 >By David Armstrong, Globe Staff, 01/03/97=20 > >Mediation efforts to end a standoff between a Hamilton couple and=20 >federal marshals trying to seize their 14-acre estate have been >declared dead by a judge, clearing the way for agents to take=20 >control of the property as early as Monday.=20 > >But the couple, John and Rhetta Sweeney, raised the possibility=20 >of a confrontation with US marshals. They vowed not to leave their=20 >property under any circumstance.=20 > >=91=92It continues to be a very dangerous situation,=92=92 Rhetta Sweeney= =20 >said yesterday. =91=92Our position hasn=92t changed. We are certainly not= =20 >leaving.=92=92 > >In June, a federal court ordered the property seized because=20 >the couple failed to repay a $1.6 million loan to the Federal=20 >Deposit Insurance Corp. The Sweeneys contend they do not owe=20 >the money and were cheated by a now-defunct bank, ComFed Savings=20 >in Lowell, which granted the loan during the 1980s. The couple=20 >had put up their property as collateral.=20 > >As part of the mediation, the US Marshals Service was=20 >ordered to halt its efforts to take the property. But=20 >five months of talks have stalled.=20 > >Last Monday, US District Judge A. David Mazzone concluded=20 >that =91=92further efforts at mediation are unlikely to be productive.=92= =92=20 >As a result, his order stopping federal marshals was rescinded,=20 >allowing agents to seize the two homes on the estate as early > as 5 p.m. Monday.=20 > >The marshals service did not comment on the Sweeney case yesterday.=20 >The service has indicated it will proceed slowly in its dealings=20 >with the couple.=20 > >FDIC officials did not return telephone calls.=20 > >The dispute between the Sweeneys and the FDIC has become=20 >a high-profile event in Hamilton, a well-to-do North Shore=20 >town best known for its historic horse farms and sprawling=20 >country mansions. The Sweeneys are longtime residents whose=20 >ancestors were among the founders of the exclusive Myopia Hunt Club.=20 > >Some residents are worried that a confrontation could affect the=20 >surrounding area. The Sweeney property is adjacent to Route 1A,=20 >the town=92s main road, and is across the street from Hamilton-Wenham=20 >High School.=20 > >The couple has cordoned off the estate with yellow tape and >barricaded entrances with heavy equipment. They have placed signs >around the margins of the property warning federal agents to stay >away.=20 > >The Sweeneys have declared they will not leave the three-story,=20 >French-style mansion that serves as the main house on the property=20 >even if ordered out. They have asked volunteers to patrol the=20 >property and donate supplies.=20 > >The Sweeneys have also asked several local politicians to intervene=20 >on their behalf.=20 > >The couple is represented by Linda Thompson, an Indiana attorney=20 >and self-described militia leader.=20 > >Yesterday, Rhetta Sweeney said she and her husband still want a=20 >peaceful resolution. She said they hope to continue talking to FDIC=20 >officials.=20 > >=91=92We don=92t regard this as dead,=92=92 she said. =91=92I feel there is= a >strong possibility that this can still be settled peacefully through >talks. But it is disappointing we haven=92t been able to get anywhere >in mediation talks.=92=92 > >This story ran on page A01 of the Boston Globe on 01/03/97.=20 >=A9 Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company. > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Sweeney Web Site Date: 04 Jan 1998 07:23:34 -0500 >Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 23:41:50 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Sweeney Web Site > >Sweeney Web Site >http://www.qui-tam.com/ > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES Date: 04 Jan 1998 11:41:27 PST BOOK REVIEW: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, BY JOHN ROSS Gun Control Run Amok Reviewed by Wesley Phelan "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Declaration of Independence The major premise of this book is that all federal gun-control legislation passed since 1934 violates the Second Amendment. The minor premise is that heavy-handed attempts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to enforce this legislation constitute a threat to the freedom, dignity and safety of every gun-owning American. Ross draws the conclusion that it is time for Americans to rise up and put a stop to these infringements of their liberty. This is a very timely book. Every American who has not slept through the last four years knows about the ATF and FBI assault on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. Fewer know about the assault on Randy Weaver and his family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Ross, who has spent his whole life in the gun culture, gives a very insightful and accurate account of these two episodes of government-sponsored murder. But he does more than that--he shows that incidents like these are all too common, especially for the ATF. The main story line begins in 1932 with the 'Bonus Army.' This was a band of some 20,000 World War One veterans who, in the depths of the depression, marched to Washington to ask for early payment of their war bonuses. The government's response to this peaceful assembly was indicative of things to come. The army, under the leadership of General MacArthur and Majors Patton and Eisenhower, drove the Bonus Army out of Washington at bayonet point, burning their shanty-town and killing many women, children and veterans in the process. Ross also gives a very moving account of the Warsaw ghetto uprising of April and May of 1943, when a handful of brave Jews, armed with a few captured guns, held off 2000 heavily armed German soldiers for four weeks. The Germans finally had to burn the ghetto, block by block, to overcome the resistance. As Ross makes perfectly clear, the holocaust began with--and indeed was made possible by--laws which first disarmed those whom the Nazis intended to destroy. The story then moves from fact to fiction as it shifts to post- World War Two America and the birth of the book's protagonist, Henry Bowman. We watch as Henry grows up in the middle of the gun culture, becoming an expert marksman with both rifles and hand guns. As Henry matures the federal government gradually intrudes into more and more aspects of its citizens' daily lives. By the time he reaches adulthood the government is taxing its citizens at confiscatory rates and is regulating everything from the use of privately-owned land to the day-to-day operations of many family-owned businesses. The last straw for Henry comes when the ATF launches a fraudulent raid on him and two of his friends, all of whom are licensed gun dealers. The agents intend to plant contraband in the three men's houses as part of a plan to eliminate them as opponents of the ATF's illegal activities. The response of Henry and others to these outrages constitutes the last third of the book. Unintended Consequences is a well-written, fast-paced novel, and even though it is over 800 pages long it never becomes tedious. Anyone who loves airplanes and guns will become thoroughly engrossed in the action. A few of the sex scenes are a bit risque, though, and might offend some readers. The plot of Unintended Consequences would have been entirely unconvincing ten years ago, but in 1997 it is entirely believable. As such, the book is a sad reminder of what has happened in the United States during the 1990's. The book eloquently expresses the white-hot rage tens of thousands of Americans feel toward an overbearing and indifferent federal government, which they have come to see as the greatest obstacle to their pursuit of happiness. And while many will not be prepared to grant that popular resistance to government should yet be taken as far as it is in this book, none can deny the reality of the grievances which provide the motive for that resistance. Ross writes in the author's note at the beginning of the book that a friend of his in law enforcement advised him to publish the book under a pseudonym. The friend gave this advice because he expected official reprisals to be directed against the author and his family. I think the friend was right. But Ross ignored the advice in a manly spirit reminiscent of those who first fought for American independence. This book is a call for other Americans to join him in saying to a corrupt, remote, centralized government: "We will not stand idly by while you send your agents out to harass and intimidate us. We know that a just government has nothing to fear from armed, law-abiding citizens. We remember that our ancestors fired 'the shot heard around the world' to protect their liberties. If forced to, we will do likewise." [Wesley Phelan is a Professor of Political Science at Eureka College.] [Unintended Consequences can be ordered through the Washington Weekly web site at http://www.federal.com/Book91.html ] Published in the Jan. 5, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Forfiture Alert Date: 04 Jan 1998 11:51:51 PST "The working and middle classes are endlessly conscripted, dunned and sacrificed -- to rescue the investing classes." Patrick Buchanan --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: <199801031638_MC2-2DE9-E7D7@compuserve.com> If you've read Henry Hyde's press releases and not the fine print in his asset forfeiture reform bills (HR1835 and HR1965) you, like many, may be in trouble... Henry Hyde being sued? From The New Republic, 1995 and more recently Mother Jones Magazine... = "He is a defendant in a $17.2 million lawsuit by the [Federal Government's] Resolution Trust Corporation for his role as a director, from 1981 to 1984, of Clyde Federal Savings and Loan"... = "As [the U.S. House] Judiciary Committee chairman, Hyde could be involved in deciding questions about prosecution of thrift cases..." = "...Hyde's case [civil law suit] has never received an ethical review despite 'questions of honesty, influence peddling and conflict of interest'." We have no further information other than the article transcribed in full below. We do know that Hyde's recent actions concerning his so-called Asset Forfeiture Reform legislation leaves many questions unanswered and places all of us in even greater danger of expanded NAZI-like infringements of our freedom and property rights. = How does one explain the actions of Henry Hyde, an elected official who has represented himself as a staunch opponent to property seizure, who then introduces legislation *pretending* to reform asset forfeiture but which is in direct opposition to his purported philosophy? = Hyde's proposed legislation is a blatant betrayal to his constituents in Illinois and all Americans whose very lives are dependent upon legislation endorsed by him and passed out of his powerful congressional committee. = Could Hyde's betrayal have anything to do with the above mentioned $17.2 million civil lawsuit filed against him by the [Federal Government's] Resolution Trust Corporation? = Could the law suit be a lever used by those in power in the Department of Justice to further their obsession for more and more Orwellian control? Could the law suit have anything to do with Hyde's original appointment to chair the House Judiciary Committee? = Which came first, the chicken or the egg? = In 1995 Henry Hyde authored a book titled, "Forfeiting Our Property Rights", published by Cato Institute, $8.95 in paperback, (800-767-1241). How many of us even knew the book existed? = In his book, "Forfeiting Our Property Rights", on page 2 Hyde writes, = "Federal and state officials now have the power [by charging your property with crime, not the owner] to seize your business, home, bank account, records, and personal property, all without indictment, hearing, or trial. [Since approximately 1984] everything you have can be taken away at the whim of one or two federal or state officials operating in secret. Regardless of sex, age, race, or economic station, we are all potential victims. And unless these trends are recognized and reversed, there will soon be very little that individuals can do to protect their property or themselves." = The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 was the jump-start. According to Hyde's book the Act was expanded in 1978, '84, '86, '90, '92 and again in the Crime Control Act of '94, along with States passing ever broader and more intrusive legislation of their own. = Sounds like Hyde is against asset forfeiture, doesn't it? = That's why so many of us have been confused and misled by the so-called Asset Forfeiture Reform bills Hyde has introduced which in reality will give broader, more abusive powers to the myriad federal, state and local law enforcement agencies which already have authority to seize real and personal property on a mere whim. Add to that Hyde's bate and switch tactics being played and the resulting web of confusion becomes nearly impossible to sort through. The article following this summary may give us some clues. First the background... Hyde (R-Ill) along with Conyers (D-Mich) introduced HR1835, the Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, 15 pages short, looking on the surface like true reform. Chairman Hyde's House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on 6-11-97, from innocent Americans who've lost their property to money-hungry law enforcement agents. = It became clear that asset forfeiture has nothing to do with stopping drugs and crime and is instead used to fill the coffers of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. = HR 1835 garnered many co-sponsors based on Hyde's claims of its reform provisions. Then! During the mark-up session, behind closed doors, staffers from the Department of Justice working with Hyde's committee crafted an entirely NEW bill - HR 1965 - also titled "Asset Forfeiture Reform" ALERT! HR 1965 is not asset forfeiture reform any more than is HR 1835. In fact, HR 1965 gives broader, more abusive forfeiture power to law enforcement agencies and fewer protections to innocent people who are accused by paid - and often professional - informants. = HR 1965 replaces "probable cause" as a prerequisite to instituting civil forfeiture procedings against Citizens with mere hearsay. The statute of limitations for civil forfeiture is five years from WHENEVER law enforcement discovers an alleged forfeitable act, based on mere hearsay evidence. In effect, there is no statute of limitations. = HR 1965 also contains provisions which implement several of the 40 goals set by a P8 - Senior Experts Group on Transnational Organized Crime, which met in Paris, 4-12-96, allegedly "To combat Transnational Organized Crime efficiently... ". = In actuality, the intent of the experts' international group is to HARMONIZE criminal and forfeiture laws of all countries, including America's, to "identify and eliminate obstacles to extradition, including those that may arise from the differences between legal systems, by for example, simplifying evidentiary and procedural requirements." (goal #8) Both bills will accomplish this. = Goal #1... "States [countries] should review their laws governing criminal offenses, jurisdiction, law enforcement powers and international cooperation, as well as their measures dealing with law enforcement training and crime prevention, to ensure that the special problems created by Transnational Organized Crime are effectively addressed." = In other words, what they want is international reciprocal forfeiture laws so that the same alleged illegal conduct, giving rise to forfeiture, by an individual or business in one country can cause forfeiture of that individual or company's assets internationally. Consequently, world citizens can uniformly have their rights violated. In America, local Chiefs of Police are currently making trips to foreign countries, including Bosnia (and Washington, D.C.), for cross-training. = Then... one week after the hearings on HR1835, the DOJ's version of reform (HR1965) was brought back to the same House Judiciary Committee members for a vote... no public hearings, little debate (if any)... just a vote. Both Hyde and Conyers endorsed the DOJ's bill as reform, which then passed through committee with only one dissenting vote. = We're told Hyde wants the bill brought to the floor for a full House vote as quickly as possible. A real danger here is that congressional members who believe Hyde and Conyers are their champions of asset forfeiture reform may carelessly vote for any bill presented to them, based only on claims or a watered-down summary of the bill. Many of us were duped into believing HR1835 was reform because it provides a defense for "innocent owners". We sent messages asking our Congress members to lobby for reinstatement of HR1835. = Then... the hook discovered in both HR1835 and HR1965 is the provision which would require property or business owners, in order to establish an innocent owner defense against civil forfeiture, to first report their property to the police [give law enforcement a timely notice] if they had knowledge of or a reasonable belief that a forfeitable offense had been or may be committed on or with their property. = In other words, we must incriminate our property first by reporting it to the very law enforcement agencies which have the power to seize it. Who decides what is 'a timely notice to law enforcement' or 'a reasonable belief'? = Forfeiture Alert! We're told by Congressman Bob Barr's office he is lobbying for reinstatement of HR1835. Both so- called reform bills (HR1835 and HR1965) give more power to law enforcement and less protection to American property and business owners. To top all that off, Congressman Bill McCollum, (R-Fla) has another doozy he's chomping at the bits to get introduced... yet more abusive authority for law enforcement. = Rumors are that sections of his piece of work may be added to one of the two Hyde and Conyers are pushing or introduced separately to expand criminal forfeiture. = We have no further information on the status of McCollum's bill. Now, the BIG QUESTION IS... WAS IT EVER POSSIBLE, FROM THE BEGINNING, FOR HENRY HYDE TO HAVE ACTED OBJECTIVELY IN INTRODUCING ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM LEGISLATION WHEN THE SAME U.S. GOVERNMENT WHICH HE IS OPPOSING HAS SUED HYDE FOR ALLEGED WRONG-DOINGS AS A BOARD MEMBER OF AN ILLINOIS-BASED S&L WHICH ULTIMATELY FAILED? If anyone has further information on the status of the law suit against Hyde, please forward it to Jackie Patru = >104645.452@compuserve.com.< = For the moment, Hyde sits in a powerful congressional seat and may be performing under outside influence and coercion by even higher powers. = Here's the article from The New Republic... The Judiciary chairman's S & L fest. HYDE - BOUND By David Moberg After two decades in Congress representing the conservative middle-class suburbs west of Chicago, white- haired, corpulent Henry Hyde now holds a key position of power. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Hyde now has jurisdiction over half of the ten points in the Republicans' Contract with America. Gracious and quick- witted, the 70 - year - old Hyde is best known for his amendment prohibiting federal funds for abortion. He has made a reputation as a strong voice on the right with a streak of thoughtful independence. He is also known for his willingness to work with Democrats. Yet Hyde assumes the chairmanship with a legal thorn in his side. He is a defendant in a $17.2 million lawsuit by the Resolution Trust Corporation for his role as a director, from 1981 to 1984, of Clyde Federal Savings and Loan, which federal officials shut down in 1991 at a cost now estimated at $67 million. The charges against Hyde, if true, amount to a serious wrong-doing, in his roles both as thrift director and as a congressman. Hyde's elevation to committee chairman only raises more questions. More obviously, he will be overseeing the work of the system that is charged with judging and prosecuting him. = Politically, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, having made his mark attacking Democratic congressional corruption, now appears to countenance an even more costly, if different, alleged malfeasance by one of his lieutenants. If the Republicans revive Whitewater hearings, Democrats will have grounds to demand similar investigations of Hyde-- whose S & L debacle cost taxpayers a lot more than the Arkansas land deal did. = When the RTC suit was filed in April 1993, Hyde insisted he soon would be dropped from the case. He wasn't. After eighteen months of legal proceedings, Federal District Court Judge Brian Duff indicated last summer that a trial may be inevitable. Until then, Clyde's records are not available, and it is difficult for outsiders to prove or disprove Hyde's guilt. But what is public makes the charges plausible -- and substantial enough to call into question whether Hyde should hop into the chairman's seat until they're finally settled. The RTC has charged Hyde and fellow directors and officers of Clyde with gross negligence, mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract. The lawsuit cites several specifics. Among them: losses from options trading that violated federal guidelines; participation in a pool of out-of-state mortgages without following the right procedures or guidelines; and a loan to a luxury condo development in Texas arranged by a broker with a shady past. In the last case, the RTC said, Clyde "relied upon information provided and analyzed by" the broker, who stood to benefit financially from the loan. Although Hyde now says it was "foolish" to join Clyde's board, he insists he wasn't deeply involved in the company's decisions. He claims to have made only $300 in fees for each monthly meeting (the RTC reports finding no record of what he was paid). Hyde says he was simply a victim of the early '80s recession. But Hyde's actions were not - merely "foolish." The congressman has been a prominent member of the Banking Committee immediately prior to joining Clyde's board of directors. In that role, he helped write laws on the fiduciary responsibility of bank and thrift directors. The conflict of interests here should have been recognized as egregious. Think of the outcry that would ensue if a member of congress left the Armed Services Committee and joined the board of Rockwell or Lockheed. Nor was Hyde simply a passive director. Minutes of board meetings show him to have been involved in making and seconding important motions and voting on risky loans. for example, he seconded the motion that permitted Clyde to begin trading futures through Refco Inc., a firm with a long history of trading violations. (Refco, which came to fame for helping Hillary Clinton with cattle futures, was not on the list of firms recommended by Clyde's own financial adviser.) = Minutes also point out that Hyde was present when the board heard regulatory reports critical of Clyde's investments. = Hyde was there in 1982 when the board chairman read a letter from the Federal Home Loan Bank board supervisor indicating that Clyde would remain solvent for only another thirteen to fourteen months. In 1983 auditors reported rampant, mismanagement, noting that Clyde had overcharged the government for interest on student loans. Hyde agreed to send Clyde's lawyer and auditor to Washington to seek a review of regulatory criticisms of Clyde, but publicly available minutes show no effort by Hyde to fix the problems. Hyde may have acted improperly not only as thrift director but also as a congressman. When he resigned from the board in 1984, Clyde's liabilities exceeded its assets by $30 million. Yet Hyde claimed it was solvent, since the deregulated thrifts had great leeway in accounting procedures. = In 1989 President Bush moved to eliminate some of those accounting abuses in his S & L bailout legislation. Hyde led the unsuccessful fight to block a key provision of Bush's plan. Hyde's action was not surprising: he had long supported much of the thrifts' favored legislation, and they supported him. From 1981 to 1992 he received roughly $125,000 in campaign contributions and speaking fees from the financial industry, a notable sum for a safe seat such as Hyde's. = There was also a more direct, personal conflict of interest in Hyde's advocacy. If he had succeeded in blocking Bush's provision, Clyde might have been able to stay open longer, concealing the negligence and mismanagement that the RTC says brought about its downfall. Instead, the Office of Thrift Supervision put Clyde in receivership under the RTC in 1990. According to bank consultant Tim Anderson, a number of lllinois thrifts played a central role early in the S & L crisis. They often bought up risky loans of many Sunbelt thrift operators. Anderson suggests they did so to protect fraudulent and even criminal behaviors; by delaying confrontation with the crisis, the industry and its allies greatly raised the overall cost of the eventual bailout. = Another question is whether Hyde knowingly participated in furthering this strategy. Hyde is the only member of Congress who has been sued for playing a direct, fiduciary role in the thrift collapse and one of few members to serve as an S & L director while in Congress. (Republicans Edward Derwinski and the late Edward Madigan of Illinois also were directors of failed Illinois thrifts.) "Illinois in the aggregate is responsible for making the crisis worse," argues attorney Walker Todd, who recently left the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank after twenty years with the Fed. "The main players were principals of the U.S. Savings League, but these three public officials could be characterized as being bamboozled by the principals of the league." Fred Cedarholm, a former RTC investigator in the Chicago office, agrees that lllinois was "central to the crisis." But the RTC investigation of Illinois was cut short in 1993 when the Chicago office was closed in the name of bureaucratic consolidation, following decisions made by the Bush administration; all the knowledgeable investigators were lost. = "We were really starting to turn up some very good things, and they didn't want them pursued," Cedarholm said about Bush officials. "I think we were too close." Besides abortive investigations, Illinois also has a poor record on criminal prosecution in the S & L scandal. From 1990 to 1993, Fred Forman, a staunch Republican, headed the U.S. attorney's office in Illinois. During his tenure, the office stood out as a glaring exception to what was going on around the country. Nationwide, fraud was involved in many S & L failures; various government agencies estimate that between 10 percent and 70 percent of all cases involved criminal activity. Yet during these years the U.S. attorney in Illinois, in cases where the RTC made criminal referrals, brought criminal charges at only one-fourth the national average. These records raise the question of whether the presence of three prominent Republicans, including Hyde, on the boards inhibited either the investigation of Illinois thrifts or criminal prosecutions. = As Judiciary Committee chairman, Hyde could be involved in deciding questions about prosecution of thrift cases, though the Banking Committees have primary responsibility for S & L legislation. Further, Hyde has announced that he will hold hearings early next year on the "prosecutorial effectiveness" of the current U.S. attorney in Illinois. Will he also look into the past prosecutorial effectiveness in S & L cases? Could such an investigation influence the attorneys who might decide whether to pursue a case against Hyde? Will Hyde's prominence influence the willingness of RTC attorneys to settle the case in a way favorable to Hyde? "Failure to clear the air on the charges against Hyde should leave everyone worried, " argues Boston University finance professor Ed Kane, who has written extensively on the role of Congress in the thrift disaster. Kane lamented that Hyde's case has never received an ethical review despite "questions of honesty, influence peddling and conflict of interest." Hyde's actions, he said, may have gone beyond simple conflict of interest to acting as a channel of interest for thrift industry leaders. "There's enough to be worried about to say that an investigation ought to occur," Kane said. = "It would serve Mr. Hyde, assuming he is innocent, to have the facts clarified. The approach has been just the opposite -- to hope it blows over." It's possible, though, that the storm is just starting to gather force. = = DAVID MOBERG is a senior editor of In These Times. -- ---------------- Law enforcement needs the new and improved powers which will be given to them in any of the three bills mentioned above to take the final steps toward the implementation of world government. What we need is real asset forfeiture reform - total abolition of criminal and civil asset forfeiture. Will Bob Barr step forward? Anyone who reads Hyde's book will realize seizure of private property for any reason is un-Constitutional (Article 3, Constitution and Article 5, Bill of Rights) and illegal (the Act of 1790 which according to Hyde is still on the books as law) Since our web site has not been updated for over a year, (I don't know how to do it) please feel free to recopy, forward, put on your web sites, etc. Thank you. = submitted by Jackie Patru CDR [Council on Domestic Relations] 104645.452@compuserve.com http://www.logoplex.com/shops/cdr/cdr.html -------------------------------------- Radio Program "Sweet Liberty" 4-5 (eastern) Mon - Thurs. Satellite G-7, 14 - Audio 7.71 --------------------------------- "WE ARE APT TO SHUT OUR EYES AGAINST A PAINFUL TRUTH... = FOR MY PART, I AM WILLING TO KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH; = TO KNOW THE WORST; AND TO PROVIDE FOR IT." Patrick Henry --------- End forwarded message ---------- Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Looking for a Clinton Quote Date: 04 Jan 1998 13:34:14 -0800 Does anyone still have the Bill Clinton quote where he got the Gettysburg Address mixed up with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence? Thanks. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (voicemail) http://www.gvn.net/~creative/ "Roaming the world as a foreign correspondent for more than a decade, I was able to observe how a variety of vastly different nations organized themselves economically. The inescapable conclusion was that no politician anywhere on the planet has ever actually created a rupee's worth of prosperity." Louis Rukeyser, "Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street" newsletter, Nov 96 !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: Baltimore City Paper editorial on Jim Bell (fwd) Date: 05 Jan 1998 01:00:24 -0500 (EST) Don't criticize big bro too much. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- A Bridge Too Far? ---- No doubt about it, Jim Bell disliked the government. As far as this Vancouver, Wash., resident was concerned, there isn't any problem with Congress that $60 worth of bullets couldn't solve. And he let his opinion be known in newsgroups, mailing lists, and, perhaps most notoriously, through an essay he wrote and promoted on the Internet called "Assassination Politics". But did Bell-who, federal authorities discovered, had an arsenal of deadly chemicals and firearms and the home addresses of more than 100 government workers-have a plan to murder public employees? "What was interesting is that the whole case was based on whether he'd be harmful in the future. He hadn't actually hurt anyone, but he was talking about some scary stuff," John Branton, a reporter who covered the Bell case for the southern Washington newspaper The Columbian (The Jim Bell Story), told me by phone. On Dec. 12, Bell, 39, was sentenced to 11 months in prison and three years of supervised probation after pleading guilty to using false Social Security numbers and setting a stink bomb off at a local Internal Revenue Service office. But authorities acknowledge those charges weren't what his arrest was really about. "We chose not to wait until he followed through on what we believe were plans to assassinate government employees," Jeffrey Gordon, an IRS inspector, told the Portland, Ore., daily The Oregonian. Gordon likened Bell to convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and Unabomber suspect Theodore Kaczynski. The federal government's court filing against Bell stated the belief that the defendant had a plan to "overthrow the U.S. government." Proof of his motivation, the government asserted, was found in Bell's Internet writings: "Bell has spelled out parts of his overall plan in his 'Assassination Politics' essay." Bell wasn't lacking for firepower. On April 1, 20 armed federal agents raided Bell's home, where he lived with his parents. According to U.S. News & World Report ("Terrorism's Next Wave") the feds found three semiautomatic assault rifles; a handgun; a copy of the book The Terrorist's Handbook; the home addresses of more than 100 government workers; and a garage full of potentially deadly chemicals. Authorities had long known that Bell was a spokesperson for a local libertarian militia and was involved in a so-called "common-law court" that planned "trials" of IRS employees. Given what the feds found at the house, in retrospect the raid seems prudent-as Leroy Loiselle of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told U.S. News, "You don't need nitric acid to keep aphids off your flowers." It's easy to forget the troubling fact that the government's initial reason for raiding Bell's residence was "Assassination Politics," which they found in Bell's car when the IRS seized it back in February. (Bell owed some $30,000 in back taxes.) Will others who make public their wrath for government and owe some taxes to Uncle Sam be paid similar visits? What's perhaps more troubling still is the way the feds held up Bell's essay as evidence of his violent intent. Reading "Assassination Politics" makes clear that it is no more a workable blueprint for overthrowing the government than Frank Herbert's Dune is a realistic plan for urban renewal. For about two years prior to Bell's arrest, "Assassination Politics" floated around the Internet. Bell, for instance, sent this essay out on the cypherpunks mailing list, where scenarios for the future, based on new technology and libertarian principles, are frequently discussed. None of the cypherpunks took his "plan" seriously then. The core of "Assassination Politics" is a plan to establish an anonymous electronic market wherein people could "wager" money on when public individuals, be they world leaders or corrupt tax collectors, will die. A person (say, for instance, an assassin) who correctly "predicts" the day of a death could anonymously collect the "winnings." Far from being a direct call to arms, Bell's essay is largely hypothetical, at least until encryption, traceless digital cash, and mass homicidal hatred of world leaders becomes widespread. Ugly yes; realistic no. "I've told Jim Bell on any number of occasions that it would never work," Robert East, a friend of Bell's, tells me by e-mail. "If Jim had properly titled this as a fictional piece of literature he'd have been far more accurate." In April, when the Jim Bell story broke, both The Columbian and Time Warner's Netly News portrayed Bell as a victim whose free-speech rights were violated. But as evidence against Bell piled up, the sympathy muted considerably. U.S. News' recent cover story on domestic terrorism, "Terrorism's Next Wave," opened with the Bell case. Perhaps Bell was prosecuted for what he wrote rather than what he might do. (Both friends and family have repeatedly said Bell, though a big talker, isn't much of a doer. "Jim is a harmless academic [n]erd," East insists. "I've known him for years and he's harmless.") Perhaps the IRS was spooked by little more than idle speculation of its demise. But the evidence seems to have dealt the feds the better hand, and lends credence to the idea that, for all the protest of free-speech advocates, words are not always separable from actions. --------------- The Baltimore City Paper: http://www.citypaper.com City Paper's Cyberpunk column: http://www.citypaper.com/columns/framecyb.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [Fwd: FW: Internet with the meter running] (fwd) Date: 05 Jan 1998 00:36:42 PST The following could cut a lot of people out of the picture. And don't forget that if you put in a 2nd line for your computer, you'll soon be paying extra fees, (taxes), on the excuse that you're running a business, too. On Jan 04, Dennis Justice wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] OK Folks, The following is a warning of what WILL come if enough noise is not made. Make the noise. Reply-To: psc@u.washington.edu Sender: PSC-owner@u.washington.edu I am sending this to everyone on my mail list. Please contact the address mentioned and your congressmen, legislators, and dog catcher. Ron Armstrong Sent by a friend: There is a very important matter currently under review by the FCC that will directly affect you: Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service. They contend that your internet usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. This is nothing other than an excuse to extract more money and to hinder internet communications. We all already pay a monthly service fee for the use of the 'telephone network'. The FCC has created an email box for your comments, responses must be received by February 13, 1998. 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 litigation. Let everyone you know hear this one. Get this e-mail address to everyone. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Supreme Court rules for our side.. Date: 05 Jan 1998 12:40:51 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia January 4, 1998 #66 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net ====================================================================== Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html ====================================================================== PROSECUTORIAL MISBEHAVIOR In the March 28 issue, Heads Up reported the story of Rodney Fletcher of Auburn, Washington. Fletcher was arrested in 1993 and charged with stealing computer equipment from a school in Seattle. The problem was, he didn't do it. The charges were quickly dropped, but not before he spent a night in the King County jail. To get the warrant against Fletcher, Lynne Kalina, the county deputy prosecutor, filed documents that said Fletcher never had been associated with the school and did not have permission to enter it. She also said that someone identified Fletcher as the man who tried to sell computer equipment taken from the school. Both of these statements were false. Fletcher later sued Kalina, alleging that she had made statements she should have known to be false when seeking a court warrant for his arrest. Kalina tried to have Fletcher's lawsuit thrown out based on her claim of absolute immunity. A federal trial judge, and later the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, refused to do that. Generally, Court rulings have given prosecutors absolute immunity when they act, even dishonestly, in initiating and prosecuting a criminal case. But, as we see, prosecutors do not have absolute immunity when they perform administrative or investigative work. We all know that some prosecutors lie a lot. But it's not often that we get to hear attorneys from the Department of Justice admit it -- and openly try to defend it in court. That's pretty much exactly what happened, though. Lawyers told the United States Supreme Court that prosecutors who lie when seeking arrest warrants should always be shielded from being sued by innocent people who are jailed as a result. Apparently, the Department of Justice thinks it's their right to lie, cheat and imprison innocent Americans. The Supreme Court, however, felt somewhat differently. Kalina's lawyer said that the act should be protected because, while investigating, she was also simultaneously deciding to begin the process of prosecuting Fletcher. "The sensitive decision to initiate a criminal prosecution is what is protected," he contended. Justice Department lawyer Patricia Millett also agreed, arguing that Kalina "was performing a hybrid function" that should qualify for absolute immunity because part of it was prosecutorial. However, several Justices did not seem to accept that argument. For instance, Justices O'Connor and Souter, persistently interrupted Maleng, noting that a police officer carrying out the same procedure would not be entitled to absolute immunity. "It all boils down to how you analyze the function," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Maleng, "How can the same act be prosecutorial if done by one person but investigatory if done by another?" Fletcher's lawyer stuck to his guns, arguing that his client deserves his day in court to prove his case against Kalina. "Our fundamental complaint is false arrest," he told the Court. "Our claim is Lynne Kalina manufactured false evidence against Rodney Fletcher." As we reported after the oral arguments in October, "This will be a good case to watch. Look for the Court to finally open the door for citizens to take action against prosecutorial misbehavior." And so they did. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court voted 9-0 in favor of Rodney Fletcher. And, you can't get any better than that, folks. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the unanimous opinion for the court. He said that County prosecutors' practice of personally giving "sworn testimony establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant'' is not always protected. Justice Stevens wrote that the practice is not prevalent in other parts of the country, and that when police officers make that type of statement, they do not have absolute immunity from being sued. "Testifying about facts is the function of a witness, not of the lawyer," Stevens wrote. (Kalina vs. Fletcher, 96-792) An interesting consequence of this opinion may be that a number of Justice Department prosecutors -- from Janet Reno on down -- will now be open for lawsuit based on many of their actions and public comments. THE CONTROLLING OPINION ON SEARCH Recently, there were reports that the Federal Communications Commission pulled an early morning raid on a couple of those pesky little micro-powered radio stations becoming so popular around the country. It's not surprising that they wanted to shut the low power, unlicensed radio stations down. They've been at that task for quite some time. The problem was the way they went about it. The two reports we received indicated that FCC, usually an unarmed agency of the federal government, sent SWAT teams to people's homes. And, in at least one instance, they even used a helicopter. FCC has been keeping tabs on every type of radio station for years. Usually, they would park a monitoring truck somewhere near the offending transmitter, listen in for a while, and then pay a visit. When the FCC paid a visit, the station operator would usually be ticketed. If the offense was really bad, the operator might even have to go to court later. Or, if the station committed whatever offence again, FCC would come in and take the transmitting equipment. No guns were ever needed. But now, they use SWAT teams and helicopters. Now they pull military style sneak attacks on a private homes filled with people who committed nothing more serious than talk. It's the same with businesses. A few years ago, a violation of an EPA or Army Corps of Engineers regulation would require a visit by a guy with a clipboard. Today, they send a military-style fire-fight team bursting in. Yet, it's usually the same level of offense in both cases. Today, it's just a "slightly" different way of handling it by government regulators. The guy with a clipboard of a decade ago is quickly being replaced by a squad of ninja-clad warriors sporting automatic weapons. Besides the obvious idiocy of government regulators playing army attack team, there is also a very real Constitutional problem with all this. It begins with two common law rules that this country inherited from England. The first, which is no longer respected, was that a gentleman may be armed, but never in such a manner that could frighten the women and children nearby. Many of us should consider that rule. . . . The second applicable common law rule is a true part of our Constitution, and supported by the "controlling legal authority" of the United States Supreme Court in "Wilson v. Arkansas" (94-5707). The rule is that, unless a threat of violence is real, an officer presenting a search warrant must knock on the door, present his authority for being there and wait to be let in. "Knock and announce," it's called. One would think that this would preclude the current practice of armed squads of men bursting in unannounced on a group of peaceful citizens and waving automatic weapons around. And, in truth, it most certainly does! Justice Thomas writes for the unanimous Supreme Court: "'Although the underlying command of the Fourth Amendment is always that searches and seizures be reasonable,' (New Jersey v. T. L. O.), our effort to give content to this term may be guided by the meaning ascribed to it by the Framers of the Amendment. An examination of the common law of search and seizure leaves no doubt that the reasonableness of a search of a dwelling may depend in part on whether law enforcement officers announced their presence and authority prior to entering." The Court explains that a police officer may break in the door if no one opens up: "But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors . . . , for the law without a default in the owner abhors the destruction or breaking of any house (which is for the habitation and safety of man) by which great damage and inconvenience might ensue to the party, when no default is in him; for perhaps he did not know of the process, of which, if he had notice, it is to be presumed that he would obey it." . . . "Given the longstanding common law endorsement of the practice of announcement, we have little doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment thought that the method of an officer's entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure." In other words, officers must walk up to the door, knock, state their reason for being there, show their authority (the warrant), and wait to be let in. The citizen must, however, let them in within a reasonable length of time or the officers may enter forcibly. But wait, there's still more. . . . The "Wilson" opinion demands that a peaceful citizen be informed of the search warrant 'before' it is executed. We believe this opens up a whole host of violations by the federal government. For instance, what if the FBI gets a warrant to check someone's credit, medical, bank or employment records? Or, how about if they obtain a warrant to monitor someone's computer activity and/or tap their telephone? Would these be any less a violation of the Fourth Amendment if that person were not notified before the warrant was executed? Probably not. For all of the above reasons, we recommend that everyone study the "Wilson" opinion and provide copies of it to your local police departments. -- End -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: "Texas Court Ruling - A Setback for NWO Globalism..." (TiM GW Bulletin 98/1-3, 1/05/98). (fwd) Date: 05 Jan 1998 16:42:21 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: act@efn.org FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 98/1-3 5-Jan-98 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic: GLOBAL AFFAIRS TEXAS COURT RULING - A SETBACK FOR NWO GLOBALISM, A BOOST FOR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY PHOENIX - "One man's trash is another man's treasure," goes an old saw. "One man's triumph is another man's tragedy," could apply to today's New York Times' editorial, "An International Fugitive Goes Free" (1/05/98). For Mr. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a Rwandan Hutu priest accused (not convicted!) of war crimes; for the U.S. Constitution, for national sovereignty, for individual liberty and for a rule of law, the decision by the Texas Federal magistrate judge, Marcel Notzon, that the priest may NOT be extradited to the United Nation's War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague was a triumph. For the New York Times editors, the judge's ruling was a tragedy. Why? Because the Texas court's decision is a setback for the New World Order globalists, like the New York Times, who have been attempting to make "an end around play," to borrow a football expression, around the U.S. Constitution. No wonder the New York Times editorial screamed like a stuck pig, calling the judge's Dec. 17 ruling "mistaken," and his reasoning "faulty." Meanwhile, the judge released Mr. Ntakirutimana, ruling that there was no constitutional basis to turn him over to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Judge Notzon also questioned the validity of evidence against Mr. Ntakirutimana. The Rwanda and Bosnia tribunals were created by a U.N. Security Council resolution. Judge Notzon said that the law which Congress passed in 1996, authorizing the U.S. to turn over fugitives to the international tribunals for Rwanda and Bosnia, was unconstitutional because the U.S. has no extradition treaty with the tribunals. In other words, the judge's decision repudiates the superiority of the United Nations Charter and its resolutions over the U.S. Constitution. Chalk up one small victory for national sovereignty, and a first legal defeat for supranational globalism. "It would be tragic if the United States, which has played such a crucial role in the creation and support of the tribunals for Rwanda and Bosnia, does not honor the obligations to turn over fugitives that it has urged on others," the New York Times whined. Tragic? Hardly. It is a victory for national sovereignty, for individual liberty and for a rule of law. Let us hope that the days of the lynch mob-style trials by the NWO media editors, or by the U.N. "kangaroo courts," may be numbered. [We've also sent today the above text as a letter to the editor of the New York Times]. ------------------ ---- Bob Djurdjevic TRUTH IN MEDIA Phoenix, Arizona e-mail: bobdj@djurdjevic.com LINKS: http://www.beograd.com/truth/ (Truth in Media home page) http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/97/oct/1021/col.htm (Djurdjevic's Oct 1997 FORBES column, "Bet on Asian Large Caps") http://204.134.221.30:8898/ows-bin/owa/im_pak.imdecode?link=360 (Djurdjevic's Dec 1997 IM column, "Wall St. Fails to Notice EDS' Flurry of New Contracts" - IM is a WASHINGTON POST publication) http://www.djurdjevic.com (Annex Research home page) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Sweeney Press Release! Date: 05 Jan 1998 17:58:10 -0500 >Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 18:33:06 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Sweeney Press Release! > >4 January 1998 > >Greetings in Jesus' Name! > Thank you so much for your recent contact with us! We have no >idea how many others are out there on watch concerning developments >at Camp Sweeney. >You are a great encouragement! As you have opportunity, kindly >forward the folloiwing Press Release to EVERYONE (and I mean >EVERYONE) in the press-both domestic and foreign, bulletin or >message boards, pirate and underground e-mails, etc. Do not worry >about duplication. We would be most grateful for anything that >you might do to assist in the Sweeney battle against these Federal >pirates. We believe that keeping the pressure on from all >directions is a good insurance policy! Feel free to contact me at >shadowsb@agate.net or IRON HAND at slime@nii.net >God bless and Godspeed! > >SHADOW of the Slime Busters security team > *************************************** > >JOHN & RHETTA SWEENEY >24 Meyer Lane >Hamilton, MA 01982 >508-468-1536 >508-468-4428 (fax) >E-MAIL jsweeney@star.net >INTERNET http://www.qui-tam.com and also http://www.nii.net/~slime > >PRESS RELEASE >January 2, 1998 >MEDIATOR ENDS MEDIATION > >By Order entered December 29, 1997 in the U. S. Court of Appeals for >the First Circuit, acting mediator Judge A. David Mazzone ended >mediation efforts between the FDIC and the Sweeneys. > >By Order entered December 29, 1997 in the U. S. District Court for >the District of Massachusetts, acting mediator Judge A. David >Mazzone vacated the cease and desist order to the United States >Marshals issued on August 4, 1997, effective at 5 p.m., January 5, >1998. > >During the months of mediation, Judge Mazzone refused to acknowledge >the facts and evidence before him, including: > >1. The lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction >2. The criminal violations committed in the taking and concealment > of the Sweeney state court judgment. >3. The laws which apply "only to Massachusetts State Jurisdiction." > >In addition, Judge Mazzone withheld written material submitted to >him by the FDIC from the Sweeney mediation team. Sweeney mediation >Attorney Linda Thompson has written Judge Mazzone stating; "You >have abandoned your ethical duties to the people of the United >States,your sworn oath of office, and any pretense of propriety, as >is made obvious by your statement that you will not mention what >you have learned to the Court of Appeals owing to "confidentiality." >There is no duty of >"confidentiality" when the effect is to cover up criminal conduct." > >GO TO: >http://www.qui-tam.com (click on Linda Thompson letter to Mediator) > >Lastly, Town of Hamilton official Peter Britton has written Governor >Cellucci, Senator Tarr, Senator Jacques, and District Attorney Kevin >Burke, requesting that they intervene to stop the federal abuse >against state rights, stating: "The Hamilton Planning Board has >made itself clear on several occasions that it will bar transactions >involving land whose possession is clouded by known fraud. The >board has repeatedly asked the federal Government to investigate >allegations of fraud surrounding the Sweeney property and have >received no satisfaction from Senators Kennedy and Kerry, and most >recently from Secretary of the U. S. Treasury, Rubin." > >GO TO: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on Hamilton Town Official > speaks out) > >The Sweeneys have been "whistleblowers" exposing terrible fraud and >abuse in the Banking Industry and a subsequent cover up by the FDIC. >Stating, "The FDIC has gained the "possession order" from the >federal court by known fraud. We will not leave our home or >relinquish our property rights." >The Sweeneys have engaged in a peaceful stand off on their property >since June 3, 1997. > >GO TO: http://www.qui-tam.com > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Filegate Footdragging/Are we as free as we ought to be? Date: 06 Jan 1998 09:24:43 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- January 6, 1998 Review & Outlook 'This Court Will Not Permit' Last month federal Judge Royce Lamberth levied $286,000 in sanctions against the executive branch for "running amok" in a "cover-up" of Hillary Clinton's health care task force. The next day, we now learn, the other shoe dropped: The judge was back in court indicating he may impose sanctions in a second case against the administration. This one involves Filegate. It's an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit seeking $90 million for the White House's improper procurement of the confidential FBI files of up to 900 former Reagan and Bush appointees. The case was brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, which wants to question First Lady Hillary Clinton, former White House security chief Craig Livingstone and his assistant transferred in what FBI Director Freeh has called "an egregious violation of privacy." David Kendall, the first lady's lawyer, has objected to a face-to-face deposition for his client and instead wants all questions in writing. However, Judge Lamberth has given wide latitude for depositions, and so Mrs. Clinton may end up testifying. Rep. Chris Cox, a deputy White House counsel in the Reagan administration, calls Filegate "the most underexplored of the Clinton scandals" and hopes Congress will pursue it. In a Dec. 19 status conference on Judicial Watch's Filegate suit, Judge Lamberth observed that both the White House and FBI had asserted they would only produce relevant documents at some unspecified future date. Judge Lamberth responded that this was precisely the kind of behavior he had found "unacceptable" in the health care task force litigation. "This court has made it abundantly clear that such a practice will not be tolerated," he wrote in a December 22 order. He added: "This court will not permit such tactics to occur in this case either, as defendants' conduct in the instant case is equally improper. This court will entertain any motion for sanctions arising from this misconduct that plaintiffs may wish to file." Sounds to us as if this White House's stonewall reflex has finally created a fairly significant federal-judiciary problem. A status conference on Judicial Watch's request for sanctions will be held next Tuesday at 10 am in Judge Lamberth's courtroom. Judicial Watch is becoming a veteran of the stonewall struggles. Its three-year-old lawsuit seeks documents to establish whether the late Ron Brown traded prize seats on trade missions for campaign contributions. In that case, Commerce lawyers capitulated last year and actually asked that "judgment should be entered against" their own client. Commerce admitted its record search had been incomplete and asked Judge Lamberth to order " a new and adequate search" and to have the agency pay all of Judicial Watch's legal fees and costs. Judicial Watch chairman Larry Klayman declined the settlement and hopes to pursue the case. He notes that in the health care task force lawsuit, the government also offered a settlement only to have Judge Lamberth later rule that it "did not properly provide public access to all the files...as they had offered in settlement." It's hard to see how anyone could be surprised that the Clinton administration has enraged a federal judge. From lost billing records to the search of Vincent Foster's office to videotapes of White House coffees the administration has never been able to get its story straight, though its operatives must have concluded they were nonetheless getting the best of the press, public and congressional committees. So why not stiff the judiciary as well? Lately, though, the courts have started to slap down the White House. The Supreme Court, for example, summarily rejected its attempts to block the Paula Jones lawsuit and withhold documents from Kenneth Starr. Now Judge Lamberth has begun to levy sanctions against some of the administration's tactics. It's somehow reassuring to see that the buck still stops somewhere in Washington. Copyright ? 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ========================================================================== As Free As We Ought To Be? Whatever else may be said about 1997, it was like every other year in this respect: more laws, more red tape, less freedom. What can we expect in '98? Probably more of the same. America is perhaps the freest country in the world. The economy is good, and the nation is at peace. Given the lack of any crisis or threat that calls for government action, we should be freer still (and, as we note in the editorial above, government should be smaller). But the trend seems to be in the other direction. Liberty isn't lost with one dramatic stroke of the pen. It's taken piece by piece, often under the guise of promoting public health and welfare, or - as the White House likes to put it - ''for the good of the children.'' Bill Clinton learned this the hard way four years ago with his attempt to ''reform'' health care. He found he couldn't nationalize the system all at once. So now he's doing it bit by bit through mandates and ''minimum standards'' - and Republicans are going along. Clinton now wants to expand into funding health care for kids. And the ''Health Care Bill of Rights'' recently concocted by a presidential commission calls for everything from ''culturally competent'' treatment to a government-run complaint office. Who would pay? We would, with our tax dollars and loss of choice. State governments are happily joining the health-care mandate game, too. Health insurers now must cover ''biologically based'' mental illnesses in Colorado and pay for breast reconstruction for women who've had mastectomies in New York, North Carolina and Oklahoma. The war on smoking continues apace as well. In California, a smoking ban in public buildings and restaurants now includes bars and hotel lobbies. Couldn't some bars choose to cater to their smoking clientele? No. State lawmakers said the problem was too vital to let the market work it out. That's a common refrain among legislators: Some problems are just too big and too important to leave in private hands. Whether it's environmental cleanup or school choice, welfare reform or campaign finance, the market - and the citizens who make it work - just can't be trusted. There is one place where freedom is flourishing: the Internet. Try as they may, state and federal authorities haven't yet been able to fence in the wide-open cyberspaces. Still, that's cold comfort in a country in which health care, education, and cheap phone rates are considered ''rights,'' but the Bill of Rights is thought passe. For every pleasure, there is a risk. For every freedom, there is a chance that it will be abused. Some claim the era of big government is over (we're still skeptics on that score), but the era of meddling government is alive and well. (C) Copyright 1998 Investors Business Daily, Inc. Metadata: E/IBD E/SN1 E/EDIT ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: Internet with the meter running] (fwd) Date: 06 Jan 1998 11:08:49 -0800 (PST) Bill, what in the heck is your email address? Someone where I work sent out a similar note with the URL www.fff.cov/isp.html but all of the dates on that page are early -97-. Is this a -new- attempt (I would expect one)?? And if so where can I 'read more about it'? Hoping for more information here as the email at work has been "corrected" by others and if there is a renewed attack I'd like to get the real informaton out to people. -Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Does this mean the Pope supports Communism? Date: 06 Jan 1998 14:18:34 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [StarText.Net....]__ 01/03/1998 18:11 EST [IMAGE] Pope Sends Castro New Year Greeting MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Pope John Paul II sent Cuban President Fidel Castro a New Year's greeting three weeks ahead of a papal visit to the island, wishing peace for its people and saying he prays for them. ``Wishing you a happy new year, along with best wishes for peace and social progress for that noble country,'' John Paul wrote in the message, published Saturday in the Communist Party daily Granma and carried by the official Cuban news agency Prensa Latina. The dispatch was monitored in Mexico City. The pope said his wishes for Cuba were being ``commended constantly in my prayers to the Lord.'' He is to visit Cuba Jan. 21-25. John Paul, leaving the Italian hilltown of Assisi on Saturday after a visit to show solidarity for the suffering in September's earthquakes, had Cuba on his mind. ``We'll bring the peace of Assisi to Cuba,'' the pope said when he left the Franciscan convent in Assisi, according to the Rev. Giulio Berrettoni, who is in charge of the complex. New Year's greetings hold special significance for supporters of Castro's communist government. Every year they celebrate Jan. 1 as the anniversary of the 1959 revolution that toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista and brought Castro to power. Castro also received a New Year's greeting from Jiang Zemin, head of China's Communist Party, also signed by Chinese Premier Li Peng. Copyright 1998 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Send comments and questions about The WIRE to feedback@ap.org. _________________________________________________________________ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: Clinton issues edict Date: 06 Jan 1998 19:50:41 -0600 Exclusive to NPI Clinton Tells God to Cut It Out President Clinton, today, announced he's issued an Executive Order requiring to God limit access to his wonders. "Everyone likes mountains," said the President. "Hell, I like mountains. But we can't afford to have our best and brightest victimized by them." The Executive Order requires The Heavenly Father to henceforth only create mole hills and gently rolling hills that have no more than six degree angle of descent. "Those damn steep inclines are the problem," said Mr Clinton. "And if God can't understand and get on board it just goes to show how extreme he's become. Extremism can't be tolerated at any level and if the Almighty can't understand that simple fact, it make one wonder just exactly how almighty he really is." At the same time, the President's people on the hill introduced a bill requiring no tree to grow within one half mile of a ski lane. This is expected to set up a conflict with some of the President's most ardent supporters, those constituents colloquially referred to as "environmental wackos." This includes the Vice President. "Trees were here first," said Droolin Earp, head of "Hug a Tree for Castro" organization. "Besides, we got too damn many rich kids and congressmen as it is. It's just payback. More trees have been burned by people than the other way around. It's time for trees to level the playing field." Earp was soundly denounced my Sarah Brady, president of Handgun Control Inc. "Everything on this earth must be controlled," said Ms. Brady, "except my mouth." When asked to comment on the President's executive orders, the reverend Jerry Falwell laughed, then listed a litany of presidential scandels. "The man can't take care of his own business," said Falwell. "How's he going to take care of God's?" - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: first Date: 06 Jan 1998 21:38:09 -0600 a democrat runs into a tree, then a republican. If I was Ross Perot I'd move to the sahara desert. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: New Pro-Gun Web Site to Visit (fwd) Date: 07 Jan 1998 07:45:18 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Here is the URL for a new pro-freedom and pro-Second Amendment web site you should all visit: www.guntruths.com/ Steve Silver Vice President The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329 Encino, CA 91316 (818) 734-3066 (The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) Non-Profit Corporation) Visit the LSAS's new and updated Web page at: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/lsas Send an e-mail request, including your snail mail address, to: LSAS3@aol.com for a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, The Liberty Pole. Remember: Firearms are worth it if they save just one life. *** Self-defense is not a crime. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Re: 4TH AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK Date: 07 Jan 1998 09:06:39 -0500 >4TH AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK I thought it was mortally wounded back in the Bush administration under the guise of the "war on drugs". R ============================================================= = "I have so much to offer; if you'd just be nice; = = if you do what I say and don't make me say it twice." = = -- Sheryl Crow mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu = ============================================================= - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Fwd: National Park Service runs amok (fwd) Date: 07 Jan 1998 08:43:19 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ------Begin forward message------------------------- Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) The following story precedes the seizure of Santa Cruz Island by the National Park Service from it's long-time private owners by about a month. When Congress passed the last parks act, they nationalized the island, and decided on compensation of $2.9 million, which the owner rejected. The feds position- we're taking your land and you can sue us. The good news- this story comes from CBS. Special Assignment The Raid on Santa Cruz Island CBS 2 News Special Assignment It was a scene out of Vietnam. Flying low into the Santa Cruz Island a black military-style helicopter landed and heavily armed men jumped out. Within seconds Rick Berg, a volunteer hunting guide, was face-down on the ground, weapons pointed at his head. From where he lay, Berg saw the feet of men running past him, headed for a nearby bed and breakfast. Inside, a 15-year-old girl was about to be terrified. Crystal Grabeel had no idea what was happening when she awoke that morning to find three masked men with machine guns barging into her room. The men, National Park Service rangers and Santa Barbara sheriffs deputies, stuck guns in Grabeel's face and handcuffed her for 15 to 30 minutes. Since that incident, she has seen a counselor and written a letter to President Clinton, but Grabeel's father says the armed agents have taken away her innocence. The raid on Santa Cruz Island was implemented because the National Park Service (NPS) believed they were breaking up a major Native American artifact smuggling ring, according to park service documents. They were following up on a report about a former "Island Adventures" volunteer who claimed he saw Native American bones in a box on the island. That was 10 years ago and that former worker has not been to the island since. But three years ago, when the National Park Service heard that story, Park Superintendent Tim Setnicka launched what would become a major investigation. Setnicka sent his agents posing as hunters to Jaret Owens door, owner of "Island Adventures." He sent them with enough federal tax dollars to pose as high rollers. It was during one of three trips to the island that undercover agents hooked up with volunteer guide, Brian Krantz. Krantz was eager to show the "Island Adventures" guests where to find sheep, CBS 2 News reported. He thought nothing of it when the two big-tipping hunters asked to see some Native American bones. "(Krantz) didn't take any artifacts, he didn't take anything," said Steve Balash, Brian Krantz's attorney. "They said, 'can you show us a grave?' (Krantz) goes up and he's talking about bones and he's digging up some bones, one of the guys says can I have that and they take it, and that's the case." That box of bones was the substance of the government's case that led to an aerial assault on Santa Cruz Island. Three years after the park service's investigation into the disturbance and destruction of the Chumash Indian burial grounds, Brian Krantz was the only person charged with anything related to Native American bones - a felony count of disturbing a gravesite. And the only bone that ever left Santa Cruz Island was inside the pocket of that undercover park service ranger, according to CBS 2 News. But the National Park Service is quick to point out two others were also charged. CBS 2 News reports those two "other" charges are misdemeanors. One for guiding tours without a license and the second, for cooking without a permit. So, if these charges were so minor, why was such an aggressive tactic used? Was a military-style helicopter and a SWAT team necessary? The National Park Service claims their decision was made because "Island Adventures" is a commercial/recreational hunting company, which meant the individuals who were to be arrested would be armed. Because a storm was causing marginal sea conditions and they needed quick access to the island, a helicopter was used. The NPS also says the helicopter used was not from the military but from the U.S. Customs Service. The Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department's SWAT team, which had no choice but to mutually aid the National Park Service, now apparently says sending a SWAT team was a mistake, reports CBS 2 News. Crystal Grabeeel's letters have so far received no response. Despite an exhaustive investigation that included the confiscation of his business and personal records, "Island Adventures" owner Jaret Owens has been charged with nothing. Nonetheless, CBS 2 News reports, he has given up on waiting for an apology from NPS. ------End forward message--------------------------- Steve Silver Vice President The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329 Encino, CA 91316 (818) 734-3066 (The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) Non-Profit Corporation) Visit the LSAS's new and updated Web page at: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/lsas Send an e-mail request, including your snail mail address, to: LSAS3@aol.com for a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, The Liberty Pole. Remember: Firearms are worth it if they save just one life. *** Self-defense is not a crime. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: FCC internet charge Date: 07 Jan 1998 13:05:05 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- After receiving notice of the phone companies intent to raise online = rates and after going on the FCC web site to verify the accuracy of the = information so I wouldn't make a fool of myself, I sent copies of the = info out to everyone in my address book. That is roughly 35 people at = last count. One of my online buddies from Pennsylvania wrote the = following back to me this afternoon. No wonder our government is scared = of the internet. Have a good day. =20 Mike Freeman McKinleyville, Ca. http://www.humboldt1.com/~wincup1/index.html http://www.humboldt1.com/~mcsd/index.html ====================================================================== ====================================================================== >Mike, >I sent this to a contact of mine who works in Washington DC for the >federal government and this is what he wrote back to me. >Karen=20 ====================================================================== Karen, Thanks for the info on the ISP Access Charge proposal. I fired off a scathing response to the FCC and will certainly rip them a new ass in = some meetings I have with them this week and next week. Fortunately I have a good forum and the ear of the Commissioner. She is a pretty wise ole = bird and isn't bullied easily by the corporate giants. This issue rears its ugly head every six months or so but don't sit by quietly. Let the bastards know how you feel. Dave=20 ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: first Date: 07 Jan 1998 11:48:51 -0800 (PST) On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, jim bohan wrote: > Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 21:38:09 -0600 > From: jim bohan > Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com > To: NO ban , > restore our constitution > Subject: first > > a democrat runs into a tree, then a republican. > > If I was Ross Perot I'd move to the sahara desert. I hear somebody's taking up a collection to buy Clinton a pair of Head 210's and a one-way ticket to Aspen. But I didn't hear who it was. Anybody know? ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: first Date: 07 Jan 1998 11:48:51 -0800 (PST) On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, jim bohan wrote: > Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 21:38:09 -0600 > From: jim bohan > Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com > To: NO ban , > restore our constitution > Subject: first > > a democrat runs into a tree, then a republican. > > If I was Ross Perot I'd move to the sahara desert. I hear somebody's taking up a collection to buy Clinton a pair of Head 210's and a one-way ticket to Aspen. But I didn't hear who it was. Anybody know? ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: Internet with the meter running] (fwd) Date: 07 Jan 1998 14:13:00 -0700 To whomever - Does anyone have the subscription instructions for ROC handy? Please send them to me, I have a friend who'd like to join the group. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: (fwd) Fwd: Cmdr. Donaldson Press Conference (TWA800) (fwd) Date: 07 Jan 1998 17:43:36 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.conspiracy ---- Begin Forwarded Message Sender: Flight 800 discussion list The press conference will be conducted at the Army/Navy Club in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 8, 1998 from 9:00 AM EST to approximately 11:00 AM. Commander Donaldson will appear along with Maj. Meyers and Mr. Goss, both are eyewitnesses to the incident, a former TWA pilot and crash investigator and two retired Admirals will attend and might even participate. Mr. Irvine has contacted all the major networks: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, they have given verbal commitments to cover the event. Most of the information that Cdr. Donaldson will give out at the conference, can be found at http://members.aol.com/bardonia in the Donaldson file, the morning of the event. If you have any questions or comments feel free to contact me at med5463@firstnethou.com Mike Donaldson -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: (fwd) TWA: Who Speaks Conspiracy? (fwd) Date: 07 Jan 1998 17:44:08 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: alt.impeach.clinton,alt.politics.clinton,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.conspiracy,sci.military.naval,alt.disasters.aviation An interesting review found on the web. TWA: Who Speaks Conspiracy? Over one year has passed since the downing of TWA Flight 800 and still there is no official determination as to the cause beyond a working hypothesis that some unexplained phenomenon caused an explosion in the center fuel tank. During this time a growing number of people have come to believe that the government is covering up the real cause of the explosion for political reasons or to protect our national security. Is our political system in the business of hiding its blunders from us? Are we the national security risk the government is protecting itself against ? During the time of the explosion Liz Sanders was a flight service manager at the TWA training center in St. Louis. Fifty of her fellow employees had been aboard Flight 800 and amounted to 23 percent of the 230 that were lost. According to her husband's book "...flight attendants and other employees had informally collected information about what they were certain was a government cover-up in the making." Their jobs, they felt, were at stake. If TWA was left holding the "bag" on this crash the company might just go belly-up. Like most Americans they "...held the notion that they lived in a country where the government could not do such things." When livelihoods, freedoms, or lives are taken Americans are forced to take a closer look at their government - or if they work for the government these reasons keep them silent, for the most part. For Liz and her fellow employees the prospect of looking into the crash held some promise because Liz was married to an ex-policeman who became a private investigator and investigative journalist. James Sanders was of the opinion that "...the government can't do these things because the Constitution prevents it." He did agree, however, to look into the crash and figured at that time that a mechanical reason was probably to blame. This gesture of James Sanders led him on an odyssey that is still unfolding. What he found out was shocking to him as it would be to all of us who pledge allegiance to the republic. James Sanders is now convinced that the government is covering up a "friendly fire" mishap that occurred while testing a new defense system that was using commercial flights as part of the test. He cites as evidence a reddish residue from missile fuel on passenger seats, a clean entry and exit hole in the forward cabin, 34 certified eyewitnesses to an airborne projectile, FAA radar tapes showing a projectile in the path of Flight 800, and specified government documents confirming naval testing in that area on the night of the crash. It seems that for those who suffer from government negligence and abuse the impetus is to get the government back on the right track. But for those who depend on the government for the support of their families and careers the tendency is to look the other way when our government is failing us. Still there are those brave few who will help to set things right if it doesn't mean losing everything. When the word got out that Sanders was looking into the crash he was contacted by a person he believes to be working on the "inside" at the Calverton hanger where the NTSB and the FBI are jointly searching for clues. "The source went on to say that he had decided to talk to me because the evidence of a deliberate cover-up was so overwhelming inside the investigation that he wasn't willing to continue to ignore its implications." "Nor, he said, was he willing to put his job or career on the line." During an alleged conversation between Sanders and his "inside source" he writes "What they do know is that it would be fatal to their careers if they went against policy and pushed the belief that a missile with a semiactive radar brought down Flight 800." "No federal employee could do such a thing without first making the very difficult personal decision to take on the might of the employer who feeds their family and become a whistle-blower." "Congress has attempted to pass laws making it possible for people within the bureaucracy to reveal corruption and cover-up." "The sad truth, however, is that the bureaucracy is vastly more powerful than congress." Just imagine what James Sanders is saying. Congress is our elected group of citizens speaking for us and making laws to protect us and the Constitution. His contention is that the agencies of government are more powerful than the people's representatives. Coming up against a federal agency is the easiest way to loose your standing in the community and any prospect for employment or a decent life - just ask Randy Weaver, Richard Jewell, or the FBI lab guy (Frederick Whitehead) who blew the whistle on wrong doing there. David E. Hendrix says "He recognizes how the federal bureaucracy operates." "If you displease the political ruling class too much, they will not just counter your journalistic efforts, they will go the extra distance to destroy your reputation." Mr. Hendrix is an investigative reporter for The Riverside Press-Enterprise. You may recall that the story splashed over their pages when the "big" press wanted nothing to do with it. Mel Opotowsky - managing editor of The Riverside Press-Enterprise and Norman Bell - assistant managing editor are indeed brave souls to stand up to the feds and print what they think happened. Hendrix routed out a source - "ex-Navy officer (used to supervise warning areas) spoke on the condition his name not be used - said he was told the plane was the victim of an exercise gone awry..." Then another source from the Navy "...(on condition of anonymity) confessed that a submarine was involved in an exercise in military zone W-105, southeast of the Flight 800 crash site." Then another source "A longtime FAA investigator and attorney not connected to the crash [who] said that his analysis of the NTSB documents made him believe some piercing object entered the plane and traveled right to left, seriously damaging the plane and generating fierce winds inside, created by the partial vacuum caused by 400-mph winds passing by the left-side hole." And then there were two. James Sanders and now David E. Hendrix (working with unnamed sources both in and out of the Navy and one guy allegedly right there working in the hanger) were hot on the trail of what their instincts told them was a cover-up. On the other side of the country another brave soul -Richard Russell surfaced by having his e-mail posted on the Internet. Mr. Russell is a retired crash site investigator with the airline pilots union - "said he has copies of FAA radar tapes showing a smaller object on a collision course with Flight 800 seconds before the plane began disintegrating." Evidently one of the union guys or air controllers slipped him a copy of the radar tape. You see their jobs are at stake too. Isn't it amazing how far the long arm of government reaches? Now we have three guys chasing the truth and a paper willing to print whatever they come up with -if they feel it is justified. That's the American way -let the truth be known and the people will do the rest. Mark Sauter - a young television reporter at KIRO TV in Seattle - then Harvard graduate - then Special Forces officer - then graduate student at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism - and then a reporter with the TV show Inside Edition joins the group. Mr. Sauter is -as you can see a formidable spokesman for the truth and not likely intimidated by an out-of-control government. Some of the best coverage of this event that I watched on TV came from this show and the brave contributions made by Mark Sauter. This show, I believe, is where I first saw the missile picture taken that night. As it happens there were two eyewitnesses (according to Sanders) who were close enough to the explosion to see "...bodies fall into the ocean." "New York Air National Guard 106th Rescue Wing pilots Major Fred Meyer and Captain Christian Baur - piloting an HH-60G helicopter over Long Island" "...the military knew that Baur had seen something traveling from east to west." "He saw it slam into Flight 800, and he saw Flight 800 break up in flight and crash into the ocean." "The two officers were so close to the crash that they saw several bodies fall into the ocean." Sanders figures they must have been ordered to by the FBI not to disclose these alleged detailed eyewitness accounts. Sanders gets a hold of an informant -"...handed me a classified ten-page report entitled "TWA 800, Chairman's Briefing/Status Report, November 15, 1996." The document revealed that on the night Flight 800 crashed, an FAA technician analyzed the radar tape and concluded that a missile was seen on the radar screen on a collision course with Flight 800. This information was not immediately given to the NTSB as federal guidelines mandated. Instead, the information was forwarded to the White House and the tape was sent to the FAA Technical Center in Washington, D.C. Another guy that speaks his mind is the Suffolk county coroner whose "...insistence that damage to victims bodies did not correlate to any NTSB mechanical theory." is in keeping with this growing notion that something just isn't right about the way they say that plane went down. And finally we have Sander's literary agent, Bill Birnes who contracts with Paul Dinas - editor-in-chief - Kensington Publishing Corp. who gives the go ahead to their ZEBRA BOOKS publishing house to print the book 'The Downing Of TWA Flight 800 - The Shocking Truth Behind The Worst Airplane Disaster In U.S. History' by James Sanders. I don't believe we will ever know in our lifetimes what brought down Flight 800. I'm still waiting to find out conclusively how Kennedy got shot. First they say Oswald did it alone, then they say he probably had help. Of course the paperwork is "off-limits" to us -at least in the lifetime of any alive when he got shot. I feel cheated. After nearly forty years the government still doesn't think I have a right to see the paperwork that my country prepared relative to the death of my President. Some "researchers" that are outside the government say this was the "mother" of all cover-ups. The saddest part of all is (except for a few brave souls like those just pointed out) the people just don't seem to care. Better to light one candle than curse the darkness, I suppose. I can still dream of a day when the people who live in the greatest nation in the world will be willing to set things right and steer the course of our destiny with all eyes open and all truth disclosed. -- RM ============================================= Annoy the liberals - work hard and enjoy life ============================================= Fix and use for E-mail ron_mayusanet -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Sweeney possible emergency Date: 08 Jan 1998 07:02:05 -0500 >Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:39:38 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Sweeney possible emergency > >Please distribute!!!! > > >We are trying to confirm a report that the National Guard >is starting to block off highways leading to the Sweeney >residence. Someone called into a radio station. > >Could anyone confirm or deny this report. We don't want to >panic for no reason but we also don't want to get caught >short. > >If you have any information, please let one of us know. > >Karen 413-783-2918 >Leroy 413-783-0101 > > >Thanks >Karen > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Niki Deutchman, Nicholes Jury Forewoman and Morris Dees Kcanwatch , member... Date: 08 Jan 1998 09:26:06 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Denver Post Dec 14,1997 [exerpt] A delivery room nurse at Columbia Rose Medical Center who is married to an obstetrician. She has a master's degree in infant development and believes that a person's "personality style'' is developed by the age of five. On top of her affinity for children, she and her family have been long-time members of Klanwatch, which keeps track of hate groups that terrorize or target minorities in the United States. and Tulsa World 12/27/97 DENVER -- She holds a master's degree in infant development, married a physician and calls herself a "student of life." The forewoman of Terry Nichols' jury, Juror No. 215, is an obstetrics nurse who has a daughter and contemplated becoming a midwife. She works two 12-hour shifts a week at a medical center. Her husband is on the faculty at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. When she was about 3 years old, her infant brother died of something similar to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. She was born in Kellogg, Idaho, and lived in Washington, D.C, Seattle and Memphis, Tenn., before moving to Colorado. Her employment history includes a stint working in a day-care center; conducting child- abuse investigations for the Department of Social and Health Services in Washington state; working for the federal government trying to help Alaskan natives; working in the radiology department of a Spokane, Wash., hospital; and serving as a field representative for the March of Dimes. Her father ran for Congress twice. She once worked in Washington as a summer intern for a congressman. Her television habits include watching "JAG," a program about military lawyers, and the news. She also has an interest in "energetic healing," which she said involves "healing energy." She is a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center and a convert to Judaism. Like many of the jurors, she's read John Grisham books, which deal with the legal system. In a questionnaire she filled out in September, the woman said she didn't think the judicial system was working well, citing tricks and loopholes that are used but which don't have anything to do with someone's guilt or innocence. She told U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch during jury selection that it may be easier to decide guilt or innocence than to determine a penalty. She also told lawyers she wasn't good at determining when people are not telling the truth. Rocky Mountain News Dec 17,1997 [exerpt] No. 1, ''The nurse'' Personal: An Idaho native, she moved to Colorado about four years ago and works as an obstetrics nurse at Columbia Rose Medical Center. Her husband is a doctor. They have a 13-year-old daughter. She converted to Judaism as an adult. Jury selection: She laughed at the ornate oath she had to take when she was sworn in for questioning as a possible juror, and she cried when she was asked about the death penalty because she didn't think the decision was "ours to make.'' Then she said she could consider it. "Obviously, whoever planned the Oklahoma City bombing had an expectation that many people were going to die,'' she said. Description: She wept uncontrollably when Nichols and his former wife, Lana Padilla, cried during Padilla's testimony. She smiled when a defense witness said he found a book about childbirth techniques at the Nichols home. She is 47, short, with curly, light brown hair. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: idiocy... (fwd) Date: 08 Jan 1998 09:29:31 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- .. but what else is new. What is it the IRA reportedly said? Something along the lines of"...you have to be successful every time. We only need be once." >From http://wire.ap.org/ 01/08/1998 06:47 EST Philadelphia May Target Gun Makers PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Criminals might be the ones who use guns to kill, but city leaders are considering bringing the nation's gun industry to court and making it pay for crime-related costs -- down to washing blood off the streets. The lawsuit would accuse the gun industry of creating a public nuisance through firearms used by criminals. If it goes to court, it would be the first by a government against the firearms trade, according to the National Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. The lawsuit prepared by lawyers hired by the city would demand millions of dollars to reimburse the city for costs stemming from guns -- including homicide-unit overtime and the expense of counseling survivors of murder victims, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported today. The approach parallels the tactic of a group of state attorneys general who negotiated a tentative settlement last year with the tobacco industry. But no judge or jury has ever ordered a gun manufacturer to pay damages in a lawsuit over the criminal use of firearms. Mayor Edward G. Rendell put together a team of lawyers and researchers last summer to explore the idea of court action against gun makers, according to newspaper. A draft of a lawsuit has been completed, the Inquirer reported. The mayor said Wednesday that he had not decided whether to proceed with a lawsuit because it could cost a minimum of $1 million. ``The part of me that is a doer and an innovator very much wants to do this because I believe with every ounce of feeling that I have that there are far too many guns,'' Rendell said. Industry officials say their product is lawful and it is not their fault if guns are misused by criminals. They predicted a public-nuisance claim by the city would fail, as have past lawsuits against the nation's 45 gun makers. ``How could you hold anybody responsible for a criminal act if they're not a party to the criminal act? It's just common sense,'' said Daniel Del Collo Jr., a lawyer and lobbyist for hunters. Of the city's 420 homicide victims in 1996, 80 percent were shot. That proportion was the highest of the nation's 10 largest cities. In New York City, the rate was 66 percent. The proposed lawsuit would avoid the tactic of alleging that gun makers should pay under product-liability law for the criminal use of firearms. That approach has failed in lawsuits by private individuals, as courts have found that there is no defect in a gun that harms. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Denver Jury Date: 08 Jan 1998 09:36:03 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ue } ______ [Arlington Online.]Star-Telegram.com Home=20 Updated: Thursday, Jan. 8, 1998 at 08:08 CST =20 Jurors leave bombing sentence to judge, criticize prosecution's case=20 By Steven K. Paulson Associated Press=20 =20 DENVER -- Sloppy evidence. Arrogant FBI agents. Ignoring leads. =20 The stinging criticism of the government's Oklahoma City bombing case against Terry Nichols is a prosecutor's nightmare for one simple reason: It came from the jury. =20 In a bitter disappointment to families of the 168 people who died in the blast, the seven women and five men who convicted Nichols of conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter deadlocked on his punishment Wednesday and were dismissed. =20 Nichols will not join convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh on the federal government's death row. The worst penalty U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch can impose for Nichols' part in the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history is life in prison without parole. No sentencing date was set. =20 With that task left to Matsch, prosecutors faced the uncomfortable fact that their case not only failed to convince jurors that Nichols was a murderer but that he even played a key role in the bombing. =20 "I think that the government perhaps really dropped the ball," said jury forewoman Niki Deutchman, who criticized the FBI for halting its investigation after arresting Nichols and McVeigh. =20 "I think there are other people out there," she said, recalling defense witnesses who saw others with McVeigh before the bombing. "I think this was a horrible thing to have done . . . and I doubt two people were able to bring it off." =20 She also claimed FBI agents were "arrogant" when they didn't use a tape recorder during a 9 =BD-hour interview with Nichols, miscounted fingerprints on key pieces of evidence and allowed drill bits seized from Nichols' home to become rusty when an FBI lab flooded. =20 "Maybe it's time for the government to be more respectful and be more aware of each of us people with inalienable rights," said Mrs. Deutchman, an obstetrics nurse. "That may be part of the message from this whole incident in the first place." =20 The comments infuriated relatives of those killed in the April 19, 1995, bombing. =20 "I think that that jury was very anti-government from the way that she talked, that they were mad at the government before they ever went in there and didn't go in there with an open mind . . . ," said Roy Sells, who lost his wife, Leora Lee. =20 "I don't think this jury understood or had enough gumption to want to do this case the way it should have been done," added Fred Anderson, whose wife, Rebecca, was killed when she was struck by debris while helping victims. =20 Now, the survivors' hopes for punishment rest in Oklahoma City, where District Attorney Bob Macy has vowed to try Nichols and McVeigh on state murder charges and press for the death penalty. =20 Upon learning of the jury deadlock, Nichols, 42, was expressionless. Then he smiled and hugged one of his lawyers after jurors left the room. =20 Jurors deliberated 13 =BD hours over two days, bickering over Nichols' involvement in the plot. =20 "Some people felt he wasn't involved at all in building the bomb," Mrs. Deutchman said before echoing an oft-repeated mantra from the defense: "I think he was building a life." =20 "He may also have been building a bomb. I don't know." =20 Juror Holly Hanlin, too, felt the government failed to fully prove its case. =20 "We couldn't find enough evidence to convince at least all of us that he intended, that he was involved from the very beginning, that he built the bomb. We felt that evidence was shaky at best," said Ms. Hanlin, an executive at a temporary employment agency. =20 When it came time to sentencing, they found themselves in something like a "family argument." =20 "What one person saw as concrete evidence another person couldn't quite see that way," Ms Hanlin said. "That doesn't mean that they're wrong. It just means the evidence wasn't strong enough for them." =20 Said Mrs. Deutchman: "There were a lot of things about the evidence that seems to be sloppy." =20 One of the prosecutors, Pat Ryan, said people should not "treat this as if this is some great loss." =20 "All it does is simply delay the day Terry Nichols will be punished," he said. "This was a troubled jury. I respect the judicial system. Sometimes it breaks down, and people can't come together. This is one of those unfortunate times." =20 The deadlock was a far cry from the unanimous call for death from McVeigh's jury, which took one vote to convict him and one vote to condemn him. Legal analysts, however, said the evidence against Nichols was much less damning. =20 Prosecutors conceded that Nichols was at home in Herington, Kan., when the bomb went off, but said he had worked with McVeigh to build and pay for the 4,000-pound fuel-and-fertilizer bomb. They said he also stashed the getaway car used by McVeigh. =20 Evidence included a receipt in Nichols' kitchen drawer for a ton of fertilizer and a letter to McVeigh telling his former Army buddy to "go for it." The plot, prosecutors argued, was cooked up to avenge the deadly federal siege of the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, in 1993. =20 But Mrs. Deutchman said she didn't think the government proved that Nichols purchased fertilizer used in the bomb or that he robbed a gun collector to finance the bombing. =20 Nichols was convicted of conspiracy, she said, because jurors believed "he knew there was something big and nasty about to happen." =20 "I think there are some victims who probably feel the need for vengeance," she said. "I think that revenge and vengeance are very different from justice." =20 =20 Distributed by The Associated Press (AP) =20 =20 =20 =20 _________________________________________________________________ =20 © 1998 Star-Telegram -- Terms and Conditions -- Send us your Feedback. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Much of trial did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt Date: 08 Jan 1998 10:53:26 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- =20 Oklahoma City Bombing Trials 'Much of it did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt'=20 _________________________________________________________________ =20 Excerpts from jury forewoman Niki Deutchman's Wednesday news conference: =20 GENERAL FEELING =20 I think that the government didn't do a good job of proving that Terry Nichols was greatly involved in all of this, and we took our responsibility very seriously for justice and proving beyond a reasonable doubt. =20 I think that just because someone has been arrested and in this case there will be punishment that will be meted out ... it doesn't remove the empty spaces, it doesn't remove the holes when you've lost someone. =20 And it may (provide) some closure, but it doesn't take away the loss. It doesn't take away the pain. =20 Even though there was a great deal of evidence ... it was circumstantial and a whole lot of it could be looked at in a lot of different ways and very much of it did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt Terry Nichols was involved, and for that reason the decision was very difficult to make. =20 =20 =20 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE =20 I think we heard a lot of information about Timothy McVeigh. We heard a lot of information that was evidence in the case, and it would have been fairly easy for us to make a decision about Timothy McVeigh's involvement, but with all the information that we were presented, it was not easy to make decisions about Terry Nichols. =20 They are different people and their involvement was different in different ways, and it's very hard to say from the evidence that was presented exactly what Terry Nichols' involvement was and that's why this has been such a difficult process. =20 =20 =20 I think there were a lot of things that were very circumstantial that could be easily explained away. There were a few things that could not be easily explained away. =20 There was a Wal-Mart receipt, that as the prosecution said before we went into our deliberations, this is the key. Well, I think it definitely was a key. =20 And some of the activities in the week just before the bombing -- such as going down to Oklahoma City and picking up the TV, when the receipt showed that McVeigh was there and Terry must somehow have known even if he didn't have direct contact. =20 But why do you go to Oklahoma City to pick up a TV when it's already in Kansas? And if they rode back in the car together from Oklahoma City and had some discussions, and as a result of that Terry suspected that Timothy McVeigh might be doing something, and then he assisted him in the week following -- those are things that were difficult for everyone. =20 THE SPLIT JURY =20 I feel very comfortable with the verdict that we reached. =20 =20 =20 I don't think it's a mistake that we couldn't agree on a sentencing process. =20 I think what it says is that there were a certain number of people who felt very strongly that Terry Nichols was very involved and there were a certain number of people who felt that Terry Nichols was only involved in a very minor way. =20 And that makes a statement in itself. And it makes a statement that would not be possible to make, filling out the form that we were given to fill out, which would in effect say that we all thought he was very involved or that we all thought he wasn't. =20 =20 =20 Obviously because we as the jury came to the conclusion that (Nichols) was involved in the conspiracy, that he was guilty of conspiracy, we felt like there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of conspiracy. =20 How much involvement that was, was very much debated and there were a lot of different views about that among the jurors, for how involved he was, all the way from a very tiny amount to totally. =20 I think it's not fair to the jury or to our process to say how many people felt one way or another way. I think it's sufficient to know, and I think it's obvious from what the verdict was that there was a ... big range of opinions, and because we weren't able to come to a conclusion in the sentencing phase that the difference of opinions were very strong and very definite, and after considering long and hard, going back over a lot of evidence, everyone being able to present their views in a lot of different ways, we still were not able to come up with a definite yes or no and the judge will be making the decision. =20 I think that's reasonable, that's how the jury feels and to push it any farther would indeed have been pressure, I think, and is not what the jury system is about. =20 =20 =20 There were a fair number of people who felt like he may in fact have been innocent ... (But the more they reviewed the evidence) the more that opinion was changed. =20 There were a lot of votes, whenever they seemed to be indicated. Since everything ended this morning I've already seen some things. I hadn't been reading the papers, I hadn't been watching TV, but I've seen some things that suggested our verdict of conspiracy and the rest of the things that we found were found because it was Christmas and it let us out of there. =20 I think 61/2 days, or however many days of deliberating, sort of speaks for itself. That's a lot of days. There was an awful lot of discussion. And I think that every single member of this jury took their job very seriously and really tried to follow the judge's orders to keep an open mind through the entire trial, and by the time it was done, I think in fact that is where it was, that people had an open mind and we just reviewed evidence. =20 I'm not willing to talk so much about what the stumbling blocks were. ... I thinks it's not appropriate for me to talk about the deliberation. =20 =20 =20 I think before the deliberations started we were getting along wonderfully and better than would almost ever be the case after being so close together after such a long time. I think every juror considered this very seriously and very deeply and had deeply held feelings. =20 =20 =20 A WIDER CONSPIRACY =20 I think the government dropped the ball. =20 And (I think) if there are people who were very actively involved in this horrible crime that it's an obligation to find them and to bring them into the justice system. =20 ... I doubt very much if two people ... would have been enough to be able to carry it off. =20 =20 =20 I think that the government perhaps really dropped the ball. I think that there were a large number of sightings right around before, the week before, and the day and month after the bombing. And sketches of people that were recognizable. =20 In this trial, there even was a photograph of someone who may have been involved with mixing the bomb, with putting the bomb together, and that person -- it was a photograph from the newspaper. Obviously, that person's identity is known. =20 I think there are other people out there and suspicions were probably made very early on that Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were who they were looking for, and the same sort of resources were not used to try to find out who else might be involved. =20 =20 =20 TERRY NICHOLS =20 Terry Nichols wasn't directly present or implicated with anything. =20 =20 =20 I think the government was not able to prove to all of us satisfactorily that Terry Nichols was greatly involved in this whole process -- only that he was somewhat involved in this process, and others obviously feel that he was a lot involved, but the law says, and our instructions were, that if two possible verdicts might be reached -- both guilty and innocent -- then innocent is what, the lesser is what needs to be followed. =20 =20 =20 Some of the jurors I think were not convinced that Terry Nichols knew that it was a bomb that was the big plan. I think anyone who knew that Terry Nichols knew about a bomb, or who felt that Nichols knew about about a bomb, felt like obviously you'd have to know that it would cause a huge amount of damage and destruction, and death. =20 I felt like he knew. I felt like he knew that there was a bomb and that he was involved right up to the end. The motivation for that could make a difference in how I felt about the rest of the verdict and the rest of the things. =20 =20 =20 I think it would have been really nice to have been able to hear what Terry had to say. And he certainly was under no obligation to have to do that. =20 =20 =20 ON NICHOLS WEEPING =20 I think that most of the jurors felt like Terry Nichols is someone who probably really cared very deeply for the family. =20 And his separation from his family and the changes that have happened in his life with his family members and all of that, it's probably very real. And maybe not all of us felt that way, but I think a lot of people felt like that was very honest. =20 What makes a difference in the person that he is, is he can care so deeply, you know, in one area, what does that mean for other things? Well, it could mean almost anything. And it doesn't necessarily mean he could not be involved in something like this if it was a cause he believed in. =20 =20 =20 I expect that Terry Nichols is not likely to be out walking around in any kind of near-term or even long-term time period. =20 =20 =20 MICHAEL TIGAR AND THE LAWYERS IN GENERAL =20 Michael Tigar is one heck of an attorney. =20 And he and Ron Woods really did a job with this. Obviously the government was not able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt more than just the basic conspiracy. And if Terry knew that there was death and destruction -- then involuntary manslaughter, it has to be at least that. =20 ... All attorneys use acting as part of what they do, and some are better at it than others, and some make it seem very real and very heartfelt and in fact it might be, and that's probably when it's most effective, is when some of it is heartfelt. =20 And it may be that he really did feel that way about Terry Nichols. =20 =20 =20 JUDGE MATSCH =20 I'm glad that the judge is going to make the determination. =20 =20 =20 I think he did a very good job of screening what was allowed for evidence ... at least as far as things that wouldn't have made a difference in deliberations, but could certainly have made a lot of difference in the tone of the courtroom. =20 =20 =20 ABOUT THE VICTIMS =20 I think it's an incredible tragedy, an incredible loss, and that the family members and the rescue people who came to talk to us during the (penalty phase) spoke very eloquently and agonizingly, and they had a lot to say. =20 =20 =20 THE FBI AND FEDS IN GENERAL =20 There were over 30,000 interviews done by the FBI ... I suspect some of those interviews were the same people over and over again ... The fact that there were no tape recordings of any of the interviews, especially of key people, really would have made, I think this made a difference to us as a jury. We regretted that every single day. =20 =20 =20 (Nichols was interviewed by the FBI for 91/2 hours.) There are handwritten notes about what that interview was about. They didn't say anything about the questions ... (or) the tone of voice of Terry Nichols or the investigators. The number of pages of notes that were left from that interview certainly take a lot less time than 91/2 hours to read through ... There are a lot of things that would have been very helpful if it had been on tape and it seems -- it may not be, but it seems to me arrogant on the part of the FBI to say we have good recall and you can take what we have said. =20 =20 =20 It's time for the government to be more responsive and to be more aware of each of us as people, with the inalienable rights -- rights -- and not with the attitude of we know and you don't, and we have the power and you don't. =20 I think that that may be part of the message from this whole -- the incident in the first place, and certainly from the trial ... I don't think anybody who lives in this country hasn't had some experience with the government that they were unhappy with. =20 =20 =20 PERSONAL EFFECT =20 It's been extremely difficult ... just from the standpoint of juggling things and putting the rest of my life on hold and what my family's had to go through, with all of that it's been difficult. =20 But what was even worse was the deliberations because nothing was clear-cut and everything we had to really labor with and through and not just once, but over and over and over again, and there are a lot of feelings and emotions that are involved with that ... the sentencing phase. =20 There were times during the trial that were very difficult to sit through, the sentencing stage obviously was excruciating, it was very agonizing, for us and for the people who had to be there to testify. =20 =0ECF2,7,10.5=0F =20 Compiled by clerks Robin Kepple and Nichole Davis. =20 =20 =20 January 8, 1998 [IMAGE] =A9 Copyright, E.W. Scripps Talk to us _________________________________________________________________ =20 InfoPages =B7 Store =B7 Classified =B7 Real Estate =B7 Colorado Jobs Home =B7 News =B7 Sports =B7 Going Out =B7 Your Money =B7 Recreation =B7= Internet =B7 Extra - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: OK bombing conspiracy theories fly Date: 08 Jan 1998 10:54:21 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- =20 Oklahoma City Bombing Trials Conspiracy theories fly as attention switches to grand jury=20 =20 By Lou Kilzer Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer _________________________________________________________________ =20 A Colorado jury's decision not to hand Terry Nichols a death sentence -- or even send him to prison for life -- is a startling setback for the government. =20 It also assures longevity for the cottage industry of conspiracy theories that surround the Oklahoma City bombing. =20 Attention now will focus on an Oklahoma City grand jury that is investigating whether a wider network -- beyond Nichols and convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh -- was involved in the bombing. =20 In two weeks, J.D. Cash -- a writer who has spawned many of the theories about various right-wing entanglements in the case -- is scheduled to testify before that grand jury. Others are likely to follow. =20 The suspicion that others yet unknown were involved in the bombing is made more tantalizing by one of the first statements key government witness Michael Fortier made to the FBI when he decided to cooperate. =20 Fortier asked FBI agents if they could protect him from "the Aryan movement'' if he chose to cooperate. The statement has never been explained or explored publicly by prosecutors, who raised no hint of involvement by the racist right or suggested why Fortier would need to be protected from it. =20 "It puts the spotlight on us down here in a way no one anticipated,'' said Charles Key, an Oklahoma state representative who helped prompt the empanelment of the grand jury. "It makes this the most important thing going on in getting to the bottom of the bombing.'' =20 Whether the grand jurors can actually find answers that have eluded federal investigators for almost three years is not known. What is clear is that they will have the sympathy of at least some of the Nichols jurors. =20 Niki Deutchman, forewoman of the Nichols jury, said others were "obviously involved'' in the bombing. =20 To some jurors, those "others'' were probably more culpable than Nichols. =20 "The government didn't do a good job of proving Terry Nichols was very involved in all of this,'' Deutchman concluded. =20 The jury was not unanimously convinced that Nichols robbed an Arkansas gun dealer to finance the bombing plot. =20 The defense showed that an inventory of stolen property by the gun dealer contained a rifle purchased legally by Nichols in Michigan and which had never been part of the dealer's collection. =20 Jurors also were not united on when and where the bomb was built or who actually mixed the ingredients. =20 The government contended that the bomb was built at a state fishing park the morning before the bombing. However, no witnesses placed Nichols at the lake. =20 U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch allowed Nichols' defense much more latitude than McVeigh's in presenting witnesses that contradicted the prosecution's theory. =20 Several said they saw McVeigh with various unidentified men before the bombing. Many said they saw McVeigh and others with Ryder trucks at times that did not fit the government's case. =20 The prosecution dismissed the testimony as "Elvis sightings.'' =20 Stephen Jones, formerly McVeigh's lead attorney, said the tactic backfired. =20 "I think comments like 'Elvis sightings,' which impugn the integrity of witnesses who came forward to tell the FBI what they knew, was disastrous,'' Jones said. =20 The government clearly had trouble proving to the jury that the bomb was constructed by Nichols and McVeigh alone in half a day at Geary fishing lake. =20 Some witnesses reported seeing a Ryder truck there that day, but at times that contradicted the government's theory. =20 Most damaging, perhaps, was Charles Farley, who said he saw a flatbed farm truck loaded with ammonium nitrate, a key bomb component, alongside the Ryder truck at Geary Lake. Unfortunately for prosecutors, Farley said he saw the truck and explosives there at a time Nichols was elsewhere. =20 And Farley said he saw at least four men around the truck. He even identified a photograph of one of those men. =20 The name of the mystery man was not mentioned at the trial, but the photograph was part of the defense evidence. The man in the photo was neither McVeigh nor Nichols. =20 Defense attorney Michael Tigar was allowed to present testimony of Carol Howe, who had visited a white supremacist compound in Oklahoma called Elohim City as a government undercover agent. She testified that members of the group talked of bombing federal buildings. =20 Some jurors also were upset with what they thought of the FBI's use of selective evidence in the case. =20 Deutchman, in particular, was displeased with the bureau's policy of not tape-recording witness interviews -- especially the nine hours Nichols was grilled two days after the bombing. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 January 8, 1998 [IMAGE] =A9 Copyright, E.W. Scripps Talk to us _________________________________________________________________ =20 InfoPages =B7 Store =B7 Classified =B7 Real Estate =B7 Colorado Jobs Home =B7 News =B7 Sports =B7 Going Out =B7 Your Money =B7 Recreation =B7= Internet =B7 Extra - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: OK trials the jurors Date: 08 Jan 1998 11:02:13 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- =20 Oklahoma City Bombing Trials THE JURORS=20 =20 Here are the jurors in Terry Nichols' trial: =20 No. 1: Niki Deutchman, 47, of Denver, an obstetrics nurse at Columbia Rose Medical Center. She served as forewoman. =20 No. 2: Pat Oakley, 41, of Brighton, a school bus driver for the Adams County School District. =20 No. 3: Linda Morgan, 60, of Arvada, a reading tutor with the Jefferson County School District and a seamstress. =20 No. 4: Diana Vaughn, 44, of Commerce City, who baby-sits her granddaughter and raises puppies. =20 No. 5: Chris Seib, 48, of Morrison, a banker who handles new accounts. =20 No. 6: Keith Brookshire, 41, of Arvada, a soda fountain installer. =20 No. 7: Holly Hanlin, 40, of Englewood, a supervisor for a temporary-labor agency. =20 No. 8: Lashel Singleton, 23, of Denver, a telemarketer. =20 No. 9: Tom Baker, 41, of Aurora, a shipping clerk and a poet. =20 No. 10: Bertil Carlson, 53, of Denver, a school bus driver. =20 No. 11: Todd Fockler, 41, of Golden, a geophysicist. =20 No. 12: Timothy Burge, 40, of Fort Collins, a technician with Anheuser-Busch. =20 January 8, 1998 [IMAGE] =A9 Copyright, E.W. Scripps Talk to us - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: TWA800 lecture on flight data recorder Date: 08 Jan 1998 14:35:47 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- =09 Found at: http://members.aol.com/bardonia/analysis.htm - --=20 Regards, Allan J. Favish http://members.aol.com/AllanF8702/page1.htm ====================================================================== Analysis of TWA FL800 Flight Data Recorder (FDR) Presented at Press Conference held at the Army/Navy Club in Washington, D.C= =2E Cdr. William S. Donaldson - Aviation Consultant to A.I.M. January 8, 1998 On 8 December 1997 the NTSB released thousands of pages of documents to the media at the beginning of the public hearing in Baltimore MD. On page 42 of the NTSB's factual report of TWA FL800's FDR Tabular Data (Click for Transcription of Last Two Seconds) is a last full data block recorded @ 20:31:12 which was lined out by the NTSB. It is ironic in that it explains exactly what happened to TWA FL800. Data from three independent instrument systems: (1) The Pitot Static System, providing input to altimeters, and airspeed indicators. (2) The Angle of Attack System providing input to angle of attack gauges an= d stall warning. (3) Inertial Navigation System that provides heading, roll and pitch information to compasses and attitude indicators all independently show a powerful explosion occurred outside the aircraft! Data from all four engine pressure ratio gauges, the vertical accelerometer= , and the rudder and elevator control position indicators provide further proof of an external high explosive event. The fact this vital data was lined out and not discussed suggests a cover up! Capture of the Last Data Line is the Very Purpose of Placing a FDR in an Aircraft! - -- The altimeters take their outside pressure readings directly from stat= ic air ports mounted on the side of the fuselage. The 20:31:12 altimeter reading suddenly dropped 3,667 feet. This can only happen if an instantaneous 1.32 pound per square inch pressure increase occurs at the static port. - -- The airspeed indicator gets its reading by comparing ram air @ the pit= ot tube with static pressure @ the static ports. The 20:31:12 airspeed dropped instantly by 198 knots. Again this is indicative of a sudden overpressure a= t the static port. - -- The heading indicator gets its information from the inertial navigatio= n platform (3 very high speed gyro's oriented in three planes.) @ 20:31:12 th= e heading jumped from 82 degrees magnetic to 168 degrees magnetic indicating that the gyro tumbled from shock to the platform and continued to precess because the analog signal from the magnetic compass on the left wing tip ceased. The signal stopped because either the hardware was destroyed or separated from the wing by warhead detonation. @ 20:31:12 the Roll Angle went from 0 degrees to 144 degrees and back to 0 degrees. Also @ 20:31:12 the pitch angle suddenly increased by 4.7 degrees. This instantaneous pitch up was the product of an outside explosion below the nose and was simultaneously validated by the -0.89 G force registered o= n the vertical accelerometer located AFT of the center of gravity. It recorde= d negative G when the tail snapped down. - -- The angle of attack indicator is driven by an 'angle of attack vane' located on the left forward fuselage near the cockpit. It measures the angl= e of wind striking the nose of the aircraft. @ 20:31:12 the angle of attack went from a normal 3 degrees to 106 degrees indicating a high pressure wave coming from the low left side of the nose had struck the aircraft. Two partial data blocks recorded in approximately 1/4 sec intervals after the full data block @ 20:31:12 show the angle of attack returning to 30 degrees @ 20:31:12 1/4 and to a normal 3 degrees @ 20:31:12 1/2! Note: The altimeter is a direct air pressure reading instrument. The difference in air pressure between 13,794 feet, what it should have read @ 20:31:12, and 10,127 feet what it did read, was 1.32 pounds per square inch higher than ambient pressure. Because of instrument lag and multiple static ports this is only the minimum possible overpressure. The aircraft was ascending at 22.5 ft per second. - -- A military warhead 12" in diameter and 14" long filled with RDX, burst= ing 63 feet from below and left of the pitot static port located on the left side of the nose would produce a 1.32 psi overpressure. Note: Distance to the center of burst is critical, for example if the botto= m fuselage was 10 feet closer then the static port would receive 2.35 PSI overpressure which is 1 1/2 tons per square yard, 15 feet closer would be 3.21 PSI etc. Note: The forward fuselage upper skin failed in compression (trying to wrinkle) and the lower fuselage failed in tension (trying to pull apart). These are opposite of normal loading and consistent with the warhead detonation described above. Note: A center wing Fuel/Air explosion can not produce a 1.3 PSI overpressure at the static ports of a flying 747. Using the 60 PSI maximu= m overpressure NTSB suggested, a fuel/air, explosion would only produce a 0.006 PSI overpressure @ the static ports some 75 feet from the center win= g tank. When compared to the 60 psi center wing tank, military warheads can produce over 1.5 million psi in the weapon at detonation. Note: Explosion shock waves are limited by the speed of sound in the atmosphere which is roughly 1,100 feet/second. Because TWA FL800 was alread= y traveling 633 feet/second (380 knots true air airspeed) through the air, a center wing tank explosion shock wave could only move forward along the fuselage at 467 feet/second requiring over 2.3 times as long to traverse th= e 75 feet to the static port. This makes the effective radius of a CWT explosion 177 feet instead of 75 feet or about 12 times the volume of space to fill with overpressure. Remaining Data Blocks: The remaining data @ 20:31:12 is consistent with a shock wave hitting the aircraft, the yoke comes back 11 degrees then forward, 0.89 negative g's then 1.02 positive, the rudder pedals cycled har= d right then left and centered. This last full data block was recorded at least one second before the CWT explosion cut electrical power! -------------------------------------------- Calculation of maximum overpressure potential of center wing tank explosion measured at 747 pilot pilot/static ports. ASSUME: (1) Highest overpressure in tank @ 60 psi (NTSB ESTIMATE) (2) No objects in path of blast wave (3) 2400 ft3 tank is a 8.3 ft radius sphere (highest blast potential) (4) Distance from blast center to static port 75.5 ft. AIRCRAFT AT REST COMPUTATION Divide the distance to static port from center of blast, 75.5 ft., by the radius of the tank, 8.3, =3D 9.09. Cube the dividend =3D 752.6. This determ= ines the ratio between the original tank volume and the volume of the blast sphere measured at the static port. 1:752.6. Divide the volume multiple int= o the 60 psi original pressure to determine the overpressure at static port. 60 psi / 752.6 =3D0.079 psi ASSUME: (5) Aircraft in Flight - 380 knots true Airspeed - 13,774 feet Altitude. Because FL800 was in flight the force of any blast originating from aft of the static ports would be radically reduced. Over pressure waves in the atmosphere are limited by the speed of sound, about 1,100 ft/sec. FL800 was already moving 633 ft./sec away from the point of explosion, so because of speed limits, the shock wave would only travel forward of the fuselage at 467 ft./sec. This slowing of the relative shock wave causes the radius of the overpressure sphere measured to the static port to increase proportionally. - -- @ 633 ft./sec the aircraft travels 0.63 ft. per ms (1/1000 sec) - -- The shock wave would take 161.6 ms to travel forward to the static por= ts @ 0.467 ft./ms. 75.5 ft. / 0.467 ft. per ms =3D 161.6 ms - -- The blast radius would then be expressed as: 161.6 ms x 0.63 ft/ms + 7= 5.5 ft. =3D 177.3ft. AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT COMPUTATIONS 177.3 / 8.3 ft. =3D 21.36 (21.36)3 =3D 9746.5 60 psi / 9746.5 =3D 0.006 psi overpressure -------------------------------------------- Calculation of overpressure potential of anti-aircraft warhead blast 62.5 ft. from 747 static ports ASSUME: (1) 12" Diameter, 14" Long Warhead, filled with 93 lbs. RDX (2) Overpressure within warhead @ detonation 1,500,000 psi (3) Weapon radius =3D 0.6 ft. 62.5 / 0.6 ft. =3D 104.16 (104.16)3=3D 1,130,135 1,500,000 / 1,130,135 =3D 1.32 psi Note: The overpressure actually measured by TWA Fl800's Flight Data Recorde= r on the altitude track, 1.32 psi is identical to the overpressure created by the generic warhead described above. Also note it is 216 times greater then the maximum overpressure potential of a center wing tank explosion on TWA FL800. -------------------------------------------- Go to Donaldson Report on Baltimore Hearings Go to the Donaldson File Index =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Found at: http://members.aol.com/bardonia/2seconds.htm - --=20 Regards, Allan J. Favish http://members.aol.com/AllanF8702/page1.htm TWA 800 Flight Data Record From Time 20:31:11 to 20:3= 1:13 (Transcribed by M. Hull) Local Time = Cdr. Donaldson's Analysis of the Flight Data (secs) 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 = Records Presented at Jan= uary 8, 1998 Press Conference in Washington, D.C. MSL Alt. Mimimu= m of 1.32 PSI overpressure causes altimeter to drop (Feet) 13772 ***** ***** ***** ***** 10127 ***** ***** ***** 3,645'= msl in1/4 sec. IAS Mimimu= m of 1.32 PSI overpressure causes airspeed to drop (Knots) 288 298 ***** ***** ***** 100 ***** ***** ***** 190 kn= ots in 1/4 sec. Nose i= s pushed up 4.7 degs in 1/4 sec. (~ 15 feet) by Pitch Angle blast.= Vertical Accelerometer (Degs) 3.6 ***** ***** ***** ***** 8.3 2.2 ***** ***** locate= d aft of center of gravity records -0.89g when the ta= il snaps down. Elevator Position 0.1 ***** ***** ***** ***** 11.2 -0.2 ***** ***** Yoke a= nd rudder slammed around by shock wave, then return Right (Degs) to nor= mal. Mag. Heading Analog= signal is lost from mag compass components on (Degs) 82 ***** ***** ***** ***** 163 276 ***** ***** left w= ingtip. Gyro stabil= ity fails from shock wave. Roll Angle Gyro f= lips almost in vertical to 144 degs from shock (Degs) 0 ***** ***** ***** ***** 144 0 ***** ***** wave, = then recovers to normal. Rudder Position Yoke a= nd rudder slammed around by shock wave, then return (Upper) 0.72 0.72 0.72 ***** ***** 77.76 -36.54 0.72 ***** to nor= mal. (Degs) Angle of Blast = wave pushes angle of attack vane (left side) from Attack 3 3 3 ***** ***** 106 30 3 ***** 3=B0 (= normal) to 106=B0; (Degs) then s= lip stream restores AOA vane to normal in 1/2 sec. EPR Engine= EPRs show high pressure on face of #1 and low Engine 1 1.30 1.30 ***** ***** ***** 1.14 ***** ***** ***** pressu= re on #2, (Ratio) #3, an= d #4. All are from effects of shock wave. EPR Engine= EPRs show high pressure on face of #1 and low Engine 2 1.29 1.29 ***** ***** ***** 2.46 ***** ***** ***** pressu= re on #2, (Ratio) #3, an= d #4. All are from effects of shock wave. EPR Engine= EPRs show high pressure on face of #1 and low Engine 3 1.30 1.29 ***** ***** ***** 2.36 ***** ***** ***** pressu= re on #2, (Ratio) #3, an= d #4. All are from effects of shock wave. EPR Engine= EPRs show high pressure on face of #1 and low Engine 4 1.3 1.29 ***** ***** ***** 2.44 ***** ***** ***** pressu= re on #2, (Ratio) #3, an= d #4. All are from effects of shock wave. Longitudinal Acceleration 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.05 ***** ******= *************************************************** (g) Vertical Nose i= s pushed up 4.7 degs in 1/4 sec. (~ 15 feet) by Acceleration 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 -0.89 -0.89 1.02 ***** blast.= Vertical Accelerometer (g) locate= d aft of center of gravity records -O.89g when the ta= il snaps down. VHF OFF OFF ***** ***** ***** KEY ***** ***** ***** Radio = keys from aircrew reflex or mic button hit as by-pro= duct of shockwave. Pitch Trim Stab Pos 3 ***** ***** ***** ***** 4 ***** ***** ***** Elevat= or Trim- goes up one degree, product of blast (Degs) actuat= ing trim or pushing on tab. Note - The data in the column at time 20:31:12 was lined out in the handouts at the Baltimore hearings with the notation "End of TWA 800 Data". Return to Analysis of Flight Data Recorder - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Oklahoma City Bombing Trials Government just blew it Date: 08 Jan 1998 14:40:43 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- =20 Oklahoma City Bombing Trials Government just blew it, juror says=20 =20 Prosecution, arrogant FBI unable to mount effective case, jury forewoman says =20 By Carla Crowder Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer _________________________________________________________________ Cocky FBI agents and ineffective government prosecutors patched together a wobbly case against Terry Nichols, jury forewoman Niki Deutchman said Wednesday. =20 "I think the government dropped the ball,'' the outspoken Deutchman said, staring at a dozen cameras and twice as many reporters during a noon news conference at Cranmer Park near her East Denver home. =20 There was scads of evidence "but it was all circumstantial,'' she said. =20 That triggered intense debate and a gamut of opinions among jurors about Nichols' role in the bombing, the obstetrics nurse said. Views ranged "all the way from a very tiny amount to totally,'' she said. =20 Some of the 12 jurors gave interviews Wednesday after U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch dismissed the jury. =20 Several others left town or opted to stay with relatives to escape journalists gathered at their homes. =20 But a picture emerged of a deeply divided jury. =20 "I think we were fortunate to get the conspiracy verdict,'' Timothy Burge, Juror No. 12, said outside his Fort Collins home. =20 "My prayers and my thoughts go out to the people of Oklahoma City,'' he said. =20 During sentencing deliberations, some jurors pushed for death and others fought it. Neither side would back down. =20 "Everybody held their ground to what they believed. We went over and over until we felt we couldn't go anywhere,'' said Juror No. 7, Holly Hanlin of Englewood, a supervisor at a temporary-employment agency. =20 Juror No. 4, Commerce City resident Diana Vaughn, put it simply: "You can't beat a verdict out of someone.'' =20 Vaughn, a stay-at-home grandmother, said she was the last holdout for first-degree murder, although other jurors initally agreed with her. =20 She also voted for the death penalty. =20 "To not be able to follow through with that because it wasn't unanimous makes me sick,'' said Vaughn. "I'm extremely upset over it.'' =20 Hanlin said she hopes Matsch will sentence Nichols to life in prison. =20 Hanlin agreed that the government's case was "inadequate'' and rife with holes. =20 But Deutchman went further, suggesting the government bears some responsibility for the bombing: =20 "I think the government's attitude -- and the FBI is definitely included in that -- is part of where all this comes from in the first place,'' she said, referring to extreme right-wing and militia groups. =20 For several jurors the strongest piece of evidence leading to the conspiracy conviction was a Wal-Mart receipt that showed Nichols lied to the FBI about when he first saw McVeigh in the days before the bombing. =20 "That couldn't be disputed,'' Vaughn said. =20 Still, none of the jurors interviewed blamed or criticized fellow jurors for the mixed verdict or for Matsch's decision to handle sentencing himself. =20 "To push it any further would have been pressure and that's not what the jury system is about,'' Deutchman said. =20 Jurors said deliberation grew tumultuous at times, but jurors remained civil. There were no knock-down, drag-outs, but there were many tears. =20 Arguments ended with apologies and hugs, "like a family argument,'' Hanlin said. =20 Many said they hoped never to serve on a jury again. They described the experience as emotional and extremely difficult. =20 Some felt like they failed. =20 "I haven't been sleeping for months,'' said Burge, a technician with Anheuser-Busch. =20 None of the jurors would give a breakdown of how many wanted to execute Nichols and how many argued against death, but they indicated it was split fairly evenly. =20 Deutchman said that executing someone who wasn't greatly involved -- in their opinions -- wouldn't be justice and wouldn't be responsible, even though jurors knew some victims were pleading for that. =20 At times during especially heart-wrenching testimony, Deutchman turned away from the victims. The nurse explained Wednesday that she could sense their pain and was practicing a form of energetic healing -- a combination of meditating and praying -- that she uses in her work. =20 She and Hanlin praised the defense team, particularly Michael Tigar and Ron Woods, and said their work fueled jurors' doubts. =20 Tigar "is a character. He did a good job. The defense did their job,'' Hanlin said. =20 Deutchman said she felt Nichols was truly a family man who loved his wife and children and was hurting while away from them. =20 The jury wrestled with a range of scenarios concerning his involvement: He initially was gung-ho about the plan, but later backed out; he was coerced and feared for the safety of his family after he backed out; or he knew McVeigh was hatching a sordid, anti-government plot but didn't think this was "the big plan.'' =20 Jurors said they would have liked to hear from Nichols. =20 "He is either a very good actor, or there is a heart in there somewhere,'' said Hanlin. "I saw some emotion, but then he's had 21/2 years to be coached.'' =20 Time and again, blame circled back to the FBI. =20 Jurors said they were incredulous that the FBI hadn't recorded interviews with witnesses, and that FBI agents arrogantly assumed jurors would take their testimony as gospel with no proof. =20 Jurors were shocked that a 91/2-hour interview with Nichols was recorded only with shoddy handwritten notes. =20 "If the FBI had recorded it, or done a better job with the statement, it would have made a big difference,'' Vaughn said. =20 Deutchman pushed the FBI to keep searching for accomplices she's convinced are also responsible for the 168 deaths and that "it's an obligation to find them and to bring them into the justice system.'' =20 "Decisions were probably made very early on that Timothy McVeigh and Terry McVeigh were who they were looking for, and the same sort of resources were not used to try to find out who else might be involved,'' she said. =20 Rocky Mountain News reporters Lynn Bartels, Cathy Cummins, Gary Massaro and Kevin Vaughn contributed to this report. =20 January 8, 1998 =A9 Copyright, _________________________________________________________________ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: The CNN transcript of OK Forewoman Date: 08 Jan 1998 16:14:02 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.cnn.com/transcripts/9801 =20 Breaking News FOREPERSON IN NICHOLS TRIAL SPEAKS ABOUT TRIAL =20 Aired January 7, 1998 - 2:05 p.m. ET =20 DARYN KAGAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A wrenching decision for the Terry Nichols jury. In the end, a decision alluded the seven women and five men. The panel could not agree whether Nichols should be executed for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing. =20 In just a few moments, we will be hearing from the jury forewoman Niki Deutchman. She will be holding a news conference to talk about the jury and talk about the experience of the trial. Standing by for that news conference is our Susan Candiotti in Denver. =20 Susan. =20 SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: She is approaching the podium even as we speak and as soon as Ms. Deutchman does, we will take here comments live. You will recall that this jury deliberated for two days, 13 hours all together before telling the judge that they could not unanimously agree on two verdicts. That is, they could not agree on imposing either a death penalty on Terry Nichols or a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. =20 That meant that the decision would be up to Judge Matsch. And in fact, the jury then dismissed -- the judge then dismissed the jury, thanked them for their service. And we have been waiting ever since then to have an opportunity to speak with members of the jury -- seven women and five men -- to find out what went on during the course of their deliberations. =20 Niki Deutchman has been selected as the jury forewoman and she is a labor and delivery nurse at a Denver hospital. She led this jury through obviously what were very difficult deliberations as they tried to decide on how Terry Nichols should be punished on that one count of conspiring with Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building. =20 Because this jury could not unanimously decide on it, and evidently one of the problems they had was deciding on intent. Did he intend to kill? That is why, ultimately it became a matter for the judge to decide some lesser punishment. Now, he has some options. =20 He cannot, impose the death penalty on Terry Nichols. However Judge Richard Matsch does have the opportunity or the option rather to impose a life sentence on Terry Nichols. In addition, he could also impose something less than a life sentence. =20 As we understand it, as it has been explained to us from the Justice Department -- if indeed Terry Nichols received something less than a death sentence then he could earn what is referred to as good time credit up to 15 percent. =20 Ms. Deutchman now is approaching. So, I'm going to have the camera pan over to her as she approaches the microphones and we get an opportunity to speak with her about her deliberations. Here is Ms. Deutchman. =20 I know it's an uncomfortable situation but maybe Ms. Deutchman you can tell us what went into the decision making process? Why was it difficult for this jury, as you led them through their deliberations to make a decision on either death or the life without the possibility of parole. =20 NIKI DEUTCHMAN, JURY FOREWOMAN, NICHOLS TRIAL, DENVER: I think I would like to say a few things just about the trial in general. And I'll talk about that too. =20 QUESTION: Can you spell your name for us, first. =20 DEUTCHMAN: Niki is N-I-K-I and Deutchman is D-E-U-T-C-H-M-A-N. =20 Certainly, it's been a long trial. And there's been an awful lot of information that was presented. There was a lot of evidence to wade through and sort out. As the judge said in chambers today, he felt it was real important to separate the McVeigh trial -- the trial of Timothy McVeigh from the trial of Terry Nichols because they are different people and because there are things that are different between the two of them. =20 I think that is really true. I think that -- we heard a lot of information about Timothy McVeigh. And we heard a lot of information that was evidence in the case. And it would have been fairly easy for us to make a decision about Timothy McVeigh's involvement. But with all the information that we were presented, it was not easy to make decisions about Terry Nichols. =20 They are different people and their involvement was different, in different ways. And it's very hard to say from the evidence that was presented exactly what Terry Nichols' involvement was. And that's why this has been such a difficult process. =20 Even though there was a great deal of evidence, it wasn't necessarily, it was circumstantial. And a whole lot of it could be looked at in a lot of different ways. And it did not prove, very much of it did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Terry Nichols was involved. And for that reason, the decision was very difficult to make. =20 Obviously, because we as a jury came to the conclusion that he was involved in the conspiracy, that he was guilty of conspiracy, we felt like there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of conspiracy. =20 How much involvement that was, was very much debated. And there were a lot of different views about that among the jurors. For how involved he was all the way from a very tiny amount to totally. And I think it's not fair to the jury or to our process for me to say how many people felt one way or another way. =20 I think it's sufficient know and I think it's obvious from what the verdict was that there was a lot of big range of opinion and because we weren't able to come to a conclusion in the sentencing phase, that there -- the differences of opinion were very strong and very definite. And after considering long and hard, going back over a lot of evidence, everyone being able to present their views in many different ways, we still were not able to come up with a definite, yes or no, and the judge will be making the decision. =20 I think that's reasonable. That was how the jury feels and to push it any farther, would indeed have been pressure, I think, and is not what the jury system is about. =20 QUESTION: Did the jury take some votes? Were there some votes taken? =20 =20 DEUTCHMAN: Always, obviously. =20 QUESTION: How many votes were taken, and would you tell us what the splits were? =20 DEUTCHMAN: No. I'm not willing to talk about what the splits were. There were a lot of votes. Whenever they seemed to be indicated. Since the trial, or since everything ended this morning, I've already seen some things. I hadn't been reading the paper, and I hadn't been watching TV, but I'd seen some things that suggested our verdict of conspiracy and the rest of the things that we found was found because it was Christmas and it let us out of there. =20 I think six and a half days, or how ever many days of deliberating, sort of speaks for itself. That's a lot of days, there was an awful lot of discussion. And I think that every single member of this jury took their job very seriously, and really tried to follow the judges orders to keep an open mind through the entire trial. And by the time it was done, I think in fact, that is where it was, that people had an open mind. And we just reviewed evidence. =20 QUESTION: Was there one specific thing you had a doubt about? One specific act like building the bomb, or... =20 DEUTCHMAN: Yes, there were a lot of specific acts that I had doubts about. I think that's part of the deliberation process, and I think... =20 QUESTION: What were some of those stumbling blocks? =20 QUESTION: Can you please look ahead Ms. Deutchman. Thanks. =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think -- I'm not willing to talk so much about what the stumbling blocks were. I think some things that -- you know, I think I really don't want to talk about the deliberations. I think it's not appropriate to talk about the deliberations. =20 QUESTION: Was there ever any consideration of the punishment during the -- your deliberations of guilt and innocence? =20 DEUTCHMAN: No, and as a matter of fact, we didn't know until we entered the sentencing phase that there were other options. Well, I guess -- until we were ready to begin the verdict -- to begin our deliberations for the verdict, we didn't know that there were going to be other options than they were in the McVeigh trial -- that we would have the option of first degree, second degree or involuntary manslaughter. =20 QUESTION: Was that confusing? =20 DEUTCHMAN: No, that was not confusing. And it was very helpful to have those options. And the sentencing and what the results of our deliberations were not part of what the original deliberations were for our verdict. I think it was very honest. =20 QUESTION: One women who lost who daughter in the bombing said she was disappointed in her fellow man. What do you say to the victims family members who lost people in Oklahoma City and in the Murrah building? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think that it's an incredible tragedy and an incredible lost. And that the family members and the rescue people who came to talk to us during the jury, spoke very eloquently and agonizingly, and they had a lot to say. I think that the government didn't do a good job of proving that Terry Nichols was greatly involved in all of this. And we took our responsibility very seriously for justice and proving beyond a reasonable doubt. =20 I think that just because someone has been arrest and in this case there will be punishment that will be met out, because someone has received punishment, it doesn't remove the empty places. It doesn't remove the holes when you've lost someone. And it may help for some closure, but it doesn't take away the lost, it doesn't take away the pain. =20 QUESTION: Niki what about the issue of intent? You seemed to have a problem with that as a jury; that Terry Nichols intended to kill hundreds of people. =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think that's a fair question, and I think that what that gets down to is different jury members interpretation of how involved Terry Nichols was, and what he actually did as far as conspiracy was concerned and how much he knew about what the whole conspiracy was about. =20 QUESTION: And you specifically? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I feel very comfortable with the verdict that we reached. =20 =20 QUESTION: Did at any point the discussion over sentencing make you rethink the verdict at all amongst the jurors -- the debate over the sentencing? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Of course. It definitely did, and we all reconfirmed out feelings about the verdict, and I think everyone certainly agrees with that verdict of guilty with conspiracy and with the rest of the way that we found to the verdict. =20 QUESTION: Can you explain why you personally had problems with what aspect of the governments case in proving that he intended to kill? Because in the first part of the guilt phase, all the jurors answered the question that they did believe that death was a foreseeable result? Speaking only for yourself, what problems did you have with the governments case involving intent? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think there were a lot of things that were very circumstantial that could be easily explained away. There were a few things that could not be easily explained away. =20 QUESTION: Such as? =20 DEUTCHMAN:There was a Wall Mart receipt that was -- as the prosecution said before we went into out deliberations, this is the key. Well, I think it definitely was a key. There -- and some of the activities in the week just before the bombing; such as going down to Oklahoma City and picking up the TV when the receipt showed that McVeigh was there. =20 And Terry must somehow have known, even if he didn't have direct contact, so why do you go to Oklahoma City to pick up a TV when it's already in Kansas? And some other -- if they rode back in the car together from Oklahoma City and had some discussions and as a result of that, Terry suspected that Timothy McVeigh might be doing something and then he assisted him in the week following. Those are things that were difficult for everyone. =20 QUESTION: Do you realize that this is considered a mix verdict and that people find inconsistencies between the conspiracy conviction and the not guilty verdicts on the murder charges. =20 DEUTCHMAN: Absolutely, and I think some of the jurors have that difficulty as well. =20 QUESTION: What was the mood like in there, and where -- when did you get to the point that you realized that you were not gong to be able to come to unanimous decision? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Every different juror might have a different answer to that question. =20 QUESTION: But as the forewoman, when did you realize that this was not a situation that you were all going to be able to agree? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think there was a point yesterday afternoon when we asked for some information from the judge, the first time, that we were at a place that it was very difficult to move beyond. And so we were asking for more instructions from the judge to help us either get through that or not. =20 And he gave us some more instructions and we considered for a while longer, and then had another communication with the judge to help us a little bit further. And his response this morning made it final, and I think it really was at that point that we know that we really weren't -- I suspected that we had done as much as we were going to be able to, but not everyone probably felt that way. =20 QUESTION: Could you tell me a little about the dynamics of this jury; how you all got along? What kind of relationships there were? Are you friends? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think before the deliberations started we were getting along wonderfully, and better than would almost ever be the case after been so close together for such a long time. I think that every juror considered this very seriously and very deeply and had deeply held opinions. Deeply held feelings. =20 QUESTION: Is this a jury that you would trust your life or death decision with? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I absolutely would. I think they made huge efforts to go through all of the evidence and consider every detail in as much depth as it was possible to do before coming to conclusions. =20 QUESTION: Finish your thought. You said before deliberations started, the jury got a long very well. (OFF MIKE) happened afterwards? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think there were sometimes that when people are taking their job so seriously, feel like it's such an important job, and they come to conclusions that they hold very strongly, that it's hard not to personalize that and be made at somebody that has a different view. I think that the way things are left is that we may not get together for reunions, but that we all still very much respect each other and the place that we've come from and feel like we've done the best that it was possible for each one of us to do. =20 QUESTION: How did the jury feel about Michael Fortier and =20 QUESTION: What did you want the punishment to be? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I'm glad that the judge is going to make the determination. =20 QUESTION: What did the jury feel about Michael Fortier's as far as with if he got some kind of a special deal? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't know that I'm going to talk about the special deal that deal that was arranged for Michael Fortier. I think that the jury considered what Michael Fortier had to say, that there probably were a lot of things about what he had to say that was good information for us to consider as part of the evidence, but someone who's used a lot of drugs over a fair amount of time, may not have very good memory and very good memory recall. So things that had to do with dates and times and people, were certainly looked at suspect. =20 QUESTION: Niki do you think that Terry mixed the bomb, and do you believe that he robbed Roger Moore? You personally? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't know that I'm prepared to answer that. I don't think I want to answer that. =20 QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) testimony other Joe, two, three, four? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Thank you for asking about that. I think that the government perhaps really dropped the ball. I think that there were a large number of sittings right around before, the week before, and the days and month after the bombing. And sketches of people that were recognizable. =20 In this trial there even was a photograph of someone who may have been involved with mixing the bomb, with putting the bomb together. And that person -- it was a photograph from a newspaper, obviously that persons identity is known. I think there are other people out there and decisions were probably made very early on that Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were who they were looking for. And the same sort of resources were not used to try to find out who else might be involved. =20 QUESTION: What were your impressions of Michael Tigar? =20 QUESTION: And does that influence your opinion on how the government handled this case overall? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Definitely. I think the government was not able to prove to all of us satisfactorily that Terry Nichols was greatly involved in this process, only that he was somewhat involved in this process. And others obviously feel like he was a lot involved. =20 But the law says, and our instructions were that if two possible verdicts might be reached, both guilty and innocent, then innocent is what -- the lesser is what needs to be followed. =20 QUESTION: What did you feel was the weakest part of the government's case. =20 DEUTCHMAN: Terry Nichols wasn't directly present or implicated with anything. =20 QUESTION: So why was he convicted? =20 QUESTION: You understand that in a conspiracy you don't have to be there to be part of the planning or be responsible for a bombing. =20 DEUTCHMAN: And the -- as I mentioned before, the things that were the most difficult that actually beyond the shadow of a doubt have to do with the receipt and the trip to Oklahoma City and the things that happen in the week after the bombing. But none of the rest of it was strong enough for all of the jurors to say that Terry Nichols was really there, or really did any of those things. =20 QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) fertilizer? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Someone with -- that used one of the aliases that he used, purchased that. No one was able to really identify the person or really identify the truck, and there were times that Timothy McVeigh used an alias that -- last name that Terry Nichols also used and someone else may have used that name. =20 QUESTION: What was the lynch pin then that allowed you to issue a guilty verdict on a conspiracy count? =20 DEUTCHMAN: The things that I've mentioned already. The things in the week before the bombing. =20 QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts about whether the... =20 QUESTION: Some jurors were crying last night. Can you explain or perhaps tell us at all, was that really -- was that the clinch time, late last night, when that final note went to the judge? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think that the jurors have been under and awful lot of stress and take their job really seriously, and we were working really hard on the whole thing. There were very strong differences of opinion that we were -- very -- for the most part -- not necessarily gently, but considerately of each other airing. And the feelings were really strong, and there -- they were very strong more than one direction. And so it was a culmination of a long day of a lot of stress and there's tears involved. =20 QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) was between Mr. Nichols and Mr. McVeigh? =20 QUESTION: Do you think it was a mistake that you couldn't agree on the sentencing (INAUDIBLE). =20 DEUTCHMAN: No, I don't think it's a mistake that we couldn't' agree on the sentencing process. I think what it says is that there were a certain number of people who felt very strongly that Terry Nichols was very involved, and there were a certain number of people who felt very strongly that Terry Nichols was only involved in a very minor way. And that makes a statement in itself. And it makes a statement that would not be possible to make filling out the form that we were given to fill out, which would effect say that we all thought he was very involved, or that we all thought he wasn't. =20 QUESTION: What do you think his intent was in being in the conspiracy? Do you think he intended to... =20 DEUTCHMAN: The definition of conspiracy and of intent has to do with -- and of conspiracy itself, could be even a very small way, as long as it was still known that this was part of a plan and basically what the plan was about. And even if he didn't know that there was a bombing involved, he know that something big and nasty was about to happen because he said so to the FBI. That Timothy McVeigh has said so. =20 QUESTION: Did the jury at all in the deliberating room discuss it? Did you personally want Terry Nichols to take the stand? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think it would have been really nice to have been able to hear what Terry had to say. And he certainly was under no obligation to have to do that. =20 QUESTION: What did you make of Karen Anderson's gun list? =20 DEUTCHMAN: It's very interesting that one of the things on the gun list was a gun that Terry Nichols had purchased and registered in his name. When we looked at that list very closely, the paper was =20 potentially old, and somewhat stained and had maybe been in the sunlight for a while, but the pencil markings on the paper looked very fresh and new. =20 QUESTION: Niki, do you think that the state of Oklahoma should go ahead and try him again? =20 QUESTION: Do you think that Mr. Nichols knew that this bomb could kill a lot of people? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Some of the jurors I think were not convinced that Terry Nichols knew that it was a bomb that was the big plan. I think anyone who knew that Terry Nichols knew about a bomb or who felt that Terry Nichols knew about a bomb, felt like obviously he'd have to know that it would cause a huge amount of damage and destruction and death. =20 QUESTION: I take it you did not? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I felt like he knew. I felt like knew that there was a bomb and that he was involved right up the end. The motivations for that could make a difference in how I felt about the rest of the verdicts and the rest of the things. =20 QUESTION: What do you think his motivation was? =20 DEUTCHMAN:I don't know, and I don't think I want to talk about that. =20 =20 QUESTION: Ma'am how would like this jury to remembered through history? How would you like this jury to be remembered? =20 DEUTCHMAN:As people who took their role very seriously, approached it very honestly, and worked at it very hard. =20 QUESTION: How would you describe your experience as a juror? =20 QUESTION: How hard has it been on you and on your family? =20 DEUTCHMAN:It's been extremely difficult. Just from the standpoint of scheduling things and setting the rest of my life on hold and what my family's had to go through with all of that, it's been difficult. But what was even worse was the deliberations because nothing was clear cut, and everything we had to really labor with and through, and not just once but over and over and over again. And there are a lot of feelings and emotions that are involved with that. =20 The sentencing phase -- there were times during the trial that were very difficult to sit through. The sentencing phase, obviously was excruciating. It was very agonizing for us and for the people who had to be there to testify. =20 QUESTION: Should Nichols he be tried again in Oklahoma City? =20 DEUTCHMAN:That's, I suspect, a legal decisions and I don't want to get into that. =20 QUESTION: Niki with such differing opinions among the jurors, why a verdict at all? If you couldn't come to... =20 DEUTCHMAN:Because there was at least enough agreement to be able to say that he knew that he was assisting in some kind of a plan that was going to involve probably death and destruction. =20 QUESTION: What went through your mind when you looked across the room and say Terry Nichols crying? Number one. Part two would be, any reaction from you personally as to the my brother comments? Tigar walking behind during closings. First the tears from Nichols and then Michael Tigar. =20 DEUTCHMAN:Well, I think there was speculation among the jurors about how much of what we observed was real. I think that most of the jurors felt like Terry Nichols is someone who probably really cares very deeply for his family. And his separation from his family and the changes that have happen in his life with his family members and all of that is probably very real and not -- maybe not all of us felt that way, but I think a lot of people felt like that was very honest. =20 It makes a difference in the person that he is, if he can care so deeply in one area, what does that mean for other things? Well it could mean, it could mean almost anything. And it doesn't necessarily mean he could not be involved in something like this if it was a cause he believed very deeply. =20 QUESTION: And what about Michael Tigar's my brother comments and his reactions, his tears? =20 DEUTCHMAN:Michael Tigar is one heck of an attorney, and he and Ron Woods really did a job with this. Obviously the government was not able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt more than just the basic conspiracy. And if Terry knew that there was death and destruction, then involuntary manslaughter is a -- has to be at least that, as a result of that. =20 All attorney's use acting as part of what they do. And some are better at it than others, and some make it seem very real and very heartfelt, and in fact it might be, and that's probably when it's most effective, is when there is some of it that's heartfelt. And it maybe that he really feels that way about Terry Nichols. =20 QUESTION: Without getting into the vote count specifically, could you talk about how many people... =20 DEUTCHMAN:Hold on a second. =20 QUESTION: Could you talk a little bit about -- there's been a lot of speculation about the fact that maybe the jury was hung up on the death penalty and whether or not you wanted to forward with that? Could you give us any indication of how big a role discussion of the death penalty played in these deliberations? =20 DEUTCHMAN:Well we at least polled each other to find out how many people felt like that was the most appropriate outcome and how many did not. And there were some who felt both ways. =20 QUESTION: More on one side or the other? =20 DEUTCHMAN:I don't want to talk about numbers. =20 QUESTION: Were you surprised this morning when Judge Matsch took the sentencing decision out of your hands? =20 DEUTCHMAN:We though that that might be a possibility and I think that there were a fairly large number of jurors who hoped that we might have just a little bit longer to be able to continue. At the same time as the Judge said in chambers, later in the day, there comes a point in time when deliberations are no longer deliberations but turn into pressure. And I think that that was a very real possibility. And pressure is not the same thing as considering something freely and openly and honestly. =20 QUESTION: But you never actually decided as a jury to turn it over to Matsch right? Even though that was actually one of your options. =20 DEUTCHMAN:At one point yesterday afternoon, we suspected that the communication we were giving to the judge might result in that affect. We didn't know if it would or not. And in fact it didn't and he gave us a response back. =20 QUESTION: (OFF MIKE) decide that part of the (OFF MIKE) that says, we want you to be (OFF MIKE)? Could you have all agreed to have done that? =20 DEUTCHMAN:To having the judge decided unanimously? I think there were some jurors who felt like that was -- I think some who felt strongly enough in the first two options that to them to allow the judge to make the decision was a cop out. On the other hand, if we were at a place where we could not agree, it's the only possible outcome. It's the only for it to be considered? =20 QUESTION: What do you think about Judge Matsch? =20 DEUTCHMAN:I think Judge Matsch knows the law very well. And even if he appears inattentive occasionally, while he's on the bench, there were many times that an objection would be raised at a time like that, and he immediately was very aware of what the legal issue was that was being objected to and what had been said, and whether it was appropriate or not and was able to make a ruling. =20 I think he did a very good job about screening what was allowed for evidence or not allowed for evidence, at least as far as things that wouldn't have made a difference in deliberations but could certainly have made a lot of difference in the tone in the courtroom. And I think he did a real good job. =20 QUESTION: You faulted the government for not looking harder for these other people who may have been involved. Do you think they should know reopen their investigation? =20 DEUTCHMAN:I think the government dropped the ball and if there are people who were very actively involved in this horrible crime, that it's an obligation to find them. And to bring them into the =20 justice system. I think this was a horrible thing to have done, and I doubt very much that two people -- if Terry Nichols was even greatly involved, that two people would have been enough to be able to carry it off? =20 QUESTION: What about Beth Wilkinson's remark and closing statement. How do you conspire to build a weapon of mass destruction and not know it's going to kill people? =20 DEUTCHMAN:If -- you know that gets into individual jurors deliberations and how much involvement they felt like Terry Nichols had. And if there were some who felt like he didn't even know, necessarily that a bomb was involved, just that something was involved, then -- or if he were coerced for one reason or another and may have been involved at one point and time, and then chose to get out, and felt there was a threat, not necessarily to him, but to his family, which was in more places than Kansas, and didn't know a good way to get out of that and participated anyway, to protect his family. And indeed those were some of the views that were held by some of the jurors, then his intent is a whole lot different. =20 QUESTION: You touched on this earlier, but could you address again, at this time perhaps the people who've lost loved ones in this bombing; who are clearly frustrated and were hopeful that the -- his jury might have made a decision on it's own as to the punishment. =20 DEUTCHMAN:I think that revenge and vengeance is very different from justice. And that just punishing someone because they've been arrested is not a solution to anything. And certainly even if punishment were for the death penalty, it still doesn't fill the holes that have been left when people are gone. =20 QUESTION: How do you know feel about the death penalty? =20 QUESTION: Niki several times today you've said that the government did not prove it's case beyond a shadow of a doubt... =20 DEUTCHMAN:Beyond a reasonable doubt. =20 QUESTION: OK. Well, you said beyond a shadow of a doubt (OFF MIKE) =20 DEUTCHMAN:No. Beyond a reasonable doubt was the jury's... =20 QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) some people thought that maybe acquittal was a possibility earlier on -- was that -- did that come up? =20 DEUTCHMAN:Certainly, when we first got into the deliberation room, I think that we still had been keeping an open mind, and there were a large number of jurors, before we reviewed evidence and talked with each other about out deliberations, there were a fair number of people who felt like he may in fact have been innocent, and the more we consider the evidence and what information that was there had been presented to us, the more that opinion was changed. =20 QUESTION: Niki, do you think Terry Nichols tried to back out of this spot? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think that there were some who felt like that was a possibility. And that he may not really have been involved willingly sometime after November. =20 QUESTION: Do you think he should serve life in prison? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't want to talk about my personal views about that. I think the jury, and what now is left with the judge is where that needs to stay. =20 QUESTION: What about Marife Nichols testimony? =20 QUESTION: What about the family members of the victims in the penalty phase? =20 Did you ever feel that they were angry with the jury because of your original verdict? =20 DEUTCHMAN: A couple of times. =20 QUESTION: Marife's testimony, did that backfire on the defense, do you think? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think there are some victims who probably feel a real need for vengeance. You know, that there were an awful lot of people who were involved in this horrible crime, and an awful lot of people who died and a lot of people who, have been permanently injured as a result of that. It's hard not to be bitter when something like that happens. =20 QUESTION: What do you think of Marife Nichols testimony? Did that backfire? Do you think she was good? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Um -- personally, I -- um -- things were clearer to me before she of testified than after. And so I think it mostly was because it was hard for her to remember a lot of things, that it didn't necessarily help. =20 QUESTION: She screwed up on the time the first day. Then when they came back during redirect that was fixed up somewhat, she said noon. =20 =20 DEUTCHMAN: It was fixed a little. But then when we reviewed the events of the day, I suspect the time that she even wrote down in her notes, a couple of weeks later still was not an accurate time depiction. =20 QUESTION: How did this whole process affect you personally? Will your life go back to normal, say by tomorrow? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't know. =20 QUESTION: If you had to do it all over again, would you do it? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I guess I felt all along like, if there was a reason for me to be there, then, I was willing to be there, and to do the =20 best I knew how to do. I'd sure rather not do any of this again. And if I can avoid being on a jury in the future, I probably will do that. =20 QUESTION: Niki, what do you say to the folks back in Oklahoma City who were perhaps hoping, expecting more? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Sentencing hasn't happened yet. And the judge explained, as we were beginning to go into our deliberations about sentencing, that federal law does not provide for parole. And he has -- I don't know what his guidelines are. He hasn't said what his guidelines are. But they even included life. They included enough years that would mean the same thing as life. I don't know what his sentencing is going to be. And I suspect that Terry Nichols is not likely to be out walking around in any kind of near-term -- or even long-term time period. =20 QUESTION: Did you volunteer to be foreperson, or how did the selection... =20 DEUTCHMAN: It's a vote. =20 QUESTION: Did you campaign? =20 (LAUGHTER) =20 DEUTCHMAN: No. I definitely did not campaign. It's how it happened. =20 QUESTION: I know you don't want to talk about votes specifically, but can you say which way the jury was leaning? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't think that's a good idea. =20 QUESTION: You were talking about the FBI's conduct in the investigation. =20 DEUTCHMAN: Thank you for asking that question. I think, as was pointed out during the trial, there were over 30,000 interviews done by the FBI. And you know, that's an awful lot of interviews, and an awful lot of people. I suspect some of those interviews were same people over and over again, because there were many people that did talk with the FBI multiple times. =20 The fact that there were no tape recordings of any of the interviews, especially of key people, really would have made, I think -- would have made a difference to us, as a jury. We regretted that every single day. Terry Nichols was interviewed for nine-and-a-half hours when he first turned himself in to the police after the bombing, and there were handwritten notes about what that interview was about. It didn't say anything about the questions. It didn't hear -- it didn't allow for any information about the tone of voice, either of Terry Nichols or of the investigators. =20 The number of pages of notes that were left from that interview, certainly take a lot less time than nine-and-a-half hours to read through and sort through. They did go over things more than once but you know, there are a lot of things that would have been very helpful =20 if it had been on tape. And it seems it may not be -- but it seems arrogant to me on the part of the FBI to say, you know, we have good recall, and you can take what we have said. There was FBI report after report, after report, after report when they were talking with witnesses and the attorneys would say: Do you recall in your report to the FBI that you said such and such? And the witnesses said: No, I said something else. And it was similar, but it was not the same words and it had a different connotation. So you know, that is a real interesting aspect of things, and I hope that that changes. =20 QUESTION: And the fingerprint... =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think there were a lot of things about evidence that seemed to be sloppy. And in the fingerprints and even in the numbers that were written down on work sheets and reported a couple of days later that didn't agree. I mean there were a lot of things like that that seemed sloppy. The FBI lab that got flooded and the drill got soaked, and most of the contents were either rusty or ruined by water. And the drill bits had rust on them. There were a lot of things that were sloppy about that. =20 Some of the witnesses -- there was one, especially, who felt -- she seemed to feel very badgered by the FBI, and refused to talk to them after once or twice and -- all the way up to the trial and then talked with the prosecutor -- or the defense some. And I don't know -- I don't think it was very much. So, you know, the -- I think government's attitude, and the FBI is definitely included in that, is part of where all of this comes from in the first place. There are a fair number of people out there who are pretty unhappy with the government, and feel unsafe and very suspicious, and in many cases, very angry with the government, and so many far-right groups show that there are a lot of people who have some feelings along those lines. =20 QUESTION: Do you think it was deliberate misconduct? =20 DEUTCHMAN: No I don't think so, I don't know. I think it's the way the government does business. I think maybe, it's time for the government to be more respectful, and to be more aware of each of us, as people, with the inalienable rights, equal rights, and not with the attitude of -- we know, and you don't. We have the power and you don't. The recent things in Congress, the findings with the IRS and some of the tactics that they have used. You know, I don't think the IRS is the only government enforcement agency that uses those kind of tactics, and I think that might be part of the message from this whole incident in the first place, and certainly from the trial, and from some of the findings, some of the things the FBI was involved with, and their attitudes of their involvement. =20 QUESTION: Did you carry that baggage into the jury box with you, or has this developed through the presentation of the government's case? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't think anybody is -- who lives in this country hasn't had some experience with the government that they were unhappy with. And certainly, I have heard things like that before. I don't think that I necessarily had that kind of attitude before we went in. But I think that it was very interesting -- some of those issues were =20 brought out more by Ron Woods in his questioning of agents and of witnesses than by others, and Ron Woods, I understand, is a former agent, a former FBI agent. And who would know better what the FBI's methods of doing business are, than one who has been part of their number. =20 QUESTION: What was convincing though, from the government's case? Obviously you still came up with nine guilty verdicts. So what pushed you, though, in that direction, in spite of your criticism? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Who said we came up with nine guilty verdicts? Oh, on the listing. =20 QUESTION: Eight counts of conspiracy. =20 DEUTCHMAN: OK. So what was your question? =20 QUESTION: What convinced you, then, in spite of the flawed case, that it was strong enough to come up with conspiracy? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Oh. Those were the things I talked about already. The things already immediately surrounding in the week preceding, and just following the bombing. =20 QUESTION: Do you think you had adequate proof that Terry Nichols told lies about his activities? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Well, if he said he didn't know that Timothy McVeigh was in the area, but he had a receipt, a Wal-Mart receipt that Timothy McVeigh had obtained before he took -- before there was a phone call on Sunday asking him to come down to Oklahoma City to get him, that sounds pretty much like he must have known that Timothy McVeigh was in the area, even if he didn't get it directly from Timothy McVeigh. =20 =20 QUESTION: Do you have trouble believing that Mr. Nichols -- taking it a step farther -- knew -- knew what Timothy McVeigh was up to? =20 DEUTCHMAN: There certainly were some jurors who felt that way. =20 QUESTION: Niki, I know, we know you're not condoning what happened in Oklahoma City a couple of years ago. But going back to what you said a couple of seconds ago, it almost seems like you said you can understand how someone would have hatred against the government to carry something out like that? Can you expand on that? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I understand how someone can be unhappy with the government. I think anything that carries things far is incredible. It's horrible. I can't see how anyone could morally justify killing a whole lot of people, even if it were directly the agents, or the people they felt were directly responsible, and especially a whole lot of other people and civilians and babies. =20 QUESTION: What about Kathleen Trainer(ph)? Obviously, the judge told you all as a panel that she lost it. You mentioned acting earlier. Do you think that was genuine, and how did the jury, or at least you feel about her, on the witness stand pounding her fist, and basically yelling and screaming. =20 DEUTCHMAN: May have been a combination of genuine and emphasis for the jury's benefit. I think that she is really agonized. I think that she said, there was -- she felt a whole lot of guilt. Her daughter pleaded with her to stay home that day, and she didn't. And she felt really guilty. And my interpretation of what happened is when you feel that guilty, there is a whole lot of anger, and you have to blame someone. And in that same 60-second period, she talked about how guilty she felt. And then she talked about -- I can't remember what her words were, but it was in effect, that she wanted us to find him guilty. You know, that it's his fault, because she feels guilty. Well, it's definitely someone's fault that there was a bomb that went off. And that's a horrible thing, and she suffered an incredible loss, and the pain that she feels every day is huge, and I hope that there can be some healing for her. And know that she was not guilty for this horrible crime. =20 QUESTION: What part of the victims's testimony was most compelling for the jurors? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I am sure it was different for everybody. =20 QUESTION: Did the prosecution go too far, though, in sentencing? Was there too much blood and gore and heartbreak? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't think it made a significant amount of difference in -- in the considerations that we were making during our deliberations. I think that everyone felt like it was a horrible crime, and all of us have had at least some experience with grief, and knowing that many people are involved, you know, it's very compounded. It's a horrible thing. =20 QUESTION: Would it made a difference if the testimony had been going on during the verdict phase? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't think so. =20 QUESTION: No? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't think so. It wasn't part of whether Terry Nichols was involved or not. It was -- it was what happened as a result of the bombing. But whether Terry Nichols was responsible for the bombing or not was the issue. And if he was, then it does make some difference in the considerations when you're figuring out a sentence, but if he's not, it doesn't matter how much of that pain and agony you know about. The pain and agony remains. And if he's not the person responsible, you know, what do you do with that? =20 QUESTION: What did you think of the nine witnesses that the defense put on in behalf of Terry Nichols during the penalty phase? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Well, it was nice that Terry Nichols has friends and family members that care a lot about him. I don't know -- there -- it sounded like there might be some other things presented that might assist the jury a little bit more with our deliberations. =20 QUESTION: Such as? =20 DEUTCHMAN: And that might have assisted a little bit more during the trial, and certainly would have during this phase. That -- that would say a little bit more -- Michael Tigar intimated there might have been coercion in his opening statements for the sentencing phase, but there were no witnesses that said anything about that. There were a few pieces of evidence that were somewhat troubling that the defense did not have an obligation to say anything about but didn't say anything about, and it might have been helpful to have a little more information about. =20 QUESTION: What things were those? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Terry Nichols stayed in a hotel, a motel in Paul Valley(ph), the night before nitromethane fuel was purchased in Ennis, Texas. The prosecution talked quite a bit about -- not quite a bit -- very little. It was simply introduced in evidence that Terry Nichols spent the night there, and the prosecution showed on a map how far away that was from Ennis, Texas and how that related to any of the known activities that Terry Nichols had been involved in before and after that time. And it -- that was troubling, and it might have been helpful to have a little bit of help with that. =20 QUESTION: What do you think the relationship was between McVeigh and Nichols? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Obviously, they spent a lot of time together. They met in the army. It sounds and appears as though they definitely had a friendship over a fairly long period of time. Whether that friendship remained or not, and how intimate it was or not, is not clear from what we heard with evidence. =20 QUESTION: Do you think one is the leader, and one was the follower? Much was made of that? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Much was made of that. And there -- from the evidence, it was hard to tell which might be which. And there were many people, for a long time, who felt like even if Terry Nichols might have been a leader in -- when they first met, because he was the platoon leader when they first got into the army and older, and Tim McVeigh was just entering the army, and he was unsure, and lacking in confidence, that that sort of -- someone who is just out of high school often doesn't have much very confidence, and it may not take a long time in your own life experience to build some of your own, and begin to find out who you are as a person. So just because there was that kind of a role when they first met, doesn't mean it stayed that way. =20 QUESTION: What do you Mr. Nichols role was in participating in the conspiracy? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't know. =20 QUESTION: Niki, what did you make of Roger Moore in the robbery, the alleged robbery? =20 DEUTCHMAN: We talked about that a lot, as a jury. And there were a fair number of things that -- that we recognized as a jury that were inconsistencies that weren't necessarily brought out in a trial, but were present in the evidence that was there. =20 QUESTION: For instance? =20 QUESTION: Judge Matsch... =20 QUESTION: For example, how do you explain away the stolen weapons that were found in his house. =20 QUESTION: Wait, wait. She's trying to answer the question. =20 DEUTCHMAN: If there was, and it was suggested, but there wasn't any evidence that was presented to help with that suggestion. It was suggested that it may have been an arrangement which would help finance this whole operation. It is entirely possible, from what was presented, that that could be. It isn't definite. I mean, obviously, guns were taken, and I think he really was tied up with duck tape and with wire ties, and the events that happened, that were described, probably really happened. What was behind all that, I really don't know. =20 QUESTION: You're not convinced Nichols pulled it off? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I have doubts terry transported them, yes, absolutely. Some of the evidence suggested that Tim McVeigh left the day before Terry did, to go to Arizona. =20 QUESTION: And you didn't see enough evidence to determine a motive in your own mind for the conspiracy on the part of Mr. Nichols, is that correct? =20 QUESTION: You don't buy the anger over Waco or the literature found in his storage area? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't know why he might have been involved. Certainly, he had such literature and he talked with a couple of people about those kind of issues. =20 QUESTION: How significant were all the Ryder truck sightings, which were a major part of the defense's case? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Well, what it said is that there were at least -- there was at least more than one Ryder truck in the area, probably several over several is days, and just because one was spotted there on Tuesday morning, didn't necessarily mean that that was Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols mixing up a bomb. =20 And as a matter of fact, one of the jurors is an explosive expert, and speculated that a lot of the mixing of the bomb was probably done a long time before hand, because of the amount of time it would take. And that there were some things that needed to be done at the last minute, and may have been done there, and may have been done somewhere else. What that said to us is that the government's speculation that they mixed it up that morning at the lake may have happened, and may not have happened. =20 QUESTION: Did you believe that Terry Nichols was at the military auction the morning that the government says the bomb was being built? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I suspect he was there, at least part of the morning. I have no idea how much of the morning he was there. =20 QUESTION: Niki, Terry Nichols didn't testify, but if he did was there anything that might have answered ambiguities. Is there anything you would have liked to have heard from him directly? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Of course. I would have liked for him to talk about a lot of different parts of things, but he didn't have an obligation to do that. =20 QUESTION: You said you were glad when we asked about the FBI. Is there anything else that we should be asking about, that we haven't? In other words, jury story words? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think I made a list of some things that I felt were issues, and I think we've talked about those. =20 QUESTION: Will there be a book coming out by any of these jurors? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Not by me. =20 QUESTION: Have any of the media sources been hitting you up for interviews? Larry King call you or Ted Koppel or anybody? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Larry King hasn't called me. =20 QUESTION: Are you going to be making any appearances on any networks or anything? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I am not interested in a whole media show. And if this now is enough, then I would leave it at that. If it seems like it's important for me once more, or twice more or something. I thought this would last for five minutes and it's been longer. Maybe there's been a chance to say what needs to be said now. And I have to think about that. I don't know. =20 QUESTION: When you all left the deliberation room for the last time, what was it like in there? I know you don't want to say about votes and all that, but give us a sense of a tone inside there. =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think there were a lot of very strong feelings. And a feeling of frustration that we weren't at a place where we were unanimous. And frustration at trying to find out how we could get to that kind of place, and not knowing how we could do that. So there were strong feelings and there was a whole lot of frustration. And a real attempt being made to keep things civil and considerate of each other, but some people feeling really so strongly, that they couldn't understand how someone else would have a different view. And so it was tense. =20 QUESTION: Some have reported less than civil exchanges? =20 DEUTCHMAN: It hadn't gotten to that place. =20 QUESTION: Was heard that there yelling among the jurors yesterday? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't think -- I wouldn't call it yelling. I think there were people who had really strong feelings and voices raised a little but I don't think -- I wouldn't call it yelling and wouldn't call it any kind of thing where someone was intimidating or trying force someone to change their mind. =20 QUESTION: Niki, you gave a lot of credence to Ron Woods, FBI service, but would it change your opinion, knowing that he hasn't been in the FBI for more than 25 years? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think that they made a very good presentation. They did a very good job of the defense for Terry Nichols. =20 QUESTION: Why don't you interpret the go-for-it letter that was left behind? =20 DEUTCHMAN: That was very troubling to everyone. And I don't think there was one interpretation of that by the jurors. =20 QUESTION: We missed the question. =20 DEUTCHMAN: The go-for-it letter. I think that was some -- those who felt like there might have been coercion, I think that that was one of the things that helped to show that there might have been. Why would he write a letter when he'd gone to the Philippines a lot of times before, and hadn't taken care of setting all his affairs in order and writing a will and all of that. Why would he do that at this time and then talk to his son, and his son think that his dad was never coming home again. That's one thing that may have pointed toward coercion. =20 QUESTION: Was he as good a father as the defense wanted you to believe. =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't know. I wasn't there. =20 QUESTION: Do you think there was sentiment among the jury that he was coerced? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Probably, not by many. =20 QUESTION: Have you talked to other jurors about talking to the media? Are you speaking for all of them, or did that come up? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I decided a few days ago that it might be easier to try to do this for me to do this at once instead of having everybody pestering. I told the other jurors I thought I might do that and invited anyone who wanted to join me. I think there were several jurors who felt like they really didn't want to talk to any media at all for any reason, and others who all of us -- many of us have different opinions, and I think that others who might want to talk to =20 the media would want to speak for themselves and not have it be part of a group thing. =20 QUESTION: Niki, what is your opinion now about capital punishment, now as you have lived through this trial? Capital punishment as a concept? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I guess, basically it hasn't changed a whole lot. I think that as a general idea, it's a very bad idea. But I think when there's public potential -- public great harm, by someone who has been involved with something like this, you know, someone who has potential for creating a large amount of death and destruction. If they have been involved in something like that, are convicted of something like that, if they remain alive and in prison, they are a hero figure, and that there also is contact with people who are in prison, and that it certainly could be a possibility to still be involved with further things, and that that's a threat that probably is not reasonable. =20 QUESTION: Your emotional reaction during jury selection, you were the first person spoken to, and you cried when you talked about capital punishment. I'm sure you recall that. Now having gone through it emotionally how do you feel about it? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I basically feel the same as I felt than. I've been struggling with it for a while, before I got to the interview process. As they asked me then, this is theory and later on it may be reality, and for me actually being there and being questioned about it made it reality and no longer theory. =20 QUESTION: Did you think that Michael Tigar was ever talking really to you during the penalty phase, when he talked about Israel and about the mercy extended to various people -- did you ever get that sense, and with the midwife and your occupation, did you ever feel like that? =20 DEUTCHMAN: There were a couple of times when one of the attorneys -when something was talked about a book about lamaze (ph) or something else, one of the attorneys would look and smile about me. I suspect that that was directed at me. But the comments made to the court in general, I think were not necessarily directed towards me. =20 QUESTION: Do you think Terry Nichols in prison could pose such a threat in the future? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't know. =20 QUESTION: Based on what you heard, do you agree with the McVeigh verdict and death sentence? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Yes. =20 QUESTION: Were you relieved when you realized you would be a part of sentencing Nichols to death? =20 DEUTCHMAN: My personal feeling was that, given who we were as a jury, and how we felt as a jury, that was the most likely way for that for the judge to decide was the most likely way it was going to end up, and I think I feel most comfortable with that. =20 QUESTION: Some of the McVeigh jurors have said in effect, that they feel that you dropped the ball, and that they, given what they saw during the McVeigh trial would have convicted Terry Nichols on the same counts as McVeigh. =20 How would you respond to them? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think that they're different people, and they're different trials. I think the government -- the indictments were worded Terry McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and then each of the things. So they include both names in everything. And we heard enough evidence in this to be able, easily to make a decision about Timothy Mcveigh. But the evidence was not so easy to do something with -- in terms of Terry Nichols, for us. =20 QUESTION: Niki, it was also noted that in the last couple days when you entered the courtroom you smiled broadly at the defense, not at the prosecution. =20 DEUTCHMAN: Oh, I did too. =20 QUESTION: OK. =20 DEUTCHMAN: At both. =20 QUESTION: Well, that part wasn't noted. So there was speculation on what that meant. Did it mean anything? =20 DEUTCHMAN: It didn't mean anything. I admire both sets of attorneys as people, and as people who were doing their jobs. I guess there is one other thing that might be an issue. That is: There were attempts occasionally at using distortion and innuendo, both in the ways the questions were asked, and certainly in the closing -- opening and closing arguments that were used on both sides, but were used -- it was -- it was less obvious, I guess I should say, with the prosecution than it was with the defense, and I think it backfired. And I think it's good that it backfired with this jury, because innuendo and distortion is not -- um -- honest. =20 QUESTION: Give us an example, please. =20 DEUTCHMAN: I'm not good at remembering specific examples. There were some statements that Pat Ryan made in his closing arguments that rephrased some of the words of some of the witnesses. And the rephrasing was just a word or two, but it changed the connotation. And it's examples like that, things like that. =20 QUESTION: The prosecution did it more egregiously you felt than the defense? =20 DEUTCHMAN: It was less obvious with the prosecution than it was with the defense. I think that it is probably part of what happens any time, especially when there's closing arguments, but Michael Tigar had a smile on his face and sort of looked at everyone with this twinkle in his eye as he was making some of those innuendoes, which were fairly mild. And fairly easy to recognize, especially because he gave a lot of cues when he was doing that. =20 QUESTION: Any of those come to mind? =20 DEUTCHMAN: No. No. But I felt like it was easier to tell and it was more with a sense of drama than an urgency to change or alter how you felt about something. =20 QUESTION: So it was less offensive to you? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Pardon me? =20 QUESTION: So it was less offensive then? =20 DEUTCHMAN: It was less offensive and it was easier to spot. And I think that that's useful. When people are considering things, jurors are human beings like anybody else, and some people are going to see that, and some people aren't. And it's useful to know when that's going on and consider it accordingly. =20 QUESTION: It sounds like you didn't trust what you were hearing from the prosecution? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Um, it was conclusions about things and phrases about things and including -- for example, when Ms. Wilkinson was doing her closing arguments, she went through a whole lot of the things of the evidence, and it was the prosecution's interpretation of that evidence. And it's reasonable that they would talk about the evidence according to their view of things, but it was very obviously not the view of all the jurors. And we had looked at the same evidence and considered it very strongly, and come up with our own conclusions about it. So them saying this is how it is, wasn't necessarily in agreement with how the jury -- you know, this was closing arguments for the sentencing phase, so we'd already come up with our verdict and knew very well what that meant to us. =20 QUESTION: How did you feel about the Elvis sightings? =20 QUESTION: So you suggested that Terry Nichols was building a life and not a bomb -- was... =20 DEUTCHMAN: Well I think he was building a life. He may also had been building a bomb. I don't know. =20 QUESTION: Does the jury realize that they still have to go through a sentencing phase after the guilt phase. It looks like some looked surprised. Did you know that? =20 DEUTCHMAN: We asked for a vote on that. Once we got into our deliberations in the sentencing phase. How many people knew that this meant we were going to have to do this. There were a few jurors who knew that, and most of us didn't. And I think it wouldn't -- and we talked about that also, it wouldn't have made a difference in what our deliberations were and what our conclusion was the first time, but there were several of us who were surprised and who thought we probably were done. And then it was like oh, no, look what we're in for now. =20 QUESTION: Were your verdicts in the guilt phase, in any way a compromise? =20 DEUTCHMAN: When you're given instructions that say, in effect, this -- you have to come up with a verdict, and that when two possible choices, exist, one of guilty and one of innocence, then because it's innocent until proven guilty, that says there is a reasonable doubt and the finding of innocence has been found. There has to be compromise. =20 QUESTION: But did you find any inconsistency yourself in -- we asked this before I think, in the conspiracy verdict where you had to answer the two questions: Was death a foreseeable result, and then define the guilty verdicts on involuntary manslaughter, which does not imply intent. Do you see... =20 DEUTCHMAN: I can see why it would be hard to wrap around that. But there were a fair number of jurors who were not convinced of the extent of his involvement, or his reasons for involvement. And that that's a lot of where that came from. I think that was part of the frustration in the sentencing phase. Because the -- what we were asked to consider used words that sounded very similar to the words of the conviction conspiracy. And there were those among the jurors who felt like they really were -- could be interpreted as saying different things, and that was some of the frustration that was felt during this last phase of the deliberations. =20 QUESTION: Could you give us a sense again of how many times you went around the table, or took a vote. Was it... =20 DEUTCHMAN: It was many. =20 QUESTION: Less than five? Many? =20 DEUTCHMAN: It was many especially in the guilty phase. It was many. =20 QUESTION: Were you ever close to murder charges in the first phase? Was it ever close to being first-degree murder? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't know if that's reasonable for me to answer or not. I think the final conclusion is enough for that. =20 QUESTION: In Mr. Tigar's words, what about the prosecutors, Wilkinson and Mackey? What did you think of them as lawyers? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I felt that Mr. Mackey and Ms. Wilkinson, especially took their job very seriously and very honestly, and for the most part, except foreclosing arguments, presented things very honestly and appropriately. Without trying to twist things one way or another but simply presenting them for what they were. =20 QUESTION: Were they good lawyers? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think they are very good lawyers. =20 QUESTION: Did you say think they really were until it came time for the closing arguments. =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think they were still good lawyers then, but I think that probably some innuendo can't be avoided, and there was a lot. =20 QUESTION: Good lawyers, but was the defense better, Michael Tigar better than them? =20 DEUTCHMAN: The government wasn't able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, a whole lot of the evidence. And that isn't entirely the attorneys. That's partly what they're given as evidence to be able to work with. =20 QUESTION: You'd rather have Michael Tigar as an attorney than Seth Wilkinson? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I would be comfortable with either of those. =20 QUESTION: Do you think it helped or hurt not to have been sequestered? What did you think of that decision? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I'm really glad we weren't. My life was upside down enough as it was. I think that during deliberations, I occasionally had the feeling that it might have been easier. To just kind of stay there and be with it. That coming home and switching gears and doing home things, it was good that I could do that because of our schedule, and because of my family, but it was hard. =20 QUESTION: What did you say to the judge in the note that you sent him? =20 DEUTCHMAN: If he wishes to talk about that, he can. He actually talked about the contents of the note this morning. So. =20 QUESTION: Niki, what was your opinion about Pat Ryan? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think he's someone who is really involved, who cares a whole lot about this. Obviously, he's the attorney for the state of Oklahoma. I think he probably feels very deeply that Terry Nichols is totally guilty, and is doing the best that he can to take care of that. You know, if someone is guilty you do what you can to prosecute them. And I think he's doing did the best, that is possible, that he knows how to be able to bring that about. I feel like he used a fair amount, not only in the closing arguments, but sometimes during the questioning of distortion and innuendo. I personally didn't appreciate that. =20 QUESTION: What did you personally do to avoid news accounts during the course of the trial? =20 DEUTCHMAN: If the news was on and they said, and now the Terry Nichols trial, we turned it off until it was over. I haven't read the paper, more than once or twice, skipping over the parts about the trial, since the whole thing started. Occasionally people will say hey, there was an article that said, da da da da, and I said I can't talk about this. I think that all of us made a real effort to stay away from it as much as we could. =20 QUESTION: Are you going to go back and read the articles? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Absolutely. =20 QUESTION: How did the jurors leave each other at the end there, leaving the courthouse. Was it cordial, did they hug, what did they do? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Some of the jurors hugged. Some of them didn't. I think there was still a lot of thoughtfulness, you know, people were really thinking about what had happened. And there were some who were trying to reconcile things with -- I think those who especially who felt like we needed to spend a little bit more time, felt like it ended before they had a chance to do that, and were, you know, dealing with that a little bit. =20 QUESTION: Any plans to get together in the future? Any telephone numbers exchanged? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Some. =20 QUESTION: Some people are interpreting your verdict jointly, as saying, it's OK to build the bomb, just don't plant it, and you could get away with it. =20 What would your response to that be? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I think that there were jurors who felt like he was not involved with the bomb at all. =20 QUESTION: What happens if you get a jury summons again in the mail? =20 DEUTCHMAN: Well, I will probably answer it. But there is a form you fill out at the beginning, at the very beginning of the process that says: Have you ever served on a jury? I expect I would say yes I have, and I don't plan to serve another one. I think that's probably people who are leaving. I think we have done enough. =20 QUESTION: Thank you very much Niki. =20 QUESTION: When the victims family were testifying, you closed your eyes. Why? =20 QUESTION: You turned away sometimes from them, it seemed. =20 DEUTCHMAN: A truthful answer to that, is that I do energetic healing work, and it seemed to me there were a very lot of very wounded people testifying, and who were in the courtroom. And if it were possible for there to be healing involved in some of this process and some healing energy could be made available for that to happen, if anyone should choose to. And I was able to do that, that I wanted to do that. And so, truthfully that is what was happening. I was both listening and sort of something between meditating and praying. =20 =20 QUESTION: What is the energetic healing? =20 DEUTCHMAN: That's another whole -- I'm getting the message here. I think that's probably... =20 QUESTION: How will you be healed now? What will you do? You are not going to Disneyland. =20 DEUTCHMAN: I'm not going to Disneyland. =20 QUESTION: Maybe one last thing Niki, if I could, you said some people felt he wasn't involved at all. Does that mean... =20 DEUTCHMAN: In building the bomb. =20 QUESTION: ... in building the bomb. Does that mean some people, nevertheless felt forced into the conspiracy verdict? =20 DEUTCHMAN: No, there were people who felt like he was involved; that he knew that there was a plan that involved something big and bad and destructive; but not necessarily what it was, and some who even felt like they didn't know necessarily, that he might not have known necessarily when it was going to be. =20 QUESTION: Did you ever come close to deadlocking on the guilt part? =20 DEUTCHMAN: I don't think I need to say anything one way or another about that. I think we came to a conclusion, and I feel comfortable with what that conclusion was. I think most of the jurors felt at least comfortable with it, and some of them felt very comfortable with it. =20 Thank you. =20 QUESTION: Thank you very much. Thank you. =20 DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: We have been listening to Niki Deutchman. She was the jury forewoman on the Terry Nichols jury. Today that jury turned over sentencing of Terry Nichols to Judge Richard Matsch after failing to agree on sentencing Nichols to conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter charges. =20 The big question for this jury: How involved was Terry Nichols in the Oklahoma City bombing. It's a question they could not agree on. Deutchman had high praise for Terry Nichols' defense team, saying they did a great job building the idea of reasonable doubt. At one point saying, the jury actually considered acquittal for Terry Nichols, but after reviewing much of the evidence, realized there were things that could not be explained away. That was Niki Deutchman, forewoman for the jury that turned over the sentencing of Terry Nichols to Richard Matsch. =20 Miles. =20 MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Also part of our team in Denver. CNN's Tony Clark who has watched this trial from the outset, was in the courtroom for much of it. And Tony, one thing that strikes me, =20 listening to Ms. Deutchman is the jury's apparent suspicion of the government and criticism of the government, in general saying they dropped the ball on this prosecution and this investigation. =20 Are you surprised they came away with this impression? =20 TONY CLARK, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think that's the impression that Michael Tigar tried to give this jury in listening to her description of how the jury felt -- what they believed -- what they didn't. She commented several times about "John Doe" number two. Ryder trucks, where Terry Nichols was or wasn't and the suspicion she had. She had concerns about the way evidence was treated. And so I think what appears to me is that Michael Tigar was able to convince the jury of many of the defense arguments in this case to raise questions on something like that. =20 O'BRIEN: It was interesting that she also noted that they felt they had enough evidence right there to convict Timothy McVeigh if they were called upon to so, and yet, the evidence led them to interpretation when it came to Terry Nichols. Once again, does that surprise you? =20 CLARK: Well, this has always been a circumstantial case against Terry Nichols and some of the hard evidence that was used against Timothy McVeigh in the first bombing trial may have made it easier for the first jury, the first bombing trial jury to convict McVeigh as opposed to this one. It is interesting though that some of the jurors from the first bombing trial said that they felt they heard enough evidence about Terry Nichols to convict Terry Nichols in this case. =20 Marsha Kight lost her daughter in the Oklahoma City bombing. She has been sitting here listening with us to the comments of the forewoman. I'm curious of your impressions? =20 MARSHA KIGHT, VICTIM'S MOTHER: After listening to Niki, it sounds like some of the jury used this trial as a forum about their issues with the federal government or with the FBI. And this was Nichols' trial, it's not about whether you're disgruntled with the FBI or something that you are not happy about with the federal government and that is very disappointing to hear. =20 CLARK: Did you get a sense that they took this very seriously -- their charge in this deliberation very seriously? =20 KIGHT: I really said even a couple days ago, I felt like there were some jurors that wanted to wash their hands. They didn't want to have anything to do with this. And it was surprising to me that during this trial, there were some jurors sleeping, and that attention wasn't called to that. I think there is some inappropriate signals given in the courtroom. I saw Niki yesterday smiling over to the defense. This is a very serious trial that affects many, many lives and I think some people took it very seriously and others I think, they probably shouldn't have been those who served on this trial. =20 CLARK: And what of her comment that the government prosecutors dropped the ball in presenting evidence against Terry Nichols? =20 KIGHT: I am really -- feel like the prosecution team needs a congressional medal of honor with how they conducted themselves in this case. I think they did it with a lot of dignity. I think they laid it out. When a juror comes back with conspiracy and then doesn't hold someone accountable, I think that is a very dangerous message that this jury sent. =20 CLARK: Marsha Kight. Thank you very much. =20 As we have been reporting throughout the day, the penalty decision now goes back to Judge Richard Matsch. There will be filings, briefs filed by attorneys for both sides. Those are due February 9 and then sometime after that Judge Richard Matsch will determine a penalty for Terry Nichols for his conviction on the conspiracy charge and eight counts of involuntary manslaughter. Miles? =20 O'BRIEN: Tony, as long as we are looking ahead, let's look ahead for just a moment toward state charges in Oklahoma. Should clarify that Terry Nichols still faces the possibility of trial (INAUDIBLE) and possibly the death sentence there. What is the time frame on that? Do we have any idea? =20 CLARK: Bob Macy, who is the district attorney in Oklahoma County and he has had charges, 168 murder charges ready to be filed in Oklahoma, in case -- in this particular instance, in case there was a not-guilty verdict throughout, he was going to make sure Terry Nichols was not released and so he is simply waiting, part of the appeal process going on, there's a grand jury going on in Oklahoma County so those things are all on hold for the time being, no definite date set yet on that. =20 O'BRIEN: All right, thank you very much. That is CNN's Tony Clark who has been reporting on this trial from Denver since its inception and we'll check in with him as updates are warranted. =20 It's time for us to take a brief break. We have been telling you all afternoon that the president is announcing a big package of relief for folks who need child care, some $21 billion. We will bring that to you live after we take a brief break. Stay with us. =20 =A9 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. =20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: >>>>> The Sweeneys need your help!!! Date: 08 Jan 1998 15:51:23 -0800 Just received from Faith Sweeney: >It has now been reported that the Governor is considering asking the >State Troopers to assist the Marshals instead of calling in the National >Guard to protect us. In addition many people are contacting me via >phone this am to tell me that when calling the Governor's office the >response is that they are deferring to the Feds. > >PLEASE CONTINUE CALLING THE CONTACT NUMBERS BELOW. MY FAMILY NEEDS ALL >OF THE HELP WE CAN GET! > >FAS People, the Sweeney family is about to lose their home, and possibly their lives, because of a corrupt bank and a corrupt federal government that's in cahoots with them. The home is theirs; go to their web page to see the details at http://www.qui-tam.com AND CALL THE NUMBERS BELOW!!! This is likely going to be coming down in the next day or two, if not sooner. - Monte > Hey, people in the 4th District of Essex in Massachusetts, do you KNOW > about this GOOBER you have working for you at the State House??! > > Yesterday evening, January 6, 1998, Massachusetts State Representative > FORRESTER "TIM" CLARK, a/k/a ELMER FUDD, showed up at the Sweeney's > house wearing camouflage pants and a camouflage ballcap, claiming the > Sweeneys were "endangering the surrounding community" and that they > should "turn the keys to the house over to the Marshals tomorrow." > > FUDD also announced he was ARMED. By way of explanation, he claimed to > be "fearful" of the Sweeneys who have consistently maintained an UNARMED > peaceful occupation of their home. He didn't offer any explanation for > his goofy outfit, however. Consistent with the Sweeneys' continuing > policy of unarmed, peaceful protest, the armed and dangerous ELMER FUDD > was ordered off the property. He then went whining to the local media. > > Yes, Gump, er, Fudd, er, CLARK showed up wearing cammies and carrying a > GUN, claiming HE was "afraid of the Sweeneys." > > So far, the ONLY person to show up with a GUN, looking like the > hysterical knee-jerk caricatures the Boston Globe keeps inventing, has > been FUDD HIMSELF, TIM CLARK, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, a person who is NOT > supporting the Sweeneys. In fact, the ONLY people threatening anyone > with GUNS have ALL been GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES!! > > Please BE SURE TO CALL AND EMAIL THE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE > BOSTON GLOBE about this moron! T-I-M C-L-A-R-K. While you're at it, > ask the Governor if he will call out the National Guard to PROTECT THE > SWEENEYS and THEIR PROPERTY! > > Massachusetts Governor: PHONE: 617-727-3600, FAX: 617-727-9725 > EMAIL: goffice@state.ma.us > Address: The Honorable Paul Cellucci, Acting > Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, > State House, Boston, MA 02133 > > Boston Globe's PHONE: 617-929-2000-EXT.2539, PAGER: 617-579-7150, Fax: > 617-929-3186 > Resident-Media-Whore EMAIL: armstrongnws@globe.com > Dave Armstrong > > Boston Herald PHONE: 617-426-3000-EXT. 606, FAX: 617-542-1315 > ED HAYWARD > > STATE HOUSE PRESS PHONE: 617-722-2495, FAX: 617-742-2507 > GALLERY > > ASSOCIATED PRESS: PHONE: 617-357-8100 FAX: 617-338-8125 > Bill Porter (or anyone covering the Sweeney story at AP) > > > Elmer Fudd, a/k/a Tim Clark PHONE: 617-722-2090, FAX: 617-722-2897 > State Representative > Fourth Essex District, Room 540, > State House > Boston, MA 02133-1054 > > ************************************* > CORRECTION: The AP erroneously reported yesterday that State Senator > Bruce Tarr had asked the Sweeneys to leave their home but that is > totally wrong. State Senator Tarr, who doesn't wear cammies or carry a > gun, has ASKED FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF THE LAWYERS, JUDGE, AND > BANKERS INVOLVED IN SWINDLING THE SWEEENEYS. > > ************************************* > > Please look at the Sweeney Web Page and call and email people on this > list. Ask for a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION of the lawyers (JOHN HANIFY AND > JOSEPH SHEA) and judge (EDWARD HARRINGTON) involved in the Sweeney case; > ask when the FDIC is going to pay the Sweeneys the $4 million they owe > them, and ask WHEN THE U.S. Marshals office is going to be CALLED OFF! > > SWEENEY SIEGE CONTACT LIST > > SWEENEY WEB PAGE http://www.qui-tam.com > > Andrew Hove PHONE: 202-393-8400, FAX: 202-898-3772 > Acting Chairman > Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) > 550 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20434, > > Eugene A. Ludwig PHONE: 202-874-4900, FAX: 202-874-4950 > Comptroller of the Currency > FDIC Director > 250 E Street SW > Washington, DC 20219 > > Joseph H. Neely PHONE: 202-393-8400, FAX: 202-898-3500 > FDIC Director > 550 17th St. N.W. > Washington, DC 20429 > > Ellen Seidman PHONE: 202-906-6590, FAX: 202-898-0230 > FDIC Director > Office of Thrift Supervision > Department of the Treasury > 1700 G Street, N.W. > Washington, DC 20552 > > Robert Rubin PHONE: 202-622-5300, FAX: 202-622-2599 > Secretary > U. S. Treasury > 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW > Washington, DC 20220 > > Valerie Lau PHONE: 202-622-1090, FAX: 202-622-2073 > U. S. Treasury Inspector General > 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW > Washington, DC 20220 > > Massachusetts Governor: PHONE: 617-727-3600, FAX: 617-727-9725 > EMAIL: goffice@state.ma.us > Address: The Honorable Paul Cellucci, Acting > Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, > State House, Boston, MA 02133 > > William Galvin PHONE: 617-727-7030 FAX: 617-742-4722 > Mass. Secretary of State > State House > Boston, MA 02133 > > Thomas Curry PHONE:(617) 727-3120 > Commissioner (Can investigate ComFed Mortgage Co.!) > Division of Banks and Loan Agencies > 100 Cambridge St. 20th Fl. > Boston, MA 02202 > > Joseph DeNucci PHONE: (617) 727-2075 > > Auditor (Can investigate ComFed Mortgage Co.!) > State of Massachusetts > State House Room 229 > Boston, MA 02133 > > Judge A. David Mazzone PHONE: 617-223-9107, FAX: 617-223-4127 > (Former and supposed) Mediator > U. S. Post Office and Court House > 90 Devonshire Street > Boston, MA 02109 > > Nancy McGillivray PHONE: 617-223-9731, FAX: 617-223-9726 > U. S. Marshal (in charge) > U.S. Marshal's Service > U. S. Post Office and Court House > 90 Devonshire Street > Boston, MA 02109 > > Donald Stern PHONE: 617-223-9400, FAX: 617-223-4825 > U.S. Attorney > 1003 J.W. McCormick > PO & Court House > Boston, MA 02109 > > Bruce Tarr PHONE: 617-722-1600, FAX: 617-722-1310 > State Senator > Room 314, State House > Boston, MA 02133 > > Cheryl Jacques PHONE: 617-722-1555, FAX: 617-722-1054 > State Senator > Room 312B, State House > Boston MA 02133 > > Kevin M. Burke PHONE: 978-745-6610, FAX: 978-741-4971 > District Attorney > Museum Place > One East India Square, > Salem, MA 01970 > > Scott Harshbarger PHONE: 617-727-2200, FAX: 617-727-3251 > Attorney General > One Ashburton Place > Boston, MA 02108 > > William Cohen PHONE: 703-693-0566, FAX: 703-697-2147 > Secretary of Defense > 1000 Defense > Pentagon > Washington, DC 20301 > > John Hanify PHONE: 617-423-0400, FAX: 617-423-0498 > Hanify & King > RTC LAWHORE WHO STOLE THE SWEENEY'S $4 MILLION FILE FROM THE STATE COURT > One Federal Street > 13th Floor > Boston, MA 02110 > > Joseph Shea PHONE: 617-439-2280, FAX: 617-973-9748, EMAIL: > jfs@nutter.com > CURRENT FDIC LAWHORE > Nutter, McClennen & Fish > One International Place > Boston, MA 02110-2699 > > John Tierney PHONE: 978-531-1669, FAX: 978-531-1996 > US Congressman DC PHONE: 202-225-8037, DC FAX: 202-225-8020 > 6th District MA > 17 Peabody Square > Boston, MA 01960 > > John Kerry PHONE: 617-565-8519, FAX:617-248-3870, EMAIL: > JohnKerry@Kerry.senate.gov > U.S. Senator > One Bowdoin Square > 10th Floor > Boston, MA 02114 > > Edward Kennedy PHONE:617-565-3170, FAX:617-565-3183, > EMAIL:senator@kennedy.senate.gov > U.S. Senator > Room 409 JFK Building > Boston, MA 02203 > > Alfonse D'Amato PHONE: 202-224-6542, FAX: 202-224-2080 > U. S. Senator > Chairman Senate Banking Committee, SH 520 > Washington, DC 20510 > > MEDIA: > > Boston Herald PHONE: 617-426-3000-EXT. 606, FAX: 617-542-1315 > ED HAYWARD > > STATE HOUSE PRESS PHONE: 617-722-2495, FAX: 617-742-2507 > GALLERY > > ASSOCIATED PRESS: PHONE: 617-357-8100 FAX: 617-338-8125 > Bill Porter (or anyone covering the Sweeney story at AP) > > Boston Globe's Phone: 617-929-2000-EXT.2539, PAGER: 617-579-7150, Fax: > 617-929-3186 > Resident-Media-Whore EMAIL: armstrongnws@globe.com > Dave Armstrong - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: >>>>> More Sweeneys Date: 08 Jan 1998 15:53:25 -0800 >Please contact FDIC directors and request meetings be scheduled between the >Sweeney mediation team and the FDIC Directors. Also, please contact >Senator Tarr and ask that he continue his efforts. Rhetta > > >JOHN & RHETTA SWEENEY >24 Meyer Lane >Hamilton, MA 01982 >508-468-1536 >508-468-4428 (fax) >E-MAIL jsweeney@star.net >INTERNET http://www.qui-tam.com/ >MEMORANDUM > >BY FAX: > >TO: FDIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS > Chairman Andrew C. Hove Jr. > Joseph H. Neely > Eugene A. Ludwig, Comptroller of Currency > Ellen Seidman. Director Office of Thrift Supervision > >FROM: John and Rhetta Sweeney > >SUBJECT: Mediation Talks > VIOLATIONS OF FRAUD > > Please have this letter serve as a reaffirmation of our request to >continue mediation efforts by way of meetings at your Washington offices. >The Right Rev. Mark Dyer and Senator Bruce Tarr of Massachusetts, who have >been members of our mediation team, are available to support these >efforts. > > Because many of the issues which we presented to acting mediator, Judge >David Mazzone, were never addressed, we believe that he terminated >mediation efforts prematurely on December 29, 1997. > > In addition, we would like to bring to your attention that the subject of >known fraud violations which failed ComFed committed against us have been >the subject of three Congressional hearings, and judgment was issued by the > state court finding the violations of fraud. John Bovenzi represented the >FDIC at those hearings. GO TO: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on U. S. >Senate and U. S. House) and (click on state court judgment) > >Page 2 >FDIC Board of Directors >January 8, 1998 > > >Please consider the following quotes made by several Congressional leaders: > > >QUOTES > >Please consider the following statements by Congressional and town leaders >detailing the known fraud the Sweeneys suffered because of violations >committed by ComFed Savings Bank and continued mistreatment by federal >agencies. GO TO: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on quotes) > >It is now January of 1998 and the FDIC is seeking to seize the Sweeney >property using federal court orders which were obtained through fraud upon >the court. Now, the FDIC has gained further federal orders authorizing >U.S. Marshals to physically remove the Sweeneys from their home. > >Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen >Former U. S. Senator of Maine > >Hearing Before the Subcommittee On Oversight of Government Management and >the District of Columbia of the Committee on Governmental Affairs United >States Senate - One Hundred and Fourth Congress, First Session, January 31, >1995 > >Chairman Cohen . . . . . >As part of my earlier efforts to examine the actions of banking agencies, I >was informed of an extraordinary case in Massachusetts involving Rhetta and >John Sweeney, who are here with us today to testify. (See page 4) > >And the facts are that the Sweeneys were mistreated, they were fraudulently >deceived. They were entitled to in excess of a three-plus million-dollar >award, (See p.46) > >. . . . the judge (state court) ruled on a consumer fraud statute. She >found under a consumer fraud statute that there was in fact a violation. >(See p.46) > >Page 3 >FDIC Board of Directors >January 8, 1998 > > >I spoke with the court yesterday, . . . .the court advised me that the >attorney for the bank, the same attorney with the law firm that was hired >by the RTC to represent it, inquired on a frequent if not daily basis when >that decision was going to be handed down. . . .and unbeknownst to the >court, the attorney for the RTC at that point physically removed the >documents from the court and took possession of them for some 25 days, >never notifying the court that he had possession. (See p.20) > >So this was a pattern, it seemed to me of fraudulent misrepresentations of >the bank. (See p.20) > >Hearing Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United >States Senate - One Hundred Fourth Congress, First Session, June 14, 1996 > >Senator Cohen, Testimony before Chairman D'Amato. . . . . >This, I think, is one of the most egregious cases I have seen in my years >in the Senate and in the House, whereby a couple who is innocent of any >wrong doing, who had been the victims of fraudulent misrepresentation are >then victimized a second time by a government agency. And, by the way, I >spoke with the presiding judge in that case. She advised me that several >of the loan officers were in fact indicted and convicted of fraud. (See >p.3) > >Chairman D'Amato . . . . >It seems very evident to me that the Sweeneys were victimized, twice, first >by the fraudulent conduct by the bank which lead to a cash award in state >court and then by the federal government, . . . . .(See p.3) > >Senator John Kerry. . . . >Here, you had, indeed, a fraud, but it was a fraud perpetrated on the >Sweeneys by ComFed, the bank. . . .(See p.8) > > > >Page 4 >FDIC Board of Directors >January 8, 1998 > >Senator Faircloth. . . >But why did the RTC hire the same law firm the bank used to sue the >Sweeneys? Since the bank had been found by State court to be guilty of >fraud, would you not think there would be a conflict by going back and >hiring the same law firm? (See p.26) > >Senator Bennett. . . . >Has anybody in the federal court examined the merits of the State court >judge's opinion? (See p.26) > >Hearing before the Congress of the United States House of Representatives >Committee on Small Business Subcommittee on Government Programs - One >Hundred and Four Congress, Second Session, September 25, 1996 > >Chairman Peter G. Torkildsen. . . >It would appear, I think, to a reasonable person that both for the Sweeneys >and the Scotts that some degree of fraud by the former ComFed Institution >was perpetrated against them. . . . . . > >. . . . .and the fact that it was done fraudulently by an Institution is >bad enough on its own, but it is my belief that the fact that the federal >government has certainly prolonged some of this agony, and I do think that >is a fair statement, is unconscionable. . . . > >Peter P. Britton, Member Town of Hamilton Planning Board >I am outraged to have witnessed such brutish interference in the affairs of >a state and town by federal agencies and their agents. > >I have never in my previous twenty years on the Planning Board of Hamilton, >Massachusetts faced a more serious threat to our board's credibility as >protector of the public trust. > > > > >Page 5 >FDIC Board of Directors >January 8, 1998 >If the FDIC prevails, what are we to tell good faith buyers of property? >We need declare that we have been made aware of fraud, an awareness shared >by ComFed's own admission, by Judge Izzo, and I am made to understand by >the FBI. . . . . > >. . . at worse the FDIC is an accessory or accomplice to theft of property >of Massachusetts State Court record . We are watching, hopefully from >Hamilton, Massachusetts that you will aggressively provide oversight and a >remedy. The Town of Hamilton and it's Planning Board will not recognize >the sale of the Sweeney property or representations of proposed subdivision >by the FDIC as anything other than sale of stolen property. > > The law provides that no one can benefit from fraud. The evidence >presented to you, proves beyond any doubt that the note issued by ComFed is >null and void because of fraud. > > Therefore, we request that you Chairman Hove; Director Seidman; Director >Neely; and Director Ludwig; at the earliest possible time, schedule >meetings with our mediation team to discuss settlement and closure of this >unfortunate situation. We will provide Bishop Dyer and Senator Tarr with >our written proposal. > > Please note also, that we have requested further Congressional hearings be >scheduled to support all the efforts being made to reach a speedy >resolution. > >Respectfully submitted, >John and Rhetta Sweeney >Under Siege >in Hamilton, MA >cc: The Right Rev. Mark Dyer > Senator Bruce E. Tarr > Nancy McGillivray, U.S. Marshal > > >Rhetta B. Sweeney >Rock Maple >24 Meyer Lane >Hamilton, MA 01982 >508-468-1536 >508-468-4428 (fax) >jsweeney@star.net > http://www.qui-tam.com > - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: NRA Bylaws: Preventing GREED from Taking Over (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 07:46:35 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD! ----- Begin Forwarded Message WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? by John H. Trentes Candidate - NRA Board of Directors Why should any of us send even a single dollar bill to the National Rifle Association of America without a solid assurance that it won't wind up in the pocket of a self-dealing officer, director, or vendor instead of being spent in the fight to protect the Second Amendment? If you just smiled knowingly at this question, then it is time we considered a few things about Human Nature and how it affects crucial business at our beloved Association. Money flows through the NRA, and lots of it. The number of individuals and organizations that have a personal stake in receiving part of that money is truly mind-boggling. They range from a shotgun trick shooter receiving a few thousand, up to large public relations and marketing firms that get paid MILLIONS. The stakes are high; no-one who has secured such a handsome paycheck from the Association wants to have it reduced or eliminated. All of these vendors have a vested interest in maintaining a profitable relationship with the NRA, at any cost. Human Nature is at work here, by which I really mean GREED. If greed becomes the moving force behind the daily activities of the NRA, then its mission will be forgotten. Should that day arrive, we will all pay a heavy price, and the medium of exchange will be our freedoms. Safeguards need to be put in place to expose conflicts of interest and self-dealing amongst those in charge, and to subject their political or financial conduct to the glaring light of day and to the critical scrutiny of the membership. Individuals with the solemn responsibility of leadership in this organization cannot be allowed to use their power, notoriety, or authority to shield their dealings with the NRA from public view. If this can be prevented, then and only then can we be satisfied that "every penny" of our money (yours and mine!) is being handled with a "Scotsman's stewardship". In the dark, even a Scotsman is tempted to cheat. The NRA By-laws already contain a financial disclosure provision (Article IV, Section 2) but, regrettably, it doesn't even come close to offering the fiscal protection we need. As it stands now, directors, officers, or employees of the NRA only have to disclose a self-dealing business transaction with the organization if it took place within the last year and if the amount of money changing hands was more than $2000.00. By setting a dollar amount like this, any dishonest officer, staff member, or director can easily avoid having to disclose his or her financial hanky-panky merely by splitting large-dollar transactions into numerous small deals amounting to no more than $2000.00 each. Therein, my friends, lies a GAPING loophole. In the next Board elections, the membership will vote on a by-law amendment that will slam this loophole shut with a resounding bang. The proposed amendment would: * Require Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, and members of the Executive Council to provide a sworn statement prior to the annual meeting that fully discloses all of his or her dealings with the NRA, its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, employees, vendors, or employees of vendors if they benefited in any way, WITH NO DOLLAR LIMIT, for the last THREE years; * Require the Executive Vice President, Treasurer, Executive Director of General Operations, Executive Director of NRA/ILA, and NRA/ILA Fiscal Officer to disclose all of his or her dealings with the Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, or Members and the Executive Council of the NRA, or its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, Employees, vendors, or employees of vendors OR ANYONE WHO HELD SUCH OFFICE IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, if it benefited him or her IN ANY WAY. Again, there is no dollar limit to skirt under; and * Prohibit any Officer of the NRA or Member of the Executive Council from undermining the fit and proper function of the Nominating Committee or the Board of Directors by misusing his or her public notoriety (notoriety that was cultivated with member dollars!) to influence Board of Director elections, an activity which is not within the duties, responsibilities, or authority granted to them by the By-laws. If you are tempted to succumb to the warm, fuzzy feeling that none of this is necessary because the NRA is one big happy family, that worrying about the financial conduct of the staff and directors is paranoid because, after all, blood is thicker than water, I have some distressing news for you: GREED is thicker than blood. And ask yourself this: If any current officer or director of the NRA is opposed to this by-law amendment... Why? What are they hiding from you? THE FOLLOWING CANDIDATES FOR NRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS WANT TO HELP YOU FIND OUT! VOTE FOR THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE BYLAW AMENDMENT AND THESE BOARD CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT IT! 1. Please vote for these Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen Michael J. Beko James A. Church William Dominguez Howard J. Fezell Daniel B. Fiora Arnold J. Gaunt Fred Griisser Wesley H. Grogan, Jr. David M. Gross John Guest Fred Gustafson Don L. Henry William B. Hunt Phillip B. Journey Michael S. Kindberg Jeff Knox John C. Krull Robley T. Moore Larry R. Rankin Albert C. Ross Frank H. Sawberger Thomas L. Seefeldt Kim Stolfer John H. Trentes Glen I. Voorhees, Jr. 2. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. 3. A few advertising dollars go a long way when they tell the truth. Please send your donation to: Second Amendment Action 100 Heathwood Drive Liberty, SC 29657 4. Visit our web sites for further information: http://www.2ndamendment.net http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) ----- End Forwarded Message PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD! Regards, Chris BeHanna PGP Key Available NJ-RKBA List Maintainer GUNS SAVE LIVES! behanna@fast.net (400,000 per year in the U.S. alone!) Lon Horiuchi, give yourself up! http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Gun laws crush local economy in Japan (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 10:27:30 -0500 (EST) From the same people who sent the U.S.S. Arizona to the bottom in 1941 and who killed my Mom's cousin Curtis (an Army horse cavalry lieutenant) during the fall of the Philippines shortly thereafter ... check this out ... especially the part about "scanning of the biathletes' eyes" ... unreal ... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -0500 NOZAWA ONSEN, Japan (AP) -- The Winter Olympics may put this hot springs and ski resort on the international sports map, but villagers here are up in arms over the idea of rifle-toting biathletes shooting up the hillsides. Japan's gun control laws -- among the world's strictest -- have presented officials with a host of difficulties for the biathlon, which combines rifle shooting and cross-country skiing. Mitsu Sato, head of the village's Olympic preparations, said two lifts and a ski slope will be shut down during the games because they fall within a 770-yard safety zone that by law must be established around any shooting ranges. Closing the lifts could cost resort owners $2.2 million in lost revenues. "The city has been in a panic about closing the lifts," Sato said. With the Feb. 7-22 Olympics less than a month away, many of Nozawa's 5,000 townspeople still aren't convinced that hosting it is such a good idea. "People feel there is nothing they can do now," said shop assistant Yoshiko Yamazaki. Handgun possession is virtually unheard of in Japan, and a law banning anyone under 18 from using firearms had to be revised to allow foreign biathletes to compete here. Nagano organizers say biathletes can expect possibly the tightest supervision ever. All guns and ammunition will be inspected and transported to a special lock-up area at the Olympic village. The amount of ammunition each country will have will be specified, and every cartridge will be counted after firing. For identification purposes, each athlete will have the iris of his or her eye scanned -- a high-tech version of fingerprinting. But while many foreign athletes may feel a bit pinched under Japan's laws, they can count themselves lucky compared with aspiring Japanese biathletes. Nagano officials rejected a request from the Japanese biathlon team to train here with live ammunition last summer. The team is training in Europe instead, and won't return until the beginning of February, according to Nozawa official Take Maseru. Gun laws haven't been the only problem, however. The Nagano biathlon was originally scheduled to be held in the village of Hakuba, which is also holding the downhill skiing and ski jumping events. Organizers decided to move it to protect the nesting grounds of a rare species of hawk. "The wildlife and environment are protected while our jobs are hurt -- that's not good," said Yuko Miyasaka, a grandmother and lifetime Nozawa resident. *** NPA EUROPEAN LEGAL ACTION APPEAL *** Japan is funding international victim-disarmament programs, destroying freedom and violating human rights world-wide. Boycott Japanese goods and send the money you save to NPA Fighting Fund (dept. CS), c/o BM NPA, London WC1N 3XX (United Kingdom). To subscribe (or unsubscribe), send email to majordomo@mail-it.com with no subject and the text: subscribe cybershooters (or unsubscribe cybershooters) as the first and only line in the message body. For further information, please refer to the Cybershooters FAQ at http://www.tsra.demon.co.uk/csfaq.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 11:25:17 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Friday January 9 1:57 AM EST Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits By Tom Banse OLYMPIA, Wash. (Reuters) - The Washington Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved 1992 law that set term limits for state lawmakers and other officials, saying the measure undermined the state's constitution. In a 6-2 ruling, the high court struck down the initiative that limited state representatives to six years in office and set eight-year limits on state senators, the governor and the lieutenant governor. Writing for the court majority, Justice Phil Talmadge sidestepped the issue of whether term limits were right or wrong. Instead, Talmadge said term limits can only be imposed by amending the state's constitution -- and not by passing a ballot initiative. "A statute, whether adopted by the Legislature or the people, may not add qualifications for state officers where the Constitution sets those qualifications," Talmadge wrote. In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Richard Sanders argued for the right of voters to add restrictions to public service. The state constitution is not exclusive, he wrote. "Today, six votes on this court are the undoing of the 1,119,985 votes that Washingtonians cast at the polls in favor of term limits," Sanders concluded. A wave of relief swept through the state Capitol after the high court's decision was announced. Thirty state representatives and 17 state senators would have been "limited out" by the law over the next two years. "If citizens want change, they can still vote officials out of office," said Washington Gov. Gary Locke, a Democrat. "All that a six-year term limit does is institutionalize inexperience," said state Rep. Marlin Appelwick, a Seattle Democrat and one of six veteran lawmakers who brought the challenge the Supreme Court decided Thursday. Paul Jacob, the executive director of the national advocacy group U.S. Term Limits, called the Washington state reversal "unfortunate." "It's a bad decision, but luckily the decisions have been going the other way around the country," Jacob said. Term limits for state officials have now been thrown out in three states and upheld in at least five others. A federal appeals court in San Francisco last month upheld California's limits on state officials. That ruling also rescued Oregon's term-limit law, which had been struck down by a lower court. Because of the maze of conflicting court opinions, a forthcoming report by the Council of State Governments, based in Lexington, Kentucky, suggests that "the constitutionality of state legislative term-limit measures will ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court." The next move by Washington term-limit supporters will be to try to get lawmakers to place a constitutional amendment before voters authorizing a 12-year limit on service in the state legislature. _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Gorbachev as TV Pizza Hut Spokesman Date: 09 Jan 1998 11:10:51 -0800 Most of you have probably seen Mr. Gorbachev in his new role as a TV Spokesman for Pizza Hut. Isn't it just ducky that an "American" company would choose an admitted hard-line communist who is also one of the kingpins in the New World Order global conquest to represent them? Well, Redmon Barbry has something to say about that: ------- From Redmon Barbry's "Fratricide" January 9, 1998 Meeting at Applewhite, Koresh & Jones Chief: Let's come to order. Now, I know that a lot of rumors have been flying around, and there has been a lot of talk about how we've taken it on the chin from the PepsiCo campaign. But we are not about to take that lying down. So, today, we are announcing our new ad campaigns for three of the leading accounts here. The first presenter is Mr. Immi Tative, who is going to tell us about his strategy for the McDunald's account. Immi, go ahead. IT: Thanks, Chief. Here's our layout: a straight, head-to- head with PepsiCo. Taco's can't match hamburgers. Culturally speaking, McDunalds holds all the aces. And to balance Gorbachev, our spokesman will be... (unveils portrait) Vlad the Impaler! (general applause) Chief: Well done. I think that calls for congratulations all the way around, don't you? (more applause) Now, Mr. Helmet Bungler, to unveil the campaign for Eastern European Volksbagen. HB: "Preciate that, Chief. Well, as you know, we have been casting around for something that would put Volksbagen in front again, something to make a statement that would distinguish the Volksbagen in the former Lebensraum. Well, Chief, we went back to basics, back to our origins, and here it is... the basic black Beetle! (a trickle of applause)... and to help make our statement... (unveils portrait)... that's right, Adolf Hitler! (general applause) Chief: Excellent. Congratulations. You people outdo yourselves, year after year, but this time, you have really hit the nail on the head. HB: We thought for a long time about using Adolf Eichmann, but we finally decided that the Jewish angle, well..., you know. Chief: Very perceptive of you, Mr. Bungler, and very sensitive. Well done; our final presentation comes from Mr. Pred Nisone, representing the Vaselini Hand Care account. Pred? PN: Thanks, Chief. This year we wanted to bring forward a new outlook on hand care products, something that would cause a lot of hand washing without a lot of hand wringing. (titters of laughter) Ha, ha. Well, for that, we needed a spokesman who could carry some weight with people, a man whose hand hygiene was legend, who could lend this product line a helping... well, you know. Name recognition, that's what I said. I said it over and over to my people, name recognition, name recognition... And the team finally put it all together. Ladies and gentlemen, the Vaselini Hand Care Products spokesman of the year... (unveils portrait) Let's hear it for... yes, it's Pontius Pilate! (thunderous applause) Chief: Great, great. Well, we have seen some truly amazing, innovative plans and strategies today, very forward- looking. Thanks to everyone. I think that the company can look forward to some very strong numbers. I don't see how we can go down from here. Redmon Barbry rbarb@deltos.deltos.com http://redmon.deltos.com/homepage.htm ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ N.B.: This microscopic electronic magazine, or microzine, is solely a work of opinion by the author. No funds, subscriptions, or submissions are solicited, though help, comments, and suggestions are always welcome. FRATRICIDE will always be an e-mail zine. Send mail requesting distribution of FRATRICIDE to rbarb@deltos.com, and I will include you in the (roughly) monthly mailing. An archive of FRATRICIDE is maintained at the FRATRICIDE Home Page at http://redmon.deltos.com/frat.htm - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 12:23:04 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 9 Jan 1998 Reuters wrote: > Writing for the court majority, Justice Phil Talmadge sidestepped the > issue of whether term limits were right or wrong. Instead, Talmadge > said term limits can only be imposed by amending the state's > constitution -- and not by passing a ballot initiative. > > "A statute, whether adopted by the Legislature or the people, may not > add qualifications for state officers where the Constitution sets > those qualifications," Talmadge wrote. Whenever I find myself on the same side of an issue as ultra-Liberal, never-saw-a-gun-law-I-didn't-like Grandstand Phil, I automatically revisit my conclusions. The only thing surprising about this opinion is who the Chief Justice chose to write the majority opinion. He is, fortunately or unfortunately, as your choice of sides on this issue dictates, absolutely correct. "Side-stepped?" Leave it to some simple-minded journalist to characterize what happened this way. Since it is not necessary to decide "rightness" or "wrongness" in a political sense, why attempt to drag it into the opinion? Talmadge didn't "sidestep" it; the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the concept is irrelevant to the decision, and is correctly left to the political arena. > > In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Richard Sanders argued for the > right of voters to add restrictions to public service. The state > constitution is not exclusive, he wrote. > > "Today, six votes on this court are the undoing of the 1,119,985 votes > that Washingtonians cast at the polls in favor of term limits," > Sanders concluded. So, according to Sanders, VOTES determine the constitutionality of legislation? Look for more "whichever way the political wind blows" judislating from this guy in the future. Unless we un-elect him. You see, in Washington, Supreme Court Justices are ELECTED for six year terms. > Term limits for state officials have now been thrown out in three > states and upheld in at least five others. > > A federal appeals court in San Francisco last month upheld > California's limits on state officials. That ruling also rescued > Oregon's term-limit law, which had been struck down by a lower court. > > Because of the maze of conflicting court opinions, a forthcoming > report by the Council of State Governments, based in Lexington, > Kentucky, suggests that "the constitutionality of state legislative > term-limit measures will ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. > Supreme Court." Note that this is a STATE issue is decided on the basis of STATE Constitutions. Unless identically worded State Constitutions are ruled upon differently by different Federal Circuits, a "split among the Circuits", the US Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the issue. The U.S. Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what "will ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court", not some self-selected elitists in Kentucky. States are entirely capable, and it is not inappropriate, of handling this issue in entirely different ways. So a Georgia State Opinion regarding Term Limits on Georgia State officials conflicts with a Texas State Opinion regarding Term Limits on Texas State officials, so what? It is, after all, an entirely internal, State's Rights, issue. It all depends on what the STATE Constitution says as to STATE elective officials. Different practices among different States as to Term Limits are highly unlikely to raise an issue under the Constitution, Laws, and Treaties of the United States in any rational society. However, given the overpopulation of under-employed lawyers, look for one of them to fabricate a legal theory to try, no matter how absurd. The irony (and hypocrisy) here is the pompous pronouncement that it is necessary for the Judicial Arm of Big Brother to interfere in a purely State internal issue. > > The next move by Washington term-limit supporters will be to try to > get lawmakers to place a constitutional amendment before voters > authorizing a 12-year limit on service in the state legislature. They should have done this from the get-go, if they were really serious about Term Limits. It's harder to pass, but it's the right way to do it. We have Term Limits in Washington State already. It's called a Ballot Box. Maybe this point needs to be driven home to Sanders in a way that he will understand. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 12:32:58 -0800 (PST) Harry, I could not agree more. -Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 12:32:58 -0800 (PST) Harry, I could not agree more. -Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 12:39:48 PST roc@lists.xmission.com wrote : >On Fri, 9 Jan 1998 Reuters wrote: > >> Writing for the court majority, Justice Phil Talmadge sidestepped the >> issue of whether term limits were right or wrong. Instead, Talmadge >> said term limits can only be imposed by amending the state's >> constitution -- and not by passing a ballot initiative. >> >> "A statute, whether adopted by the Legislature or the people, may not >> add qualifications for state officers where the Constitution sets >> those qualifications," Talmadge wrote. > >Whenever I find myself on the same side of an issue as ultra-Liberal, >never-saw-a-gun-law-I-didn't-like Grandstand Phil, I automatically >revisit my conclusions. The only thing surprising about this opinion >is who the Chief Justice chose to write the majority opinion. He is, >fortunately or unfortunately, as your choice of sides on this issue >dictates, absolutely correct. > >"Side-stepped?" Leave it to some simple-minded journalist to >characterize what happened this way. Since it is not necessary to >decide "rightness" or "wrongness" in a political sense, why attempt to >drag it into the opinion? Talmadge didn't "sidestep" it; the >"rightness" or "wrongness" of the concept is irrelevant to the >decision, and is correctly left to the political arena. Well explain what is the matter with that. In California we have initiatives all the time. Some amend the state constitution and some act as laws. The difference being it takes far more signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot that amends the constitution and it takes far more votes to pass it than an initiative that just changes the laws. What am I missing? On reading it all I saw was that those who put the term limits initiative on the ballot followed the wrong procedure path....but maybe not living there I do not understand that perhaps while Washington has initiatives that change laws it does not have initiatives that change the state constitution Jack > >> >> In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Richard Sanders argued for the >> right of voters to add restrictions to public service. The state >> constitution is not exclusive, he wrote. >> >> "Today, six votes on this court are the undoing of the 1,119,985 votes >> that Washingtonians cast at the polls in favor of term limits," >> Sanders concluded. > >So, according to Sanders, VOTES determine the constitutionality of >legislation? Look for more "whichever way the political wind blows" >judislating from this guy in the future. Unless we un-elect him. You >see, in Washington, Supreme Court Justices are ELECTED for six year >terms. > >> Term limits for state officials have now been thrown out in three >> states and upheld in at least five others. >> >> A federal appeals court in San Francisco last month upheld >> California's limits on state officials. That ruling also rescued >> Oregon's term-limit law, which had been struck down by a lower court. >> >> Because of the maze of conflicting court opinions, a forthcoming >> report by the Council of State Governments, based in Lexington, >> Kentucky, suggests that "the constitutionality of state legislative >> term-limit measures will ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. >> Supreme Court." > >Note that this is a STATE issue is decided on the basis of STATE >Constitutions. Unless identically worded State Constitutions are ruled >upon differently by different Federal Circuits, a "split among the >Circuits", the US Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the issue. > >The U.S. Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what "will >ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court", not some >self-selected elitists in Kentucky. States are entirely capable, and >it is not inappropriate, of handling this issue in entirely different >ways. > >So a Georgia State Opinion regarding Term Limits on Georgia State >officials conflicts with a Texas State Opinion regarding Term Limits on >Texas State officials, so what? > >It is, after all, an entirely internal, State's Rights, issue. It all >depends on what the STATE Constitution says as to STATE elective >officials. Different practices among different States as to Term >Limits are highly unlikely to raise an issue under the Constitution, >Laws, and Treaties of the United States in any rational society. >However, given the overpopulation of under-employed lawyers, look for >one of them to fabricate a legal theory to try, no matter how absurd. > >The irony (and hypocrisy) here is the pompous pronouncement that it is >necessary for the Judicial Arm of Big Brother to interfere in a purely >State internal issue. > >> >> The next move by Washington term-limit supporters will be to try to >> get lawmakers to place a constitutional amendment before voters >> authorizing a 12-year limit on service in the state legislature. > >They should have done this from the get-go, if they were really serious >about Term Limits. It's harder to pass, but it's the right way to do >it. > >We have Term Limits in Washington State already. It's called a Ballot >Box. Maybe this point needs to be driven home to Sanders in a way that >he will understand. > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >- > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 12:23:04 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 9 Jan 1998 Reuters wrote: > Writing for the court majority, Justice Phil Talmadge sidestepped the > issue of whether term limits were right or wrong. Instead, Talmadge > said term limits can only be imposed by amending the state's > constitution -- and not by passing a ballot initiative. > > "A statute, whether adopted by the Legislature or the people, may not > add qualifications for state officers where the Constitution sets > those qualifications," Talmadge wrote. Whenever I find myself on the same side of an issue as ultra-Liberal, never-saw-a-gun-law-I-didn't-like Grandstand Phil, I automatically revisit my conclusions. The only thing surprising about this opinion is who the Chief Justice chose to write the majority opinion. He is, fortunately or unfortunately, as your choice of sides on this issue dictates, absolutely correct. "Side-stepped?" Leave it to some simple-minded journalist to characterize what happened this way. Since it is not necessary to decide "rightness" or "wrongness" in a political sense, why attempt to drag it into the opinion? Talmadge didn't "sidestep" it; the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the concept is irrelevant to the decision, and is correctly left to the political arena. > > In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Richard Sanders argued for the > right of voters to add restrictions to public service. The state > constitution is not exclusive, he wrote. > > "Today, six votes on this court are the undoing of the 1,119,985 votes > that Washingtonians cast at the polls in favor of term limits," > Sanders concluded. So, according to Sanders, VOTES determine the constitutionality of legislation? Look for more "whichever way the political wind blows" judislating from this guy in the future. Unless we un-elect him. You see, in Washington, Supreme Court Justices are ELECTED for six year terms. > Term limits for state officials have now been thrown out in three > states and upheld in at least five others. > > A federal appeals court in San Francisco last month upheld > California's limits on state officials. That ruling also rescued > Oregon's term-limit law, which had been struck down by a lower court. > > Because of the maze of conflicting court opinions, a forthcoming > report by the Council of State Governments, based in Lexington, > Kentucky, suggests that "the constitutionality of state legislative > term-limit measures will ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. > Supreme Court." Note that this is a STATE issue is decided on the basis of STATE Constitutions. Unless identically worded State Constitutions are ruled upon differently by different Federal Circuits, a "split among the Circuits", the US Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the issue. The U.S. Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what "will ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court", not some self-selected elitists in Kentucky. States are entirely capable, and it is not inappropriate, of handling this issue in entirely different ways. So a Georgia State Opinion regarding Term Limits on Georgia State officials conflicts with a Texas State Opinion regarding Term Limits on Texas State officials, so what? It is, after all, an entirely internal, State's Rights, issue. It all depends on what the STATE Constitution says as to STATE elective officials. Different practices among different States as to Term Limits are highly unlikely to raise an issue under the Constitution, Laws, and Treaties of the United States in any rational society. However, given the overpopulation of under-employed lawyers, look for one of them to fabricate a legal theory to try, no matter how absurd. The irony (and hypocrisy) here is the pompous pronouncement that it is necessary for the Judicial Arm of Big Brother to interfere in a purely State internal issue. > > The next move by Washington term-limit supporters will be to try to > get lawmakers to place a constitutional amendment before voters > authorizing a 12-year limit on service in the state legislature. They should have done this from the get-go, if they were really serious about Term Limits. It's harder to pass, but it's the right way to do it. We have Term Limits in Washington State already. It's called a Ballot Box. Maybe this point needs to be driven home to Sanders in a way that he will understand. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 14:41:46 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 9 Jan 1998 Jack@minerva.com wrote: > Harry Barnett wrote: > > >"Side-stepped?" Leave it to some simple-minded journalist to > >characterize what happened this way. Since it is not necessary to > >decide "rightness" or "wrongness" in a political sense, why attempt to > >drag it into the opinion? Talmadge didn't "sidestep" it; the > >"rightness" or "wrongness" of the concept is irrelevant to the > >decision, and is correctly left to the political arena. > > Well explain what is the matter with that. Explain what is the matter with WHAT? I don't understand the demand. > In California we have > initiatives all the time. Some amend the state constitution and some > act as laws. The difference being it takes far more signatures to qualify > an initiative for the ballot that amends the constitution and it takes far > more votes to pass it than an initiative that just changes the laws. > > What am I missing? On reading it all I saw was that those who put the term > limits initiative on the ballot followed the wrong procedure path....but > maybe not living there I do not understand that perhaps while Washington > has initiatives that change laws it does not have initiatives that change > the state constitution > > Jack There are as many ways to implement "Initiatives" as there are States which allow "Initiatives" and "Referendums". In Washington, citizen action regarding legislation is quite a bit different than it is in California. And both are likely to be quite a bit different than it is in some third State. Some States don't even allow "Initiatives" at all, and "Initiative" almost certainly means something different in every State which has them. In Washington, it was quite a bit more than "following the wrong procedure path". The so-called "Term Limits Initiative" in Washington proponents were warned at the outset by dozens of knowledgeable people, that even if it "passed", it was going to get shot down on Constitutional grounds. They chose to create a Tempest in a Teapot by pushing it anyway, in that form rather than in a form to create a Constitutional Amendment. Now there is a bunch of blather from a bunch of biased (and/or ignorant) journalists spouting "Oh, woe is us" nonsense trying to make the Washington Supreme Court the heavy in overriding "the will of the people". And it isn't as if amending the Washington Constitution is unheard of. It has been amended some 85 times since it was adopted in 1889 (or somewhere in that ballpark). And it can be amended by the Initiative process. The proponents willfully and deliberately tried to try to make an end run around the Constitution, and got slapped down, as they should have been. They were "checked", and checked conclusively. The Supreme Court did what they were elected to do. Good on 'em. Who do we need to worry about more? A biannually or quadrennielly elected individual, who can just as well be UN-elected, or a Mob with all the earmarks of a Spoiled Brat who is ready to ignore the rules because they WANT what they WANT and they want it NOW! Speaking only for myself, at least Tom Foley arguably played by the rules, and if I have to make a choice between Foley and the Mob, and I would tend to give Foley the benefit of the doubt. I want the Constituion RESTORED, not run roughshod over. There is much good argument on both sides of the Term Limits political issue. But it is incumbent upon the proponents of Term Limits to advance arguments so persuasive that they are successful in amending the Constitution to achieve them. I do NOT want a mere majority to decide who I can vote for, and who I am prohibited from voting for. It should take a LARGE supermajority to implement such a far-sweeping and potentially dangerous policy. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Navy Brass Suspect Missile (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 16:46:46 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Excerpts from USA Today (01/09/98, A3): RETIRED OFFICERS FIRE MISSILE THEORY BACK INTO TWA CASE by John Hanchette and Billy House: Gannett News service contributing: Scott Bowles WASHINGTON - Retired admiral Thomasd Moorer, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Thursday for new congressional hearings into TWA Flight 800. Moorer and other retired Navy brass, at a news conference, expressed suspicion over the FBI's 18-month investigation of the disaster. "All the evidence would point to a missile," Moorer said. The retired officers speculated a missile could have come from either a submarine or a buoy device developed by the Navy years ago. "One vital quest- ion we haven't attacked is the origin of that streak of light," Moorer said. Here's the origin: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm USA Today article posted here: http://home.dc.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9801&L=flight-800&D=1&O=D&P=70 59 **************************************************************** VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________ CNN's Hoax Hoax: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hoax.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 18:35:51 PST On Jan 9, Harry Barnett wrote: >On Fri, 9 Jan 1998 Reuters wrote: [snip] >> In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Richard Sanders argued for the >> right of voters to add restrictions to public service. The state >> constitution is not exclusive, he wrote. >> >> "Today, six votes on this court are the undoing of the 1,119,985 votes >> that Washingtonians cast at the polls in favor of term limits," >> Sanders concluded. > >So, according to Sanders, VOTES determine the constitutionality of >legislation? Look for more "whichever way the political wind blows" >judislating from this guy in the future. Unless we un-elect him. On this one point I don't agree. Observing that the WSC voted against Term Limits does not mean that _he_ did, or that he supports that decision. In fact the first paragraph above specifically says so. The beef is with the other Justices. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Date: 09 Jan 1998 23:47:02 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Bill Vance wrote: > On Jan 9, Harry Barnett wrote: > > >On Fri, 9 Jan 1998 Reuters wrote: > > [snip] > > >> In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Richard Sanders argued for the > >> right of voters to add restrictions to public service. The state > >> constitution is not exclusive, he wrote. > >> > >> "Today, six votes on this court are the undoing of the 1,119,985 votes > >> that Washingtonians cast at the polls in favor of term limits," > >> Sanders concluded. > > > >So, according to Sanders, VOTES determine the constitutionality of > >legislation? Look for more "whichever way the political wind blows" > >judislating from this guy in the future. Unless we un-elect him. > > On this one point I don't agree. Observing that the WSC voted against Term > Limits does not mean that _he_ did, or that he supports that decision. In > fact the first paragraph above specifically says so. The beef is with the > other Justices. Sanders wrote a DISSENTING opinion. This means he was NOT one of the six Justices which joined in the decision, but that he was one of the two that expressly disagreed with the decision. His rationale for disagreeing is that "six votes on this court are the undoing of the 1,119,985 votes". In other words, "It's our job to go along with the voters, whatever they want, in spite of what the Constitution says." Sanders appears to have a pathetically poor understanding of what his role in our three-branch scheme of government is. In other words, he doesn't know his job, even after several terms of supposedly doing it. My beef is NOT with the other justices (at least as to this particular issue). I think they did the only thing they could do, given their duty and the Constitution. I do have a beef with Sanders as to this particular issue. However, those who like the Term Limits idea should find in Sanders an object lesson in favor of Term Limits: he has obviously been re-elected at least one too many times. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: FLASH - IMPORTANT - Sweeney Update Date: 10 Jan 1998 12:01:18 -0500 >Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 22:34:11 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: FLASH - IMPORTANT - Sweeney Update > >AEN News >Linda Thompson > >FLASH: BOSTON MARSHALS WERE *** NOT *** THE MARSHALLS AT RUBY RIDGE > >Please cross post to newsgroups because I am temporarily (I hope it's >temporary) experiencing technical difficulties and can't post to >newsgroups. > >(1) It has been brought to my attention by a person with considerable >and absolutely unimpeachable knowledge on the subject that contrary to >the previous information provided by a government public affairs office >that the U.S. Marshals at the Ruby Ridge Siege on the Weaver family WERE >NOT, repeat, WERE NOT, from the Boston U.S. Marshall's office. One >officer was based from there (Degan, who was killed during the Weaver >siege), but the remainder were part of a national federal task force and >WERE NOT FROM BOSTON. > >(2) As a followup to the above, the current U.S. Marshall, in charge of >the Boston Marshal's office, Ms. Nancy McGillivray, was the person >responsible for getting this case into mediation AT ALL. Without her >efforts, and those of the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts, NO mediation >would have occurred at all. The fact that she was able to accomplish >this, in the face of intense media scrutiny and teeth gnashing from both >sides of the fence, shows that she is a professional with a lot of grit. > >(3) Some MORON wrote a public comment in a newsgroup in the last couple >of days that had a DEFINITE NEGATIVE IMPACT on the negotiation process. >This public comment was OBVIOUSLY intended to incite violence in this >situation. > >Let me be PERFECTLY CLEAR on this point: If you want to see this >situation resolved and the Sweeneys prevail on their claims, we don't >need ANYBODY causing trouble!! > >The ONLY person to date who has showed up looking and acting like Elmer >Fudd, wearing camouflage fatigues and making threats, has been a state >representative who is NOT supportive of the Sweeneys. > >The Sweeneys have CONSISTENTLY maintained an UNARMED PEACEFUL occupation >of their home in efforts to expose some massive government corruption. >This is a heroic posture in the face of some tremendous opposition and >they have made REMARKABLE progress. > >We are now in DIRECT negotiations with Washington, D.C. that at this >time look very promising and you will note this is the FIRST time I have >thought the negotiations looked promising. > >The fact that this thoughtless, vicious public comment -- in an internet >newsgroup -- was brought to my attention by someone during the >negotiation process (on the government's side) tells me that the >newsgroups on internet are being scrutinized (what a surprise, right?). >However, we also cannot overlook the fact that not ONLY is the >government watching this thing play out on internet, so are a lot of >lurkers, some of whom may be mentally unbalanced. > >While I have a serious problem with the idea that the government is >monitoring public commentary and even more of a problem with the notion >that the government would ascribe random comments by some anonymous >entity to anyone associated with the Sweeneys, I would greatly >appreciate all efforts to HELP, not HINDER, keeping this situation as >PEACEFUL and NON-VOLATILE as possible. >********************************************************* >To post a message to AEN NEWS, address it to news@aen.org. > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Date: 12 Jan 1998 07:06:20 -0700 Harry, [...] There is much good argument on both sides of the Term Limits political issue. But it is incumbent upon the proponents of Term Limits to advance arguments so persuasive that they are successful in amending the Constitution to achieve them. I do NOT want a mere majority to decide who I can vote for, and who I am prohibited from voting for. It should take a LARGE supermajority to implement such a far-sweeping and potentially dangerous policy. [...] I agree, Harry. There are far too many instance in the federal sense, where the Constitution has been ignored out of convenience. In fact, in the Washington State sense too. We have a rule book - the State Cosntitution, we aught to use it, because todays excuse is tomorrow's reason. Maybe we should change our state motto to: No Excuses. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Clinton and Perot Date: 12 Jan 1998 10:09:32 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Clinton and Perot struck deal to oust Bush in '92 Freedom.com Documents were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act revealing that "Perot played a large hand in first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's efforts to craft the ill-fated health-reform bill" and added that "not one but two of Perot's companies were earmarked ... to play mammoth roles in the health-care industry." "Science fiction," Mr. Perot tells us. "It would make a good comedy show." Apart from stating that Mr. Perot advised then-candidate Clinton, Mr. Carpozi also quoted one source as saying that the two men spoke either by telephone or face-to-face "at least 50 times" from September 1991 until just before the November 1992 election.. President Bill Clinton and Ross Perot struck a deal in 1991 that initiated the billionaire industrialist's candidacy as a third party spoiler to help the then-Arkansas governor unseat incumbent President George Bush. In turn, Clinton agreed that his first act as occupant of the Oval Office would be to reform the nation's health care system with massive changes to provide health insurance for all Americans furnished by government controlled "health alliances." That quid pro quo was orchestrated by Clinton and Perot to open the floodgates to a multi-billion-dollar bonanza payoff for the third party candidate's already lucrative Dallas-based International Health Delivery System. Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that Perot played a large hand in First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's efforts to craft the ill-fated health reform bill, which turned Clinton's first year in office into a debacle. Perot's name appears prominently on the advisory board for Hillary's now defunct task force, according to a group of doctors who procured the papers through the FOIA. Even more significantly - if not alarmingly - - not one but two of Perot's companies were earmarked in Mrs. Clinton's "working papers" to play mammoth roles in the health-care industry. Besides his International Health Delivery System, a second firm, Electronic Data System, operating under the umbrella of the parent company, The Perot Group, also stood to make out like a bandit with a lion's share of the nationwide computerized medical billing-data business. The doctors who obtained Mrs. Clinton's records shaped a large body of dissidents in the medical field protesting the secrecy Mrs. Clinton imposed on her task force of 500 anonymous persons, while they went about drafting health-care reform behind closed doors for nearly all of 1993. In the unearthing that caused Perot's name to pop up in the first lady's papers, curiosity was aroused as to why the Texas billionaire would serve in an advisory capacity for a president whom he opposed at the polls. Neither Perot nor Clinton ever publicly acknowledged that they knew each other, or had ever spoken prior to their joint appearances on the stages of the debates with President George Bush during the '92 campaign. The link establishing Perot's connection to the president's wife led this reporter to Little Rock for an encounter with Larry Nichols, a former marketing manager of the Arkansas Development Finance Authority. Nichols was fired by Clinton in 1989, after the aide wondered aloud about what was happening to a slush fund set up with $200 million of taxpayer dollars that the governor controlled. Nichols claimed Clinton was glomming money to finance his sexual escapades. A gadfly to Clinton long before he occupied the Oval Office, Nichols, 47, established the president's connection with Perot by citing conversations he had with Larry G. Patterson, a former Arkansas State Police trooper who served as Clinton's personal bodyguard when Clinton was governor. "Until I had just recently spoken with Patterson," Nichols said, "I only suspected that Clinton and Perot were cozy with each other. I had heard some talk about a relationship they had, but there was nothing I could prove. "Patterson put everything in perspective and it made great sense to me. He told me that Clinton and Perot met or talked to each other on the phone or face to face at least 50 times from late September of '91 until just before the November election the following year. "Clinton met Perot in Dallas, in Little Rock, and other locales. Their get-togethers were clandestine. So far as Patterson could say, they were in each other's company by themselves, so that's why he believed the story never got out." Patterson, according to Nichols, said that Clinton dropped by to see Perot "whenever he went to Dallas for some love-making with Gennifer Flowers," his longtime paramour. "Patterson can also vouch for the fact that most times Clinton spoke on the phone from his office in the governor's mansion to Perot in Dallas," Nichols continued, "But after the '92 Democratic convention in New York, which made Clinton the party's nominee, they met and spoke much more frequently. "Even after Perot dropped out of the race, Clinton continued to talk to him just about as often as before. But when he returned to the race, Clinton was talking to him three and four times a day, right up until the election." Nichols said Patterson believes that all communication between Clinton and Perot apparently ceased after the election. Patterson's duties as Clinton's bodyguard diminished appreciably after the election. At that time the Secret Service took full charge of protecting the president-elect, although he continued to occupy the governor's mansion in Little Rock until the inaugural. How much of Perot's ear Clinton has today is open to speculation, following the recommendation by the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates to exclude Perot from the talkfests because he has no chance of winning the election. While Republican candidate Bob Dole applauded the commission's verdict, Clinton expressed regret, saying, "I enjoyed having him in there in 1992." Three other sources, all former activists in '92's United We Stand Party (now the Reform Party) said essentially what Patterson was quoted as having told Nichols - that should Perot succeed in his "spoiler's" role, Clinton would make health-reform his top priority, and put the first lady in charge of shaping the plan. Mrs. Carol Baker, of Hot Springs, Ark.; Lawrence Way, of Middletown, Md.; and Mrs. Pat Owens of E. Troy, Wis.; said they were aware of Perot's doings with Clinton. Way and Mrs. Owens have suits pending against Perot in their respective states for "wrongs" and violation of their privacy they say he and his aides committed. It is a familiar plaint - that Perot "spied" on them while they worked in his '92 campaign, and pried into their finances and credit reports. Patterson did not respond to this reporter's request for an interview. He is reportedly keeping a low public profile -- some say he fears for his life - since going public in January 1994 with details of Clinton's sexual encounters with at least a half-dozen identified women while he was governor. - -------- jhofmann@erols.com ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas I wrote about this a long time ago in another forum. Jim Robinson has it, along with the Carpozzi piece, on FreeRepublic at http://www.freerepublic.com/perot.htm . There are three gifs of documents from the National Archives there, along with a transcription of the documents by me. I got the gifs from Michael Reagan. I don't exactly agree with the characterization presented here, but my characterization is available at FreeRepublic so I won't waste bandwidth repeating it. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Oklahoma bomb Date: 12 Jan 1998 10:19:10 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Found at: http://www.oklahoman.com/cgi-bin/getarticle?ID=3D130738 - --=20 Regards, Allan J. Favish http://members.aol.com/AllanF8702/page1.htm Bomb Grand Jury to Hear 'Major Surprises' 01/10/1998 By Diana Baldwin Staff Writer The Oklahoma County grand jury investigating a larger conspiracy in the Oklahoma City bombing has asked a state legislator for additional evidence he found in his independent investigation. But the grand jurors will return to work at 9 a.m. Monday without Rep. Charles Key's second list of potential witnesses or the new information he says his team of investigators has discovered. Key, R-Oklahoma City, promised his information will include ''major surprises.'' He refused to disclose details. ''There is a case here with people who have information about prior knowledge and other perpetrators,'' Key said. The lawmaker said he may schedule a news conference to announce his new information. Key helped spearhead the petition drive to call the grand jury that convened June 30. Jurors have heard more than 60 witnesses. Key has been preparing a second list of potential witnesses to present to the grand jury. He said he didn't know whether the latest list will be available next week . In June, a federal jury found Timothy McVeigh, 29, guilty of the bomb plot, of the actual attack and of first-degree murder in the deaths of eight federal agents. That jury voted for the death penalty. Another jury Dec. 23 found Terry Nichols, 42, guilty of plotting with McVeigh to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building but acquitted him of causing the terrorist attack. Jurors also found Nichols guilty of eight counts of involuntary manslaughter in the federal agents' deaths . Key said the focus on the grand jury has intensified because of the results of Nichols' trial. Some Nichols jurors -- particularly jury forewoman Niki Deutchman -- criticized the government for not pursuing sightings of other suspects. ====================================================================== =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ecution "Federal officials have denied the government had any specific prior information on a bomb, but a spokeswoman for Key's investigation promises significant new information on that issue within weeks." I heard Rep. Charles Key for a few minutes on the syndicated=20 Mike Siegel talk show last night, and he said disclosures would be forthcoming "in a week or two." _Bill U.S. News & World Report January 19, 1998 Torments that will not end Why Terry Nichols escaped execution BY GORDON WITKIN AND KAREN ROEBUCK DENVER--When the deadlocked jury had been dismissed by Judge Richard Matsch, some of the victims' families could not believe what had happened. Even the confusing split verdict delivered last month hadn't seemed to shake their belief that jurors in the federal case would somehow find a way to deliver a death sentence to Oklahoma City bomb conspirator Terry Nichols. Watching those jurors toss the sentencing decision back to Judge Matsch--and thus preclude the possibility of an execution--felt to the families like betrayal. "All of our fellow citizens should be horrified by this result," said Diane Leonard, whose husband, Don, a Secret Service agent, was among the 168 people who were killed in the 1995 blast. But many veteran observers of the proceedings had a starkly different view because of the way they saw the legal case unfold. Some analysts argued even before the trial began that a life sentence for Nichols seemed far more logical and unsurprising, perhaps even just. Their reasoning was that the case implicating Nichols wasn't as strong as the case against Timothy McVeigh, who received a death sentence in a previous trial. McVeigh was found to have been in Oklahoma City the morning of the bombing, was found to have rented the Ryder truck that blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, and was caught driving away from the scene an hour later wearing clothes streaked with bomb residue. The evidence against Nichols was "far more amorphous," says Denver attorney Scott Robinson, a trial observer. The case against Nichols rested on phone records, receipts, Nichols's use of aliases, and his possible involvement in crimes that might have funded the plot. "But there was no smoking gun," says Robinson. Jury forewoman Niki Deutchman, 47, called the case "circumstantial" and said, "It was hard to say . . . what [Nichols's] exact involvement was." Tough Tigar. Trial observers also said Nichols was aided by the efforts of defense attorney Michael Tigar and adjustments Judge Matsch may have made after the McVeigh trial. For instance, Matsch seemed to loosen jury selection standards to allow the seating of panelists in the Nichols trial who were more skeptical toward the death penalty than those who judged McVeigh. In addition, Tigar was able to limit in the Nichols trial's verdict phase the sort of victim testimony that was so damaging to McVeigh. Tigar also was able to introduce a bit more evidence about possible other conspirators than McVeigh's lawyer, Stephen Jones, had done. =20 And, perhaps most important, Matsch agreed to Tigar's request that jury instructions include the option of finding Nichols guilty of involuntary manslaughter if the panelists didn't think he was guilty of murder. The McVeigh jurors got no such latitude. Jones, who no longer represents McVeigh, says that Tigar "put on the defense we would have put on but were precluded from," and he expects these differences to be the basis of McVeigh's appeal, due this week. That appeal is one of many events that will keep the bombing saga in the news for months. Judge Matsch won't sentence Nichols for at least several weeks. This summer, Bob Macy, the district attorney for the Oklahoma City area, hopes to charge both McVeigh and Nichols with 160 counts of murder of victims other than the eight U.S. law enforcement agents covered by the federal charges. It's unusual for state charges to follow federal convictions for essentially the same crime, but Macy says he wants to try to assure death sentences for both suspects. Beyond that, there is the work of an unusual Oklahoma state grand jury empaneled last June by citizen petition. It is probing the possible involvement of others in the blast and assertions that the government had prior warning. These claims stem from reports that a bomb squad appeared at the Murrah building earlier that fateful morning and from a controversial informant's allegations that white supremacists had threatened to bomb federal buildings. A privately funded probe led by State Rep. Charles Key is examining reports that two explosions, not one, blew up the building, as well as allegations of other conspirators and prior knowledge. Federal officials have denied the government had any specific prior information on a bomb, but a spokeswoman for Key's investigation promises significant new information on that issue within weeks. Meanwhile, at least two groups of lawyers representing bomb victims say they will sue several federal agencies for negligence, alleging they knew or should have known the bombing would occur.=20 Clearly, those looking for closure on the worst domestic terror bombing in U.S. history have a long time yet to wait. Issue Date: January 19, 1998 =A9 Copyright U.S. News & World Report, Inc. All rights reserved. =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Homeless paid to vote in Miami Date: 12 Jan 1998 12:04:59 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Sunday January 11 3:27 PM EST Report: Miami Homeless Were Paid to Vote MIAMI (Reuters) - Dozens of poor and homeless people were paid $10 each to cast absentee ballots in a Miami election already tainted by allegations that dead voters participated, the Miami Herald said Sunday. The newspaper said two men recruited the voters at a church parking lot where the homeless often gathered. They were asked to show voter registration and Social Security cards, then driven in white vans and beat-up cars to the Miami-Dade County elections office to cast absentee ballots a day before the mayoral runoff race in November. When the voters returned to the church lot, one of the recruiters paid them, peeling off $10 bills from a large stack, the newspaper said. "I did it to get paid, that's all," the newspaper quoted absentee voter Mary Ludlow as saying. "I had no choice. I was hungry that day," the Herald quoted another voter, Thomas Felder, as saying. "You wanted the money, you were told to vote for -- (candidate number) 212, Suarez." Mayor Xavier Suarez narrowly defeated former Mayor Joe Carollo in a close runoff election in which absentee ballots proved decisive. The newspaper said not all of those who admitted to voting for money said they were told to vote for Suarez. Both the Suarez and Carollo campaigns said they had nothing to do with any vote-buying operation. A man identified by several witnesses as the person who handed out cash to the voters, Jeffrey Hoskins, said he had participated in "two or three" $10-a-vote operations in the past but denied involvement in the alleged operation in November. "It exists. It always exists. You go to Liberty City, Coconut Grove -- everybody knows about the $10," Hoskins told the newspaper, referring to two Miami neighborhoods. Florida law makes it a third-degree felony to pay someone to vote for a candidate. It is a misdemeanor violation for a voter to sell a vote. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is already investigating allegations of widespread absentee ballot fraud during the mayoral election and has made two arrests on election fraud charges. A volunteer with the Suarez campaign was charged with agreeing to buy phony ballots from an undercover policeman. A 92-year-old man was also arrested after distributing and witnessing dozens of absentee ballots. Several of the votes he delivered contained names of people who did not live inside the city limits, and one was cast in the name of a man who died four years ago. _________________________________________________________________ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Commercial Spies Active in US, South Korea, China, Isreal (fwd) Date: 12 Jan 1998 12:09:22 -0600 (CST) Any wonder that China is big on the US Commercial spy list and big on the Clinton campaign scandal list? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Monday January 12 7:06 AM EST Report: Commercial Spies Active in U.S. LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Governments of at least 23 countries including Germany, Russia, China, France and Israel have stepped up their economic espionage against U.S.-based companies, the Los Angeles Times, quoting the FBI, reported Monday. The newspaper said a new survey conducted by the American Society for Industrial Security estimated that intellectual property losses from foreign and domestic espionage may have exceeded $300 billion in 1997 alone. More than 1,100 documented incidents of economic espionage and 550 suspected incidents that could not be fully documented were reported last year by major companies in a survey conducted by the society, the Los Angeles Times said. It said it had obtained results of the survey which was scheduled to be released Wednesday. A 1996 Economic Espionage Act makes theft of proprietary economic information in the United States a felony punishable by a $10 million fine and 15-year prison sentence. Urging U.S. firms to notify the FBI if they suspected economic espionage, Larry Torrence, deputy assistant director of national security, told the daily: "The odds are not favorable for any American company when they are targeted for clandestine action by some country's intelligence service." The society's periodic surveys, which FBI Director Louis Freeh has cited in congressional testimony, provided the federal government with its only estimate of potential damage from economic espionage, the newspaper said. The 1997 survey disclosed that high-tech companies, especially in Silicon Valley in California, were the most frequent targets of foreign spies, followed by manufacturing and service industries. Among the spies' most sought-after information were research and development strategies, manufacturing and marketing plans and customer lists. The FBI as a matter of policy, did not identify governments that sponsored economic espionage, the daily said. But in a recent article in an academic journal, an FBI agent who worked in the field named some of the countries and provided a rare look into commercial spying by foreign intelligence services. France, Germany, Israel, China, Russia and South Korea were named as major offenders in the article by FBI agent Edwin Fraumann which appeared in Public Administration Review published by the American Society for Public Administration, the Times reported. _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Homeless paid to vote in Miami (fwd) Date: 12 Jan 1998 12:09:38 -0600 (CST) Any one remember the "Vote Scam" book about Janet Reno in Dade County? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Sunday January 11 3:27 PM EST Report: Miami Homeless Were Paid to Vote MIAMI (Reuters) - Dozens of poor and homeless people were paid $10 each to cast absentee ballots in a Miami election already tainted by allegations that dead voters participated, the Miami Herald said Sunday. The newspaper said two men recruited the voters at a church parking lot where the homeless often gathered. They were asked to show voter registration and Social Security cards, then driven in white vans and beat-up cars to the Miami-Dade County elections office to cast absentee ballots a day before the mayoral runoff race in November. When the voters returned to the church lot, one of the recruiters paid them, peeling off $10 bills from a large stack, the newspaper said. "I did it to get paid, that's all," the newspaper quoted absentee voter Mary Ludlow as saying. "I had no choice. I was hungry that day," the Herald quoted another voter, Thomas Felder, as saying. "You wanted the money, you were told to vote for -- (candidate number) 212, Suarez." Mayor Xavier Suarez narrowly defeated former Mayor Joe Carollo in a close runoff election in which absentee ballots proved decisive. The newspaper said not all of those who admitted to voting for money said they were told to vote for Suarez. Both the Suarez and Carollo campaigns said they had nothing to do with any vote-buying operation. A man identified by several witnesses as the person who handed out cash to the voters, Jeffrey Hoskins, said he had participated in "two or three" $10-a-vote operations in the past but denied involvement in the alleged operation in November. "It exists. It always exists. You go to Liberty City, Coconut Grove -- everybody knows about the $10," Hoskins told the newspaper, referring to two Miami neighborhoods. Florida law makes it a third-degree felony to pay someone to vote for a candidate. It is a misdemeanor violation for a voter to sell a vote. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is already investigating allegations of widespread absentee ballot fraud during the mayoral election and has made two arrests on election fraud charges. A volunteer with the Suarez campaign was charged with agreeing to buy phony ballots from an undercover policeman. A 92-year-old man was also arrested after distributing and witnessing dozens of absentee ballots. Several of the votes he delivered contained names of people who did not live inside the city limits, and one was cast in the name of a man who died four years ago. _________________________________________________________________ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Long Beach Corruption (fwd) Date: 12 Jan 1998 14:24:58 PST On Jan 12, Josh Amos wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >X-Sender: bart3@popd.ix.netcom.com >Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:48:22 >To: info@olyarms.com >From: Ned Kelly >Subject: Long Beach Corruption >Cc: hortman38@yahoo.com, boo3@ix.netcom.com > >Long Beach Corruption. By Gene Crocker, Ph.D. >The Voice of a Reformer, 1/11/97 > >John H. Dalton, the Secretary of the United States Navy, will decide if the >People's Liberation >Army of Communist China get to take over the former Navy Base and Station >at Long Beach, >California. Why is this considered the "smoking gun" sought by >investigative reporters that links >Communist China with Clinton and his administration? > >The only remaining legal barrier to the PLA's Long Beach take over is the >Environmental Impact >Report ordered by a Long Beach judge. The US Navy is making that report >and it will be positive >for Communist China. The man Clinton put in charge of the US Navy is John >H. Dalton, a >former top executive of Stephens Inc. > >Stephens Inc., a global investment house, has had multimillion dollar deals >with the Riadys' >Lippo Group and Communist China dating back 20 years. In the 70's, >Stephens and the Riadys >formed Stephens Finance Ltd in Hong Kong to finance projects in Communist >China. In 1984, >they bought control of the Hong Kong Chinese Bank. Today, their full >partner in the Hong Kong >Chinese Bank is China Resources, a wholly owned company of the Communist China >government. > >According to Nicholas Effitimiades, a very respected senior intelligence >employee of the US >Defense Intelligence Agency, China Resources is a known front of the >Chinese Communist >Ministry of State Security and always has a Vice President who is in fact a >military officer/agent >assigned to coordinate the efforts of all agents in the company. > >The press has well documented that the owners of Stephens Inc., Jackson and >Wilt Stephens, are >major contributors and loan arrangers for political candidates. The family >and the executives of >the Corporation have donated over $700,000 to the DNC alone. Jackson >Stephens is credited >with bailing out and saving Clinton's campaigns for governor and for >president by arranging >loans at critical stages in those campaigns. However, surprising no one, >Jackson Stephens also >worked for the 96 Dole campaign and donated $100,000. Wilt Stephens was >the major financial >backer of Senator John Glenn's still indebted presidential campaign. > >As events are proving, making major contributions and loans to candidates >are not just matters of >gaining political influence to have one's phone calls answered. Besides >having favorable trade and >tax bills passed, they also get people appointed into key positions in the >United States >government. John Huang was appointed Asst. Commerce Secretary at the >request of Jackson >Stephens and others connected with Stephens Inc. The question is "Who had >John H. Dalton >appointed Secretary of the US Navy and Why"? > >John Huang was a Vice President at the Hong Kong Chinese Bank and brought >over by Stephens >and the Riadys to assist James Riady, Co-President of their Worthen Bank in >Little Rock >Arkansas. He also worked with James Riady and founded the USA branch of >the Lippo Group. >Lippo USA made their first loan to a new immigrant who wanted to establish >a restaurant just >across the street from the Arkansas Capital building. That man, Charlie >Trie, is today a >multimillionaire and has fled this country to Communist China.. > >The irregularities in John Huang's career are well documented; but, the most >obvious connection to Communist China was never followed up by the Fred >Thompson-John >Glenn Senate hearings. (Why was that Senator Glenn?) This was Huang's >"secret" use of the >office in the Stephens Inc. Washington DC branch office. This back room >office was reserved for >the personal use of Jackson Stephens when he was in town. After Huang's >"top secret" and >"classified briefings" in his own US Commerce office Huang would leave that >office where >communications might be monitored and go to Stephens Inc.. Two to three >times a week. Huang >would use there the telephones, the fax and the computer modems to >communicate with Lippo, >and whoever; but, he used the desk reserved for Jackson Stephens. Have >any of you ever used >the desk of the boss? > >Honor, Courage and Commitment are not just words. They are the moral >concepts that most >United States Navy Officers live by. That tough fighting man, the >patriotic Admiral Mike >Boorda Chief of Naval Operations, personified them before he reportedly >"committed suicide"in >his office, May 1996. Those that knew Mike considered the official suicide >explanation laughable. >Mike Boorda was a patriot and lived by his oath of office. The question is >"What does the >Secretary of Navy, John H. Dalton live by? Does he too use the desk >reserved for Jackson >Stephens? > >PS. Dalton, I will be at the Long Beach protest on the 14th of January >standing up for America. > >Resources: Here is partial documentation for this article. There is a too >much documentation to >list! > >1. John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy Biography, US Navy Home Page >http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/people/secnav/secnavbi.html >2. Double Dragons, Riady Stephens friendship led to Indo-Arkie alliance, >The Arkansas Times, >12/13/97, http://www.arktimes.com/white67-sb2.htm >3. The Riadys' Persistent Pursuit of Influence, Washington Post, 6/27/97, >http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp...ngterm/campfin/stories/cf052797.htm >4. Tenacious Tentacles, J Orlin Grabbe, http://www.aci.net/kalliste/lippo.htm >5. Secretary to be questioned about calls by Huang, USA Today, Campaign >finance, 7/16/97 >http://usatoday.com/news/index/finance/ncfin032.htm >6. Huang used office across the street.USA Today, Campaign finance, 7/18/97 >http://usatoday.com/news/index/finance/ncfin035.htm >7. Bob Dole and the Character Issue, Randolph T. Holhut, The Written Word >http://www.mdle..com/WrittenWord/rholhut/holhut29.htm >8. CNO must go, Navy Times, 6/20/96, >hppt://www.sipu.com/letters/Sept96/Boorda.html > > >****************************************************************** > "Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the >exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and >these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or >both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom >they oppress."......................... Frederick Douglass. >****************************************************************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: 1996 Supplement to The Annotated Constitution--GPO, CRS (fwd) Date: 12 Jan 1998 14:25:36 PST On Jan 12, Rich Zellich wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Extracted from the NIC's latest Scout Report: 8. 1996 Supplement to The Annotated Constitution--GPO, CRS [ASCII, .pdf, 102p.] http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/index.html Adobe Acrobat Reader http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html The US Congressional Research Service and Government Printing Office recently posted the 1996 Supplement to the 1992 Edition of _The Constitution of the United States of America Analysis and Interpretation: Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States_ (discussed in the January 17, 1997 Scout Report). This searchable and browsable supplement adds cases decided to July 1, 1996. Like the 1992 edition, the Supplement contains annotated references to Supreme Court decisions in their constitutional context, and is available in both ASCII text and Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) formats. [JS] [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) BATF & "Unintended Consequences" Date: 14 Jan 1998 09:27:42 -0800 Forwarded... I just received this from a fellow who got it off the Ohio RKBA list. I would be interested in hearing from anyone with a similar experience. Two producers in the national media are planning 1998 pieces on the phenomenon of this book. This is the kind of info they need. JR ************************************************************************** The PROponent 3953 Indianola Ave Columbus, OH 43214 (614) 268-0122 Volume 9 November, 1997 Number 11 BOOK CONTROL ... How many years have we been screaming that it ISN'T just about "gun control", it's all about RIGHTS CONTROL! We have more proof. One of the dealers at our gun shows goes by the name of "Winchester Man". You may have seen him or even bought something from him. He has a bunch of gun socks and books for sale among other items. But the particular item of interest was the stack of books "Unintended Consequences" he was selling. At this particular gun show (not one of ours nor in Ohio) several "suits" showed up at his table and indicated that they were unhappy with him selling the book. They identified themselves as ATF. Apparently they told him they couldn't FORCE him to stop selling the novel, but he noted that they strongly seemed to imply that they could make life tough for him if he didn't comply with their wishes. Most PRO members already know that this book is highly critical of some of the BATF mentality we've seen in recent times. So this is what it comes down to. It's not just "gun control" any more, but "book control" as well. This goes right along with "Internet control" and every other recent attack on the Bill of Rights by so-called "federal" law enforcement. But here's the sad part. Sure Winchester Man is pro-gun, but he's not an activist like we are. At this point in time he is still just an ordinary business man trying to make a dollar. And he told this editor that he is not about to buck the wishes of the ATF, illegal or no. He confided that he didn't make that much on the books anyway, so that once he had them all sold, he wasn't getting any more. This is the insidious part of government licensing, isn't it? First, they tell you that "whatever" NEEDS to be "regulated" through licensing, but once in place, this suddenly becomes a long lever through which pressure can be applied to honest businessmen/women. And I'll tell you what kept going through my mind as "Winchester Man" was telling me how the sales of that book "weren't that important". Inside my head it wasn't Winchester Man talking, but some German shopkeeper back in the thirties. He was telling me that he didn't want "trouble" from the Brown Shirts and even though they didn't have the right to choose his customers, only a small fraction of his business was from Jews anyway, so it didn't matter. It is PRO's suggestion to Winchester Man and anyone else trying to avoid "trouble" from the socialist-fascist faction in our government that they dig out a good history book and take a gander at just the photographs...nothing else... of what Germany looked like by the end of WW II. THEN, having done that, come back and tell us exactly how much "trouble" those shopkeepers saved themselves in the end by going along with Nazi policy? The problem here seems to be that while Winchester Man has read the book he is selling, somehow, the history of tyrants contained therein seems to have not made a connection to the present. But there IS a connection. Those who do not remember history are often doomed to repeat it. ************************************************************************* Thanks for any help. JR Read the book UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. Reviews are at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1888118040 and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/95/123195vs.htm ---------------End of Original Message----------------- =================================================================== COL. HARRY S. BACHSTEIN http://members.aol.com/bach11/adventurer.htm - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Asia money crisis Date: 14 Jan 1998 12:35:21 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Wednesday, January 14, 1998 ---LATimes Errors Made in Indonesia Policy, IMF Concedes By ART PINE, Times Staff Writer JAKARTA, Indonesia--The International Monetary Fund has conceded that some of its earlier prescriptions for rescuing the Indonesian economy backfired and inadvertently may have contributed to the collapse of the banking system here, international officials said today. In a confidential report, the fund's senior staff said IMF demands in October that Indonesia raise interest rates as part of its recovery program apparently conflicted with simultaneous instructions that the government shut down 16 large, insolvent banks. When both policies were put into place at once, at IMF insistence, the move unexpectedly squeezed many healthy banks as well and exacerbated the pressures on the banking system, the document said. That in turn set off a new wave of capital flight. Disclosure of the unintended gaffe, contained in a 17-page report distributed to the IMF's executive board in Washington last week, marked the first formal admission by the 181-country organization that some of its prescriptions here may have backfired and hurt Indonesia. However, officials said the report was not an indictment of IMF prescriptions for other Asian countries caught up in the current turmoil, and they added that the fund was not on the verge of revamping its entire strategy, despite complaints by some critics that it has proven counterproductive. Even as the IMF report was circulated, many Asian currencies and stock markets continued to rebound today. Singapore's main stock index was up 7.4% at midmorning after soaring 7.7% on Tuesday. Malaysia's main stock index gained 6.1% early today, and Indonesian stocks were up 2.3% today after rocketing 9% on Tuesday as Indonesia's currency, the rupiah, strengthened. The confidential report said fund officials had been faced with "conflicting objectives" in dealing with the Indonesian economy--a need to prod the country into protecting its currency while at the same time strengthening its banking system by closing insolvent banks. In a move that IMF strategists believed would bolster confidence in the financial markets, Indonesia closed down 16 insolvent banks, including one that authorities say was owned by one of President Suharto's sons. The idea was to purge the banking system of its worst offenders. However, the report concluded, "these disclosures, far from improving public confidence in the banking system, have instead set off a renewed 'flight to safety'" that has squeezed the banking system even further and may have contributed to the failure of some weak but viable banks as well. The disclosure came as the beleaguered Indonesian government moved swiftly Tuesday to hammer out an emergency economic reform program in hopes of winning formal approval from the IMF on Thursday, when the agency's managing director arrives for talks with Suharto. Although details of the plan are not complete, negotiations between senior Indonesian officials and IMF representatives were proceeding apace without major snags. Insiders said a formal announcement might be made Thursday. The joint effort came after a two-day visit by a team of senior U.S. officials, headed by Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, that underscored American concern about the financial turmoil in Indonesia. The U.S. officials urged Suharto to comply with IMF demands. The 76-year-old president reportedly assured Summers that the Indonesian government will make reforms required in October by the IMF and, in some cases, even exceed them. "It is clear that President Suharto recognizes the need to take strong steps of the kind that have been under discussion with the IMF to breed confidence and to build on the very strong foundations for prosperity that Indonesia enjoys," Summers told reporters before leaving Indonesia on Tuesday. The U.S. mission, accompanied by similar calls for reforms by a bevy of other foreign leaders, was designed to increase confidence in financial markets enough to stem the continued slide in the value of Indonesia's currency, which has been sending stock prices plummeting. U.S. officials had feared that unless the slide could be stopped soon, the turmoil would spread to other financially troubled Asian countries and worsen the economic situation throughout the region, eventually hurting the United States and other industrial economies. The effort paid off after Suharto indicated Monday that he will accede to the IMF demands. Summers went on to Malaysia and Thailand on Tuesday to meet with senior officials there. He is to make other stops in Asia, including China and South Korea. Meanwhile, Goh Chok Tong, Singapore's prime minister, arrived here Tuesday for talks with Suharto to emphasize the U.S. and IMF message. Singapore has close economic ties to Indonesia and has played a key role in Suharto's seeming turnaround. Senior officials here reacted swiftly in the wake of Suharto's new willingness to adhere to IMF policies. Finance Minister Mar'ie Muhammad announced that the government will get its budget into line; Industry and Trade Minister Tungki Ariwibowo spoke of cutting import barriers. State Secretariat Minister Murdiono said Indonesia and the IMF were on the same track. "In short, we will see how we can quickly revive confidence in the rupiah and carry out the reform and restructuring program," he said. IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus is to meet Thursday with Suharto. Camdessus has been making a whirlwind tour of financially troubled countries. On Tuesday, he was in Seoul, seeking to increase public support for IMF reforms there and praising the government's efforts as "the beginning of recovery" for South Korea. There was no indication what specifics will be in the Indonesian reform package. But IMF officials have said Jakarta must reduce its budget deficit, shore up its banking system and halt several expensive infrastructure projects that mainly benefit Suharto's family. Officials acknowledge that these steps are likely to be politically painful. For example, an IMF requirement that Indonesia eliminate government subsidies for fuel is expected to quadruple gas prices. Indonesia has been remarkably quiet during the visits by foreign dignitaries this week. On Tuesday, about two dozen students chanted slogans and held up banners outside the Finance Ministry when Summers held talks there. No arrests were made. Analysts here noted that whatever good the economic and financial reform measures may do, they still will not address Indonesia's political uncertainties--not the least of which is who will succeed Suharto if he dies or steps down. The retired army general, who has ruled Indonesia for 32 years, is ill and said to be ready to move aside but has not yet named a successor. On Tuesday, the chairman of Suharto's ruling Golkar party formally named Suharto as its candidate for a seventh term as president but conspicuously did not designate a candidate for vice president--a move that might have eased anxiety on the succession issue. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen expressed confidence today after meeting with Suharto that Indonesia will regain its economic footing and avert a potentially dangerous political upheaval. "The president indicated that he is committed to rebuilding confidence in the economic situation here," Cohen said. Copyright Los Angeles Times ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas PRIMER ON PANIC By Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post, January 14, 1998 There is now a dawning recognition that Asia's financial crisis could be far more than a minor mishap for the U.S. and world economies. We are not dealing here only with a handful of countries that overborrowed abroad and are now being compelled to retrench. This is a global version of a domestic banking panic. Foreign investors are withdrawing massive amounts of money, and local investors are dumping their own currencies (such as the Thai baht and the Indonesian rupiah) for dollars. These crises continue to feed on themselves until confidence, a critical but elusive state of mind, is restored. One consequence is that Asia's slump will be worse than originally forecast. In December, for example, the International Monetary Fund assumed that South Korea's economy (gross domestic product) would grow about 2.5 percent in 1998: a big drop from recent growth rates of 6 to 9 percent, but hardly a collapse. This now looks optimistic. Gregory Fager of the Institute of International Finance (a research arm of commercial banks) says that Korea's GDP could drop 3 to 5 percent in 1998. We will probably see downward revisions for other affected countries: Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and China. Their deeper slumps will in turn darken the outlook for Japan, which sends nearly half its exports to the rest of Asia. "You're going to have massive bankruptcies in Asia," says economist Desmond Lachman of Salomon Smith Barney. "That has a disproportionate impact on Japan." As Lachman notes, investment spending will drop sharply, and Japan is a heavy exporter of investment goods (factory machinery, construction equipment, communications gear) to Asia. Under Fager's forecast, for example, Korea's investment spending plunges at least 25 percent. The pattern parallels that of a domestic banking panic: first, banks lose deposits; then spending and employment drop. In a textbook panic, something frightens depositors: say, a big bank is found to have so many bad loans that it can't repay all its deposits. Suddenly, confidence evaporates. This happened in the Great Depression. Depositors in all banks feared for their funds. They rushed to withdraw. If everyone tries to withdraw, the economy collapses. Banks call loans. Companies go bankrupt. Good loans go bad. Something similar is now happening globally. Think of Asia's economies as a series of banks. In the 1990s, they received huge inflows of foreign funds. A lot (but not all) of these funds actually were loans from foreign banks to local banks and companies. At year-end 1996, such foreign bank loans totaled $100 billion to South Korea, $70 billion to Thailand and $56 billion to Indonesia. When received, these funds (mostly dollars) were converted into local currencies and fueled a spending boom. But now the foreign funds are fleeing, because local borrowers used the money for bad investments: unneeded office buildings or factories. There's a vicious circle. Lending and spending drop. Local currencies plunge as they're sold for dollars. Imports become more expensive and decline; the world economy suffers. After the Depression, most industrialized countries learned to cope with domestic banking crises. There are three defenses: (a) provide deposit insurance, so that depositors won't panic in the first place; (b) close banks with bad loans to maintain confidence in the banking system; and (c) have a lender of "last resort" - -- the central bank, which is the Federal Reserve in the United States -- make temporary loans to banks if there is a panic. But these mechanisms don't exist globally. There is no worldwide central bank to provide temporary loans or shut bad banks. A lot of the daily story of the Asian crisis is an effort to mimic these defenses. The IMF has organized huge credits ($57 billion for Korea, $43 billion for Indonesia, $17 billion for Thailand) to replace some of the lost foreign capital. South Korea is negotiating with private banks to substitute long-term bonds for short-term loans: another effort to stop the loss of foreign capital. "Reforms" sought by the IMF -- closer supervision of local banks, more disclosure of financial information -- aim to restore confidence among overseas investors. Stemming the outflow of funds would limit the damage to these economies. No one knows whether the effort will succeed. By their nature, panics are unpredictable. One problem leads to another. Recently, a major investment bank in Hong Kong failed because it couldn't collect on loans made in Indonesia. Then the Hong Kong stock market dropped sharply. There are connections. One country's currency depreciation may lead to another's. China has already suffered a loss of competitiveness compared with its Asian neighbors that have devalued. (A lower currency makes a country's exports cheaper on world markets, even as it makes its imports more expensive.) Will China devalue? Will foreign capital flee other developing countries (Brazil, Mexico, India)? The optimism about the limited impact of all this could still be vindicated. It presumed that the forward momentum of the U.S. and European economies would overcome Asia's adverse side effects. These would operate mainly through two channels: lower exports to Asia and lower profits of multinational companies in Asia (say, Coca-Cola sales in Thailand). By themselves, these effects would probably be small. For example, American exports to Asia are only about 4 percent of U.S. GDP; Europe's dependence on Asia is even less. But what if squeezed exports cause companies to cut investment? Or suppose disappointing profits depress stock prices, and then pessimistic investors curb their spending? What we're witnessing is a dramatic redistribution of global capital and its aftermath. In theory, Asia's loss is America's gain, as investors switch into dollars. Higher interest rates and inflation in Asia ought to be offset by lower interest rates and inflation in the United States. But the Federal Reserve hasn't yet cut rates because it remains worried about inflation with unemployment at only 4.7 percent. Should it reduce rates? Probably. Still, there are risks either way. What economists blandly call "policy challenges" abound from Seoul to Tokyo to Washington. Confidence depends on how well they're handled. ______________________________________________ subscribe @ ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Retired Navy Brass calls for TWA 800 investigation Date: 14 Jan 1998 13:11:10 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This week's Navy Times, a publication widely read by Naval enlisted and officers and sold in just about every Navy facility, included a full-page article on Adm Moorer's dissent on the TWA investigation at the recent AIM news conference. It wasn't front page (instead there was a poll that suggested many Naval officers are leaving because the current leadership is too politicized). The article was pulled from the Gannett news service. I haven't checked their online edition to see if it was published there. - --- Jim ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas Navy Times Published: 01-19-98 Category: THIS WEEK Page: 14 Retired Navy Brass Revives Twa Missile Theory / Officers Voice Suspiciouns Over Fbi's Findings By John Hanchette and Billy House Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Jan. 8 called for new congressional hearings into last July's crash of TWA Flight 800. "It absolutely deserves more investigation -- a lot more," Moorer told Gannett News Service. "This time, I wouldn't let the FBI do it. I'd have the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) do it. I think Congress certainly should get more answers from the FBI." Moorer and other retired Navy brass, at a news conference, expressed grave suspicion over the FBI's recently concluded 18-month investigation of the disaster, in which the plane disintegrated July 17, 1996, en route to Paris and plunged into the Atlantic near Long Island, killing 230. They said a military missile explosion just outside the 747's forward cabin seems the likely cause. "All evidence would point to a missile," Moorer said. "All those witnesses who saw a streak that hit the airplane -- you have to assume it's a missile. In an investigation like this, you can't overlook anything." Moorer, an expert on missile weaponry, attended the news conference convened by a media critic group that scoffs at the official NTSB and FBI findings unveiled a month ago. Joseph Valiquette, FBI spokesman in New York, said the agency is "comfortable" with its conclusions that "there's no evidence a criminal act was responsible." 'A train wreck in the sky' The Navy officers -- who appeared with a veteran TWA pilot, two witnesses and members of Accuracy in Media, which coordinated the briefing -- said a new study of evidence from recovered Flight 800 data recorders rebuts the government's official story about fuel vapors exploding in a central tank of the jetliner after a spark from unknown causes. "This is either a train wreck in the sky, or an explosive device -- mid-air, outside the plane," said retired Navy Cmdr. William Donaldson, who flew 89 combat missions over Vietnam and for five years was a top Naval aviation accident investigator. Donaldson, who said he is not working for TWA or the passenger jet's manufacturer, Boeing, examined the mountain of material released in early December about the $100 million federal investigation. He particularly criticized one NTSB document reflecting flight-recorder data that was not discussed when the material was unveiled in Baltimore last month. Donaldson noted a line drawn through readings of the last five seconds of the doomed jet's flight, with a handwritten margin note reading "End of Flt. 800 DATA" -- except there are more revealing readings below it. He said he thinks this was an attempt to divert attention from the final readings on the flight recorder: "The only reason you put flight data recorders into an airplane at millions of dollars cost is to capture this last data line." He said NTSB officials later tried to convince the Navy dissidents it merely was transcript from an earlier flight -- a conclusion former TWA pilot Howard Mann said is "not possible -- it's erased -- there's just no way." The final readings show chaos in the sky -- with airspeed dropping instantly by almost 200 knots, the pitch angle jumping five degrees, altitude dropping 3,600 feet in about three seconds, the roll angle going from zero to 144 degrees (the plane almost inverted), and magnetic heading changing from 82 degrees to 163 degrees. The small vane that measures wind angle striking the nose -- situated on the left forward fuselage -- goes from 3 degrees to 106 degrees back to 30 degrees. Donaldson said all these indicate an extremely high-pressure wave coming from the lower left side of the plane's front. The measurements "indicate there was an explosion -- a big explosion -- outside the cockpit." Mann agreed with Donaldson's interpretations. Donaldson also said: * Divers found debris from the forward fuselage as much as 2,900 feet to the right of the extended flight path, suggesting it may have been propelled by an explosion from the plane's left. * Fuselage doors from near the front of the craft, later recovered, were bent and dented inward. * Subsequent tests Donaldson conducted showed fuel vapor in the empty center tank would not have been flammable enough to cause such an explosion, and there was nothing to ignite it. * More damage occurred to the left wing than the right. * The fuselage skin broke up in such a way as to suggest a pressure wave from the outside left front. "What you're looking at is the product of an explosion in the sky that totally destroyed the aircraft's ability to fly anywhere," he said. A digital animation computer rendering of the catastrophe -- prepared by the CIA for media use in early December -- sought to explain some of the physical forces on the flight data by showing the nose breaking off the huge aircraft and the body then climbing almost 3,000 feet before a huge petroleum explosion sends it fireballing into the sea. "There couldn't have been an aviator at CIA who had anything to do with that," said Donaldson. "They were laughed out of town by pilots." Eyewitness accounts Two witnesses from Long Island -- lawyer Frederick Meyer and furniture maker Richard Goss -- described what looked like a missile contrail rising upward in the sky before the TWA explosion. Goss said the FBI was interested and "very amazed," but later "there wasn't as much enthusiasm . . . I never heard from them again." Meyer, a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, was flying an Air National Guard helicopter on maneuvers when the disaster occurred in front of him: "I saw, what I swear to God, was military ordnance explode." Meyer said, "The aircraft I saw came out of the air like a stone. Nobody saw that aircraft climb a foot after it was hit. The CIA cartoon bears no similarity to what I saw." Meyer approached the FBI with his report, but said after two desultory interviews, agents never called back. He claims he knows several witnesses who called the FBI's 800 number with similar reports, but were not called back. The FBI, Donaldson said, "is holding the lid on 92 witnesses who allege they saw something go and climb to the sky. Most of those people are scared to death right now." Valiquette, the FBI spokesman, said, "We know there are always going to be people who will never accept our findings. And we're comfortable with that, too. . . . We went back and re-interviewed all those eyewitnesses. We plotted their positions, and there was a lot of analysis done. Today, we are comfortable with the results." The retired officers speculated a missile could have come from either a submarine or a buoy device developed by the Navy years ago to float attack missiles into position for launch from miles away. "One vital question we haven't attacked is the origin of that streak of light," Moorer said. "Where did it come from? Who fired it." For its part, the NTSB insisted after the briefing that "We have no physical evidence that a missile impacted TWA 800, or a fragment of a missile penetrated the aircraft." Copyright 1998 Army Times Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas Just a quick comment... What we're seeing here, in having all the better military enlisted and officer personnel leave the service, is that the remainder [and all 'new hires', so to speak] will be just as PC as the current administration and, hence, less able to fulfill their mission[s] -- the primary which is defense of this nation. Not a good sign. Jon @ USA Features - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Media Contact Site (fwd) Date: 14 Jan 1998 12:28:27 PST Here's a tool we can use. On Jan 14, Bob Mueller wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Thought I'd point everyone to this site - it's not perfect, but it's got a _bunch_ of addresses, along with some tips on writing letters to editors. Some of the category links are dead, but as a rule, it looks pretty good (after about 10 min of hopping around). They claim to list over 2000 magazines; newspaper links appear to be under construction, as do radio and TV. I couldn't quite tell how current they're keeping the site. http://mediareport.com/toc.html For each entry on their list, they provide address info, deadline restrictions, publishing companies, voice and fax numbers, electronic presence info (web and email). For newspapers, they claim to have the circulation counts and regions, although I couldn't see that info in what I found. Bob Mueller <>< ICQ# 5721178 Tandem Computers Professional Services Second Amendment Research Network - http://www.infinet.com/~bmueller/Index.html D, 6/52 ADA Alumni Association - http://www.gather.com/d652ada [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Lippo Documents just released by feds. Date: 15 Jan 1998 15:57:58 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- New Paper Trail Details What Lippo Cash Bought By Larry Klayman and Tom Fitton Long-sought documents reveal much about Democratic fund-raising scandal and -- GOP lack of concern. A new batch of Commerce Department documents finally was released by the Clinton administration to Judicial Watch in Washington. Some of these documents were released more than two-and-a-half years after they were due under a court order. They raise questions of Clinton administration bribery, extortion and the sale of government services to agents of influence for a foreign power. The documents also explain why the Republican-controlled Congress has been uninterested in pursuing the Commerce side of the Clinton fund-raising scandal. One document that screams out for further investigation is a letter dated Nov. 1, 1994, from a Democratic donor to President Clinton. Investment banker and Democratic fund-raiser Sanford R. Robertson writes about his participation in a Ron Brown-led trade mission to China earlier that year. Complimenting Brown's "diplomatic skills" in a meeting with Chinese dictator Li Peng, Robertson wrote that the then-commerce secretary "deftly navigated the human-rights issues by obtaining an agreement on further talks and then moved directly into the economic issues at hand: helping Chrysler, Sprint and others with their 'joint ventures.'" In other words, Brown shoved aside concerns about human rights to talk money with the butcher of Beijing. The Robertson letter closes with a smoking-gun postscript: "[Treasury Secretary] Bob Rubin came to our home on Thursday [presumably Sept. 29, 1994] for a [California Democratic Sen.] Dianne Feinstein dinner, which raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Bob, of course, turned out the financial community and Silicon Valley." We've always wondered why Feinstein -- as a recipient of Lippo Group contributions, and the reported target of Chinese attempts to influence U.S. elections -- never was grilled by her colleagues on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee investigating the China connection. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that many of the U.S. companies linked to Lippo and other figures in the foreign-money scandal give to both political parties. Robertson and his company, for example, gave generously in 1996 to GOP Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York ($1,000) and the Republican National State Elections Committee ($100,000). The newly released documents show three previously undisclosed occasions when the communist Chinese-backed Lippo Group directly and indirectly benefited from Clinton administration actions. Testimony before Sen. Fred Thompson's committee indicated that the Lippo Group is in fact a joint venture of China Resources, a trading and holding company "wholly owned" by the Chinese communist government and used as a front for Chinese espionage operations. China Resources investments in Lippo grew during the course of the Clinton administration, coinciding with illegal six-figure Lippo contributions to Clinton's cash machine. These contributions seem to not only have bought Lippo employee John Huang a job in the Commerce Department, but special consideration for Lippo business interests at the highest level of the Clinton administration.=7F The documents indicate that Lippo business partner Mission Energy (now named Edison Mission Energy) received strong Clinton=7F administration support for a $2.6 billion power-plant project in Indonesia. One 1994 document sings the praises of the Indonesian government-backed project -- "with its state-of-the-art emissions-control technology and by using low-sulfur Indonesian coal, the project will be on the cleanest, most efficient coal-fired facilities in the world." As the Lippo conglomerate is a key supplier of low-sulfur Indonesian coal, Clinton's Lippo Group donors -- the Riady family, Huang and Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata -- had much to gain from official government support of this Lippo homeland project. The official mention of "low-sulfur Indonesian coal" also is interesting in light of Clinton's creation of the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, placing off-limits the world's largest deposit of low-sulfur coal and thereby increasing the value of Lippo's investments in clean-burning coal deposits in Indonesia. The documents prove the administration was very much aware of the Lippo coal interests that later benefited from Clinton's decision. The people of the Beehive State will be outraged to learn that the Clinton administration promoted the coal interests of a foreign Clinton donor while shutting down the development of the Utah coal fields. In light of the new documents it is ludicrous to suggest that no one in the Clinton administration considered the Lippo Group's interests in keeping the Utah coal off the market -- especially since Huang and the Riady family had access to the Oval Office. Clinton's Commerce Department also kept hidden a successful attempt by the Lippo Group to gain official U.S. support for a power project in Fujian, China. The Lippo Group is the controlling partner in the project, having as coinvestors America's Mission Energy and Bechtel Enterprises. Handwritten notes and a Commerce E-mail indicate that Mission Energy representatives met with Commerce officials to discuss the project and that the Lippo Group specifically was mentioned. Huang likely was involved in these discussions or at a minimum assisted in the planning of the trade missions. The Lippo-Mission-Bechtel project also makes use of pulverized coal, no doubt to come from Lippo coal fields in Indonesia. The Commerce Department E-mail notes that Brown advocated the project during his 1994 trip to China. This trip also saw Clinton administration support for another proposed Lippo power project in China with the Arkansas-based Entergy Corp., another large Clinton contributor. Clinton's Lippo donors seem to have gotten themselves a twofer on this taxpayer-financed trade trip. Why hasn't Mission Energy publicly been asked by the congressional investigative committees about its dealings with the Lippo Group, Huang and the Clinton Commerce Department? Is it because the conglomerate owners of Mission Energy and Bechtel give to Republicans as well as Democrats? The documents also show how important it was for China-backed Lippo to have its ex-employee and Clinton White House regular Huang in a high-level position at Commerce. Indeed, Huang's telephone records and reports about his activities from his tenure at Commerce indicate that he was in regular contact with Lippo agents, both foreign (the Riadys) and domestic (Web Hubbell, Mark Middleton, Joe Giroir and Mark Grobmyer). Another document indicates that Grobmyer involved himself in nuclear-proliferation issues involving Russia and Iran. The Commerce Department produced a copy of an April 30, 1994, fax that Grobmyer sent National Security Council Staff Director Nancy Soderberg reporting on the work of his U.S. Fuel and Security Team. According to a July article in Time magazine, Grobmyer's project was a "curious plan to buy enriched uranium from Russia and the United States, lease it to utilities worldwide, collect the spent radioactive rods and store them on a tiny volcanic island in steel casks made in, of course, Arkansas." Grobmyer recounts how he met Russia's atomic-energy minister, Viktor Mikhailov, and other unnamed Russians to try to push the deal. According to the faxed memo, in return for being involved with the U.S. Fuel and Security Team, the Russians would agree to "cease or limit the sale of reactors to nations such as Iran, and would agree to store excess plutonium on the proposed site." Grobmyer's scheme eventually was shot down personally by Clinton, but only after Grobmyer made himself a nuisance at the White House by aggressively trying to obtain special White House consideration and environmental waivers for his project. But why was Grobmyer, a Little Rock lawyer whose only credentials seemed to have been with the Lippo Group and Clinton, negotiating nuclear-proliferation issues with the government of Russia? Why haven't Republicans raised questions about Grobmyer's scheme? Was it because Grobmyer's plan had the backing of former Republican secretary of state James Baker? One can see that there was good reason for the Commerce Department to hide these damaging documents from the American people and a federal court -- they provide more evidence that the China-backed Lippo Group had its tentacles all over the Clinton administration. And the involvement of GOP donors and officials in this influence-peddling explain why this Republican-controlled Congress couldn't seem to care less about the Commerce-China connections. INSIGHT web site - http://www.insightmag.com Judicial Watch (Larry Klayman) - http://www.judicialwatch.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775 Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR http://www.us.net/softwar Pcyphered SIGNATURE: 84B421652CED9871E71BA1633A1368D6114274883B068ED3863ED7A6E23C4849 EEC3F2CF0FE35BCD3B9003CC252E847797B6E77817D40C159513B157B585FA35 75406CD364FB6E75 ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: OKC-Text:Key's Press Conf. (fwd) Date: 15 Jan 1998 16:02:40 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ------------------------ 01/15/98 - This is the transcript of the press conference held at 1:30 p.m. cst today by State Rep. Charles Key, revealing new evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing -- foreknowledge on the part of Congressman Ernest Istook, and the involvement of a sect of Muslim fundamentalists operating in Oklahoma City. The conference was carried live on KTOK Radio AM 1000 in Oklahoma City. Please pardon any typos. This transcript was prepared in a great hurry. -- Michele ------------------------ JERRY BOHNEN (News Director KTOK Radio): ...information he says there was prior knowledge about the bombing. Live now, here's KTOK's Kim Edwards. KIM EDWARDS (KTOK Reporter): Jerry, a throng of national and local media have gathered around the Survivor Tree in downtown Oklahoma City, preparing to hear what testimony Representative Charles Key is prepared to offer. Right now, Glenn Wilburn's widow is at the podium, and she is speaking to the press about her experiences with the grand jury investigation that is looking into the possibility that the government had prior knowledge of the April 19th, 1995 bombing. After she is done speaking, Representative Charles Key will come up to the podium and he will release what he says is new damaging evidence that the government did know, prior to April 19th, that a bomb was going to go off at the Murrah Building here in downtown Oklahoma City. Again, right now, Kathy Wilburn, Glenn Wilburn's widow, who was... Glenn Wilburn was crucial in getting this grand jury started. She is now at the podium speaking. Jerry, back to you. BOHNEN: Okay, Kim. Now, based on information and such from the Key investigation and their committee, I've spoken with the two witnesses that they brought on hand... I understand, at least, are to be on hand for the announcement today -- a couple of Oklahoma County Reserve Sheriff's Deputies. They have a story to tell about what was told them the night of the bombing, statements made by at least an Oklahoma Congressman and an individual who was accompanying the Congressman to the scene of the Murrah Building -- indications of prior knowledge about the bombing and perhaps an indication of at least a bomb threat that had been made some ten days before the April 19th, 1995 bombing. And again, this information being gathered by State Representative Charles Key. Kim, let's listen to who is speaking at this point now. EDWARDS: Right now, Kathy Wilburn is still on the stand... or still at the podium and then Representative Charles Key is standing behind her with a crowd of other people associated with the bombing investigation. Several of his investigators are there with him. And there are representatives from virtually all of the local media outlets as well as CNN and the Fox News Channel. A crowd of spectators has come away from the fence now and is also gathering around listening to what Kathy Wilburn has to say. Again, you talked about the deputies that say they have new information and they are there with Charles Key as well. I'm having some problems hearing you, Jerry, and I'm going to toss back to you for just a moment while I fix my audio problems at this end. And again, Kathy Wilburn is still speaking at the podium as we speak. BOHNEN: Okay. While Kim clarifies that... The two deputies apparently were on guard duty the night of the bombing. I've interviewed them last night and the interview was embargoed until now while they are preparing the news conference. And what their story is is that one of them was on guard duty in front of the Water Resources Board when an Oklahoma Congressman approached them and happened to be talking about what happened... you know, earlier in the day, and the Congressman said, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen. We blew it." There was apparently some right-wing, fundamentalist Muslim sect in Oklahoma City and the Sheriff's deputy made the comment, "I beg your pardon? What did you say?" "Yeah, we knew it was going to happen. We blew it." And at the same time, another reserve deputy was escorting one of the Congressman's aides around and at that point the aide told the reserve deputy that, "Yeah, Congressman indicated that there had been an April 9th bomb threat made to the federal building." Apparently no documentations can verify or support the claims, but certainly these are two long-time members of the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Reserve who tell me that they've been haunted for the past two-and-a-half years by what they knew, that they said they've talked freely about it with other Oklahoma County Sheriff's deputies, indicating that whenever they would see news media coverage of the government denying any prior knowledge, they would almost laugh about it and say, "Well, we know of at least one individual who had supposed prior knowledge." Let's see if KTOK's Kim Edwards has his monitoring problem rectified. EDWARDS: Yes, I do, Jerry, and you're exactly right. The deputies do say that they were haunted by this, knowing that at least one government official claims he knew that this was going to happen, and then that's why they finally decided to come forward. And apparently they will talk today and hopefully answer questions about why they waited and what exactly they heard from Representative Ernest Istook on the night of April 19th. Again, Representative Istook apparently -- or according to Oklahoma County Reserve Deputies -- said that he knew this was going to happen and talked about a bomb threat that had been called in on April the 9th and also claimed to have knowledge of a right-wing, fundamentalist Muslim group working in Oklahoma City. What we can tell you right now: at the podium, Kathy Wilburn, the widow of Glenn Wilburn, who was instrumental in getting the Oklahoma County grand jury to investigate prior knowledge of the bombing. She is talking to reporters and others that have gathered here at the bomb site about her experiences since the day of April 18th. She is joined by Representative Charles Key who is about to step forward to the podium. And let's go now live to the podium to cover the comments made by Representative Charles Key. CHARLES KEY (State Representative): No one of us, and no one, would have ever wanted anything to have happened that happened here two-and-a-half years ago or the ordeal that we've gone through to simply find the truth. As we've seen with the deadlocked jury recently in Denver, it's obvious that there is much more to this case than what some in the government want us to know about. But the government refuses to admit that there were other murders and we know that there were. Why do they refuse to admit that and why do they refuse to continue to look for them? Why has it been so difficult to get answers to the questions? Why have we been fought every step of the way in an unprecidented manner? When Glenn and I and Kathy and Edye and many others began this quest more than two years ago, we had a lot of questions, and we've had a lot of those questions answered since then. With these two witnesses coming forward today, we hope that many more questions will begin to be answered. In October, Don Hammonds and David Kulkendorfer came to us... contacted my office, I should say. It took us several weeks of playing phone tag before we could finally make contact. And just approximately six weeks ago we got together, sat down, and talked to them and heard their story -- the same story you're going to hear in just a few minutes. These men are very courageous. They're telling just the truth, just what they know, and we think that people deserve to know what the truth is. And the grand jury has had this information passed to them and they'll hear this testimony and see their sworn affidavits in the very near future. So I want to introduce right now to you David and Don. They'll tell their stories. After they finish, I'll come up and make a few comments, and then after that time, all of us will be glad to field any questions. So I'll introduce to you David at this time. DAVID KULKENDORFER (Oklahoma County Sheriff's Reserve Deputy): Hello. Can you hear me okay? My name is David Kulkendorfer and I'm an insurance agent in Oklahoma City by occupation. I'm also a reserve for the Oklahoma County Sheriff's office, a reserve deputy, which is my public service. And during the day of the bombing, I was on South Shields heading north to an appointment when I saw a plume of smoke go up. I was at the intersection of S.E. 66th and Shields. At that time, I knew something bad happened. By the black smoke, I thought possibly an oil tanker or something exploded. And by the direction of the smoke, I said, "That's right downtown and something is wrong. They're going to need some help." So I got on the phone and called my office and told them to cancel my appointment, that I wasn't going to be in. I said, "There is something going on in the city and I'm going to check." I think that was my responsibility as a reserve. When I got here... I got here about 9:30 and it was very chaotic, obviously most of you know. So I just basically started to help and tried to do what I could do to be of assistance. I wound up down at the northwest corner of the building, and I entered the building at that point and worked my way through the building looking for survivors, calling out to see if anybody could hear me. And I worked my way along with an Oklahoma City police officer and an FBI agent. We worked our way to the seventh floor. And at that time, we were heading west to east on the seventh floor and a fireman came from the other direction and said, "You don't need to go that way. I've already cleared it." So we were in the hallway heading back to go down the stairway, and on the south side of the building we could see people running, scattering. We kind of looked at each other and said, "Well, what's going on?" And we heard, "A bomb! There's another bomb! Get out of the building!" So we immediately gathered ourselves and ran to the stairway and started down the stairs. And as we were going down the stairs, this lady police officer, she stepped on some debris and twisted her ankle so we basically had to carry her the rest of the way. As we left the building, the FBI agent picked up her up and carried her to the safe area. Well, after the "all clear," I came back up and I said, "Well, what I need to do is I need to get organized and get in uniform." So I called my wife and told her, "Call the office. I'm not coming back today. Get my uniform. I'll meet you at the Sheriff's Office." I met her at the Sheriff's Office and changed clothes and came back and pretty well just tried to do what I could do. We went into the building continuing with the search and rescue. Well, that went on throughout the day. Then that evening, when the rains came, we'd pretty well backed off and we went to our command post and got rain gear, came back out after the rain. And I was pretty well working the northwest corner when I was approached by a U.S. Marshal and said, "We got the building. The fire department turned it over to us. This is now a federal crime scene. We need to secure the area. Nobody comes in except...." He said, "Keep all non-essentials out." I said, "What's non-essential?" And he said, "The only ones to come in are the search and rescue and law enforcement." I said, "Okay." So, basically that was my responsibility from that point on, to keep everybody out. Well, later on, during the evening, a lot of public officials started to show up. The mayor showed up with a contingency, and the district attorney, the governor, and several dignitaries. I was standing approximately in front of the Water Resources Building, to try to keep people out and watching the search and rescue. As I looked to my left, I could see Congressman Istook kind of working his way east to west. Well, he worked his way up to me and he stopped to my left and introduced himself and we kind of small-talked a little bit about, "How's everything? It's a bad, bad, bad deal." And he made the comment to me, he says, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen." And I said, "Excuse me?" And he says, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen. We got word through our sources that there is a radical fundamental Islamic group in Oklahoma City and that they were going to bomb the federal building." And I didn't say anything because I really had nothing to say. But a little bit of small talk later, he kind of looked at me and said, "What department are you with?" He came over in front of me, and at that time I had a raincoat on and my campaign hat from the county. He looked at the emblem on the campaign hat. And I said, "Well, I'm a deputy with the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office." And he said, "Oh! I thought you were with the Highway Patrol," and immediately stopped talking and turned around and walked away. And really, the reason I haven't said anything to this point... Don and I have talked about it every time we were on duty, and I thought, "Since the grand jury was in session, I'm sure this informoation is going to come out. It's got to. Because I'm sure if he made a comment to me, other people know also." And this last fair, when Don and I were working, we got to discussing it again, and Don said, "Well, let me do this." He said, "Let me call Representative Key anonymously and tell him what we have to say, and if they want to hear us, fine; if they don't, fine. But at least we'll know either they know it or they don't." So he called Representative Key and through telephone tag we finally made an appointment and we basically said what we had to say. And later, Representative Key called us back for another appointment... another conference and said, "We need to take this to another level." He said, "What you have to say is very important." So that's why we're here. And like I said, that's all I know. I don't know the befores, the afters, or the what fors. All I know is this is what was said to me and that's what I'm repeating to you. DON HAMMONDS: (Oklahoma County Sheriff's Reserve Deputy): My name is Don Hammonds and I'm a businessman and I've also been a reserve deputy with Oklahoma County since 1992. And I'm just going to jump in right kind of where Dave... where we were working together on the northwest side. And our job was to also give people coming in, like the mayor and stuff like that, hard hats and make sure they had hard hats, and also not to let anybody take pictures. I noticed a lady back behind me by a back hoe over there taking pictures. I went up there and approached her and told her that, you know, "You can't take pictures here, ma'am." And she identified herself as an attorney, Lanney... Lana Tyree , and she was with Ernest Istook. She said they were friends and she was an amateur photographer and that she was taking pictures for Ernest Istook. So I agreed to let her come on in, but I told her she had to make sure she took pictures of... up, and no facial shots of anybody because they were photo sensitive. So she was... I was with her as she was taking pictures of the building and stuff like that. And she made a comment to me that Istook told her that they were aware of a bomb threat since April 9th, and that's all she said to me. That's the kind of stuff that... after it all happened... I mean, you didn't really think much about it until this grand jury and stuff stated probing into it and people were claiming that there wasn't any prior knowledge. I started thinking about it and got with Dave, and we put two and two together. I mean, hey! Somebody knew about a prior bomb threat. This ought to be known. And you know, I was given a date -- April 9th -- that they knew about it, ten days before. And you know... So we feel like, you know, it's only fair that everyone knows the truth that there is... you know, what's going on and who else knows about this. Thank you. CHARLES KEY: Again, we'll take questions here in just a moment, but I guess some final thoughts are that we've had a lot of information. It's been a long process that we've been through, and it's probably still got a long ways to go. We've had a lot of people contact us with information, and I'm sure, and I understand the county grand jury, now that the two trials are over, they've had a lot of information come forward. And I can say to you that there will be more very significant, dynamic information like this come forward in the future. This is just the first of some major revelations that prove what Glenn Wilburn said quite a number of months ago, and that he was right -- that there was significant prior knowledge. And there are those that know that. And I want to take this time to call again on people that do know information to come forward, take it to the grand jury. You can get it to our organization if you'd like. Because the truth needs to be told. It deserves to be told. And many people may be implicated because of their silence and their lack of action in regard to this. The people of this State and of this city and of this country deserve to know the truth. There is no reason why you can't just lay all of the facts and the truth out about this case or any other case and let justice find its way through what the truth and what the facts are. And that's all we want. That's all most people want. And I can't think of any reason why that can't be done in this case. Again, we've had so much trouble. We've been fought in an unprecidented way, at every turn and every step. JERRY BOHNEN: You've been listening to a live coverage on KTOK -- a news conference held by State Representative Charles Key revealing the testimony or the claims of two Oklahoma County Reserve Deputy Sheriffs, that Congressman Ernest Istook told them the night of the bombing, "We knew this was going to happen, we blew it." So far, no comment from Congressman Ernest Istook, but we'll have him. He'll be joining us live at 4:15 p.m. on the KTOK Afternoon Report. We're eleven minutes away from two o'clock. Live from the KTOK News Center, I'm Jerry Bohnen. [END OF PRESS CONFERENCE COVERAGE] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: ABC News Site on Philadelphia Gun Suit (fwd) Date: 16 Jan 1998 01:41:46 PST At the moment, (1:00 AM), it's up to: No: 78.2 percent Yes: 21.7 percent Total: 755 On Jan 15, David Wisniewski wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] More on the Philadelphia gun suit: http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/philaguns0114/index.html Plus you can vote on the question, "Do you think gun makers should pay for the costs associated with gun violence?" Yes: 27.1% No: 72.8% out of 545 votes -- David Wisniewski **FOR SALE: EGW 38 Super Caspian IPSC Open w/ 8 mags** davidwiz@erols.com USPSA/IPSC A-28835 http://www.uspsa.org What is past is prologue [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: OKC-Key Responds to Istook (fwd) Date: 16 Jan 1998 07:35:42 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Transcript - 01/15/98 - KTOK Radio, Oklahoma City: Charles Key Responds to Congressman Ernest Istook: JERRY BOHNEN (News Director, KTOK Radio AM 1000): State Representative Charles Key made another advancement in his bombing investigation today, presenting two reserve county sheriff's deputies who claim they were told the night of the bombing by Congressman Ernest Istook the government knew of the coming attack. Representative Key, the Congressman denies it, calls it garbage, and so does attorney Lana Tyree who was also named in the claims of the deputies. Any reaction about that? CHARLES KEY (State Representative): Well, I guess on the one hand it is to be expected. It's unfortunate that this had to happen like this, but it's =85 the fact is, these two gentlemen - and I have to emphasize the word "gentlemen," very credible individuals - came forward and they had sworn affidavits. They are willing to go before the grand jury. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this. And their statements are as true, I believe, as they say they are, word for word. BOHNEN: I talked to Lana Tyree and to the Congressman. Both believe=85 I think Lana Tyree more than the Congressman perhaps=85 that the deputies are simply confused about what they heard and the order of how they heard it and things like that. KEY: Well, I've heard some of the responses on some of the media accounts so far, and what's always interesting to me is when you have Congressman Istook or others who have responded to things like this, that they like to say time affects their memory and they are misunderstanding now. You know, it always is a one-way street. Their memory is affected, but Congressman Istook's is not. When he says things like I've had these people make false statements, that's absolutely ludicrous. These people came to us. We were very careful in how we handled their testimony. So, you know, it's always a one-way street on these kind of deals. And these guys are willing to take polygraphs. They're willing to go before the grand jury. And they, like I, have a whole lot to lose because of this and not much to gain. BOHNEN: But let me clarify something. I mean, you didn't contact the Congressman to find out, correct? KEY: That's correct. BOHNEN: Did you talk to Lana Tyree? KEY: No, I didn't. BOHNEN: Why not? KEY: Well, frankly, after everything that we've=85 I think the best way to understand and answer that is for people to understand everything that we've been through. We've been viciously and personally attacked from the very beginning, and misrepresented in many cases along the way. And I didn't expect to have the kind of response that you would want to have. I think the response=85 What I mean by that is I would expect somebody like the Congressman or Lana Tyree on the one hand to possibly deny this. They had their opportunity to say what they believe was the truth, or what they want to represent as being the truth, and I think it just needs to be left there and let the grand jury look at it. BOHNEN: In other words=85 I have a question then about your role and the investigators and such and what you're trying to do. I mean, should there be some quality control over what you're finding and what you're trying to present to the grand jury? Do you feel maybe you shouldn't have to actually investigate and verify or give more credence to the claims of some of the people who are coming to you with their stories? KEY: Well, the bottom line, Jerry, is that there is quality control, and we have gone very thoroughly over what these people and everything else that we've done. Quality control in my opinion would not include going to the Congressman, as in this case, or the attorney Lana Tyree, and if they would have responded and said, "No, we didn't make those statements," then we don't bring it before the grand jury. On the contrary, I think it goes before the grand jury anyway. That's the proper way to do it. BOHNEN: And the Governor today making a statement as well that he thinks you're flirting with legislative censuring. KEY: Well, the Governor makes a lot of statements without thinking. The Governor has said a lot of things about this bombing case that will come back to haunt him. And he needs to show a little restraint about what he says in these kinds of situations because there's a lot of evidence out there that is going to continue to prove and back up the fact that there was prior knowledge. You know, you have about 500 people who are victims, family members and survivors of the bombing, who have signed on and have the opinion that there was sufficient prior knowledge on the government's part, or they should have had sufficient prior knowledge because of the information they had. That is a huge amount of people, compared to those that are represented by the Governor and others from time to time as being survivors and family members that are on the opposite side of the fence on this issue. There is a huge discrepancy, but it's on the favor of those that say there are serious problems with the government's case, and they'll continue to back up their side of the story. BOHNEN: Final note here. You're not finished with all of this. You say you're going to have some more very dramatic or serious revelations in the coming weeks? KEY: Yes, there will be more like this, and some might even say they're more dynamic than this revelation today. And the information that we know about continues to convince us even more than we've ever been convinced before that this is a significant cover-up of prior knowledge of a sting operation that went wrong and there's a lot of people covering their hind-sides to keep that from coming out, but it is coming out. BOHNEN: Representative Charles Key, thank you for your time. KEY: Thank you. BOHNEN: We're at twenty minutes past five on the KTOK Afternoon Report. [END OF INTERVIEW] =20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: OKC-Istook Responds to Charles Key (fwd) Date: 16 Jan 1998 07:35:56 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Four Transcripts: Istook Responds to Charles Key's Press Conference Interview No. 1: Transcript: =20 KTOK interview - 01/15/98 - Congressman Ernest Istook responds to the revelations of Charles Key's press conference. Transcript begins shortly after the start of the interview (sorry about that): ERNEST ISTOOK (U.S. Representative from Oklahoma): =85to publicize such false and outrageous claims that are just a bunch of garbage. JERRY BOHNEN (New Director, KTOK Radio AM 1000): But did you talk with any deputies that night? Do you recall specifically=85. ISTOOK: I talked with lots of people, just like all of us did. All of us were talking about=85 among ourselves, talking about, you know, what's goin= g on. The news media, KTOK, as I say, in particular, was broadcasting stories about the possibility that this might be a spread of Arab terrorism. So frankly, Jerry, you were one of the ones that were working on stories and the fact that people were talking about those stories is not the same as claiming now that people were saying they had advanced knowledge of the bombing of the Murrah Building. I certainly didn't. I know of nobody in government that had any advanced knowledge. The only people that I know who had advanced knowledge of the Murrah Building bombing were Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh, the people who have been convicted of their involvement. If there's more people, then let's let the grand jury and District Attorney Bob Macy get to the bottom of it, and let's do what I'm doing. Every time there's any way that I can cooperate with any sort of investigation that relates to this, I'm doing it. But you don't do it by just jumping on rumor mills and trying to publicize rumors rather than cooperating with law enforcement. BOHNEN: In this case, I've talked to Lana Tyree , the attorney that one reserve deputy says he had a brief conversation with her, and he felt that she came on into the bomb site with you, but Ms. Tyree says no, she was there independently as a photographer and that she was there already before you arrived. ISTOOK: Well, that's correct. She was there also that evening. There was, as you know, hundreds of people on the scene that evening. And I think you can tell your listeners what I know Ms. Tyree has told you, that I never made any such claim that they are now trying to say that, well, she said that Istook said such-and-such, and she said no such thing. I'll tell you, Jerry, there's some people that are just trying to build rumor upon rumor, inuendo upon inuendo, and it's hurting. It's draining the resources that need to go into the investigation of the prosecution of the people that were actually involved, rather than taking up the time of investigators chasing down false statements such as were publicized today. I really take insult that these false statements were made about me today. BOHNEN: Representative Istook, I appreciate the time. Thank you very much, sir. ISTOOK: Thank you, Jerry. ************************** Interview No. 2: =20 Transcript: KTOK interview -- 01/15/98 - Response of Congressman Ernest Istook, Attorney Lana Tyree, and Governor Frank Keating to the revelations of Charles Key's press conference.=20 =20 JERRY BOHNEN (News Director, KTOK Radio AM 1000): Good afternoon. Another step in the investigation of the bombing by State Representative Charles Key. CHARLES KEY (State Representative): With these two witnesses coming forward today, we hope that many more questions will begin to be answered. BOHNEN: This, at an afternoon news conference to announce the testimony of two reserve deputies from Oklahoma who claim an Oklahoma Congressman had prior knowledge of the Murrah Bombing. The county reserve deputies claim Oklahoma Congressman Ernest Istook revealed the night of the Oklahoma City bombing the government had been warned about the possible attack. Reserve Deputy David Kulkendorfer recalls standing on guard duty in front of the Murrah Building and talking with the Congressman, and he says apparently another Reserve Deputy, Don Hammonds, escorted attorney Lana Tyree who came to the bomb site with the Congressman as well. Both men stepped forward recently and told their story to State Representative Charles Key who heads the investigation of the bombing. Both Istook and Tyree deny it, and Tyree is the attorney who spent time as an Oklahoma City bombing site photographer. She says the two reserve deputies are confused in believing she had information about threats before the buiding was bombed. The deputies say Tyree was at the site the night of the bombing and accompanied Istook. She says, no, but snapped some pictures of him with rescuers. LANA TYREE (Attorney): Congressman Istook told me that he appreciated it. I said, "How are things going?" He said, "Fine." We just basically small-talked for a moment and that was it. BOHNEN: But one deputy claims Tyree told him Istook had said there had been a bomb threat ten days before the bombing. Tyree says this story is absurd. Key's repeated statements suggesting the government might have been tipped off to the bombing could be getting him close to a legislative censure - so suggests Governor Frank Keating today, who says he can't understand why Representative Key continues to suggest the government knowingly allowed the bombing to happen. FRANK KEATING (Governor of Oklahoma): It's bizarre and absurd, and completely contrary to human nature. BOHNEN: And the governor praises Key's efforts, though, to identify others involved in the bombing plot. ******************* Interview No. 3: Transcript: KTOK interview - 01/15/98: ERNEST ISTOOK: (Congressman from Oklahoma): Garbage! JERRY BOHNEN: (News Director, KTOK Radio AM 1000): Good evening. It's what Congressman Ernest Istook said today about the latest Oklahoma City bombing story from State Representative Charles Key and his investigation. He denies the claims of two reserve sheriff's deputies. The two say they were told two years ago by Congressman Istook the government knew of the bomb threats against the federal building. Deputy David Kulkendorfer says Representative Istook told him the night of the bombing, as the two stood in front of the Murrah Building: DAVID KULKENDORFER (Reserve Sheriff's Deputy): He said, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen," and then he started to elaborate. He said that their sources=85 I can't remember the exact terminology, but it was their sources, were aware of a Muslim fundamentalist right-wing group in Oklahoma City, and that they were to bomb the federal building. BOHNEN: Another reserve deputy, Don Hammonds, escorted attorney Lana Tyree who reportedly came to the site with Istook. She was snapping pictures. DON HAMMONDS (Reserve Sheriff's Deputy): She just was saying that Istook said that they were aware of a bomb threat since April 9th, and the reason I remember April 9th so well is because right away I went, you know, the 19th and 9th, and there was a ten-day gap, and you can remember that ten days so easy. And I thought, "Man, they had ten days' prior knowledge of this." BOHNEN: The two reserve officers say they've been haunted for two years about what they heard the night of the bombing. They recently met with investigators for Charles Key and told their story. As for the Oklahoma City attorney, Tyree, she says it is absurd. She tells me she didn't tell any deputy Istook had told her of an April 9th bomb threat to the building. LANA TYREE (Attorney): Well, the deputy is apparently confused. The facts that he stated are not correct. BOHNEN: She had credentials to be an independent photographer for law officers and rescuers, but says no one ever told her the government had any warning of the attack. She says the two deputies are confused. ******************** Interview No. 4: JERRY BOHNEN (News Director, KTOK Radio AM 1000): Garbage! It's what Congressman Ernest Istook is saying today about some of the investigation revelations by State Representative Charles Key into the Oklahoma City bombing. First a report from KTOK's Kim Edwards about the claims of Representative Key. KIM EDWARDS (KTOK News Reporter): In an afternoon news conference set in the shadow of the Survivor Tree, Charles Key praised two witnesses that are willing to testify U.S. Representative Ernest Istook had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing. CHARLES KEY (State Representative): These men are very courageous, they're telling just the truth, just what they know, and we think that people deserve to know what the truth is. EDWARDS: The witnesses are Oklahoma County Reserve Deputies, David Kortzendorfer and Don Hammonds . They were both on duty at the Murrah Building the night of April 19th after the bombing occurred. Kortzendorfer says Istook told him point-blank, quote, "We knew this was going to happen. We blew it." Hammonds says he talked to Attorney Lana Tyree . She told him Istook was aware of a bomb threat since April the 9th. Ernest Istook denies the allegations, as does Tyree. I'm Kim Edwards, KTOK News. BOHNEN: Indeed, Congressman Istook calls the allegations "garbage," and KTOK's Bill Bateman reports from the Congressman's offices. BILL BATEMAN (KTOK News Reporter): Congressman Ernest Istook says Representative Charles Key has hurt his caused by making irresponsible and erroneous statements today. He's referring to a news conference earlier in the day in which Key claimed Istook said there was prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing. Istook says he's not part of any conspiracy of silence about the bombing. He says he's insulted by today's remarks. Istook says he's been friends with Charles Key for years, and all Key would have had to have done is pick up the phone in the last two-and-a-half years and ask him if there was any advanced warning. He says that never happened. At Congressman Istook's office, I'm Bill Bateman, KTOK News. BOHNEN: And attorney Lana Tyree makes the same claims, denying she ever had any information about the prior knowledge and that bomb threats were made before the bombing. Two reserve deputies again say Tyree told one of them the night of the bombing that Istook had said there had been a bomb threat ten days earlier. LANA TYREE (Attorney): Nobody, any time, anywhere, ever related to me any knowledge of any bomb threats at any time. BOHNEN: And she says the deputies are confused. Tyree says she was an independent photographer and credentialed for the bomb site and was there when Representative Istook arrived. The deputies said Tyree arrived with Istook. But Tyree says she only took a few pictures for the Congressm= an. [END OF INTERVIEWS] - [COMING UP NEXT: Charles Key Answer Ernest Istook] =20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: OKC-Separatist reportedly warned of 'something' (fwd) Date: 16 Jan 1998 10:38:22 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --------------- NOTE: Regarding this statement below: "...the FBI...has 'no confirmed information that Mr. McVeigh has ever been in eastern Washington or north Idaho'...." -- Looks like the FBI neglected to interview Don Stewart. --------------- Separatist reportedly warned of 'something' before Oklahoma City bombing Copyright =A9 1998 The Associated Press=20 SPOKANE, Wash. (January 16, 1998 08:31 a.m. EST http://www.nando.net) -- A white separatist awaiting trial for a string of crimes may have known the Oklahoma City bombing was being planned days before the blast, The Spokesman-Review reported Friday.=20 Chevie Kehoe, 24, showed up at a Spokane motel on April 19, 1995, about 45 minutes before the bomb went off, and wanted to watch CNN, the newspaper reported. When a news bulletin reported the explosion, Kehoe was ecstatic and said "it was about time," the former manager of The Shadows Motel & RV Park told the newspaper, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Days before that, he had mentioned to me that there's going to be something happening on the 19th and it's going to wake people up," he said. An FBI agent said the agency was interested in the man's comments, but was unsure of his credibility. The former manager also claimed that Timothy McVeigh stayed at the motel with Kehoe a few months before the bombing. Sometime in late 1994 or early 1995, the man said, Kehoe approached him and asked if he could give a free room to a friend. There were vacancies that night, so he provided the room and didn't ask the man to sign the motel registry. "I was introduced to a gentleman named Tim, and I now believe he was Timothy McVeigh," the former manager told the newspaper, describing him as tall and slender with a military-style haircut.=20 "I'm 75 percent certain it was him, McVeigh, but I could be wrong." McVeigh was sentenced to die after he was found guilty of murder and conspiracy in the bombing, which killed 168 people. Terry Nichols was convicted of conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter earlier this month, and is awaiting his sentence. The FBI has said it's investigation pointed only to McVeigh and Nichols. But a grand jury in Oklahoma is investigating allegations of a government cover-up and a larger conspiracy in the bombing. The FBI and Justice Department have dismissed the claims, with Attorney General Janet Reno saying last week that she is satisfied that "we have identified the people responsible." "We have no reason to believe what (the former Shadows manager) is saying is credible, but we're interested in what he has to say," said Burdena Pasenelli, special agent in charge of the FBI Seattle regional office. The former manager is a key prosecution witness against Kehoe and two other men indicted in Little Rock, Ark., last month on charges they planned to revolt against the U.S. government and create the Aryan Peoples Republic, where citizenship would be limited to certain white people. Kehoe and another man also were charged with killing Arkansas gun dealer William Mueller, his wife and 8-year-old stepdaughter in 1996. And Kehoe faces yet another trial in Ohio after a shootout with officers last year that grabbed headlines because it was captured on a police cruiser video machine. Federal agents first interviewed the motel manager in October 1996 when they learned that an arsenal of stolen firearms and survivalist supplies were stored at the motel, the Spokesman-Review reported. Agents said he didn't mention seeing McVeigh, though he told the newspaper he did mention it in passing. Agents re-interviewed the manager this week. Pasenelli wouldn't say what the FBI would do with the information. A timeline developed by the FBI on McVeigh's whereabouts in the months before the bombing shows there are some missing days. But the agency has "no confirmed information that Mr. McVeigh has ever been in eastern Washington or north Idaho," Pasenelli said. Kehoe's younger brother, Cheyne, was convicted this week of attempted murder, assault and carrying a concealed weapon in the Feb. 15 videotaped shootout with two Wilmington, Ohio, police officers. His sentence is pendin= g. The two brothers are from Colville, north of Spokane. Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net =20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Perrine Subject: long...Another massive government cover up of murder Date: 16 Jan 1998 14:27:49 -0800 [22] Cover-up in Cell 709A By Mary A. Fischer GQ Magazine December 1997 Note: This is a story of government abuse, murder and cover-up by Janet Reno's Injustice Department. Interestingly, the whistle is blown by Col. William T. Gormley, a U.S. Forces pathologist. In the September 1996 issue of GQ, Senior Writer Mary A. Fischer unraveled the suspicious events surrounding the August 21, 1995, death of inmate Kenneth Trentadue while he was in custody at the Federal Transfer Center (FTC) in Oklahoma City. Prison officials claimed Trentadue, 44, had committed suicide. U.S. Bureau of Prison (BOP) guards said they found him hanging by a braided bedsheet in his cell. The story would have ended there had prison officials gone ahead with their plan to cremate Trentadue's body immediately. But they ran into an unexpected obstacle--the Trentadue family, led by Kenneth's older brother, Jesse, an astute and aggressive trial lawyer. The family demanded that Kenneth's body be shipped home to Westminster, California. When they opened the coffin and saw his bruised and battered body, their suspicions were confirmed. From the wounds on his body, it appeared that Kenneth had been beaten to death. Jesse Trentadue and GQ conducted a lengthy investigation, uncovering information and tracking down witnesses, both inside the prison and out, who provided evidence of a brutal struggle that took place between Trentadue and a group of federal guards. Rather than shedding light on the incident, the federal bureaucracy has kept the matter shrouded in darkness. The first GQ story revealed that two days after arriving at the FTC Kenneth Trentadue was placed in solitary confinement. It was not the first time Trentadue had seen the inside of a cell. In his youth, he had robbed banks and eventually served six years in a California prison. When he got out, he seemingly turned his life around. He married, found employment and began a family. During a routine traffic stop in 1995, Trentadue was arrested for an old parole violation. Two weeks later, while he was in custody, his wife gave birth to a son. Two days after he arrived at the FTC, and only a few hours after being placed in solitary, Kenneth Trentadue was dead. Steven Cole, an inmate orderly who cleaned Trentadue's cell the morning he died, told GQ of large pools of blood he found on the floor, under the bed and on the sheets, and streaks of blood around a panic button, where Trentadue had apparently tried, in vain, to summon help. Several inmates who spoke to GQ said they had been visited by FBI and BOP officials after the article appeared and told to keep quiet. The magazine itself was banned from the prison. The article had a better reception outside Oklahoma: It became a finalist for the 1997 National Magazine Award for reporting. GQ has continued to follow the story. Now, more than a year later, there has been a much anticipated development. On October 9, a federal grand jury in Oklahoma City, directed by Washington, D.C.-based prosecutors, found no evidence of foul play. The case is far from over, however. The state of Oklahoma has taken over the investigation, and it appears that indictments against several individuals will be forthcoming. A civil suit is also in the works, and as this article was being completed, an anonymous source from the FTC mailed a set of graphic photos that may prove to be the smoking gun in the case. The second part of the story is, in many ways, more disturbing than the first. What began as a tragedy for those close to Kenneth Trentadue is now, tow years after his death, overshadowed by a larger story of bungling or worse within the Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI and the BOP. Throughout her investigation of this story, Fischer made repeated attempts to speak with officials from the Federal Transfer Center, the Bureau of Prisons, the FBI and the Department of Justice. None would comment. Despite the medical examiner's directive to treat the case like a murder, the BOP and the FBI acted as if it had been a clear-cut suicide. The cover-up began the morning Kenneth Trentadue died. At 5:20 A.M., Tammi Gillis, one of the Oklahoma City medical examiner's investigators, received a call from Captain Ron Sheffer at the Federal Transfer Center, who told her that an inmate had committed suicide. When Gillis arrived at the prison, she met acting warden Marie Carter in the infirmary to view Trentadue's body. The warden, Thomas Kindt, was on vacation, leaving Carter to deal with the first death to occur at the Department of Justice's new, $80 million facility. It was a state-of-the-art institution, located on the perimeter of the city's airport and designed to be escape and suicide proof. Trentadue's lifeless body lay on an infirmary gurney. Carter talked about his death being a suicide by hanging, an assessment that struck Gillis as premature, considering the condition of Trentadue's body. It was covered with bruises, cuts and dried blood, and the skull was cracked in three places. "Where did he get the cuts to his neck?" Gillis asked. "A razor," Carter replied. "They're up in his cell looking for it now." Gillis found that curious. Razors were not allowed in the maximum security unit where Trentadue had died. Next Gillis asked to see the ligature used in the hanging. A guard brought her a twenty-three-inch braided bedsheet. Gillis demanded to see Trentadue's cell. As the medical examiner's representative, she had a right under state law and Bureau of Prisons policy to examine the death scene and collect evidence to support a subsequent investigation. But she was refused entry. "Carter told me I couldn't go into the cell," says Gillis. "She said it was still being cleaned." Gillis went to the seventh-floor solitary-confinement unit but was only allowed to peer into cell 709A through a small window in the door. She saw a plastic butter knife and a toothpaste tube on the bed and blood splattered all over the walls and floor. It struck her as strange that a hanging would produce all that blood. When Kevin Rowland, the medical examiner's outspoken chief investigator, heard Gillis had been denied access to the cell, he immediately called acting warden Carter. "This needs to be treated like a crime scene," Rowland remembers telling Carter. "She said, 'We do scene investigations ourselves.' 'No, this needs to be treated like a crime scene and investigated by the FBI. Are you going to call the FBI?' She said, 'No. We do our own investigations.'" Rowland's next question proved crucial. Did any inmates have access to Trentadue in that unit? Her answer: no. Rowland learned something else that aroused his suspicions. Kenneth Freeman, the FTC officer in charge of special investigations, told Rowland that the prison's video camera used to document death scenes had not worked on that morning. The battery was dead, Freeman said. Rowland found "it even harder to believe" what Freeman told him next. A second battery had been tried, but it was also dead. The only official record of the scene was some color photographs that Freeman had taken, but when Rowland finally saw them four months later, he sensed they didn't make a complete set. None of them showed the entire cell, and the photos of Trentadue's injuries were limited to his head and neck. There were, for example, no photos of the bruises on the soles of his feet or those on his chest and the back and knuckles of his right hand. By 8:30 that morning, Trentadue's body had been transported to the medical examiner's office. When Rowland saw the body, he called the FBI himself. "You should treat this like a homicide," he told Special Agent Jeff Jenkins. Two hours later, Fred Jordan, Oklahoma's chief medical examiner, had completed the autopsy. In his twenty-six years as the state's pathologist, Jordan had examined thousands of dead bodies and been involved in the high-profile cases of Karen Silkwood and the 168 Oklahoma City bombing victims. But he had never seen a suicide like this before. "There was so much trauma to the head and neck that couldn't be explained by suicide," Jordan says now. The multiple blunt-force injuries, for example, suggested Trentadue had been beaten by something hard, like a baton. The ligature mark on Trentadue's neck was consistent with hanging, but Jordan surmised that something other than the bedsheet had killed Trentadue. "It is very possible he was knocked out first and then strung up after he was rendered unconscious. But I can't prove it, because the government prevented me from doing my job," he says. Jordan's theory helped explain another odd finding. Despite all the blood on the body and the bedsheets, there was no trace of blood on the vent from which BOP officials said Trentadue had hanged himself. Back in August 1995, Jordan and Rowland weren't talking to anyone outside their office, not to the Trentadue family and certainly not to the press. For the time being, they kept quiet about their hunches and assumed the FBI would do its job and investigate the incident. Although Jordan believed Trentadue had probably been murdered, he was unable to put anything more definitive than "undetermined" for the manner of death in his autopsy report because his staff had been prevented from completing its investigation when the FTC staff sanitized Trentadue's cell. From that day forward, despite Jordan's opinions and Rowland's directives to treat the incident like a homicide, the BOP--and later the FBI--proceeded as if the death had been a clear-cut case of suicide. At 8:45 on the morning of August 21, before Jordan had completed the autopsy, Marie Carter telephoned Wilma Trentadue. "I'm sorry to tell you this," Carter said to Kenneth's mother, "but your son is dead. He committed suicide." Stunned and confused, Wilma Trentadue considered for a moment the prison's offer to cremate the body but said she couldn't give that permission until she talked to Kenneth's wife, Carmen Aguilar, and his older brother, Jesse. "He'll know what to do," Wilma told Carter. "He's a lawyer." Jesse Trentadue called Carter immediately. The prison was not to cremate Kenneth's body, he instructed; the family wanted the body shipped home. During that conversation, as reported in the first GQ article, Carter, perhaps unwittingly, gave important clues. She told Jesse his brother was "unharmed" when he went into the segregated unit, and more important, she reiterated what she had told Rowland: The only people who'd had access to him in that unit were guards. Five days later, Kenneth's body arrived in a coffin at a funeral home in Westminster, California. Although pained by what they saw, the Trentadue family meticulously photographed the battered body, convinced the explicit photos would prove their judgment that he had been murdered. Jesse began disseminating the photos to the media and various federal officials. On August 29, he flew to Oklahoma City and hand delivered a set to FBI agent Jeff Jenkins. The following day, he went to Dallas and dropped off a set at the office of BOP regional counsel Michael Hood. He sent sets by Federal Express to BOP director Kathleen Hawk, BOP assistant director Wallace Cheney and Attorney General Janet Reno. "Anyone who saw those photos would have to conclude that Kenneth Trentadue's death was not simply a suicide by hanging," Jordan says. "There is so much violence associated with his death that it leaves many, many questions." By the time Michael Hood saw the photos, he already knew about the incident. As the BOP's legal representative, he was responsible for overseeing everything that happened in federal prisons in his area. He had visited the FTC on August 22, the day after Trentadue's death, and essentially took charge of the investigation. The apparent conflict of interest--the BOP was being allowed to investigate itself--didn't seem to concern anyone in the Justice Department. On September 1, despite having seen the disturbing photos, Hood and a number of other federal officials approved a press release that would prove to be the only public comment on the death to be issued by the FTC. The press release stated that Trentadue's death "has been tentatively ruled as suicide by asphyxiation." It went on to say that the "cuts and abrasions" on his body were "self-inflicted." When he saw the press release, Rowland was furious. "They must think we're idiots," he thought. He called Hood in Dallas. "I told him it wasn't right to decide the manner of death and that there was no indication it was a suicide." At this point in the story, a cover-up that began in Oklahoma appears to have spread to Washington, D.C. At the very time the FBI should have been investigating the incident, FTC staff, Washington's acting BOP public-information officer Dan Dunne and other Justice Department officials involved in approving the press release had declared the death a suicide without waiting for the medical examiner's report. Yet a psychological reconstruction (a detailed investigation into inmate's suicide, mandated by BOP regulations) was not conducted after Trentadue's death. This revelation came from the BOP itself in a June 1996 letter to Jesse Trentadue from Scott Bomson, the BOP's deputy regional counsel in Dallas at the time. (He has since been transferred to BOP headquarters in Washington.) The only person who has authority to alter that investigative requirement, BOP policy statements show, is the regional director--who, at the time of the incident, was Charles Turnbo, who has since retired. Jordan and Rowland had assumed the FBI was investigating the case, but today they know otherwise. The bureau did not begin to interview witnesses, including FTC guards, until December, four months after the incident, and only then after mounting pressure from the public and the Trentadue family. The failure of the FBI to lead the investigation violated a 1994 memo of understanding between BOP director Hawk and FBI director Louis Freeh that said the FBI, not the BOP, would investigate possibly criminal acts in federal prisons. "This thing was bungled from the beginning," says Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the FBI and the BOP. "The FBI had the obligation to investigate this. But I think somebody at Justice assigned this case to the BOP." The policy breach might be explained by something GQ learned a year ago. There had been violent guard-on-inmate incidents at the FTC before Trentadue's death and, increasingly, at other federal prisons around the country. But attention to these incidents had always been contained by the BOP and received little independent investigation or press coverage. Most inmates don't have the means, the family support or the stamina to mount a case against agents of the federal government, and their complaints usually drift away. In the weeks following August 21, it appeared that the Trentadue story would also be contained. But officials with the BOP ran up against they had not reckoned on--this dead inmate had a family that would insist on justice. "Suddenly, the whole thing snowballed, and there was more at stake than a few unruly guards," Rowland speculates. "They feared the whole federal prison system would be put under scrutiny." Unbeknownst to the Trentadue family and almost everyone else, the FBI had botched the investigation from the outset. Two weeks after the incident, Rowland received a call from the FBI's Jeff Jenkins, who was distraught. "What do I do? Rowland recalls Jenkins asking. "My car smells like a decomposed body." It seems the agent had put Trentadue's bloody sheets and clothing in the trunk of his car two weeks earlier to take to the lab for DNA analysis and then forgot about them. "How could you be so stupid?" Rowland groaned. "You've destroyed evidence." It was a crucial loss, the evidentiary value of the items ruined by time and the hot September temperatures. Since the evidence in Trentadue's cell had been destroyed when FTC personnel cleaned it, Trentadue's prison clothing and sheets were the only evidence remaining that might have shown blood samples belonging to attackers. The FBI, when it officially began its investigation in December, replaced Jenkins with Special Agent Tom Linn. Some evidence of a brutal struggle did surface four months after the incident. In December, as I previously reported, the Oklahoma state medical examiner's office was finally allowed into Trentadue's cell, and Jordan and Rowland made the inspection. They applied a blood-detecting substance called Luminol to the floor and walls, and even seventeen weeks after the incident, the cell, said Jordan, "lit up like a Christmas tree." On their way out of the special housing unit, they heard guard mutter, "I don't care who they are. They can stick it up their fucking ass. This is our turf." But the real antagonism between Jordan and the Feds was yet to come. In May 1996, I stumbled on another important evidentiary discovery when I interviewed the former warden of the Federal Transfer Center, Thomas Kindt, at his home in College Station, Texas. Kindt, who at the time of the death had been on vacation, preparing for his retirement to Texas two weeks later, told me that a large stack of color photos existed of Trentadue's body and the cell, though he had not seen them. This conflicted with what Kenneth Freeman, the FTC officer in charge of the prison's investigation, had told--and later shown--Rowland. "We've never seen evidence of that kind of volume," Rowland says. "If what Kindt says is true, it's obvious the FTC only gave us what they wanted us to have." Meanwhile, back in Oklahoma City, the FBI, led by Agent Linn, continued its investigation. Several people interviewed by the FBI say the interrogations seemed designed to build a case for suicide, rather than serve as an open-ended inquiry. In December 1996, when FBI agents fanned out in Trentadue's old neighborhood in Southern California, various relatives and neighbors interviewed by the agents say they were asked questions such as Isn't it true that Kenneth drank heavily and that he and his wife were having trouble? It was a total lie," says Carmen Aguilar, Trentadue's widow. "Nothing could have been more wrong. We had waited a long time to be together, and we were very happy." The BOP's Michael Hood offered another theory. Rowland recalls Hood suggested to him that Trentadue killed himself because he had AIDS, a notion that Jordan, who had performed the autopsy, knew to be false. Over the months, Linn periodically visited Jordan and Rowland and brought documents from his investigation that, Rowland believes, were intended to persuade them that the death was a suicide. In March 1996, Linn brought Jordan a copy of his notes from an interview he had conducted with Cornell Thornton, an inmate who had occupied the cell next to Trentadue's. According to Linn's notes, Thornton said that Trentadue was shouting and jumping on and off the sink, and that he saw him hanging from a vent in his cell. It was categorically denied by Thornton when I talked to him last year: "I never said those things. Kenneth Trentadue was not behaving strangely." Other misinformation was emanating from the federal bureaucracy in Washington. As early as October 12, 1995, BOP director Kathleen Hawk wrote to Jesse Trentadue that her bureau was "cooperating fully with. . .the Medical Examiner's Office in Oklahoma City." Jesse wrote back and called her letter "horseshit." Hawk had also assured Jesse that he could contact BOP regional counsel Michael Hood with his questions, but by late September Hood had stopped returning Jesse's calls and answering his letters. Wallace Cheney, the BOP second-in-command, distorted the facts even more. In April 1996, he responded to an inquiry about the case from Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. Cheney assured Feinstein that on the morning of Trentadue's death, "a representative of the Oklahoma Medical Examiner's Office came to the institution, viewed Kenneth Michael Trentadue and examined the cell. The cell had not been disturbed except for the removal of the body." Cheney's statements were "a lie," say Jordan, whose staff was refused entry to the cell. "They were trying to put out grass fires within the bureaucracy." Remarks like Cheney's served to stall the investigation and hold congressional inquiries at bay. After receiving Cheney's letter, Feinstein declined to intervene on behalf of the Trentadue family. Rather than collapsing when faced with each new obstacle, Jesse Trentadue was emboldened. He sent Cheney a Western-style belt with the name Wally embossed on it, so "you will have no trouble remembering who you are when you finally pull your head out of your ass." Cheney returned the belt with a short note saying he was not allowed to accept gifts. Jesse sent the belt to Janet Reno and asked her to give it to Cheney. The belt was never returned. On another front, Jesse filed about twenty Freedom of Information requests with the BOP and the FBI, hoping to discover, among other things, the names of the guards who were on duty in the special housing unit the night his brother died. All his requests for substantive documents were denied. The BOP did send him a partial list of BOP employees on duty August 20 and 21, but conspicuously absent were the names of any special-housing-unit guards. After the first GQ article appeared, however, a number of sources from inside the prison contacted Jesse and GQ, and furnished the names of two guards--Rodney De Champlain and Bryan Donnelly--who purportedly knew something about the incident. Prior to testifying before the federal grand jury in May, inmate Herb Brandenburg, in an interview with an attorney, said that Donnelly came to work the day after Trentadue died "with a tape or Band-Aid on his nose." The BOP list shows that Donnelly was on duty the night Trentadue died. De Champlain, according to the list, left work at 4 P.M. on August 20, roughly eleven hours before Trentadue died. An inmate who asked that his last name not be used but whose first and middle names are Nick Anthony provided a different account in court documents. Nick Anthony, who arrived at the FTC A few weeks after Trentadue died, states in his affidavit that De Champlain "admitted to having killed an inmate named Kenneth Michael Trentadue. De Champlain said that he and his friends could also kill me anytime they wanted. De Champlain specifically told me that 'no one would be able to do shit about it or even care what happened to a piece-of-shit convict like you'; that 'one day, you will just be found swinging form a bedsheet.'" De Champlain, GQ has learned, was notorious with at least some inmates at the FTC. "It's safe to assume he is no Boy Scout," says a public defender handling a defendant's case involving De Champlain and an inmate at Federal Correctional Institution Fort Dix, in New Jersey, where De Champlain transferred some time after the Trentadue incident. The inmate is charged with assaulting De Champlain and another guard last February, but the defense claims that the one guard actually assaulted the inmate (who was late for kitchen duty) while De Champlain watched. In preparing for the trial, which began in late October, the public defender had interviewed and planned to call five inmate witnesses from Fort Dix and the FTC, including Nick Anthony, to establish De Champlain's alleged pattern of abuse. The complaints include allegations of beatings, hitting the testicles of an inmate, spitting in inmates' food and throwing feces in their cells. "The allegations are scurrilous," says Peter Till, the lawyer representing De Champlain in the Trentadue family's civil suit. (De Champlain, GQ has learned, has left the federal prison system entirely. He is now a detention-enforcement officer with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.) Donnelly still works at the FTC. Three weeks after Trentadue died, he was allegedly involved in an attack on Cuban inmate Juan Richard-Gonzales. In a letter to me, Richard-Gonzales said he was beaten by four guards who stomped on his head and broke his neck. (The medical and administrative reports Richard-Gonzales sent corroborate his neck fracture and identify Donnelly as allegedly being involved in the incident.) Curtis Rice, a former FTC inmate, provided new details to the federal grand jury about the morning of August 21. Rice said he saw cell 709A blocked off with crime-scene tape and a BOP investigation under way. He also saw a metal-wire laundry cart full of bloody SORT (special riot team) uniforms. Following Trentadue's death, Rice said, several guards in the special housing unit, De Champlain among them, were transferred. Acting warden Carter was also transferred and now works at Federal Correctional Institution Estill, in South Carolina. It is a common BOP procedure to transfer inmates and prison personnel as a means of punishment or to defuse problems. Inmates call it "diesel therapy," moving people around the vast federal prison system so that they will be hard to locate. Former inmate George Wade Jr. served six months at the FTC for interstate theft. When he got out, he contacted Jesse Trentadue about what he had seen on the morning of August 21. Wade says he happened to be in the laundry room when two members of the SORT team brought in their bloody gear, which included flak jackets, helmets, batons and gloves. Wade heard one of the guards say to the laundry-room supervisors, "Get these cleaned up, and don't say a damned word about it." Wade doesn't know the names of the guards, but he identified the supervisors as BOP employees Albert Musser and Thomas Pitts, and he said that one and possibly both had witnessed the same scene. (Musser and Pitts are listed as being on duty that morning, according to the FTC employee log.) I went to the homes of both men for comment, but Musser was never in when I went and Pitts declined to talk to me. Since he stepped forward, Wade says, he has been harassed by the FBI--by Agent Linn in particular--and threatened with reincarceration for perjury. He is certain he has been under surveillance. On several days, when he looked outside his house. One of them was holding a camera. In early October, the reincarceration threats became real. Wade was arrested and sent back to jail in Arkansas for violation of his parole. Two months earlier, Wade had traveled from Arkansas to share his laundry-room account with investigators in Oklahoma County district attorney's office and with a local TV reporter. Apparently, someone at the FTC saw the newscast and notified Wade's parole officer in Arkansas. Wade was rearrested in early October for crossing state lines without permission. He has since been released. What appeared to be the first breakthrough for the Trentadues came on October 15, 1996. Responding to pressure from the media and the Trentadue family, Justice Department officials convened a federal grand jury in Oklahoma City to look into Kenneth Trentadue's death. For a time, there was hope of an objective inquiry and a fair resolution. Two federal prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office for the Western District of Oklahoma were assigned to lead the grand jury. The office, headed by U.S. attorney Patrick Ryan, part of the team that prosecuted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, is responsible for handling federal crimes committed in its district and had been involved in the Trentadue case since March 1996. Almost immediately, curious things began to happen. For reasons still unknown, the locally based prosecutors were replaced by two prosecutors out of the Civil Rights Division in Washington. "I can tell you this," says Rowland. "Patrick Ryan is not a happy man." Ryan declined to comment. A number of law-enforcement officials in Oklahoma say that much of the time, the federal grand jury appeared to be less than zealous. It met only occasionally, no more that a few hours each month. It was a sign that the Department of Justice wasn't taking the Trentadue matter seriously or, says Jesse Trentadue, that "they wanted to drag it out, hoping it would blow over and we'd go away. But we never will." Six months after the proceedings began, many of the most important witnesses--the paramedics who had been summoned by FTC infirmary staff but who were turned away upon arrival, Kevin Rowland, the inmate orderlies who had cleaned the cell, even Jesse Trentadue--had not been subpoenaed to testify. (By last June, all of them had testified.) The experience of Philip Paz, an Oklahoma City policeman who, like the paramedics, was turned away from the prison, exemplifies a recurring complaint about the grand jury. I met Paz last August. At 5 A.M. on August 21, 1995, he says, he received a call that "a suicide attempt was in progress." When he arrived at the FTC, a guard called inside the prison and came back with word that "they didn't need me anymore. I was told that the body had already been transported to the hospital." He thought it was strange, Paz says, but didn't think much more about the incident until he read about the ongoing controversy a year later in a local newspaper. Paz was called to testify in May. The day before he went on the witness stand, lead prosecutor Kevin Forder interviewed him. "He asked if I thought it was suicide, and I said no," says Paz. In front of the jurors the next day, however, Forder never asked Paz that question. Paz's conclusion? "I think they ask questions to fit their own agenda." A few months after the grand jury was under way, the FBI's Linn went back to Jordan's office, apparently with the hope of persuading the medical examiner to change his mind about the manner of death. This time the agent wanted Jordan to review a set of privileged, highly secret documents Linn had in his car. "If you look them over," Jordan recalls Linn saying, "I think you'll see the way things are going. I think you'll see it was a suicide after all." Jordan was shocked when he learned what the documents were--transcripts of grand-jury witness testimony. As Jordan knew, without a court order it is illegal to disclose any information from a grand jury, which operates in strict secrecy. The incident was made more baffling by what had happened the previous week. Upon hearing from Linn that he wanted to drop of the transcripts, Jordan had his attorney notify Forder "absolutely not to bring the transcripts," Kevin Rowland recalls. "They agreed not to, and then a week later Linn showed up with them, saying he was following Justice Department orders." Jordan remained quiet about what he knew. It was still not the right time to go public about the Trentadue case. He was in the middle of the Oklahoma City bombing case and was scheduled to be a key government witness in Timothy McVeigh's trial. Also, Jordan wasn't sure if he, as a state government official, even had the authority to speak out. By early 1996, it still wasn't clear if the federal government--or the state of Oklahoma--had the jurisdiction to investigate Trentadue's death. Until that was resolved, Jordan would lie low. Then, in May 1997, after Jordan had testified, there was another strange incident that seemed to him to signal that federal prosecutors were intent on bolstering the BOP's suicide theory. Federal prosecutor Sheryl Robinson phoned Colonel William T. Gormley, a U.S. Armed Forces pathologist, at his Rockville, Maryland, office. Robinson wanted Gormley, a respected government expert, to come to Oklahoma City and testify. It wasn't the first time Gormley had been contacted by the prosecutors running the grand jury. Four months earlier, prosecutor Forder, the FBI's Linn and an unidentified BOP representative had met with Gormley and his staff and asked them to review Jordan's autopsy finding. By January, when the meeting took place, Jordan had already testified before the grand jury, but for reasons Gormley will not speculate on, "they were not satisfied with the local medical examiner's findings," he says. Rowland speculates that the FBI and the federal prosecutors "were after another finding." In that regard, the prosecutors apparently wanted Gormley to be a rebuttal witness (to refute Jordan's findings or disparage his methods), which is common adversarial strategy employed by defense lawyers in courtroom trials but out of place in a grand-jury proceeding. Gormley couldn't help the prosecutors, however. He reviewed Jordan's report and was essentially in agreement with it. Four months later, however, Robinson contacted Gormley as asked him to come to Oklahoma City to testify. This encounter with Robinson apparently so disturbed Gormley that he telephoned Jordan's office. Rowland took the call. "He expressed his concerns and bewilderment and wanted to find out what the Justice Department was up to on this case," Rowland recalls. "He didn't understand why Sheryl Robinson seemed focused on it possibly being a suicide." "For Him to call Dr. Jordan's office, the exchange must have flabbergasted him," says Mike Hubbard, a former Senate Judiciary Committee investigator. "I think Gormley was left with the impression that they wanted him to testify that it could have been a suicide. This federal grand jury has been a conscious waste. We've been duped. They're doing damage control now. But they're getting boxed in. This case has a healthy mix of malfeasance and obstruction of justice." When Gormley refused to change his opinion, Linn found someone else--a Texas Ranger, who is not a pathologist--who would testify in the desired manner. Linn wanted Jordan to meet with the ranger when he came to Oklahoma City, but the recalcitrant pathologist refused. When Jordan heard what the ranger was expected to testify to--that he had seen a lot of suicides that looked like Trentadue's--Jordan quipped, "He's obviously missed a lot of homicides." A few weeks later, Jordan broke his silence. On July 1, an Oklahoma law went into effect that gave the federal and state governments concurrent jurisdiction to handle all death investigations at the FTC. Two days later, Jordan went on local TV newscasts and said, for the first time, what he had believed all along--that Kenneth Trentadue "very likely" had been murdered. The Justice Department reacted swiftly. Within a week, the whole city knew the outcome of Jordan's actions: FBI MUFFLES MEDICAL EXAMINER IN DEATH, the headline in The Daily Oklahoman read. After Jordan appeared on television, two FBI agents went to his office. One of them was Linn. "In a highly irregular fashion," Jordan says, "they presented me with a subpoena to produce documents that they should have already had. "Linn insisted that Jordan go to court and deliver the records himself. "My attorney advised me to have nothing more to do with it," says Jordan. "I took it as a threat by the government. It was an attempt to show their authority by trying to intimidate me. Well, I won't be quiet. I'm so angry at the government." A standoff between Janet Reno and Orrin Hatch was inevitable. Privately, Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the Justice Department, didn't think Reno was doing a good job as attorney general. Under her watch, three of the biggest government debacles--Waco, Ruby Ridge and the FBI-lab scandal--had occurred, and the public's mistrust of the federal justice system was deepening. Hatch and other members of the committee were increasingly concerned about the antigovernment mood in the country. Over the months, Hatch had received inquiries from other members of Congress about the Trentadue case. It helped that Jesse Trentadue lived in Salt Lake City and was therefore a Hatch constituent. Behind the scenes, Jordan and Rowland relayed details to Mike Hubbard, who was Hatch's eyes and ears, about the way the Feds were handling the case. Hatch took action on December 13, 1996. He wrote to Reno and asked her to appear before the committee for a briefing on the Trentadue case. Months passed, but Reno did not reply. "It was very unusual for past attorneys general not to respond promptly to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee," Hatch says. "But it's not unusual for this attorney general. Now, there is something wrong here." Finally, on March 13, Hatch received a response, but it wasn't what he expected, and it wasn't from Reno. Rather, Andrew Fois, the assistant attorney general, responded that Reno could not talk about the case because it was the subject of a grand-jury investigation. Hatch was furious. He would force Reno to respond somehow. On April 30, he had his chance. Reno traveled across town to the Capitol to go before the committee to brief its members on a number of pending matters. Despite the senator's months-old unanswered request, the Trentadue case was not on the agenda. The group discussed several matters, and then Hatch sprang it on her. HATCH: Well let me just ask you--just one special case. And the case I'm going to raise is Kenneth Trentadue. The circumstances of his death are, to say the least, suspicious. In addition, the Bureau of Prisons investigation seems to contain numerous flaws. I fear the Justice Department isn't taking this investigation seriously. Also, the BOP sought to cremate the body prior to shipment of the body to the family, and I've seen pictures of the body--it was extremely battered and bruised. What's more, I've been told that the grand jury responsible for this case is meeting only once a month for two or three hours each time. And that plain doesn't seem adequate to me under the circumstances. RENO: I will review your concerns. HATCH: Will you?. . . .It's apparent to me that not only are these facts suspicious, it looks like somebody in the BOP or having relations with the BOP murdered the man. RENO: I think it's important that I not comment on the facts. Just know that we will do everything we can to make sure the matter is vigorously pursued. Hatch concluded by ordering Reno to get back to the committee with some answers I thirty days. In September, when we spoke, the senator had not "heard anything since. I've never experienced anything like this since I became chairman. The least you can say about this case is that the investigation has been terribly bungled. I hope people in the Justice Department are not trying to cover up the actions of some of these people, but it doesn't look good. I think there has been an effort to keep the facts from the Trentadue family." A few days after the April briefing, a response came from Reno's office that no one had expected. An aide in Hatch's office took a call from senior Justice Department official. "What will it take for this case to go away?" the official asked. The aide replied decisively, "People in prison." The federal grand jury apparently didn't agree. On October 9, after an eleven-month probe, it reached a decision. "After a lengthy investigation, involving scores of interviews and volumes of documents," Isabelle Katz Pinzler, acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, said in a statement, "we concluded that the evidence does not support a federal prosecution." The grand jury's decision not to indict anyone, although expected, infuriated many people. "I'm not surprised by the outcome," says an angry Rowland. "A grand jury goes in the direction a prosecutor takes it." What Hatch described last April as an inadequate investigation he now calls "shameless," and he says he will hold hearings by the end of this year to examine the case. Far from feeling defeated, the Trentadue family has found new reason for hope. In May they filed a wrongful-death civil rights suit against the federal government. The lawsuit names sixteen defendants. By now many of their names are familiar: Marie Carter, Michael Hood, Kathleen Hawk, Wallace Cheney, Kenneth Freeman, Rodney De Champlain, Bryan Donnelly and the FBI itself. "No one has really challenged the Justice Department like this before," Mike Hubbard says. "They don't feel they owe us answers. But they are accountable. Some official at some level is trying to cover this up. I'd love to investigate this case. I'd look at the conduct of [FBI agent] Jeff Jenkins and the prosecutor [Sheryl Robinson] in terms of obstruction of justice. But the best hammer we have now is with the state. The more serious effort will come from Bob Macy." Oklahoma County district attorney Bob Macy has earned his nickname, "Maximum Bob." He has put more people on death row--fify-two--than any other prosecutor in U.S. history. Working with the city's police department, Macy has helped Oklahoma City achieve one of the highest solved-murder rates in the country--96 percent. Before he became district attorney seventeen years ago, Macy worked for the Indiana State Trooper. "He's a cop first and a politician second," Rowland says. "To him right is right, wrong is wrong, and he knows the difference." Macy looks like Hollywood's idea of a western lawman. When I met him in August, he wore black suspenders, a silver bolo tie with black ribbon tails and a large silver belt buckle. Western shoot-'em-up drawings hung on the walls of his office, and a pair of handcuffs rested on a bookshelf. A large poster from the movie Tombstone, starring Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer, dominated the wall directly behind his desk. Macy still simmers over how FBI and Justice Department officials treated him--"like a second-class citizen," Rowland says--during the Oklahoma city bombing case. Federal officials took the case away from Macy and the city's police department. "This should have been a joint investigation," Macy says. "We were fully prepared to take this on. But they were heavy-handed and said, 'We'll take care of it.'" Macy will have his day in court. As soon as Terry Nichols' trial concludes in federal court, Macy's office will file first-degree murder charges against Nichols and Timothy McVeigh and try them in state court for the death of the 160 civilian victims. (In the federal trials, the defendants were tried only for the murder of the eight federal law-enforcement agents who died in the bombing.) Macy is also going ahead with something virtually unprecedented in the Trentadue case. He will put key witnesses--the first being Jordan and Rowland--before a local grand jury that will he headed by two prosecutors from Macy's office. This is the same strategy used by Boundary County prosecutors in the Ruby Ridge case. In that case, the Idaho prosecutors were apparently not satisfied with the federal grand-jury probe, which found no evidence to indict any of the FBI agents involved in the mountain shoot-out that left Randy Weaver's wife and son dead. Days after the federal grand jury's "no bill," local prosecutors indicted FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi for involuntary manslaughter. The case is pending. "We're going to see that justice is done," Macy told me. "The government needs to learn that when something is embarrassing, you don't try to hide it. You bring it out. It's the reason why we have the antigovernment movement in the United States." The case is also moving forward on another front. Scott Adams, the Oklahoma City attorney handling the civil suit on behalf of the Trentadue family, predicts flatly, "We will know who killed Kenneth Trentadue by the end of this year." Although the federal government has not yet turned over the names of the guards who were on duty in the special housing unit the morning Trentadue died, Adams us unfazed. "They know who did this, but they won't tell us," he says. "This case against the government is like a vicious animal. I've never been involved in anything like this. They're trying to close us down. They're waiting to see if we'll run out of money. But we'll never back down. They can run, but they can't hide. I'd mortgage my life to find out who killed Kenneth Trentadue." Adams may not have to do anything so dramatic. One of the BOP investigators named in the civil suit has, through his lawyer, expressed to Adams an interest in cooperating. He would supply information about Trentadue's death in exchange for being dropped from the suit. The most significant break in the case, though, may well be the graphic photos of Kenneth Trentadue's bloody body and cell that were leaked to GQ in late October. They originated with an FTC source who writes: I had hope the government would do the right thing and bring the guilty to justice. I have had these pictures for a long time because I did not want to risk being discovered. Please do not try to learn my identity. I need to keep my job. I hope these help you. There are more than these, but I couldn't get them. The extent of Trentadue's upper-body injuries are shown in the photos, which this magazine deemed too graphic for publication. His head and neck are covered with wounds and blood. The photos undermine the plausibility of the BOP's claim that his wounds were self-inflicted and that he had hanged himself. The most damning photos, however, are those of the inside of the cell that show tied bedsheets loosely dangling from a blood-free vent in such a way that makes it virtually impossible for someone of Trentadue's size and weight to have hanged himself. What can the Trentadue family expect after all this time? The tag line of the Tombstone movie poster that hangs in D.A. Bob Macy's office says it best: "Justice is coming." Mary A. Fischer is a GQ senior writer. Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-309-8620 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: ABC News Site on Philadelphia Gun Suit (fwd) Date: 16 Jan 1998 17:45:25 -0500 I just voted, and the results are as follows; No: 83.2% Yes: 16.7% Total: 1,794 At 01:41 AM 1/16/98 PST, you wrote: >At the moment, (1:00 AM), it's up to: > > No: 78.2 percent > Yes: 21.7 percent > Total: 755 > > >On Jan 15, David Wisniewski wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >More on the Philadelphia gun suit: >http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/philaguns0114/index.html > >Plus you can vote on the question, "Do you think gun makers should >pay for the costs associated with gun violence?" > >Yes: 27.1% >No: 72.8% >out of 545 votes > >-- >David Wisniewski **FOR SALE: EGW 38 Super Caspian IPSC Open w/ 8 mags** >davidwiz@erols.com USPSA/IPSC A-28835 >http://www.uspsa.org > > What is past is prologue > >[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** >----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- >An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no >weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his >hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a >on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ >----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > >- > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Kennedy unveils bill requiring reporting of ammunition Date: 17 Jan 1998 09:20:33 -0500 >Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:45:03 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Kennedy unveils bill requiring reporting of ammunition purchases > >Kennedy unveils bill requiring reporting of ammunition purchases > >Associated Press, 01/16/98 17:25 > >CUMBERLAND, R.I. (AP) - In an attempt to keep weapons from being >used by criminals, U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy on Friday unveiled >legislation that would require people to register when they buy >ammunition. > >Anyone who purchases more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition would have >to fill out a form which would identify them to the Bureau of Alcohol, >Tobacco and Firearms if the bill became law. > >The purchases would be recorded into the ATF database, which already >tracks people who buy more than one handgun during any five-day period. > >Kennedy believes that the bill would have a chilling effect on illegal >ammunition trafficking by monitoring anyone who buys large quantities >and may be selling it on the street. > >Kennedy announced his initiative at a news conference at the Cumberland >police station. > >Chief Anthony Silva said regulating ammunition would complement other >gun control measures such as the seven-day waiting period for a >background check. > >The law would exempt .22-caliber ammunition, rifle and shotgun >ammunition, and military, law enforcement and rifle and sportsmen's >clubs. Kennedy said exempting the .22-caliber ammunition was a >concession to help the bill's chances of passage. > >The largest gun dealer in the area, who supplies nearly all police >departments in Rhode Island, Connecticut and southern Massachusetts, >opposed the legislation. > >``Another paperwork drill that goes nowhere,'' said Frank Herrera, owner >of Quick Arms and Supply Co. in Warwick. > >Dealers who sell ammunition on the black market use supplies that are >stolen, Herrera said. > >Donn DiBiasio, a National Rifle Association representative and >Providence gun dealer, said the bill would create a burden of paperwork >for gun hobbyists and dealers and would fail to stop criminals. > >``We see no evidence that crackdowns on regulated commerce ... impacts >gun violence,'' said Tom Wyld, NRA spokesman in Fairfax, Va. > >Federal officials testified in the 1980s that registering ammunition >served no law enforcement purpose, and a federal requirement to register >ammunition was dropped in 1986, Wyld said. > >Kennedy, who will introduce the bill with Rep. Rod Blagojevich, D-Ill. >later this month, said that if the measure worked in only a fraction of >cases it would be worth it. > >He acknowledged there is not much support for gun control measures in >Congress and predicted a fight to get it passed. > >The bill is the latest gun control measure to be sponsored by Kennedy, >whose uncles President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Robert Kennedy were shot >to death. > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: OKC-Key Responds to Istook (fwd) Date: 17 Jan 1998 08:28:02 -0700 Paul, There seems to be some missing information in the news copy that was sent by you. In those places there is a capital 'O' with an umlat (double dot over the 'O'). Was this the way you received it? In later posts it turns to '=3D85' Those places are included in part below: CHARLES KEY (State Representative): Well, I guess on the one hand it is to be expected. It's unfortunate that this had to happen like this, but it's =D6 the fact is, these two gentlemen . . . -- BOHNEN: I talked to Lana Tyree and to the Congressman. Both believe=D6 I think Lana Tyree . . . -- KEY: Well, frankly, after everything that we've=D6 I think the best way to understand and answer that is for people to understand everything that we've been through. We've been viciously and personally attacked from the very beginning, and misrepresented in many cases along the way. And I didn't expect to have the kind of response that you would want to have. I think the response=D6 What I mean by . . . -- BOHNEN: In other words=D6 I have a . . . -- ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: OKC-Key Responds to Istook (fwd) Date: 17 Jan 1998 11:42:28 PST roc@lists.xmission.com wrote : > Paul, > > There seems to be some missing information >in the news copy that was sent by you. > In those places there is a capital 'O' with an >umlat (double dot over the 'O'). > Was this the way you received it? > In later posts it turns to '=3D85' > > Those places are included in part below: > >CHARLES KEY (State Representative): Well, I guess on the one hand it is to >be expected. It's unfortunate that this had to happen like this, but it's >=D6 the fact is, these two gentlemen . . . > > -- > >BOHNEN: I talked to Lana Tyree and to the Congressman. Both >believe=D6 I think Lana Tyree . . . > > -- > >KEY: Well, frankly, after everything that we've=D6 I think the best way to >understand and answer that is for people to understand everything that >we've been through. We've been viciously and personally attacked from the >very beginning, and misrepresented in many cases along the way. And I >didn't expect to have the kind of response that you would want to have. I >think the response=D6 What I mean by . . . > > -- > Keyboards are much richer in characters than many internet providers are willing to concede. As long as a message only contains characters that are expressable with 7 bits all is well.....but when messages contain characters that require more than 7 bits some services do a partial encoding by sending all the chacters that take 8 bits as an equals sign followed by the hex equivalent of the character and marks the text as quoted printable and assume that the mailer at the other end will convert all the equal signs followed by hex back into the correct characters. Other mailers just mark the whole message as binary and assume that since 8 bit characters are being transmitted the receiving mailer will look on binary as a stream of 8 bit characters. Some mailers refuse the binary input and for awhile AOL bounced messages that containted an 8 bit character in order to enhance its aura of great user friendliness Jack >BOHNEN: In other words=D6 I have a . . . > > -- > >ET > > > >- > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Kennedy unveils bill requiring reporting of ammunition Date: 17 Jan 1998 11:36:52 -0700 Tom, [...] . . . U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy on Friday unveiled legislation that would require people to register when they buy ammunition. [...] What is it about the Kennedy clan? Are they all terminally mentally ill? Is there some disease of the brain that causes them to perpetually assume the cranial-anal position? Or is it that they've never had any backbone, and want everyone else not to have one either? As time goes on, it seems that more and more of them are indeed inheriting the earth. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Kennedy unveils bill requiring reporting of ammunition Date: 17 Jan 1998 12:22:14 -0800 (PST) I have this irritating proclivity to answer rhetorical questions, sorry : ) The dark side of Camelot is the most amazing book, especially for a 30 something with a modern "education". I -highly- recommend it to all of you, It's written by award winning journalist Seymour Hersh and is a captivating tale largely about the lust for power that seems to run succesfully in this family. I think the real question here is why the idiot-voters keep putting them in power. BK - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Kennedy unveils bill requiring reporting of ammunition Date: 17 Jan 1998 12:22:14 -0800 (PST) I have this irritating proclivity to answer rhetorical questions, sorry : ) The dark side of Camelot is the most amazing book, especially for a 30 something with a modern "education". I -highly- recommend it to all of you, It's written by award winning journalist Seymour Hersh and is a captivating tale largely about the lust for power that seems to run succesfully in this family. I think the real question here is why the idiot-voters keep putting them in power. BK - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Breaking News Date: 18 Jan 1998 16:43:15 -0800 WASHINGTON D.C.--In a strategic move calculated to bring racial discrimination to an end once and forever in America, Black Protester Dick Gregory announced that he will lead a prayer vigil and protest rally in front of the Justice Department on Monday, January 19, diversely known as Martin Luther King Day. The purpose of the rally, according to Gregory, is to "...expose the cover-up of the murder of Ron Brown, specifically targeting Attorney General Janet Reno as the ringleader of a racist conspiracy against the brothers." "Ron Brown was a man," declared Gregory, "A black man." While Gregory's rally has the support of virtually the whole of the American mainstream media, there does appear to be some confusion in the ranks. Time and Newsweek announced that they, at least, intend to give their full support to Janet Reno, whom they declared to be "a female Attorney General." White House spokesman Mike McCurry, in a special press briefing late Sunday night, stated that the president has never requested oral sex from Dick Gregory, and that even if he had, there is no controlling legal authority. Meanwhile, FBI Director Louie Freeh alleged that Gregory's planned protest and prayer vigil is, in fact, a clever attempt by the white supremacist extremist militia to cause blood to run in the streets of the nation's capital. When it was pointed out to Freeh that Gregory is Black, Freeh stated, "In the words of Carl Klang, it's all an evil, filthy, rotten conspiracy." - Jefferson Adams - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: May We See Your Papers Please? Date: 18 Jan 1998 17:50:01 -0800 From Jackie Juntti's website - http://home.earthlink.net/~idzrus/index.html ------- Did you know you have to provide 'GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION' to travel? I took one of my very infrequent trips on an airplane last week. I had been forewarned by one of my daughters that I would HAVE to produce a Drivers License in order to get past the baggage check-in desk. Well, this just happens to be an extremely sensitive issue with me and I said, "NO WAY," I will get on that plane using my Costco card as it has my photo on it. I did call the airline and ask what the deal was on identification. I did this as the plane tickets were a gift from my brother and sister-in-law and I couldn't goof up their gift to me to prove a point. The person I spoke with on the phone was very polite in telling me that I would indeed need GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID to board the plane. I asked what is considered Government Issued ID? She explained that would be a state issued Drivers License, a state issued Identification Card, or a Passport. I asked what a person can do that has none of those items. She replied, then you must get one of them. I told her my flight was scheduled the next day so there was no time to get any of those items and just whom would I talk with to discover what other options would be available. Her response was to go talk with the airport security at the airport. I did not do that, choosing instead to take my chances of just going to the airport and seeing what would happen. I love real life adventures. Upon arriving at Sea-Tac I gave my daughter the usual hug and kiss and said "Bye, see you in a week" - or whatever. Grabbed my luggage and headed towards the baggage/ticket counter. When my turn came I placed my suitcase on the proper spot and handed the clerk my tickets. She looked at them and asked for ID. I opened my purse and my wallet and pulled out my Costco Card and handed it to her. Believe me, this was a Kodak Moment!!!! She recovered and then explained that I needed to produce GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. The ensuing discussion was long (took about 15 minutes to get past this point to the next step) and I will just summarize for this writing. Oh yes, there were many people standing around that heard all of this. We went back and forth over GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID and my comments about why did I need a drivers license, I wasn't driving the plane--that I thought I lived in America and we had freedom here and hadn't reached the point of having to PRODUCE OUR PAPERS. Next we discussed how someone who flies only every few years is to know of these socialist rules. The requirement of needing GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION is not printed on the tickets or the envelopes that contain the tickets. And, as I looked around where I stood (where they sell tickets) there was not any notice concerning that rule. She explained that I would have been advised at the time I purchased the tickets of the ID requirement. I told her I didn't purchase the tickets, they were a gift and had been mailed to me. "Well, it is FAA rules", she said. I asked for a copy of those rules so that I could see for myself if that was indeed true. She didn't have a copy and told me to contact FAA for one. I explained that it was odd that IF that is the rule then it should be readily available for the public to see. The conversation then went to how safe she feels knowing that everyone on the plane has GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION as it makes everyone SAFER and more SECURE. I remarked that false identification is not that hard to get and I didn't understand how the possession of possibly false GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION could make anyone feel safer. I certainly didn't feel any safer or more secure knowing that all passengers carried GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. We agreed that we seemed to have different views on what constitutes SAFETY and SECURITY. (I really wanted to explain how the FBI, BATF, CIA, had GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION and I wondered how SAFE & SECURE the Randy Weaver family and the Branch Davidians felt knowing that those firing on them had GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. I don't think she would have comprehended the relationship at all). I finally asked her point blank if the fact that I didn't produce any GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION was going to create denial of my boarding the plane. She was very exasperated at this point as I am sure they have not been taught how to deal with nice little old ladies that aren't nasty or threatening but just asking honest questions. She then reached down below her counter area and pulled out a very bright flourescent orange strip of card stock, approx 18 inches x 1.5 inches that she folded around my purse strap and stapled it. I was told NOT TO REMOVE it either. She then explained that I would HAVE to submit to a physical search of my purse upon passing thru the metal detection area. AND, be sure they punch this strip after you have been searched or YOU WILL NOT GET ON THAT PLANE!!! I looked at her and asked if the searchers were aware that they had to punch that strip of bright orange paper after they searched my purse? "Yes, they know that," she replied. "Well then, I guess it is their responsibility to punch it and not mine to be sure they do, right?" She didn't really answer me but made it clear in motions that she was done with me and for me to proceed so she could help the next person. I proceeded to the metal detection area where a long line was waiting to be ‘detected.' I was not carrying anything other than my purse which had this BRIGHT orange flagging on it so that everyone would know I was some sort of criminal and not a compliant little sheep following the dictates of the NWO. I enjoy watching people so this gave me a lot of entertainment as I stood in line. When I reached the position of approximately 7th in line the man that I presume is an observer was saying something. I didn't realize right away that he was talking to me. When it dawned on me that he was directing his comments to me I asked him to please repeat what he said as I had not heard him. He smiled broadly and pointed at the BRIGHT orange flagging and asked me WHAT I had done to deserve that as they rarely ever see that on a passenger. Keep in mind this area was crowded and the voice level had to be raised in order to be heard. I made sure my purse became very visible and smiling, I told him (loudly) that I was guilty of NOT PRODUCING GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION as I thought I lived in AMERICA and didn't realize I was living in NAZI GERMANY!!! This definitely caught the attention of many and the observer smiled and said OK, he understood. By this time I was at the metal detector and placed my purse on the conveyor belt and walked thru to be ‘detected.' A nice young black woman took my purse and asked me to please step to the side with her as they needed to physically search my purse. I said fine and followed her to a window sill. She explained she had to call for a supervisor. When the supervisor appeared the first person began to remove the items from my purse. I love these exercises. I have a well stocked purse, too. In fact, it was even more so than usual as I had my 8 oz bottle of Colloidal Silver in my purse so that it wouldn't spill in my suitcase. I am an E'Ola Distributor and I take the C.S. daily as a preventative anti-biotic (I am allergic to all but two prescription anti-biotics) so I had to have it with me. I had to explain what was in the bottle, which I did. I told both of them they were lucky I had not brought my little C.S. Maker (for making the C.S. myself) as it has three batteries and wires and silver probes. That would have made them all nervous and probably landed me in a cell somewhere. Both of them were very nice and polite through this process. After all items were removed and those that needed explanation were explained, the woman attempted to replace the items in my purse. After a while of watching the attempted repack I asked if there was any rule that prevented me from repacking it. She gratefully said no, so I did the chore. As I was repacking my purse the supervisor (he was of Asian decent) asked me WHY I went through all of this. I explained to him that I was born in America almost 58 years ago and I still believed in ALL the freedoms that Americans are supposed to have. Also, that I would continue to exercise my rights as I understand them until the day I die in spite of the Socialist restraints being imposed upon the people of this Country. This man looked me square in the eyes and told me "thank you" and to please continue doing it. He wished more people would stand against these things as I have chosen to do. I wish I would have had more time to find out where he came from and to hear his story but flight time was fast arriving so off I went to the boarding area. I made mental notes of the expressions on the faces of those that would see my BRIGHT orange flagging (reminded me of the YELLOW STAR during WWII) and wished I had time to explain to them the reason why I had it. Perhaps a few understood. I boarded the plane without further stops and arrived in Reno on time. An amazing event took place in spite of my not having produced GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION but only using a Costco Card to get on board--all of the passengers on that flight arrived SAFELY, can you believe it? No one was harmed by my lack of producing GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heard this one ?? (fwd) Date: 19 Jan 1998 01:05:38 PST On Jan 19, Douglas Davis wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Subject: Heard this one ?? >Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) > >Hi, Have ya heard this one ? > The same day he praised the new guidelines on gun safety, the Toledo >Police Chief left his >loaded gun under the seat of a rented vehicle. Chief Gerald Galvin was >called by Lucas Counties Sheriff's Department and informed that they had >found his .380-caliber, semiautomatic weapon under the seat of the rental >car. > > Galvin had just praised a decision by eight U.S. manufacturers to abide >by new safety lock guidelines, saying that they, "provided another >added safety level to weapons." > >C ya, >Rick > > ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs. ******************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 19 Jan 1998 12:27:27 PST Ok, so the Constitution and Tax Payer Parties have decided to join together. What's that mean? If the United We Stand folks and the Libertarian Parties decide to join up, it could mean a _Major_ Political upset in 2000. If you think that's unlikely, consider the following: 80% of the Democrat and Republican Parties are Anti-Partial Birth Abortion, yet the opposition's momentum coupled with the Clintonista/ Liberal Agenda has still managed to carry the day for them. Just about no one with any brains _or_, "compassion", is for this particularly gruesome form of infanticide. I'm not sure where UWSA and the Libertarians weigh in on this, but if the numbers hold true across the board as they appear to, then we _may_ see a new major Coalition Party. The Libertarians may need to temporarily swallow a bit of their pride, (some of the more contention causing parts of their agenda), in order to do it, but they would gain a major step up in the number of Office Holders. It'll be interesting to see who ponies up and who doesn't. Considering that the majority of the above mentioned Third Parties claim to be, "Pro-Constitution", and considering the Pro-Gun rhetoric I've heard from most of them, it is perhaps time we consider jumping on the bandwagon ourselves, or at least keeping a good, "weather eye", on the situation, and making up some possible contingency plans. Our ship may have just come in. "On Jan 19, Jo wrote:" [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Subject: FW: GOP exodus has begun > >Saturday, January 17th, the great-grandson of Adolph Coors informed James >Nicholson, RNC Chairman, via letter that he was leaving the Republican >Party for the American Constitution Party, the >US Taxpayers Party affiliate in Colorado. Below is the contents of the >letter, with the phone number and address removed. I verified the story >with Coors via telephone on Saturday evening. Tim Leonard ACP Chairman is >listed below for verification. I agree with Grover Coors, that the >exodus has begun and the Republican Assemblies will be ineffectual in >steming the great flood from the GOP to the USTP. > >W. Grover Coors > >James Nicholson, Chairman >Republican National Committee 310 First Street, S.E. >Washington D.C., 20003 > >Dear Jim: > > Today I am changing my affiliation from the Republican Party to the >American Constitution Party. I suspect many like me will do the same. This >is a sad day in the life of what was once a proud party. I was with you in >San Diego when a strong pro-life plank was put into the Republican >platform. As you recall, it was this plank and the selection of a pro-life >vice presidential running mate that allowed Pat Buchanan to graciously bow >out of the race so as not to split the Party, even though no one believed >that Bob Dole stood a chance of winning the election. I now regret that I >supported and encouraged >that decision. > > In the name of political pragmatism, the Republican Party has decided to >embrace all of its friends who advocate the most heinous forms of >infanticide. In trying to stand for everything, you have made a mockery of >the Platform and sent a clear message that the Republican Party stands for >nothing. Whats next: Republicans for Socialism, Republicans for Ethnic >Cleansing, Republicans for Pedophilia? >I am too ashamed for words to express how I feel about my long association >with the Republican Party. > > Sincerely, > > Grover Coors >cc: Steve Curtiss, Chairman, The Colorado Republican Party > Tim Leonard, State Chairman, The American Constituion Party > Marty Nalitz, KNUS Radio > >Principle contact is Tim Leonard, State Chairman of the American >Constitution Party in Colorado. >303-674-7902 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 19 Jan 1998 16:19:00 -0500 (EST) What do we know about the American Constitution Party? What exactly do they advocate? My theory is that there is tremendous resentment against the U.S. tax system and the R's have demonstrated their incompetency in reforming it. Whoever can latch onto this issue most effectively can win the 2000 election hands down. Abolish the I.R.S., put in a sales tax that totally replaces income tax on earned and unearned income. I don't think that we are capable of reforming the income tax code, as too many pointy bureaucrats and lawyers and CPA's are involved. Throw it out totally. Restoring the Constitution is a little too abstract for most people, but whoever can demonstrate movement towards *real* tax reform is going to capture enormous momentum. It will be fun watching Republican "moderates" arguing for little baby reforms (like the last one they just blew) while the American people work out their outrage and elect somebody else (most probably a "radical" Republican who sweeps Iowa and N.H., then welcomes outlying parties to join in the fun). [one can always dream]. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 19 Jan 1998 14:37:05 -0800 John Curtis wrote: > > My theory is that there is tremendous resentment against the > U.S. tax system and the R's have demonstrated their incompetency > in reforming it. Whoever can latch onto this issue most > effectively can win the 2000 election hands down. Abolish > the I.R.S., put in a sales tax that totally replaces income > tax on earned and unearned income. I don't think that > we are capable of reforming the income tax code, as too many > pointy bureaucrats and lawyers and CPA's are involved. Throw > it out totally. > If you believe what you've written above, you don't have to find another party. You just need to check out Steve Forbes' platform for a potential presidential run as a Repub in 2000. You say he can win hands down, which I doubt, but in principle you and he (and I) are pretty much on the same track. He wants real tax system reform in the worst way - trash the entire tax code and get the associated power and corruption out of DC. His proposal is flat tax, same for everyone, no mortgage deduction and no other fat-cat loopholes, but I'm convinced that's only because he knows (as I do) that doing away with income tax entirely is too radical. An ignorant/apathetic electorate wouldn't understand it (or try to), and certainly no one who feeds at the tax-code trough inside-the-beltway will support it. Check out Forbes. You may like what the man has to say. Like Perot, he'll provoke some interesting campaign debates even if he doesn't get nominated. Always glad to provide bits of useful info. Skip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 19 Jan 1998 14:47:50 -0800 (PST) Skip, I was Forbes 3rd biggest fan in my state. At the time the chair of my gop district and myself were rooting for Steve in a -big- way, when most of the other staffers in the district were split behind others and saw no way Forbes could win. When the Washington state coordinator announced on KVI radio that buttons were available at his chirocproctic office in Bellevue, Faye called me at work and we both met down there in only about 30 minutes, alas to late for any of the materials. But Steve has changed. He's gone from someone with an incredible depth of understanding of economics and public policy to this wider broader coalitioned (whiter brighter) "stop the drugs" guy. I know a lot of folks here think that's cool but I do not. I am -extremely- disappointed in his change wich I think he projects as a Principled sort of "move to the middle". Unfortunately, endorsing the War on some Drugs and some of his more classically conservative stands have made him less pro freedom in my book. I still have hope for him, I still have one solitary Forbes 96 button that I'd like to take out of the closet. But I'm not going to get enthusiastic about a pro freedom candidate untill someone comes along who understands that it's about all our freedoms all of the time. Boyd Kneeland - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 19 Jan 1998 17:54:27 -0500 (EST) Skip, RE: Forbes. He's my man. I like everything he says, with the sole exception of some of the gold standard stuff, which sounds like rather antiquated economics to me. I think he is misguided on gold, but not unprincipled. He has passed my sincerity test, as he is a somewhat awkward rich kid who has got derided by public and commentators and he is still coming back. His flat tax proposal is right on. I'm trying to talk my wife into hosting a Steve Forbes coffee here in scenic Southern New Hampshire. We were involved with Lamar Alexander in '96 as campaign hanger-ons. If I can't switch her allegiance to Forbes, I'm going to ask for equal time! I don't really think any serious tax reformer can win easily, but I do think that there is a lot of sleeping power in the issue and Forbes looks like the guy with enough berries to fight the good fight. g. Bush Jr, Lamar, Forbes, buchanan - take a look at these guys - bush Jr. - professional moderate R and all around typical politico lamar - smart guy, $500k/yr lawyer, can't tell us why he's running, parrots moderate R party line buchanan - former political commentator, very funny and bright guy, not above bowing to the Nazi's among us (and they are out there). he's got a good gig going, never going to be President and he knows it. dan quayle - know nothing low-level political jerk who worked his way above his abilities Forbe's big minus: goofy looking, son of a rich guy, dad was gay, has vestiges of acne, doesn't project as an alpha male. His big plus: has *absolutely* the right ideas, could spark an American renaissance. he's sincere about helping the country and he's got a plan. No where near as crazy as Perot. Two words for each of the rest: Dan Quayle: missing mind Lamar: deceptive lawyer Buchanan: closet fascist Bush Jr: white bread jack curtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: NEWS ORGANIZATION E-MAIL ADDRESS LIST Date: 19 Jan 1998 18:29:26 -0500 >Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:32:47 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: NEWS ORGANIZATION E-MAIL ADDRESS LIST > >Dear Fellow American, > >Thanks to "Leroy Crenshall" < > > >Here is a list of news organization e-mail addresses that you might want >to use for press releases. > >David > > >********************************************************************* >KSpeicher@GlobeAndMail.ca, > >letters@york.interport.net, > >nightly@nbc.com, > >dateline@nbc.com, > >today@nbc.com, > >TOTNMAIL@npr.org, > >MORNING@npr.org, > >news@globe.com, > >WEBMAIL@pbs.org, > >wtletter@wt.infi.net, > >cnn.feedback@cnn.com, > >vpmedia@newsusa.com, > >webmasters@nando.net, > >webmaster@www.radio.cbc.ca, > >time-webmaster@pathfinder.com, > >lynn@trib.com, > >necn@aol.com, > >newsroom@4bypass.com, > >wcvb@aol.com, > >kironews7@kiro-tv.com, > >vblock@whdh.com, > >ADVLetters@aol.com, > >Advocate@CapeCodAccess.com, > >dcaccavaro@newmassmedia.com, > >news@NantucketBeacon.com, > >ilyal@world.std.com, > >jbnews@projo.com, > >BALTCHRON@aol.com, > >hwchronicle@cnc.com, > >bevcitizen@cnc.com, > >clarion@clarioncall.com, > >c-news@world.std.com, > >DATELINE@NBC.COM, > >mail@stardem.com, > >buffalo@amcity.com, > >fleecing@nbc.com, > >Comments@foxnews.com, > >jamess@mhv.net, > >cgazette@epix.net, > >gazette@dailygazette.com, > >newsroom@gazettenet.com, > >hgazette@aol.com, > >sgonline@servtech.com, > >newstips@telegram.infi.net, > >guideny@cityguideny.com, > >leader@superior.net, > >herald@portland.com, > >letters@vanpubco.com, > >adin@together.net, > >editor@stonehamonline.com, > >independent@peconic.net, > >boston@amcity.com, > >watson1@centralmaine.com, > >newsroom@poughkee.gannett.com, > >rbjournal@aol.com, > >abc7@abc.com, > >webmaster@2online.com, > >kcci@kcci.com, > >kcco@kccotv.com, > >mailroom@kcncnews4.com, > >kcoy@kcoy.com, > >kctv@kctv.com, > >news@kdlh.com, > >kens-gw@kens-tv.com, > >kepi58@telapex.com, > >kepr-tv@owt.com, > >k-eyetv@k-eyetv.com, > >kfda@arn.net, > >news8@kfmb.com, > >kfsm@kfsm.com, > >kgan@kgan.com, > >tv4@kgbttv.com, > >news5@cbs5.com, > >11listens@khou.com, > >khsltv@maxinet.com, > >newsroom@kidk.com, > >kimt@willowtree.com, > >kironews7@kiro-tv.com, > >47oys@kjeo.com, > >klas@infi.net, > >klbk@klbk.com, > >comments@kltv.com, > >kmbc@aol.com, > >kmeg@kmeg.com, > >intouch@kmtv3.com, > >koco@aol.com, > >tv12kode@aol.com, > >koin@koin.com, > >k13mktg@rtd.com, > >kolr10@kolr10.com, > >news@kpax.com, > >tvnews@kpix.com, > >krcg@socketis.net, > >krcrtv@awwwsome.com, > >ktab@camalott.com, > >news11@alaska.net, > >ktvl@ktvl10.com, > >ktvt@ktvt.com, > >nwnews@kval.com, > >kvia@aol.com, > >news@kwch.com, > >kwtvpo@kwtv.com, > >cbs13@mosquitonet.com, > >news25@kxxv.com, > >citylegacy@pipeline.com, > >sk@brooklynny.com, > >cl@citylimits.org, > >ndn@ecnnews.com, > >samlink@together.net, > >TriTownDeb@aol.com, > >i&mnews@nantucket.net, > >oped@csps.com, > >pbakke@cmonitor.com, > >mtp@nbc.com, > >today@nbc.com, > >dateline@nbc.com, > >fleecing@nbc.com, > >interns@antonnews.com, > >bdnmail@bangornews.infi.net, > >necn@aol.com, > >jwilson@mail.tds.net, > >editor@pbn.com, > >sen@ecnnews.com, > >lwhite@times-news.com, > >rjurgens@vnews.com, > >newscan@vcn.bc.ca, > >newscan@vcn.bc.ca, > >info@nynow.com, > >observer@oweb.com, > >observer@dmi.net, > >news@capecodonline.com, > >compsaver@psaver.com, > >babcockc@washpost.com, > >letters@dfpress.com, > >radio1@ikp.atm.com.pl, > >crnews@hcr.net, > >letters@th-record.com, > >riverrep@zelacom.com, > >sentinel@colbsent.com, > >news@keenesentinel.com, > >sentinel@rny.com, > >evesun@norwich.net, > >news@telegraph-nh.com, > >editor@beaconhilltimes.com, > >ct_editor@cc.rochester.edu, > >gdt@ecnnews.com, > >andergb@nytimes.com, > >palladiu@knighted.com, > >newsroom@S-T.com, > >newtimes@ras.com, > >khanner@wt.infi.net, > >abcnews@class.org, > >rmoore@igc.apc.org, > >Amanda@broadcastnews.com, > >cspanprogm@aol.com, > >cspanviewr@aol.com, > >decc@cs.uchicago.edu, > >detailsmag@aol.com, > >ejnusa@aol.com, > >fj@flintj.com, > >friday@indiana.edu, > >gqmag@aol.com, > >hci@chron.com, > >kai@ikp.atm.com.pl, > >kcbx@slonet.org, > >kiro@halcyon.com, > >kuow@u.washington.edu, > >law@det-freepress.com, > >lens@utne.com, > >letter@globe.com, > >Thpa2d@aol.com, > >letterbox@wshb.csms.com, > >letters@byu.edu, > >letters@freenet.fsu.edu, > >letters@statesman.com, > >market@mizar.usc.edu, > >mnews@world.std.com, > >Virgil Tipton@pd.stlnet.com, > >news@who-radio.com, > >news21a@yfn.ysu.edu, > >newsbytes@genie.geis.com, > >newsfour@aol.com, > >nightly@news.nbc.com, > >nyt@blythe.org, > >phxgazette@aol.com, > >playboy@class.com, > >povonline@aol.com, > >radio@ohiou.edu, > >rollingstone@echonyc.com, > >scifri@aol.com, > >sfexaminer@aol.com, > >smeditor@andrews.edu, > >stareditor@starnews.com, > >sun-news@cornell.edu, > >Sweitzer@wish-tv.com, > >al13news@aol.com, > >the.editors@sltrib.com, > >tribletter@aol.com, > >tv@ohiou.edu, > >tv9@aol.com, > >twonews@basys.svt.se, > >vanpaper@aol.com, > >vic@access.digex.net, > >voice@echonyc.com, > >vpress@aol.com, > >bcastboy@aol.com, > >briefe@taz.de, > >city_desk@freepress.mb.ca, > >esommer@pipeline.com, > >usatoday@clark.net, > >wabi@wabi-tv.com, > >The_Boston_Globe@globe.com, > >wane-tv@cris.com, > >news@wbaltv.com, > >wbay@aol.com, > >news@wbff45.com, > >dparker@wbns10tv.com, > >wboc@wboc.com, > >wbrz@aol.com, > >webmaster@wbtv.com, > >4news@wbz.com, > >wcianews@soltec.net, > >feedback@wcpx.com, > >info@wcsh6.com, > >news@wdbj7.com, > >wdhn@aol.com, > >wdio@aol.com, > >wdtn@aol.com, > >wdtv@wdtv.com, > >MidYrkWkly@aol.com, > >DiTCW@aol.com, > >info@wevv.com, > >giveme5@wews.com, > >wfaa@aol.com, > >fmy2@aol.com, > >wfrv@dct.com, > >wfsb@wfsb.com, > >feedback@wgbh.org, > >tvmail@wgme-tv.com, > >wgnxtv@aol.com, > >7online@whiotv.erinet.com, > >whoitv@aol.com, > >13news@wibw.com, > >talkback@wisctv.com, > >wishmail@wish-tv.com, > >tv22wjcl@aol.com, > >grayp@wjz.com, > >Comments@wkbn.com, > >news8@centuryinter.net, > >tv5@wkrg.com, > >wkyt@lex.infi.net, > >wlfi2@iquest.net, > >wlky@iglou.com, > >wlos@aol.com, > >wlox@wlox.com, > >wb56mail@aol.com, > >wmbb13@aol.com, > >news47@wmdt.com, > >wmdt@wmdt.com, > >comments@mpt.org, > >wmtw@wmtw.com, > >wmur@aol.com, > >wowk@ramlink.net, > >wpta@aol.com, > >wqadtv@aol.com, > >newstip@wral-tv.com, > >wrdw@wrdw.com, > >wrtv@aol.com, > >wsbtnews@wsbt.com, > >wseenews@erie.net, > >wsyx@aol.com, > >wten@aol.com, > >wtnh@aol.com, > >wtoctv@premierweb.net, > >wtoktv@aol.com, > >toledo11@aol.com, > >wtrf@hgo.net, > >tampas10@aol.com, > >nashnc5@nc5.infi.net, > >wtvh@wtvh.com, > >wtvq@keithcom.com, > >newsroom@wtvy.com, > >9news@wusatv.com, > >abc7@aol.com, > >4INFO@WWL-TV.COM, > >news@wwlp.com, > >wwsbnews@aol.com, > >wxvt@tecinfo.com, > >wyou@microserv.net, > >wzzmtv@aol.com, > >editor@zum.com, > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 19 Jan 1998 18:34:36 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, John Curtis wrote: > > What do we know about the American Constitution Party? > What exactly do they advocate? > > My theory is that there is tremendous resentment against the > U.S. tax system and the R's have demonstrated their incompetency > in reforming it. Whoever can latch onto this issue most > effectively can win the 2000 election hands down. Abolish > the I.R.S., put in a sales tax that totally replaces income > tax on earned and unearned income. I don't think that > we are capable of reforming the income tax code, as too many > pointy bureaucrats and lawyers and CPA's are involved. Throw > it out totally. > > Restoring the Constitution is a little too abstract for most > people, but whoever can demonstrate movement towards *real* > tax reform is going to capture enormous momentum. > > It will be fun watching Republican "moderates" arguing for > little baby reforms (like the last one they just blew) while > the American people work out their outrage and elect somebody > else (most probably a "radical" Republican who sweeps Iowa > and N.H., then welcomes outlying parties to join in the fun). > > [one can always dream]. > > > > > > - > > I'm no fan of our IRS but there's just no easy way to fund a multitrillion-dollar a year monster. I think people would evade a 45% sales tax like crazy, necessitating .... something very like the IRS, except dedicated to enforcing the sales tax. Some states already have "use" taxes on things bought without sales taxes and a few even have inspection programs to enforce them. Expect lots more inspections of businesses and homes if we go to a national sales tax. However, I am happy that Coors is giving brand-R a hotfoot. bd (Reuters) Tax group to spend millions on sales tax campaign WASHINGTON (January 15, 1998 10:13 p.m. EST http://www.nando.net) - A tax group said Thursday it will launch a multimillion dollar media campaign next week to gather public support for its plan to replace the current income tax with a national sales tax. Americans For Fair Taxation planned to start a media blitz Jan. 19 with television and newspaper advertisements. The group has already spent about $5 million on market research and development of its proposal and planned to spend up to $10 million more on a media campaign. Individual sponsors of the non-profit group included Hugh McColl, chief executive officer of NationsBank; Kenneth Lay, chairman and chief executive at Enron Corp.; Peter Ueberroth, former major league baseball commissioner, and Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. The proposal would eliminate the current income and payroll taxes and replace them with a 23 percent national tax on goods and services. "It is a plan that allows you to keep your whole paycheck," said Grover Jackson, president of the tax group. To ensure that the poor would not be hurt, the plan would rebate to everyone, based on the size of the family, an amount of money designed to account for the tax that would be paid on food and other essentials. [...] House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, a Texas Republican who for years has favored a national sales tax, supports the "concept and direction" of the Americans For Fair Taxation proposal, a spokesman said. The tax group formed in May 1995 based in Archer's congressional district of Houston. Jackson said Archer and a number of Democrat and Republican lawmakers were briefed on the plan, but "Archer did not generate this, this is not his plan. He didn't ask us to do it." Critics of the plan said a higher sales tax rate than 23 percent would be needed to replace the current income tax. "It is a non-starter, it is not a serious alternative, it is a fantasy," said William Gale, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution. He said the group's national sales tax was in reality a 30 percent tax because of the way it is calculated and that to replace the current income, corporate, estate and payroll taxes a rate of 29 percent would be needed. "That's just a flat rate on consumption. If you did that you would wallop the poor," Gale said. To pay for the proposed rebate the sales tax rate would have to increase to about 45 percent, he said. Gale also said the political reality was that some sort of exemptions would be added to a national sales tax. "The flat tax remains the most interesting and intriguing fundamental tax reform that would be possible to build on," Gale said. [...] The sales tax would also tax services not currently taxed such as a visit to the doctor or the dentist, Motley said. "That's a huge political fight," he added. "If the American people are confused and think the cost is going to go up, they're going to stop buying everything but essentials," Motley said. "We're terribly concerned about ... the transition period." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 19 Jan 1998 16:08:15 -0800 >Skip, I was Forbes 3rd biggest fan in my state. At the time the chair of my >gop district and myself were rooting for Steve in a -big- way, when most of >the other staffers in the district were split behind others and saw no way >Forbes could win. When the Washington state coordinator announced on KVI >radio that buttons were available at his chirocproctic office in Bellevue, >Faye called me at work and we both met down there in only about 30 minutes, >alas to late for any of the materials. >But Steve has changed. He's gone from someone with an incredible depth of >understanding of economics and public policy to this wider broader >coalitioned (whiter brighter) "stop the drugs" guy. I know a lot of folks >here think that's cool but I do not. I am -extremely- disappointed in his >change wich I think he projects as a Principled sort of "move to the >middle". Unfortunately, endorsing the War on some Drugs and some of his >more classically conservative stands have made him less pro freedom in my >book. >I still have hope for him, I still have one solitary Forbes 96 button that >I'd like to take out of the closet. But I'm not going to get enthusiastic >about a pro freedom candidate untill someone comes along who understands >that it's about all our freedoms all of the time. >Boyd Kneeland Very well put, Boyd. I personally left the Republican party many years ago, when it became very apparent to me how far to the left they'd drifted. And that was a long time ago. I currently have no party affiliation, but I have to say that the USTP is the only one out there with whom I have 100% agreement in philosophy/beliefs. I am delighted to see Mr. Coors headed in the right direction. - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 19 Jan 1998 16:19:14 -0800 > Skip, > > RE: Forbes. He's my man. I like everything he > says, with the sole exception of some of the gold > standard stuff, which sounds like rather antiquated > economics to me. I think he is misguided on gold, > but not unprincipled. > > He has passed my sincerity test, as he is a somewhat > awkward rich kid who has got derided by public and > commentators and he is still coming back. > > His flat tax proposal is right on. Yeah, gotta agree with you here. If I'm gonna get stolen from by a bunch of rich fedreserve bankers, I'd rather it be in the form of a flat tax than by having to fill out all those forms. And actually, those rich bankers *deserve* to have 17% of my income, or whatever, because I'm just a fat dumb & happy American that doesn't have a clue. The fact that none of the money collected in the biggest scam in the history of civilization goes for *anything* except paying off an illegal and immoral debt to a bunch of rich people never even enters my so-called brain. Pass me that beer, will ya Jim? > I'm trying to > talk my wife into hosting a Steve Forbes coffee here in > scenic Southern New Hampshire. We were involved with > Lamar Alexander in '96 as campaign hanger-ons. If I > can't switch her allegiance to Forbes, I'm going to ask > for equal time! > > I don't really think any serious tax reformer can win > easily, but I do think that there is a lot of sleeping > power in the issue and Forbes looks like the guy with > enough berries to fight the good fight. By golly, yer right. I wonder how many of those banksters he knows personally. Thank God he's on *our* side! > > g. Bush Jr, Lamar, Forbes, buchanan - take a look at these > guys - > > bush Jr. - professional moderate R and all around > typical politico > > lamar - smart guy, $500k/yr lawyer, can't tell us why > he's running, parrots moderate R > party line > > buchanan - former political commentator, very funny > and bright guy, not above bowing to the > Nazi's among us (and they are out there). > he's got a good gig going, never going to > be President and he knows it. > > dan quayle - know nothing low-level political jerk > who worked his way above his abilities > > > Forbe's big minus: goofy looking, son of a rich guy, > dad was gay, has vestiges of acne, > doesn't project as an alpha male. > > His big plus: has *absolutely* the right ideas, could spark > an American renaissance. he's sincere about > helping the country and he's got a plan. No where > near as crazy as Perot. > > Two words for each of the rest: > > Dan Quayle: missing mind > Lamar: deceptive lawyer > Buchanan: closet fascist > Bush Jr: white bread > > > > jack curtis Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 19 Jan 1998 17:52:19 PST On Jan 19, John Curtis wrote: > > What do we know about the American Constitution Party? > What exactly do they advocate? > > My theory is that there is tremendous resentment against the > U.S. tax system and the R's have demonstrated their incompetency > in reforming it. Whoever can latch onto this issue most > effectively can win the 2000 election hands down. Abolish > the I.R.S., put in a sales tax that totally replaces income > tax on earned and unearned income. I don't think that > we are capable of reforming the income tax code, as too many > pointy bureaucrats and lawyers and CPA's are involved. Throw > it out totally. > > Restoring the Constitution is a little too abstract for most > people, but whoever can demonstrate movement towards *real* > tax reform is going to capture enormous momentum. > > It will be fun watching Republican "moderates" arguing for > little baby reforms (like the last one they just blew) while > the American people work out their outrage and elect somebody > else (most probably a "radical" Republican who sweeps Iowa > and N.H., then welcomes outlying parties to join in the fun). > > [one can always dream]. The problem I see with a Sales Tax is that they promote Black Markets. A Straight Head Tax on the other hand, is not subject to this, or Income Level Class Warfare games. Yeah, Restoring The Constitution can be a little abstract for some folks, but I regard the combination as a definite plus. I think the rush to join one Party or the other is a bit premature, but several possibilities are there. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Tyson Chicken / China Virus / Clinton Date: 19 Jan 1998 21:46:57 -0800 Hey - A coupla weeks ago somebody posted a thing or two about how Tyson Chicken had recently made a deal with China to supply chickens to them. Which, of course, with the fact that they'd just slaughtered all their chickens over a virus that had only killed 6 people, combined with the Clinton - Tyson connection, combined with the Clinton - China connection looked just a tad suspicious. Can anybody verify that Tyson Chicken did indeed land such a deal with China? For real? Thanks, journalistically speaking... - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Is Congress Passing Unconstitutional Laws? Date: 20 Jan 1998 07:31:57 -0500 >Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 01:01:07 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Is Congress Passing Unconstitutional Laws? > >Is Congress Passing >Unconstitutional Laws? >by Larry Pratt >of Gun Owners of America > >Much of this century has been a time when the federal government >has ignored the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution. Recent >cases decided by the Supreme Court indicate that the Justices are >beginning to once again take the Constitution and their oath of >officeseriously. As Justice Clarence Thomas put it in the recent >Lopezcase, "our case law has drifted far from the original understanding >..."of the Constitution. > >While there were wrong turns before this century, much of the >unconstitutional rule from Washington dates back to the Great >Depression and its war on crime and war on the bank crisis. There >were many unconstitutional theories of government pursued to justify >the power grab by Washington. One of the theories was to run an >end run around constitutional limitations by entering into a treaty that >would require passage of legislation accomplishing what, without the >treaty, would have been unconstitutional. > >President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration was an active >participant in the Disarmament Conference of 1934. Roosevelt >sought Senate ratification of an Arms Traffic Convention but was >unsuccessful. Had the treaty been ratified, Roosevelt would have >obtained the alleged authority to have Congress infringe on the right >to keep and bear arms pursuant to the treaty powers of Article VI, >paragraph 2. > >Roosevelt then shifted to the unconstitutional, non-existent doctrine >of emergency powers to justify enactment of gun control at the >federal level. Calling for a War on Crime and Gangsters, Roosevelt >persuaded Congress to pass a series of bills federalizing various >crimes and compelling the registration of machine guns and >sawed-off shotguns and rifles. The formula "War on Whatever" >became a decades long federal government weapon for usurping >powers not delegated to it. > >Nowhere does the Constitution give the President or the Congress >the power to federalize state crimes or enact gun control legislation >-- not even in a national emergency. One reads the Constitution in >vain for such a delegation of authority by "We, the People" through >the several states. Very instructive on this point are the Kentucky >Resolutions of 1798 which were written by Thomas Jefferson. > >The federal government in 1798 enacted a law making it illegal to >criticize a federal official (the Sedition Act). Kentucky and Virginia >passed resolutions declaring the the national law was unenforceable in >their state. > >These are among the arguments that Jefferson made in the Kentucky >resolutions: > >...whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, >its acts are > >unauthoritative, void, and of no force .... that the government >created by this compact was not > >made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers >delegated to itself; ...each party > >has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the >mode and measure of > >redress. > >Jefferson went on to spell out that the only powers to punish crime >delegated to the federal government were 1) treason, 2) >counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, 3) >piracies and 4) offenses against the law of nations. In this context, >Jefferson cited the Tenth Amendment as providing a limit to any >expansion of authority for punishing crime by the federal >government. He quoted it verbatim in the Kentucky resolutions: "the >powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor >prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, >or to the people." > >Jefferson addressed an argument in the Kentucky Resolutions that >we still hear to this day. Namely, that Congress has the authority to >pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper for doing >whatever it does. Jefferson described this abuse of the "necessary >and proper" clause as going, to the destruction of all limits prescribed >to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument >to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to >be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be >so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument... > >A parallel argument is derived from the "supremacy" clause of >Article VI. This clause makes treaties and laws passed by Congress >the supreme law of the land. Jefferson is pointing out that the federal >government is not empowered to take the limited powers it has been >granted and convert them to unlimited powers that would destroy >the nature of the Constitution. Similarly, the "general welfare" clause >in Article I Section 8 can hardly be a grant of unlimited power of >action for the Congress since the section is one limiting the powers of >Congress. Jefferson made this particular argument in his opinion against >the national bank in 1791. > >It is the Commerce Clause that has become the most popular pillar >of unconstitutional authority for federal gun control. It is interesting >to note that in the early part of the twentieth century it was >considered necessary to amend the Constitution to ban alcoholic >beverages. After the bloating of the Commerce Clause to justify federal >involvement in anything and everything following the key 1946 Supreme >Court decision Wickard v.Filburn, it was not felt to be necessary to >amend the constitution to infringe something specifically named and >protected -- like arms -- in the Constitution. > >It is important to understand that the word regulate was applied to >commerce in the sense of making regular rather than controlling. In >an early case where the Commerce Clause was at issue, Justice >Marshall in the Gibbons steamboat case, noted that had the Clause >been intended to affect all economic activity, it would not have been >included in the enumerated, or limited, powers section of Article 1, >Section 8. Thus, the Commerce Clause affects interstate trade which >involves more than one state. The idea was that Virginia could not >tax Maryland tobacco to the point that it was kept out of its >Commonwealth, and similarly, so that Maryland could not do the >same. > >Justice Thomas put it this way in his Lopez opinion; "...the power to >regulate "commerce" can by no means encompass authority over >mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal >Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, >throughout the 50 states. Our Constitution quite properly leaves >such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' >effects on interstate commerce." > >Thomas went on to explain that, as an enumerated power, the >Commerce Clause of Article 1 Section 8 cannot be used to justify a >universal police power of the federal government: > > > >After all, if Congress may regulate all matters that substantially >affect commerce, there is no need for the Constitution to specify that >Congress may enact bankruptcy laws, cl. 4, or coin money and fix >the standard of weights and measures, cl.5, or punish counterfeiters >of United States coin and securities .... Put simply, much if not all of >Art.1, Sec.8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) >would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over >matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An >interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of Sect. 8 superfluous >simply cannot be correct. > >To put it another way, the Court is now saying that they believe that >the Tenth Amendment has to be observed. As Joe Sobran put it in a >column in The Washington Times (May 30, 1995): "From now on, >the court will be debating basic principle. The federal government >will have to walk through the 10th Amendment." > >In the Wickard case, the Supreme Court agreed with the argument >that even though farmer Filburn's wheat was not purchased nor sold >in interstate commerce, the very fact that he did not enter interstate >commerce negatively affected interstate commerce. With this totalitarian >view of the reach of government, there was no limit to what the federal >government could do. In many areas of social life, using this distorted >interpretation of the Commerce Clause, >Congress stepped up its suffocation of many kinds of private >activity. Firearms were no exception. > >Finally, in the 1995 Lopez decision, the Court has begun to return to >constitutional government. Lopez was arrested at a Texas school for >having a gun and thus violating the federal prohibition on having a >firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The Court held that whatever >the policy merits of the measure, the Congress had no authority to >enact such a law. > >(Regarding the policy issue, the most constitutionally consistent >approach would be to make it illegal to have a gun at a school for >the purpose of committing a violent crime. This would put the >burden on the criminal by, in effect, adding an additional penalty to >whatever other violent crime was committed. The burden would not >go on the decent people, such as students who target practice with >teams, parents who are going to or from hunting, and teachers and >other adults who have a concealed carry permit for self-defense. >Such a policy also assumes that criminals will violate any law that we >pass, so the law should target only criminal behavior, and not >criminalize good behavior.) > >A proper understanding of the Commerce Clause indicates that the >most the federal government can do in the firearms area is to keep >one state from using taxation to adversely treat firearms which are >made in another state and are for sale in the first state. As Justice >Thomas put it in his opinion concurring with the majority in the >Lopez case, the central issue of the wrong turn by the Court over >the last 50 years was not being addressed head-on in Lopez, but it >needs to be soon. > >If the Court were to be consistently constitutional, all federal gun >control legislation, starting with Roosevelt's 1934 National Firearms >Act, would be thrown out. This could actually happen in view of the >five federal courts which have now held another federal gun control >law to be unconstitutional on similar grounds to that of Lopez. Five >sheriffs have sued successfully under the Tenth Amendment holding >that Washington had no authority to force them to carry out a >background check under the Brady Law. This argument points right >back to Article 1, Section 8 where we have already found that there >is no authority given to the federal government for gun control >legislation. > >If the United States is to return to a lawful, constitutional national >government, one of the sure signs of that return will be the removal of >the decades-long imposition of federal gun laws. > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 20 Jan 1998 07:15:10 -0700 Skip, [...] His proposal is flat tax, same for everyone, no mortgage deduction and no other fat-cat loopholes, . . . [...] While I agree in principle, I do not agree in fact as to a flat tax. And, while we may not agree as to what kind of tax may be needed - or even necessary - we should understand that the genesis of most of our problems with the United States (ie., Washington, D.C.) begin with _any_ tax. Money _is_ power. The ability to tax is the ability to enslave/oppress. Any tax that is collected must be limited by Constitutional restrain as to quantity, and duration as to collection. I've said it before here, that when congress has the ability to dabble in monetary matters of any significance, it invariably wanders down primrose lane dragging us along for the miserable ride. Mr. Forbes may be an honorable man, but like any other politician, once he gets in office, there's no limiting what he's likely to do - no matter what he may have promised. Us libertarians have a saying: Government? How much, and for what? Paraphrasing, we can ask: Taxation? How much, and for how long? Our first order of business for Mr./Ms. Office Holder aught be, to initiate a Constitutional amendment which limits the ceiling on _any_ tax, and the duration of that tax, as well as the ultimate tax ceiling of all taxes combined - federal and state. Limit the money, limit the power. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 20 Jan 1998 10:12:32 -0800 You said it right, ET. It amazes me the people who think stealing from them via a flat tax is better than stealing from them with a 1040. I spoze it's less hassle, but it's still stealing, still unconstitutional, and still feeding the beast. - Monte > Skip, > > [...] > His proposal is flat tax, same for everyone, >no mortgage deduction and no other fat-cat loopholes, . . . > [...] > > While I agree in principle, I do not agree >in fact as to a flat tax. > And, while we may not agree as to what kind of tax >may be needed - or even necessary - we should understand >that the genesis of most of our problems with the United >States (ie., Washington, D.C.) begin with _any_ tax. > Money _is_ power. The ability to tax is >the ability to enslave/oppress. > Any tax that is collected must be limited by >Constitutional restrain as to quantity, and duration as to >collection. > I've said it before here, that when congress has >the ability to dabble in monetary matters of any significance, >it invariably wanders down primrose lane dragging us along >for the miserable ride. > Mr. Forbes may be an honorable man, but like any >other politician, once he gets in office, there's no limiting >what he's likely to do - no matter what he may have promised. > Us libertarians have a saying: > Government? How much, and for what? > Paraphrasing, we can ask: Taxation? How much, >and for how long? > Our first order of business for Mr./Ms. Office Holder >aught be, to initiate a Constitutional amendment which limits >the ceiling on _any_ tax, and the duration of that tax, as well >as the ultimate tax ceiling of all taxes combined - federal and >state. > Limit the money, limit the power. > >ET > > > > >- > > > - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Date: 20 Jan 1998 13:28:21 -0500 (EST) >> I don't really think any serious tax reformer can win >> easily, but I do think that there is a lot of sleeping >> power in the issue and Forbes looks like the guy with >> enough berries to fight the good fight. > >By golly, yer right. I wonder how many of those banksters he knows >personally. Thank God he's on *our* side! > Hey Monte, when you finish overthrowing the currency and the Fed reserve and the irs, drop me a postcard so I don't pay any extra taxes! Thanks. My guess is whatever forces are at work undermining either don't have anything with what you and I think. If you think you can do it by politicing, good luck!! Wonder how well Roman citizen's did asking their Senate to please stop boning them. My rule for elections is: decide how likely it is that a guy is going to get elected and multiply by how likely it is that he is going to enact a tax cut (for me) and multiply by the extent of the tax cut (for me). Its nice and rational. Forbes could score pretty high. Conventional political establishment is kinda busy right now deciding how to divvy up the "surplus". Doesn't sound like tax cut season to me, yet. If you think that overthrowing banksters is what it is about, I think you ought to examine changing the currency you deal in and the location of the bankers and what rules they play by. You can do that right now. Just sidestep the whole thing. Swiss francs, offshore havens in the sunny Caribe or Europe, lira, deutche marks, zloty's, rupees, whatever. Who've got your choice - make it. If you want to stop paying taxes, just stop. Move offshore, do business there. find the best locale and do it. If you think the electoral process in the U.S. is going to do anything but work at the margin, you ought to re-evaluate. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: OK city Grand Jury indictments Date: 20 Jan 1998 16:38:29 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- advance release from the 1/19 issue of Washington Weekly: Oklahoma Grand Jury Expected To Hand Down Indictments Strassmeir, Mahon, and Ward Possible Targets By Wesley Phelan ATF informant Carol Howe has identified Andreas Strassmeir, Dennis Mahon, and Peter Ward as participants in the plot to bomb the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. She warned ATF agent Angela Finley of the plot in advance of the bombing. Oklahoma state Rep. Charles Key has worked to impanel a grand jury to hear evidence of a wider plot behind the bombing as well as advance government knowledge of this plot.... ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Ruling - Challenge to ugly gun ban (fwd) Date: 21 Jan 1998 10:45:33 PST On Jan 21, Chuck Scanland wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >From another list..... Chuck ============================================================ The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that FFLs, gunsmiths, and firearm manufacturers have standing to challenge Slick's ugly semi-auto ban. See the text at: http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/nov97/97a0345p.06.html This could be a major win for the good guys, folks. I predict the usual media handwringing... JMR [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: Di Fi will not run (fwd) Date: 21 Jan 1998 14:52:21 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- <> On KCBS radio in San Francisco, there was also speculation that Fascist-stein might be a possible Democratic VP candidate on a Gore/Fienstein presidential ticket... (be afraid, be very, very afraid...) B^o - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Good cop bad cop, RE:Death Starr (fwd) Date: 21 Jan 1998 16:19:53 -0600 (CST) My thoughts about the current Clinton sex scandal. > "I can say that the president was quite firm about me making that > statement," McCurry said. > > The presidential spokesman tried to portray a White House going about > its work in a normal fashion despite the sensational charges. He said > that the president's outrage over the charges quickly faded as he turned > to discussions with national security advisers about Iraq. Time for a war^^^^ > > After working as an intern at the White House, Lewinsky worked in the > public affairs department at the Pentagon along with Tripp. She left the ^^^^^^^^ Could this be the Military coup against Clinton? (Cut) > > I think something material I don't understand is going on re the latest on > Linda Tripp and Monica L re Ken Starr's OIC. (cut) > > Linda Tripp was only one of two Bush Administration holdovers who worked in > the WH for Clinton (that is obviously qualified in some way since many USSS > folks, the Travel Office folks, and others did) -- what Linda said was that > she was (in 1994) one of the only two indviduals still employed in the WH who > "worked for" the Bush Administration. . . . > > Thus, whatever her motives (for whatever she is doing) one possibility for at > least part of LRT's actions may be political -- though I am sure there are > others. . . > > Warm regards, > Hugh S. > (cut) > Found at a.ce.c.ww: > > For all these years I've kind of stood in awe of the Clinton Machine. > >From the early days when the War Room in Little Rock was fighting to > suppress those Bimbo Eruptions and facts about Clintons involvement in > war protests and draft dodging they've really impressed me with their > ability to either spin a story into meaninglessness or strong-arming > editors into keeping the story from ever appearing. > > For all these months that I've monitored these news groups I've watched > the real anti-Clinton zealots continually predict that 'indictments are > just around the corner'. And Clinton's defenders just laughed and > pointed to the opinion polls. (Cut) > > Kurt Nicklas > From: jqp@inxpress.net > Subject: Re: CAS: Another Convert > > > >So I'll predict that Bill Clinton will not serve out the rest of his > >term. I'll predict that he'll either resign under pressure or be removed > >from office. In either case, it'll be rough on the country(I remember > >Watergate). But we'll get over it. And maybe we'll look a little closer > >at the character of the man we elect in future. > > > > ... and sweep under the rug the retail dumping of > American "dual-use" technology, the U.S. Patent > database, and formerly critically important > classified information, to China and anyone > else who wanted to put a buck in the pocket > of an FOB. Bill Clinton has made treason just > another campaign fund raising scheme; that is > one of his real legacies. > > > - -- Someone wrote: > > >Then I wonder what kind of 'immunity' Tripp needed? > >I'm wondering if the folks investigating Paula Jones' case > >might have inadvertedly crossed paths with Starr's 'investigation', > >to the point that information uncovered by Jones' team > >would implicate Starr in a cover-up, thus forcing Starr's > >sudden interest in the Lewinsky angle. (cut) Whitewater, Clinton, Foster, Waco, China, Starr ect. The drug war and mafia and its incredible money machine have been rumored and hinted at behind all of these incredible scandals. We have had Senate, House, Judicial and media investigation of all of this. Each time I got my hopes up and each time it ended in another cover up with minor players getting minor sentences. The House hearings got close but died a fast death when they uncovered the Republicans and their possible dirty underwear. I have had all my money in money markets waiting for the big crash for 2 years as the Clintons march on. It sure looks like all of these formal hearings are nothing more than official cover ups to hide the real facts from the public. This is the classic good cop bad cop game. Why after, FBI files on the Republicans, missing files, Cattle futures, Health care task force cover ups, dead lawyers and Chinese Communist Bribes would a little old white house aide bring down the Whitehouse? Why and how can we explain all of these national security, and corruption being over looked to have a minor sex scandal make the press finally do their job. The press makes or breaks a scandal, why now? A. Its a military and or political coup? Just like Watergate was a set up to take down Nixon. She worked for Bush the ex-CIA head and foreign affairs expert president. She moved to the Pentagon. Clinton had allowed the Chinese to buy and sell things very bad for USA security. Clinton staff are talking about making it harder to launch a nuke and many other examples of dangerous security decisions. B. This is a way to take out Clinton and staff and not touch the Republican involvement with the Drug war and China stuff. It is a bipartisan or Democrat party decision to take him out for their own good. If its to good to be true then.... Paul Watson, Dallas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Good cop bad cop, RE:Death Starr (fwd) Date: 21 Jan 1998 16:59:30 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > My thoughts about the current Clinton sex scandal. > > > > "I can say that the president was quite firm about me making that > > statement," McCurry said. > > > > The presidential spokesman tried to portray a White House going about > > its work in a normal fashion despite the sensational charges. He said > > that the president's outrage over the charges quickly faded as he turned > > to discussions with national security advisers about Iraq. > Time for a war^^^^ Run, do not walk, to the nearest theatre showing "Wag the Dog" for a couple of hours ROTFLYAO. Even the Blue Wolf will enjoy that one. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Good cop bad cop, RE:Death Starr (fwd) Date: 21 Jan 1998 16:59:30 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > My thoughts about the current Clinton sex scandal. > > > > "I can say that the president was quite firm about me making that > > statement," McCurry said. > > > > The presidential spokesman tried to portray a White House going about > > its work in a normal fashion despite the sensational charges. He said > > that the president's outrage over the charges quickly faded as he turned > > to discussions with national security advisers about Iraq. > Time for a war^^^^ Run, do not walk, to the nearest theatre showing "Wag the Dog" for a couple of hours ROTFLYAO. Even the Blue Wolf will enjoy that one. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: [Fwd: [Fwd: WASH.WEEKLY-Oklahoma Grand Jury Expected To Hand Down Indictments]] (fwd) Date: 21 Jan 1998 19:52:16 -0600 (CST) This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --1915762710-1369479000-885433936=:21051 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: --1915762710-1369479000-885433936=:21051 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: Content-Description: Return-Path: Received: from mail.cdsnet.net (mail.cdsnet.net [204.118.244.5]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA26378 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:38:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from hp-customer (d01a819d.dip.cdsnet.net [208.26.129.157]) by mail.cdsnet.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA27519; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:28:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34C3B5F7.107B86C2@cdsnet.net> Reply-To: wolfeyes@cdsnet.net Organization: CWA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------C8B1CF6E1C513D84E01C7557" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------C8B1CF6E1C513D84E01C7557 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------C8B1CF6E1C513D84E01C7557 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from endeavor.flash.net (endeavor.flash.net [209.30.0.40]) by mail.cdsnet.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA09815 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:16:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from flash.net (houasc4-203.flash.net [209.30.64.203]) by endeavor.flash.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17362; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:15:11 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <34C3A8FF.3BB45BB@flash.net> Reply-To: copyplus@copyplus.net Organization: Texas Net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <244482de.34c3348c@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit BOB WORN wrote: > Subject: Oklahoma Grand Jury Expected To Hand Down Indictments > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:49:13 -0600 > From: Washington Weekly > > OKLAHOMA GRAND JURY EXPECTED TO HAND DOWN INDICTMENTS > Strassmeir, Mahon, and Ward Possible Targets > > By Wesley Phelan > > During an FBI debriefing two days after the bombing of the > Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, ATF informant Carol > Howe identified Andreas Strassmeir, Dennis Mahon, and Peter Ward > as participants in the bombing plot. She had warned ATF agent > Angela Finley of the plot in advance of the bombing. Oklahoma > state Rep. Charles Key has worked to impanel a grand jury to hear > evidence of a wider plot behind the bombing as well as advance > government knowledge of this plot. Rep. Key was interviewed by > the Washington Weekly last week: > > QUESTION: I have read that you encountered much opposition from > prominent people in Oklahoma City when you were trying to get the > grand jury impaneled. Is that true? > > KEY: That is correct. Oklahoma is one of two states that has in > its constitution the right of the people to have a county grand > jury impaneled by simply circulating a petition. New Mexico is > the other state. But it happens frequently in Oklahoma. In any > year you will have quite a number of grand juries around the > state impaneled. We did the same thing and immediately an > attempt was made to stop us--and temporarily it was successful-- > by a local judge and it forced us to have to appeal that and > incur a time and money expense, which we did. Also, just prior > to filing for that grand jury we had extreme opposition from the > Governor of Oklahoma, Frank Keating, who is a former special > agent of the FBI, former U.S. Attorney, former Assistant > Secretary of the Treasury where he supervised the ATF and other > agencies. He was very much in opposition to us and the Wilburns > and many others who spoke out. In addition to that, direct > opposition during the last two-and-a-half years has also come > from the Attorney General of the state, Drew Edmonson, the local > District Attorney, Bob Macy, and Judge Dan Owens, who is a local > state District Judge. > > QUESTION: This was a petition drive, is that correct, and you had > to get 10,000 signatures? > > KEY: We had to get 5,000 and we turned in 13,500, which was what > we were able to get in a short period of time with extreme > opposition. Part of the opposition that we had during that > specific time, and another part of the opposition we have > incurred, is the Attorney General and his office subpoenaing me > and my secretary and a friend of mine who became the petition > drive coordinator before a multi-county state grand jury to "see > if we had complied with all state laws regarding fund raising." > I had recently started a fund raising effort and they implied > that I had violated some laws involving charitable solicitations. > > QUESTION: What subpoena power does the current county grand jury > have? > > KEY: It has full subpoena power, period. > > QUESTION: Who is acting as the prosecutor to guide the grand > jury and call in witnesses? > > KEY: The law in the state of Oklahoma states that the local > District Attorney's Office will act as the legal advisor to the > grand jury. > > QUESTION: Are these the same people who opposed the grand jury > to begin with? > > KEY: Yes, they are some of the same people. > > QUESTION: Has that presented a problem to you? > > KEY: Somewhat, but the politics and the public's perception of > this has helped us because all these same politicians are up for > reelection this year. The popularity of this was very > significant in central Oklahoma and even all over the state from > what polls are showing since that time, so they have since ceased > their blatant attacks on us. We had intended to have District > Attorney Macy removed from being the legal advisor to the grand > jury all along as we went through the court battle. But then as > we got to the point where we were going to be able to circulate > the petition and have the grand jury impaneled, we had done > enough research that we realized that Oklahoma law says that in > such an event the Attorney General becomes the one who decides > who will become the special prosecutor. So, the Attorney General > would have been the person who would have been in control of this > thing, or having a certain amount of control. And then we also > in that period of time--last year--discovered yet another law, > rather obscure and seldom used if ever used, that gives the > Governor of the State of Oklahoma rights and powers in certain > situations to appoint what's called in law a Special Attorney and > which could have thrown it into his court. So we had three people > to consider there and decided that Macy was the lesser of the > three evils that had opposed us and so that's why we decided to > leave it like it was and not take it any further. > > QUESTION: How many witnesses, roughly, have appeared before the > grand jury? > > KEY: I would say about 70 at this point. > > QUESTION: How have these witnesses been chosen? Are they mostly > eyewitnesses to what happened the day of the bombing, or would > that include others also? > > KEY: Yes, both. And they came largely from a list we provided > to the grand jury. > > QUESTION: "We" being you and the Wilburns? > > KEY: Yes. > > QUESTION: I read that J. D. Cash originally refused to testify, > or put up some resistance, but that he has since come forward and > testified. What persuaded him to change his mind? > > KEY: Well, the first part of that--and I've gotten a real lesson > in what you can believe when you read a newspaper article--J. D. > never refused to testify, never refused to testify. He was > covering the Nichols trial in Denver. The primary source of that > information and the inaccuracy of it was because J. D. responded > to the subpoena--which said you must bring and turn over all of > your tapes, transcripts, videos, interviews, you name it, it's > one of those all-inclusive kinds of legal documents--and as a > reporter he was not going to do that. > > QUESTION: It was a subpoena duces tecum? > > KEY: Yes. > > QUESTION: Have others refused to come before the grand jury? > > KEY: No. I don't know of anyone who has refused. > > QUESTION: Do you have any idea when the grand jury will finish > its work? Does it have a time limit? > > KEY: Just yesterday one of the assistant attorneys working with > the grand jury said that they have a schedule set up through > March. They typically have done that all along, set about a > two-month schedule at a time as they see their work load, so I > think there's no doubt they will go through the end of March. I > think there's a good chance they will go even another three > months beyond that. Everyone has only estimates on this. > > QUESTION: The time limit then is when the work is completed? > > KEY: Yes. And they could even go another twelve months beyond > the first twelve, and ultimately I think there's nothing in the > law that precludes them from getting, technically, an unlimited > extension. No one expects that, of course. > > QUESTION: Can this grand jury hand down indictments? > > KEY: Yes it can. > > QUESTION: To which court would the indictments go? > > KEY: To a state court at the county level. > > QUESTION: Do you expect indictments to be handed down? > > KEY: I do, yes. I really do. I think Michael Fortier is at the > top of that list when you look at people other than McVeigh and > Nichols. Strassmeir is probably number two. Mahon would > probably fall in there next. And then you have a series of > people like Peter Ward and the Kehoe brothers (1) and a few > others who are part of or related to this Midwest banking group. > There could even be some Middle Eastern people in there. > > QUESTION: Who would act as prosecutor if indictments were handed > down? > > KEY: It would be the local District Attorney. > > QUESTION: Have you experienced any impediments being thrown in > the way of the grand jury by federal officials? > > KEY: Let me think that through for a second . . . well, in the > way of the grand jury the only thing I can really point to is we > get mixed signals. And that seems to be becoming the norm with > the feds in a lot of ways, and not just in this case, but in a > lot of cases like this, in my opinion--lack of cooperation and a > sense of working with people in cases like this, and I don't know > that they're going to turn over the information they have to the > state authorities. As a matter of fact, as has been somewhat > widely publicized, they haven't even turned over information to > the defense as they are supposed to by law--to the defenses of > these two individuals. > > QUESTION: Would you like to comment on Janet Reno's statement > that the government has identified all of the people involved, > meaning, of course, McVeigh and Nichols? > > KEY: That's an absolute falsehood and if she doesn't know it, > which I can't imagine that she doesn't know that there are other > people involved and that they are intentionally covering it up, > then she ought to resign and step down. > > QUESTION: Yesterday you held a press conference in which two > Oklahoma County Reserve Deputy Sheriffs came forward. They > claimed U.S. Congressman Istook and a photographer who > accompanied him said the government had prior knowledge of a bomb > threat. Was that the substance of what they said to the grand > jury, or can you comment on that? > > KEY: They have not appeared before the grand jury yet, but that > will be what they say before them, because they have signed > affidavits and specific statements to that effect. The exact > words Congressman Istook said to one of the gentlemen--and the > photographer, who is a local, fairly well-known female attorney > here, spoke to the other gentleman simultaneously--and Istook > said to the one guy after some small talk, "Yeah this is a > terrible thing and we knew this was going to happen, and we just > blew it." And the reserve Deputy Sheriff said to him, "Excuse me > sir?" And he said "Yeah we got a," I can't remember if he said > a warning or information, "about a fundamentalist Islamic group > and we blew it." > > QUESTION: Do you have any information about how widespread this > prior knowledge was in the federal government, with regard to > Congressmen and Senators and government agencies? > > KEY: Yes, I do. > > QUESTION: No further comment? > > KEY: Not now. We've learned the hard way that we're fighting a > big, major battle, a big opponent that wants to keep this under > lock and key and we're going to handle this appropriately and > that's why we had the press conference yesterday in the manner > that we did. > > QUESTION: The two reserve deputies mentioned the presence of a > fundamentalist Islamic group. Do you have any knowledge that > such a group participated in planning the bombing, or carrying it > out? > > KEY: No other information that hasn't already been disseminated > publicly somewhere. There is a little bit of information that > has not been very widely talked about. Are you familiar with > Cary Gagan? > > QUESTIONER: That's a name I'm not familiar with. > > KEY: He's an informant who came forward to the Justice > Department in September of 1994 saying that he was being > recruited by a group of people which included Middle Eastern, > Latin American, and white Americans planning to blow up a > government building or buildings in the Midwest somewhere.(2) > > QUESTION: I've read that some people who knew things the > government did not want them to know have died or been > threatened. Is either of these true, to your knowledge? > > KEY: It's a very strong possibility with one or two people, in > my opinion. But that's as far as I'm willing to go with that > particular subject. > > QUESTION: How has your effort to get to the truth in this matter > affected your political career? > > KEY: Well, my first reelection bid after I got involved in this > was in 1996, when and after I had taken the strongest dose of > criticism. And I didn't have a Democratic opponent, which is > highly unusual, especially since the Democrats were trying to > find someone to run against me. I had one Republican opponent, > and I beat him 75% to 25%. I don't say that boasting by any > means, but I think it is a real clear indicator of how people > feel about doing what we've done, which is simply to ask > questions. We haven't come out in an irresponsible way--and > we've been misquoted--and even in the face of that I think people > saw what we were doing and what was going on here locally. And > they've deemed it to be responsible enough that it was a > reasonable thing to do. > > QUESTION: Do you think the American people will ever get the > full story about what happened on April 19, 1995? > > KEY: I don't know about the full story, but I think we'll get a > lot closer to the truth. That's what we're working toward, to > get as much as we can, and that's all we can do. > > QUESTION: Do you have anything else you would like for the > readers of The Washington Weekly to know? > > KEY: I would like for them to know how to get in touch with us > if they have information or would like to help us in any way. > > QUESTION: Would you like to give an address or a phone number? > > KEY: The phone number is (405) 879-2760, and we also have a web > site which is at http://www.okcbombing.org Our mailing address is > P.O. Box 75697, Oklahoma City, OK, 73147. > > NOTES: > > (1) The Kehoe brothers were indicted in Arkansas last month for > the murder of the Mueller family of Arkansas after a robbery that > netted precious metals, coins and gun parts in early 1995. > Mueller had met Andreas Strassmeir at a gun show in Fort Smith, > Arkansas. A former Spokane motel manager has tied Chevie Kehoe > to Tim McVeigh. > > (2) The book "The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of > Terror" by David Hoffman, expected to be released next month, > details the allegations of federal informant Cary Gagan about a > ring of Middle-Eastern terrorists and Latin American drug > traffickers involved in planning the bombing. > > [Wesley Phelan is Associate Professor of Political Science at > Eureka College in Eureka, Illinois] > > Published in the Jan. 19, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly > Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) > Reposting permitted with this message intact -- ======================== Johnny Johnson Independent FlashNet Distributor http://www.copyplus.net ICQ #: 5541896 ======================== Order "RED SKY" For a Friend... "A LINE IN THE SAND" For You! http://www.riverscape.com/sp --------------C8B1CF6E1C513D84E01C7557-- --1915762710-1369479000-885433936=:21051-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Good cop bad cop, RE:Death Starr (fwd) Date: 21 Jan 1998 18:31:20 -0800 >> My thoughts about the current Clinton sex scandal. >> >> >> > "I can say that the president was quite firm about me making that >> > statement," McCurry said. >> > >> > The presidential spokesman tried to portray a White House going about >> > its work in a normal fashion despite the sensational charges. He said >> > that the president's outrage over the charges quickly faded as he turned >> > to discussions with national security advisers about Iraq. >> Time for a war^^^^ > >Run, do not walk, to the nearest theatre showing "Wag the Dog" for a couple of >hours ROTFLYAO. Even the Blue Wolf will enjoy that one. I'll second that one! - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Slick Outslicked Date: 21 Jan 1998 20:18:34 PST About the latest Klinton sex scandal: It just gets better and better. Apparently some of Slick's genetic material impacted some of her clothes and she kept it as a souvenir, so now there's DNA evidence. Seems like Slick just outslicked himself, when he should have just stuck to slicking, himself.....:-) -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: IP: May We See Your Papers Please? Date: 18 Jan 1998 17:50:01 -0800 http://home.earthlink.net/~idzrus/index.html ------- Did you know you have to provide 'GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION' to travel? I took one of my very infrequent trips on an airplane last week. I had been forewarned by one of my daughters that I would HAVE to produce a Drivers License in order to get past the baggage check-in desk. Well, this just happens to be an extremely sensitive issue with me and I said, "NO WAY," I will get on that plane using my Costco card as it has my photo on it. I did call the airline and ask what the deal was on identification. I did this as the plane tickets were a gift from my brother and sister-in-law and I couldn't goof up their gift to me to prove a point. The person I spoke with on the phone was very polite in telling me that I would indeed need GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID to board the plane. I asked what is considered Government Issued ID? She explained that would be a state issued Drivers License, a state issued Identification Card, or a Passport. I asked what a person can do that has none of those items. She replied, then you must get one of them. I told her my flight was scheduled the next day so there was no time to get any of those items and just whom would I talk with to discover what other options would be available. Her response was to go talk with the airport security at the airport. I did not do that, choosing instead to take my chances of just going to the airport and seeing what would happen. I love real life adventures. Upon arriving at Sea-Tac I gave my daughter the usual hug and kiss and said "Bye, see you in a week" - or whatever. Grabbed my luggage and headed towards the baggage/ticket counter. When my turn came I placed my suitcase on the proper spot and handed the clerk my tickets. She looked at them and asked for ID. I opened my purse and my wallet and pulled out my Costco Card and handed it to her. Believe me, this was a Kodak Moment!!!! She recovered and then explained that I needed to produce GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. The ensuing discussion was long (took about 15 minutes to get past this point to the next step) and I will just summarize for this writing. Oh yes, there were many people standing around that heard all of this. We went back and forth over GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID and my comments about why did I need a drivers license, I wasn't driving the plane--that I thought I lived in America and we had freedom here and hadn't reached the point of having to PRODUCE OUR PAPERS. Next we discussed how someone who flies only every few years is to know of these socialist rules. The requirement of needing GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION is not printed on the tickets or the envelopes that contain the tickets. And, as I looked around where I stood (where they sell tickets) there was not any notice concerning that rule. She explained that I would have been advised at the time I purchased the tickets of the ID requirement. I told her I didn't purchase the tickets, they were a gift and had been mailed to me. "Well, it is FAA rules", she said. I asked for a copy of those rules so that I could see for myself if that was indeed true. She didn't have a copy and told me to contact FAA for one. I explained that it was odd that IF that is the rule then it should be readily available for the public to see. The conversation then went to how safe she feels knowing that everyone on the plane has GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION as it makes everyone SAFER and more SECURE. I remarked that false identification is not that hard to get and I didn't understand how the possession of possibly false GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION could make anyone feel safer. I certainly didn't feel any safer or more secure knowing that all passengers carried GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. We agreed that we seemed to have different views on what constitutes SAFETY and SECURITY. (I really wanted to explain how the FBI, BATF, CIA, had GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION and I wondered how SAFE & SECURE the Randy Weaver family and the Branch Davidians felt knowing that those firing on them had GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. I don't think she would have comprehended the relationship at all). I finally asked her point blank if the fact that I didn't produce any GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION was going to create denial of my boarding the plane. She was very exasperated at this point as I am sure they have not been taught how to deal with nice little old ladies that aren't nasty or threatening but just asking honest questions. She then reached down below her counter area and pulled out a very bright flourescent orange strip of card stock, approx 18 inches x 1.5 inches that she folded around my purse strap and stapled it. I was told NOT TO REMOVE it either. She then explained that I would HAVE to submit to a physical search of my purse upon passing thru the metal detection area. AND, be sure they punch this strip after you have been searched or YOU WILL NOT GET ON THAT PLANE!!! I looked at her and asked if the searchers were aware that they had to punch that strip of bright orange paper after they searched my purse? "Yes, they know that," she replied. "Well then, I guess it is their responsibility to punch it and not mine to be sure they do, right?" She didn't really answer me but made it clear in motions that she was done with me and for me to proceed so she could help the next person. I proceeded to the metal detection area where a long line was waiting to be ‘detected.' I was not carrying anything other than my purse which had this BRIGHT orange flagging on it so that everyone would know I was some sort of criminal and not a compliant little sheep following the dictates of the NWO. I enjoy watching people so this gave me a lot of entertainment as I stood in line. When I reached the position of approximately 7th in line the man that I presume is an observer was saying something. I didn't realize right away that he was talking to me. When it dawned on me that he was directing his comments to me I asked him to please repeat what he said as I had not heard him. He smiled broadly and pointed at the BRIGHT orange flagging and asked me WHAT I had done to deserve that as they rarely ever see that on a passenger. Keep in mind this area was crowded and the voice level had to be raised in order to be heard. I made sure my purse became very visible and smiling, I told him (loudly) that I was guilty of NOT PRODUCING GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION as I thought I lived in AMERICA and didn't realize I was living in NAZI GERMANY!!! This definitely caught the attention of many and the observer smiled and said OK, he understood. By this time I was at the metal detector and placed my purse on the conveyor belt and walked thru to be ‘detected.' A nice young black woman took my purse and asked me to please step to the side with her as they needed to physically search my purse. I said fine and followed her to a window sill. She explained she had to call for a supervisor. When the supervisor appeared the first person began to remove the items from my purse. I love these exercises. I have a well stocked purse, too. In fact, it was even more so than usual as I had my 8 oz bottle of Colloidal Silver in my purse so that it wouldn't spill in my suitcase. I am an E'Ola Distributor and I take the C.S. daily as a preventative anti-biotic (I am allergic to all but two prescription anti-biotics) so I had to have it with me. I had to explain what was in the bottle, which I did. I told both of them they were lucky I had not brought my little C.S. Maker (for making the C.S. myself) as it has three batteries and wires and silver probes. That would have made them all nervous and probably landed me in a cell somewhere. Both of them were very nice and polite through this process. After all items were removed and those that needed explanation were explained, the woman attempted to replace the items in my purse. After a while of watching the attempted repack I asked if there was any rule that prevented me from repacking it. She gratefully said no, so I did the chore. As I was repacking my purse the supervisor (he was of Asian decent) asked me WHY I went through all of this. I explained to him that I was born in America almost 58 years ago and I still believed in ALL the freedoms that Americans are supposed to have. Also, that I would continue to exercise my rights as I understand them until the day I die in spite of the Socialist restraints being imposed upon the people of this Country. This man looked me square in the eyes and told me "thank you" and to please continue doing it. He wished more people would stand against these things as I have chosen to do. I wish I would have had more time to find out where he came from and to hear his story but flight time was fast arriving so off I went to the boarding area. I made mental notes of the expressions on the faces of those that would see my BRIGHT orange flagging (reminded me of the YELLOW STAR during WWII) and wished I had time to explain to them the reason why I had it. Perhaps a few understood. I boarded the plane without further stops and arrived in Reno on time. An amazing event took place in spite of my not having produced GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION but only using a Costco Card to get on board--all of the passengers on that flight arrived SAFELY, can you believe it? No one was harmed by my lack of producing GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** http://www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: IP: May We See Your Papers Please? Date: 21 Jan 1998 21:47:17 -0800 Hmmmm... I posted this on Sunday and it finally hit ROC on Wednesday night?!?!? Interesting... Also interesting that it's got the IgnitionPoint IP label on it on the ROC list and still says it's from me. I sent it to both lists. Me thinks somebody's a tampering with my email... - Monte >Did you know you have to provide 'GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION' to >travel? ... - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Good cop bad cop, RE:Death Starr (fwd) Date: 22 Jan 1998 10:01:34 -0500 (EST) > For all these years I've kind of stood in awe of the Clinton Machine. > >From the early days when the War Room in Little Rock was fighting to > suppress those Bimbo Eruptions and facts about Clintons involvement in > war protests and draft dodging they've really impressed me with their > ability to either spin a story into meaninglessness or strong-arming > editors into keeping the story from ever appearing. > > For all these months that I've monitored these news groups I've watched > the real anti-Clinton zealots continually predict that 'indictments are > just around the corner'. And Clinton's defenders just laughed and > pointed to the opinion polls. Two words: Why now? Herr Foster died (probably of political murder), Colby died, (probably of political murder), C's security chief died in Little Rock (probably of political murder). The Chinese (Red) pumped money to the DNC and got some pretty obvious quid pro quos. There is more than enough scandal to go around. Why now? I personally don't know. But I also don't believe that the Newsweek guy who broke this story (who has known about the intern for 3-4 months according to this morning's interview on Don Imus) really had much say on how/when the story broke. The whole thing is a pretty sad commentary on the degree of corruption in D.C. today. Regardless of the morality of shtupping 21-year old interns and telling them to lie about it - it doesn't strike me as the most serious thing going on today. Let's not forget Mena. Maybe the D's like this because it has the potential to depose someone who is an embarrassment and the R's like it because it leaves some of the stuff (like Mena and siphoning funds out of bankrupt S&L's) that they would like to see forgotten. I think there are plots within plots here. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: Re: Good cop bad cop, RE:Death Starr (fwd) Date: 22 Jan 1998 10:11:00 -0600 John Curtis wrote: > Why now? I personally don't know. But I also don't > believe that the Newsweek guy who broke this story (who has > known about the intern for 3-4 months according to this morning's > interview on Don Imus) really had much say on how/when the > story broke. Lets don't forget that newsweek spiked Ishikoff's story. All this has come about because someone tipped Matt Drudge and he broadcast it worldwide. That makes the third time Ishikoff has had a story spiked. The original Paula Jones Story by the WPost, the Willey story and now Lewinsky. It's also the second time Drudge has scooped him by releasing a story that his magazine spiked. In other words, all this stuff is broadcast to the world because a little nerdy guy in a cheap apartment in hollywood decided to start playing on the net a few years ago. Let anyone who: 1. Doubts the power of this medium 2. Doesn't think "one person" can make a difference take note. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: RE: Good cop bad cop, RE:Death Starr (fwd) Date: 22 Jan 1998 08:01:14 -0800 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD270B.EC9170C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I especially can't understand the outrage/scandal of telling someone = else to lie vs doing it yourself. As for "why now" and "plots within plots", I don't think we need = conspiracy to explain it. Human minds can't handle a lot of complexity = of some kinds. There are at least 10 major players/sides in this game, e.g. Starr, = Smaltz, Clinton's White House, Clinton's Dixie Mafia, Mrs. Clinton, = Justice, FBI, all the factions in Congress, all of the factions of the = media... all with their own sometimes-conflicting-agendas and internal = politics. No single insider can understand all aspects of their own = decisions, and nobody outside can understand all of the internal = politics of each faction, much less how they affect each other. Don't infer conspiracy when complexity and/or stupidty explains it. Lew -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 7:02 AM Cc: act@efn.org > For all these years I've kind of stood in awe of the Clinton Machine. > >From the early days when the War Room in Little Rock was fighting to > suppress those Bimbo Eruptions and facts about Clintons involvement in > war protests and draft dodging they've really impressed me with their > ability to either spin a story into meaninglessness or strong-arming > editors into keeping the story from ever appearing. >=20 > For all these months that I've monitored these news groups I've = watched > the real anti-Clinton zealots continually predict that 'indictments = are > just around the corner'. And Clinton's defenders just laughed and > pointed to the opinion polls. Two words: Why now? Herr Foster died (probably of political murder), Colby died, (probably of political murder), C's security chief died in=20 Little Rock (probably of political murder). The Chinese=20 (Red) pumped money to the DNC and got some pretty obvious=20 quid pro quos. There is more than enough scandal to go=20 around. Why now? I personally don't know. But I also don't=20 believe that the Newsweek guy who broke this story (who has=20 known about the intern for 3-4 months according to this morning's=20 interview on Don Imus) really had much say on how/when the=20 story broke. The whole thing is a pretty sad commentary on the degree of=20 corruption in D.C. today. Regardless of the morality of=20 shtupping 21-year old interns and telling them to lie about=20 it - it doesn't strike me as the most serious thing going=20 on today. Let's not forget Mena. Maybe the D's like this because it=20 has the potential to depose someone who is an embarrassment and=20 the R's like it because it leaves some of the stuff (like=20 Mena and siphoning funds out of bankrupt S&L's) that they would=20 like to see forgotten. I think there are plots within plots here.=20 ciao, jcurtis - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD270B.EC9170C0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhQQAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAQABAAEEkAYAvAEAAAEAAAARAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAASwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHJvY0BsaXN0cy54bWlz c2lvbi5jb20AU01UUAByb2NAbGlzdHMueG1pc3Npb24uY29tAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAA AB4AAzABAAAAFwAAAHJvY0BsaXN0cy54bWlzc2lvbi5jb20AAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEw AQAAABkAAAAncm9jQGxpc3RzLnhtaXNzaW9uLmNvbScAAAAAAgELMAEAAAAcAAAAU01UUDpST0NA TElTVFMuWE1JU1NJT04uQ09NAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAADAHE6AAAAAB4A9l8BAAAAFwAAAHJv Y0BsaXN0cy54bWlzc2lvbi5jb20AAAIB918BAAAASwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAA AHJvY0BsaXN0cy54bWlzc2lvbi5jb20AU01UUAByb2NAbGlzdHMueG1pc3Npb24uY29tAAADAP1f AQAAAAMA/18AAAAAAgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAAAgBhAQSAAQArAAAAUkU6IEdvb2QgY29wIGJhZCBj b3AsIFJFOkRlYXRoIFN0YXJyIChmd2QpAGYNAQWAAwAOAAAAzgcBABYACAABAA4ABAAHAQEggAMA DgAAAM4HAQAWAAcANQAGAAQAMgEBCYABACEAAAAzMENERDFERjQwOTNEMTExOTUwQzAwQTAyNERG MzMyRgAQBwEDkAYAzAwAACMAAAALAAIAAQAAAAsAIwABAAAAAwAmAAEAAAALACkAAQAAAAMALgAA AAAAAgExAAEAAADmAAAAUENERkVCMDkAAQACAFYAAAAAAAAAOKG7EAXlEBqhuwgAKypWwgAAbXNw c3QuZGxsAAAAAABOSVRB+b+4AQCqADfZbgAAAEw6XExld3NXb3JsZFxPdXRsb29rXG91dGxvb2su cHN0ABgAAAAAAAAAup1zA9z70BGUjgCgJN8zL6KAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAAAAC6nXMD3PvQEZSOAKAk 3zMvwoAAABAAAAAwzdHfQJPREZUMAKAk3zMvKwAAAFJFOiBHb29kIGNvcCBiYWQgY29wLCBSRTpE ZWF0aCBTdGFyciAoZndkKQAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5APCHEPdOJ70BHgBwAAEAAAArAAAAUkU6IEdv b2QgY29wIGJhZCBjb3AsIFJFOkRlYXRoIFN0YXJyIChmd2QpAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABvSdO9wTf 0c0yk0AR0ZUMAKAk3zMvAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAEwAAAHJsZ2xlbmRl QGFsaW5rLm5ldAAAAwAGEAYb0HcDAAcQ3AgAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAElFU1BFQ0lBTExZQ0FOVFVO REVSU1RBTkRUSEVPVVRSQUdFL1NDQU5EQUxPRlRFTExJTkdTT01FT05FRUxTRVRPTElFVlNET0lO R0lUWU9VUlNFTEZBU0ZPUiJXSFlOT1ciQU4AAAAAAgEJEAEAAACXCAAAkwgAAFAOAABMWkZ1pdCT ewMACgByY3BnMTI1FjIA+Atgbg4QMDMznQH3IAKkA+MCAGNoCsDgc2V0MCAHEwKDAFChEHZwcnEy EXZ9CoDZCMggOwlvDjA1AoAKgex1YwBQCwNjEhILxQqxaQqASSAHkHAFkAcxbCh5IGMAcCcFQHVu DQSBcwGQGOAgdGhlAiAIYHRyYWdlL68E8BlBB0AZsGYZcGUYMNELgGcgcwNwZQIgGaBnGwARMBlw byAbIBmgdqkEIGRvGzJpBUB5CGGxETBsZi4XRBdEQQQgIwIQBcAid2gYUG5vKHciIBlCIgtQb3Qv BCAD8BmAC4AgICMiLN4gF6Ac4BiSIKJrIHAZoF8bwAmAGGACIBfQaRnwYzMYUBxBZXgLUx0xLiCo IEh1A4JtC4BkBCDXGHQRABjgbBmgYRxgIED7GrIFoG0LUCOwHUAYUBrB2RtyIGsk8h37VBmQCXCv H8ApIgVAJeBhGSAgD0DZJNBhagWxC1F5GQEaMD5pAQAEICDBIKEEIGdhoweAIVBlLmckUFMBkBRy ciFQUwDAbHR6vSFQQxshHEAYkAQgVyCwnxrwJHAIYBEwLZpEaScAsRmgTWFmBzAhUE0RINckUC21 IVBKLtB0DeAsQbhGQkkhUBghGXNmAND/MaAi4SuCCFAPIAlwBBAyNK8awjKqNHUHgGQHMC42MN8y QyCCGXIjIBmwdwOgG3L7MaAHgS0i0Q7wDeAxoA8g/i0aARpxBCAZQi3RBJEakf5wBvAdQA3gMLEH sBxQAJD/DyAl4QuAKzIFwBhxGMoyUv8p4BfhIFE0dDc1BYEEADMS7zIxGVEfgAbgZCcxGdArMv88 HzRIOc8asinQEPAyxiFQ3m0WADbgJeAEEWgfkBly+xhQMDBmPYFDZCBAKQEd+/5EIaMLgEWgPAEi 6B9ACfBbJpoZQS8FsRkgdSMQZN8nISO1K3EkQB4KTAfQHgjzCzAbIDM2AUAWkBcxA2CHGvAy8BIE MTYgLU7i2k8FEGcLgBqRTTPhGgE/TuMeBk30FzMLMU32aS0YMTQ0AUAbIDE4MLcBQAzQUoNiMfAD YToMg+JiEWBKb2gzcQhwMaABBCBbU01UUDpqWmNVA0A+wQWgLiahXf8eBVOwBmACMFQXKPAdkRqA NnkxUQBwdQrAGFAyMgEhUDE5OTggNzrKMBLxTVbnVG9UFwNg3GNAGyAZICgQeCTgBBBnMxFWklbn Q2NUFzLhQBcBEFywBbBnVuh1YmoDPYFUF1JlOiBHb8MEcCLBcCBiYWDzIVBwUkU6RCnQNtEswyDg KGZ3ZClQj1GaTUT7FtsXRD4x8AWxMlUcESrg8xERIWAndie0J0McQGDh/SDBYSJRNHUttTAREPAL gPsscGYmPlPSGXNnkRhBWJH3IGFI4hmCVwrBCABroSDB2kwdQHQl4QgAYyIxOVG5MEBnaDiyHDFm JnNKYNcSwESyGYBvHBFCB3AG4PggRXJKYDMEGUIy0jlh7wbgGdAtpitydgbwaAAHgP8CMCuBZiZu 0CqRTfJcAR/D7mQZ8AGAHNFkT2FvgUVB/2fyCXAYIwdwcHMioSehNrj/ZiYBoAMQJxIjgiCRO/Ej Af9pIWiiWTEt0jXRAHA7QwQQ3xvABBFKEwNgONJyJOFe5d9mgDXxe5ErchxBawngeyH/dvN7dQNS F7BoAGbBcGBnkb8bMWrnZi9nMwRgAjBocLJ/KZFn44PBftIioWckG8B33yvxA2BKYGfFbtB0EPAJ gF+CZhmCd5IfwTGgLWn2ev93oSBCItE4sVkQGDJwcTYA+0XBhDMnJPE4kXQyOWEJcP2CZmoxgSlB CGAZVQWhG8D0cickUUEZUS24AQE5IfcZAYy0C2B1bzAioRlBgmb/OlBCIhlhHFAZg3shMxE6Qt8c AB37HgUBkVgwdxxQlLC9CyBzYKAkYC5QH2M/k5/+SASQBcBmoBkgO/E2ACKh/ihN4WFQAmAnMzpV GpFEUNsLIASQKS2RBvBibFGX0f4sk/mYH5kuLiERMFXRJxL/apEBEJe0IMGT+W4am3+ZK/8kUVgx adFqohwRmspggGMAfyDgJJAX4HiBG7EjYxmCRPROQx/DZyZBJ4NwcQJAOScxYnYzEC7Qnxpxdf8r QHVSqGFw8KJyoqIpISvh/wRgKSGEMQOgCfAIYG8wG2D/GlUcQaZAnxqNFJMslGKVdv+pUpVBF6AX 4BEgAiAYIyGU9msfgaJyQnMBF6AHQBtw+yGFk/liGwAIkGgBhDMZgs8HwQPgCeAiMGd1SLIcUN5i A2B/gCu0e4QotIIRAD+nq7BiaSFy40HoHuMzLf40g7YA0AWhNgBvcyu0qiH/fGIuIZP5QiOnYAfR akFHYfshYERQc6Rgd5URAHiBRGLvT/AnMQOgRPEvbMeT+XuE/7TDrS+io7SBJeEgoh0hOWH3psZP 8CKybXQyWSJqQRmCfwEACcIaspP5BaFxpSuCRPwuQyRQHEBYkalDYIAsEP8LIESjNXYFsAdAJxW/ mm9AY3BRGzIyMS1nghmwbP85pjlkGvYZgWuxHFRy1Ls6fQVALR0yHOAHkBiSfWFp/7TxJ6E5Uck0 KfERMAUQp4L/wrSmQBsyk/nEwsfDwQ9MUP50LiEfgAVAHvEaEAVAT8D3OhCicjAgebKgpXQuIRsg /7T2sqAYcC7RHTKT+bYiGYL/OlAa8Ihxq4QBADpQHBEbdr+0gsMSqqEG0CzhKeBzdDP3GUKT+RmC UteGHUHYWSnB/2gAnZEnkjR1SkEBIGLA17Pvk/nWUh/DAJBwRPB8Yh7g/xjRNVFzARrBYVAiIHGi BgD8JkwuIKRgsyZIsQhgzBH/k/nXtDsRxXHV4iBA2lHUL/8hYSH0RlIpNCAvRNEpESRQ++jPGAFv mraUCFXFHgpQdwvwXhOBAPHwAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAEIQAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAwCAEP// //9AAAcwIMh91E0nvQFAAAgwIMh91E0nvQELAACACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAADhQAAAAAA AAMAAoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAFgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAA UoUAAHQQAAAeACWACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABUhQAAAQAAAAUAAAA4LjAyAAAAAAMAJoAI IAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAGFAAAAAAAACwAvgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAADoUAAAAA AAADADCACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAARhQAAAAAAAAMAMoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAA ABiFAAAAAAAAHgBBgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAANoUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4AQoAIIAYA AAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADeFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAEOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA4 hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAAADAA00/TcAAD/S ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD270B.EC9170C0-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: [Fwd: :-))] Date: 22 Jan 1998 10:46:35 -0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------49B030416195 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Roc-ers, forwarded FYI. History is great stuff. Skip. > > > >THIS APPEARED IN A 1968 ISSUE OF THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN: > > > >2000 years ago . . . A Current Problem The Imperial > >Chancellor, Kung-sun Hung, petitioned the Emperor, saying: > >"The people should not be allowed to possess bows or > >crossbows. When 10 bandits bend their crossbows to the full, > >a hundred officials dare not advance.... If the people are > >not permitted to possess bows or crossbows, then thieves and > >robbers will carry only short weapons, and when 2 groups > >carrying short weapons meet, the larger number will be > >victorious.... In your subject's humble opinion, it will be > >advantageous to forbid the people to carry bows or > >crossbows." > > > >When the Emperor sent down this suggestion to his council > >for discussion an elder, Shou-wang, replied, saying: > > > >"Your subject has heard that when the ancients made the 5 > >kinds of weapons, it was not for the purpose of killing each > >other, but to prevent tyranny and to punish evil. When > >people lived in peace, these weapons were used to control > >the fierce animals and to be prepared against emergencies. > >If there were military affairs, then these weapons were used > >to set up defense and to form battle arrays.... > > > >"Your subject has heard that the Sage Rulers brought the > >people together and practiced shooting to demonstrate > >instructions, and he has never heard any prohibition on bows > >or arrows. > > > >"Furthermore, the cause for prohibition is that the bandits > >use them to attack and rob. The crime of attacking and > >robbing is subject to death; yet that they have not been > >stopped is because the great law- breakers do not care, > >indeed, to avoid severe punishment. Should the suggested > >prohibition be enforced, your subject fears that wicked > >persons will still carry weapons and the officials will not > >be able to stop them from carrying them, and that the good > >people who keep their weapons for self-defense will > >encounter the prohibition of the law. This will make the > >power of robbers exclusive and take away the means of > >defense from the people...." > > > >When the petition was presented, the Son of Heaven > >questioned the Imperial Chancellor, Hung, who promptly > >withdrew his suggestion. -from The History of the Han > >Dynasty, 124 B.C. > > > >This documented account was sent in by NRA Member John Kirby > >who came across it while doing research for the Far East > >Department of the University of Washington. It is a striking > >example of the fact that the fight to preserve the basic > >right of the people to bear arms changes little wtth the > >passage of the centuries. > > > >-- --------------49B030416195 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from vortex.worldaccessnet.com (worldaccessnet.com [206.190.139.1]) by mailhub.pacifier.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA22547; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:16:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by vortex.worldaccessnet.com id m0xvE0t-000dNyC; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:13:11 -0800 (PST) (Smail3.2.0.91#4) Received: from world148.worldaccessnet.com(209.17.80.53), claiming to be "cousingrace.worldaccessnet.com" via SMTP by worldaccessnet.com, id smtpdBAAa0065S; Wed Jan 21 20:13:02 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.2.16.19980121195402.3da7b1c4@worldaccessnet.com> X-Sender: cousingrace@worldaccessnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It's unfornutate that this came on a joke list, it's no joke. Bob for ______________________________________________ >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 10:47:47 -0800 (PST) >Subject: :-)) >From: R R Neuswanger >To: JOKE-L >Reply-To: R R Neuswanger >X-Sender: JOKE-L >X-Loop: listserv@lserv.com > >THIS APPEARED IN A 1968 ISSUE OF THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN: > >2000 years ago . . . A Current Problem The Imperial >Chancellor, Kung-sun Hung, petitioned the Emperor, saying: >"The people should not be allowed to possess bows or >crossbows. When 10 bandits bend their crossbows to the full, >a hundred officials dare not advance.... If the people are >not permitted to possess bows or crossbows, then thieves and >robbers will carry only short weapons, and when 2 groups >carrying short weapons meet, the larger number will be >victorious.... In your subject's humble opinion, it will be >advantageous to forbid the people to carry bows or >crossbows." > >When the Emperor sent down this suggestion to his council >for discussion an elder, Shou-wang, replied, saying: > >"Your subject has heard that when the ancients made the 5 >kinds of weapons, it was not for the purpose of killing each >other, but to prevent tyranny and to punish evil. When >people lived in peace, these weapons were used to control >the fierce animals and to be prepared against emergencies. >If there were military affairs, then these weapons were used >to set up defense and to form battle arrays.... > >"Your subject has heard that the Sage Rulers brought the >people together and practiced shooting to demonstrate >instructions, and he has never heard any prohibition on bows >or arrows. > >"Furthermore, the cause for prohibition is that the bandits >use them to attack and rob. The crime of attacking and >robbing is subject to death; yet that they have not been >stopped is because the great law- breakers do not care, >indeed, to avoid severe punishment. Should the suggested >prohibition be enforced, your subject fears that wicked >persons will still carry weapons and the officials will not >be able to stop them from carrying them, and that the good >people who keep their weapons for self-defense will >encounter the prohibition of the law. This will make the >power of robbers exclusive and take away the means of >defense from the people...." > >When the petition was presented, the Son of Heaven >questioned the Imperial Chancellor, Hung, who promptly >withdrew his suggestion. -from The History of the Han >Dynasty, 124 B.C. > >This documented account was sent in by NRA Member John Kirby >who came across it while doing research for the Far East >Department of the University of Washington. It is a striking >example of the fact that the fight to preserve the basic >right of the people to bear arms changes little wtth the >passage of the centuries. > >-- >Joke-L > > > ______________________________________________________________________ , patron saint to the "terminally" confused computerists! the Self-Sufficiency Forum | http://www.worldaccessnet.com/%7Ecousing/ | [Bob Keene] | PO Box 69, Amboy, WA 98601-0069 |(360)247-5256 (FAX by request) Life Member Emeritus - NorthWest Association of Book Publishers --------------49B030416195-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Unintended Consequences and BATF (fwd) Date: 22 Jan 1998 13:36:33 PST On Jan 22, David Phillips wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Reposted from another (small) list: +-------------------------------------------------- John Ross has learned that persons identifying themselves as BATF agents have approached vendors of "Unintended Consequences" at gun shows in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania threatening the sellers with enforcement actions if they continued to sell the book. Accurate Press is offering a $10,000 reward for information which leads to the firing, disciplining or prosecution of any federal agent or employee found guilty of this misconduct. Does anyone have any information? You are requested to cross-post and otherwise disseminate this item. Please advise John or myself (336-282-6024). Jim Jeffries +-------------------------------------------------- I don't have a contact for Mr. Ross, but he posts to rec.guns sometimes. Mr. Jeffries wrote one of the book jacket blurbs on the back of Unintended Consequences. If you haven't read UC, get it (preferably at a gun show :-) ) and read it soon. -- David Phillips sasdvp@sas.com SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. Don't Tread on Me DVC 35* 47'N 78* 47'W [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: BIBLICAL BELIEFS DESTROYED CLINTON?? (fwd) Date: 22 Jan 1998 17:03:40 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: act@efn.org BIBLICAL BELIEFS DESTROYED CLINTON?? According to the Jan. 22, 1998 Washington Times, both Arkansas Trooper Larry Patterson and Monica Lewinsky have alleged that Clinton said he had researched the Bible and found that oral sex is not considered adultery. (I don't know if that's an actual statement in the Bible or if the fact it doesn't mention it's adultery means it's ok.) This certainly might be seen as a certain kind of justice that Bill Clinton might have gained some of his moral impetus for adultery from the Bible=96even as he justified the killing of David Koresh and his friends, wives and children because of their "cultist" beliefs, drawn from the Bible, that teenage girls were "of age" and that men might indulge in polygamy. Certainly looks like his words of April 20, 1993 have come back to haunt him... For Immediate Release April 20, 1993 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH THE PRESS 1:36 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Again, I want to say as I did yesterday, I am very sorry for the loss of life which occurred at the beginning and at the end of this tragedy in Waco. I hope very much that others who will be tempted to join cults and to become involved with people like David Koresh will be deterred by the horrible scenes they have seen over the last seven weeks. And I hope very much that the difficult situations which federal agents confronted there and which they will be doubtless required to confront in other contexts in the future will be somewhat better handled and better understood because of what has been learned now. I will say this, however. I was, frankly, surprised would be a mild word, to say that anyone that would suggest that the Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics murdered themselves. (Applause.) There is, unfortunately, a rise in this sort of fanaticism all across the world. And we may have to confront it again. And I want to know whether there is anything we can do, particularly when there are children involved. But I do think it is important to recognize that the wrong-doers in this case were the people who killed others and then killed themselves. End. CarolMoore@Kreative.net http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/davidian-massacre.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: The Pheasant and the Bull (fwd) Date: 22 Jan 1998 17:05:40 -0600 (CST) I think this story could be the clintons epitaph: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >The Pheasant and the Bull > >A pheasant was standing in a field chatting to a bull. "I would >love to be able to get to the top of yonder tree', sighed the pheasant, >'but I haven't got the energy'. >'Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?' replied the >bull. 'They're packed with nutrients'. >The pheasant pecked at a lump of dung and found that it gave him >enough strength to reach the first branch of the tree. The next >day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch. And so >on. Finally, after a fortnight, there he was proudly perched at the >top of the tree. >Whereupon he was spotted by a farmer who dashed into the farmhouse, >emerged with a shotgun, and shot the pheasant right out of the tree. > >Moral of the Story: >Bullshit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Unintended Consequences and BATF Date: 22 Jan 1998 22:42:42 -0800 >Reposted from another (small) list: >+-------------------------------------------------- > >John Ross has learned that persons identifying themselves as BATF agents have >approached vendors of "Unintended Consequences" at gun shows in Ohio, Michigan >and Pennsylvania threatening the sellers with enforcement actions if they >continued to sell the book. Accurate Press is offering a $10,000 reward for >information which leads to the firing, disciplining or prosecution of any >federal agent or employee found guilty of this misconduct. Does anyone >have any information? > >You are requested to cross-post and otherwise >disseminate this item. Please advise John or myself (336-282-6024). > >Jim Jeffries >+-------------------------------------------------- > >I don't have a contact for Mr. Ross, but he posts to rec.guns >sometimes. Mr. Jeffries wrote one of the book jacket blurbs on the >back of Unintended Consequences. If you haven't read UC, get it >(preferably at a gun show :-) ) and read it soon. > > >-- >David Phillips sasdvp@sas.com SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC >If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. >Don't Tread on Me DVC 35* 47'N 78* 47'W > > - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: zippergate Date: 23 Jan 1998 10:23:56 -0600 (CST) http://www.opinioninc.com Opinion, Inc. January 22, 1998 'Oh, Shucks.' Sexgate Accelerates By Tom Fitton A tremendous amount of news today in the metastasizing scandal linking President Clinton to an adulterous affair with a young White House intern and a criminal coverup of that affair. Judicial Watch's Larry Klayman predicted today that if the charges turn out to be true, President Clinton will be out of the Oval Office in "three to four weeks." Based on the news developments we recount below for you, this may be generous time frame. The Big Three Networks led their broadcasts with the story on Thursday night. CBS spent the first 17 minutes of its broadcasts on the story. CBS, ABC, and CNN announced specials on the burgeoning scandal. CBS reported tonight that tapes that Linda Tripp made of her conversations with Monica Lewinsky make mention of four other women who were having affairs with Clinton. Three of those women worked in the White House. Shelia Lawrence, the widow of Larry Lawrence, the Clinton donor who bought himself an ambassadorship and an undeserved burial place in sacred Arlington Cemetery, was reportedly subpoenaed by Paula Jones' lawyers. Columnist Arianna Huffington reported in her column in The New York Post that "rumors of the affair" have been floating around and had "been widely discussed in the upstairs-downstairs world of the Lawrence family's staff, many of whom had to sign confidentiality agreements when they were fired." Ms. Lawrence, a former casino security guard appointed by Clinton to the World Conversation League, called the allegations "outrageous" and swore in an affidavit that she had "no relevant information" to contribute to the Jones case. No denial yet from Ms. Lawrence. The woman of the moment, Monica Lewinsky, will almost certainly assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Friday morning rather than testify to Jones' lawyers about her relationship with Clinton. NBC reported tonight that immunity negotiations between Kenneth Starr and Lewinsky's lawyers have reached "an impasse." Lewinsky wants full immunity, but Starr only wishes to give her partial immunity. (The deposition has now been postponed. Jump here for the AP story.) As investigative reporter Chris Ruddy has noted, Starr has had his problems with this sort of situation -- he gave Webb Hubbell immunity without getting proffer of testimony from him. When Hubbell clammed up, Starr was helpless. Let's hope he's learned his lesson. President Clinton has yet to categorically deny in public a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Clinton supposedly denied it under oath though in his Jones deposition. But it does him no good to compound that lie with more lies -- hence his current hedging. Newsweek and The Washington Post reports that Clinton and Lewinsky exchanged gifts. (Newsweek reports in a special Internet report [linked below] that Clinton gave Lewinsky a dress.) CBS reported that Clinton admitted in his sworn Jones deposition to exchanging gifts (Newsweek's Michael Isikoff on MSNBC: "innocent little trinkets") with Lewinsky. CBS also reported that Clinton, under oath, "acknowledged that it was possible that [Lewinsky] saw him at odd hours in the West Wing, perhaps to deliver documents." CBS said White House logs show Lewinsky was admitted to the White House as recently as last month. In her odd hour visits to the West Wing, Lewinsky reportedly signed in to see Betty Currie, Clinton's personal secretary. CBS said Ms. Currie was surprised at home by FBI agents with a subpoena Wednesday night. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reported in his special Internet report that delivery receipts show "'that Lewinsky sent packages addressed to the White House on nine separate occasions between October 7, 1997, and December 8, 1997.'" Betty Currie received the packages, one of which was "a sexually-provocative audio tape for President Clinton." (Isikoff's Newsweek piece is chock full of interesting details, we encourage you to follow the link below and read the full text of the article.) CNN reported Thursday evening that on one of the tapes, Lewinsky told Tripp that Clinton said "'That there is no evidence, so you can deny, deny, deny.'" Another tape has the actual voice of Clinton leaving a phone message for Lewinsky at home: "Oh, shucks. I wish you were there, I want to talk." The Washington Times reported today that Clinton is quoted by Lewinsky on the Tripp tapes as saying that he doesn't consider oral sex to be adultery. This peculiar interpretation of his marriage vows should be of interest, if not surprise (we hope), to poor Miss Hillary. The Washington Times reminded readers that this Clintonian definition of adultery jibes with information provided by "'Arkansas Trooper Larry Patterson, a member of Mr. Clinton's gubernatorial detail in Little Rock, that Mr. Clinton told him he had "researched the Bible and oral sex isn't considered adultery.'" Mr. Patterson said he often stood guard during Mr. Clinton's oral-sex sessions." Lewinsky says on the tapes that similar sexcapades took place in a room off the Oval Office. Forgive the salacious details, but they're important. The question whether Mr. Clinton had an "improper" sexual relationship with Lewinsky goes to motive (not to mention perjury -- Clinton denied under oath an affair with Lewinsky). Newsweek's Isikoff, who listened to 90 minutes of the Tripp tapes, says that Lewinsky gave off "the aroma of potential blackmail...an awful inducement for Vernon Jordan to got to great lengths to find her employment." Not to mention Clinton to tell her to "deny, deny, deny." Speaking of Jordan: Longtime Clinton adviser and buddy Vernon Jordan has been implicated in the Lewinsky hush effort, telling her, according the Isikoff Newsweek account, "'They can't prove anything. If they thought they could, your answer is it didn't happen, it wasn't me.' He told her that witnesses are never indicted for perjury in civil cases." In fact, one can be indicted for perjury in civil cases. Jordan seems to be trying to get Lewinsky to lie through a lie. This conversation allegedly took place late last year in the back of Jordan's limousine in Washington. Mr. Jordan, who will testify under oath to a grand jury on the matter, made a statement Thursday that was remarkable for what it did not say. Speaking to a packed news conference (no questions allowed, of course) Jordan said in part (according to the AP): 'I want to say to you absolutely and unequivocally that Ms. Lewinsky told me in no uncertain terms that she did not have a sexual relationship with the president. At no time did I ever say, suggest or intimate to her that she should lie.' This is not a denial that Lewinsky had a sexual relationship with Clinton, only that she supposedly told Jordan that she did not. And as with Clinton, Jordan has not described what he did suggest to Lewinsky about her imminent testimony in the Jones case. Jordan implied his efforts to get Lewinsky a job was an act of Christian charity. No explanation if he normally set up White House interns with lawyers or discussed their possible sexual relations with President Clinton. Revlon, the company that gave Lewinsky a job offer (rescinded yesterday) at Jordan's urging, gave Webb Hubbell a consulting contract back in 1994 (worth about $100,000) after Jordan's intervention. There is also a smoking gun memorandum that almost certainly can be traced to the Clinton gang. Newsweek reports that Lewinsky gave Tripp a list of talking points designed to color Tipp's testimony about Tipp's run in with Kathleen Willey outside the Oval Office: 'Points to make in affidavit,' it reads. Tripp is to modify comments she had made to Newsweek back in July --that she had seen Willey coming out of the Oval Office with her make-up smeared. Tripp is now to tell Jones's lawyers that 'you do not believe that what she claimed happened really happened. You now find it completely plausible that she herself smeared her lipstick, untucked her blouse, etc.' The document also seems to reflect concerns that Tripp has already told others about Lewinsky's claims of a sexual relationship with the president. In case Tripp is questioned about the rumors about Lewinsky by Jones's lawyers, the talking points suggest that she say Lewinsky 'turned out to be this huge liar' who 'left the White House because she was stalking the P or something like that.'" Lewinsky's conveying that document to Tripp, if indeed she did, is a crime. Whoever wrote the document committed a crime as well. (To put kindly, it is pretty darn clear that Ms. Lewinsky did not have the wherewithal to have come up with such a document.) It occurs to us that, in addition to Clinton and Jordan, that Mr. Bennett might come under investigation here as well. Icing on the cake, we say. To close, The Washington Post reported Thursday that Clinton finally admitted in his sworn deposition last week that yes, he did have an affair with Gennifer Flowers. Clinton "categorically denied" this in the famous 1992 "60 Minutes" interview. Ms. Flowers is all over the news again, quite rightly feeling "vindicated" by Clinton's admission. Strange how things turn out. Clinton was introduced to the American people in a big way due to Flowers' allegations back in early 1992. Nice to have Gennifer around again, five years later, for the close of the show. Opinion, Inc. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: What Gate? Date: 23 Jan 1998 12:37:53 -0800 By official decree, the New York Bureau Chief of The Idaho Observer, Patricia Naill, has declared the name of the latest Clinton Scandal to be: FORNIGATE!!! She says she didn't make it up, and I was leaning toward Tailgate prior to the decree, but I think she's absolutely correct. Fornigate it is! - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Clinton's think they can do no wrong Date: 23 Jan 1998 14:52:40 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NY Post January 23, 1998 CLINTONS THINK THEY CAN DO NO WRONG By ANDREA PEYSER THE Clintons' marital waltz, whether swaddled in swimming attire or Sunday best, is starting to resemble a dance to the death. They were elected to office five years ago as a two-headed creature, entirely interdependent. Partners in life, in governance and crime. And denial. So now, as we've become privy to the spectacle of Bill Clinton unzipped, there is Hillary, on cue, zipping him up. "I believe this is a continuation of a lot of political accusations and attacks that my husband has been subjected to," quoth Mrs. Clinton, cool as marble. "Since my husband has been so successful in changing the direction of this country ... I think it has been very hard for his opponents to accept." In a way, it is fitting that Mrs. Clinton, ostensibly the victim in this uproarious set piece, would instead play co-conspirator, enabler and cheerleader. For when all is said, it will be revealed that the villainy of the man she calls husband isn't really about sex. Though sex - compulsive, irresponsible, crude - is its greatest symptom. And it isn't entirely about obstruction of justice - though that is the sin that may wind up taking them both down. The infamy of the Clinton White House stems from the grand and deluded belief that the current tenants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. can do no wrong. Dare stand in their way - complain, yell, sue - and you may find yourself among the bruised bodies strewn in the wake of a political machine without a soul. In the case of Monica Lewinsky, as she confided her tale to a friend, the sex between herself and "The Creep," gives a fuzzy, yet familiar, picture of the Clinton we know edging into sharp focus. "The Big He," says Monica, was "in denial," not only over his legally sticky encounter with Paula Jones, but the possibility that he'll ever be expected to pay for it. What's more, says she, apparently parroting a decidedly male spin, she must deny the affair. After all, oral sex alone doesn't really constitute adultery. Does it? Now, when Clinton denies a "sexual" relationship, you wonder what this man, whose denial runs deep, really means by the phrase. Still, the greatest undercurrent among Monica's confessions, true or exaggerated, isn't frustration. It's fear. Despite the Clintons' protestations of being victims of their political enemies, there have been too many examples of the selfish entitlement and raw fury that has powered the Clinton White House. It started almost Day 1. When Bill and Hillary, just in from Arkansas, wanted to replace staffers in the travel office with friends of their choosing, pink slips weren't good enough. They leveled what proved to be bogus allegations of financial misdeeds against a handful of loyal servants who lived one paycheck to the next. The game of hardball took on new dimensions with Paula Jones, a woman Clinton can't seem to remember. Mere denial of a sexual come-on wasn't enough. Clinton's lawyer and soul mate, Bob Bennett, threatened to drag the girl by her hair through the mud - finally backing off only when Clinton's loyalists at NOW got fed up. But then, Paula was targeted by the Internal Revenue Service for audit. A coincidence? Was it also a coincidence that Clinton crony Webster Hubbell shut his mouth about Whitewater after allegedly being paid by a New York conglomerate owned by Ronald Perelman? And that same conglomerate found a job for Monica Lewinsky after she moved out of Washington, away from those pesky prosecutors seeking out evidence of Clinton's crime? Running roughshod over enemies - then crying "politics" when called on it - is the essence of the Bill-Hill ego. This kind of coercion, disregard of individual rights, is at the core of the allegations leveled by Monica Lewinsky. That's why it's been amusing these last couple of nights to watch pundits struggle mightily with their guilt for having to focus on sex - as if it were the most trivial thing to chat about in the world. Worst of the lot was Charles Grodin - how did this B-movie actor ever get a talk show? - insisting that the country had much more important things to talk about than the presidential privates. But if Clinton's psychic disease did not have sex as its chief symptom; if he were addicted to crack and coerced his dealer to lie; if he made his bookie fib for him, I doubt people would try to make his problem out as trivial. And his problem isn't merely sex. It's addiction. He and Hillary have been trampling on people's rights far too long. In a way, it's fortunate Clinton's pathology expresses itself in a zipper problem. He will get stuck in it. MORE NEWS Copyright (c) 1998, N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of the New York Post is prohibited. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: James Norman on Zippergate Date: 23 Jan 1998 15:10:40 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Ray: Tried to post this reply a couple of times last night but mail box bounced it back. Here goes again. JN At 05:11 PM 1/22/98 -0800, you wrote: >>In a message dated 98-01-22 16:00:46 EST, you write: >> >><< For the eight pages dedicated to Tripp, the last three are left completely >> blank and it looks like the bottom of the 5th page was also whited out. JN >>>> >> >>Although we do not KNOW, I would GUESS that the redacted material in Linda R. >>Tripp's "Fiske Investigation" FBI FD-302 related in substantial part to the >>handling of documents in Foster's office -- that is, items specifically >>related to what was originally going to be the topic of the "second" Fiske >>Report, re document handling in Foster's office during the approximate time >>frame 7/20/93 - 7/28/93 and whether there was any obstruction of justice, etc. >> >>This topic will (eventually, I assume) be the subject of a future Starr OIC >>report -- the Starr OIC "death investigation" re Foster is officially over >>with the writing of the Starr report on the death that was turned into the >>three-judge panel last July 15 and made public (with the addition of the >>Knowlton Insert) last October 10. The Starr investigation into the Foster >>office document handling issues is, so far as I know, ongoing. . . >> >>Warm regards, >>Hugh S. > >-- I agree with your analysis. But future Starr report or not, I have seen >quite a bit of document handling stuff show up in the most recent Senate >volumes (which I received last week) that was redacted in the earlier >volumes. Compare Nussbaum interview on 103-889, page 21929 (which was 80% >redacted) to 104-869 vol 1, page 232 (no redactions). > My belief, as you all know, is that there is a significant national security component to the Foster cover-up. The curious redactions of Linda Tripp's and other's 302 reports may be indicative of this. True, they may deal with document-handling issues after Foster's death. But then that would be the crux of any national security issue. Hence, the redactions might coincide with an uncompleted Fiske report on that matter, but not be caused by it. Indeed, a key issue is what happened to several sets of known documents: two NSA binders VWF had in Bernie's safe, and thick, sealed envelopes addressed to Janet Reno and William Kennedy. I suspect those related to Inslaw (a hot topic at that moment) and Systematics (where Kennedy's father had been a director), bank surveilance and money laundering. Multiple good sources have confirmed as much. My belief is reinforced by several other items which have come to light in connection with the Tripp/Lewinsky developments. Linda Tripp has had a very interesting career. 1.) She worked in BOTH the Bush and Clinton WH in very sensitive positions. Positions where a security clearance would be essential. 2.) She moved to the Pentagon, to a "public affairs" post. As non other than Lars-Erick Nelson pointed out in today's NY Daily news that she worked in "covert" matters there. 3.) Today's NYT reports Tripp is paid a salary of $88,173, has a top-secret clearance "and 'blanket' travel orders, which allow her to travel as she sees fit." 4.) In one of three previously unpublished depositions of Tripp in Vol 5 of the Senate Banking Committee report, which some of us nearly broke our backs on last week, Tripp says that at the WH she was paid far more than either Betsy Pond or Deborah Gorham and acted as their defacto manager. 5.) Also in Vol 5, there is a curious exchange in which Dem counsel Lance Cole asks Tripp if she has ever heard the term "Deep Water," and whether it applied to HER. She denied it, adamantly. But the question lingers: Is Linda Tripp the "Whitewater" equivalent of "Deep Throat" in Watergate? If not, who is? All these items would be consistent with, but not proof of, some longer-term, larger role of Tripp with the Intelligence Community. In a sense, Bob Bennett may be partially right when he says he smells a rat. I believe these sexcapade charges, and the media's orgiastic stampede all of a sudden to persue them, is equivalent to the ouster of Richard Nixon for a "two bit burglary" coverup. In fact, it is a diversion to remove a mortally flawed and wounded king without having to reveal the darker misdeeds committed, including condoning and possibly profiting from the trade in state secrets. Jim Norman ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: name that namegate Date: 23 Jan 1998 15:22:06 -0600 (CST) Here are the names so far: Zippergate Tailgate Peckergate Wonkergate Oralgate Willygate Willy Wonkergate Paulagate Monicagate Bimbogate Fornigate Headgate - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: PPT Garment Date: 23 Jan 1998 23:22:38 PST Ok, for the record folks, the garment bearing the Presidential Pecker Tracks is a Navy Blue Dress. Whether that's a dress or undress, "uniform", is not known at this time.....:-) -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: misc funny zippergate ties Date: 24 Jan 1998 06:08:09 -0500 (EST) The Conspiracy Shoe is on the Other Foot: Current Scandal Has a Watergate-CIA Connection by Daniel Brandt Although so far I still believe all of the following to be merely coincidental, and I feel that it has little or no bearing on the central issue (the fact that people with serious character flaws are currently working out of the White House and should have been exposed and expelled long ago), I nevertheless take some delight in pointing out something that might give pause to certain Democrats. These same Democrats have spent the last six years ridiculing any suggestion that covert activities continue to play a role in domestic politics. I am referring here to the last five years of official response, buttressed by mainstream journalism, on matters involving: a) Vince Foster b) Clinton's probable CIA connections while at Oxford (see sidebar in NameBase NewsLine No. 15, October 1996) c) Clinton's connection to CIA activities at Mena, Arkansas (the book "Partners in Power" by Roger Morris has a good chapter on this) d) the media reaction to the Contra-cocaine story in general over the last year (see NameBase NewsLine No. 16, January 1997) e) the story of wheeler-dealer Roger Tamraz and his CIA lobbyists, and the connection of both to the White House -- a story that never quite got off the ground So here is a circumstantial chain of connections, available for desperate Clintonistas to seize on, in their anticipated efforts to suggest that their wonderful leader was set up: 1. From the New York Times, January 23, 1998, "Big Campaign Contributor Recommended Lewinsky for White House Job," by Jill Abramson: ... "New details also emerged about Tripp, particularly her connections to some conservatives who have voiced opposition to the president. "For example, she gave copies of tapes of her conversations with Lewinsky to Lucianne Goldberg, a literary agent with ties to a conservative publishing house. "The FBI has twice attempted to serve Goldberg with a subpoena, Wednesday and Thursday, said the manager of her apartment building, but she was not at home. Goldberg did not return phone calls." ... 2. From Reuters, January 23, 1998, "Sex Scandal Figure Had Role in Nixon Campaign," by Gene Gibbons: "A Manhattan book agent helping to fan the flames of the sex scandal that threatens to engulf Bill Clinton's presidency spied on Democrat George McGovern for the Nixon re-election campaign in 1972. Lucianne Goldberg's involvement surfaced Thursday after she said she had recordings of former White House intern Monica Lewinsky telling of an illicit affair with Clinton and of him urging her to cover it up by lying under oath to lawyers in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. The tapes were surreptitiously recorded by Lewinsky co-worker Linda Tripp, whom Goldberg said has been a friend since 1993. Reached by telephone at her home in New York, Goldberg told Reuters Tripp made the tapes "at my suggestion because she needed to be protected." "I'm a friend of Linda's. My only subjectiveness is that I like Linda, and Linda asked me to help her," Goldberg said. ... Ironically, Goldberg played a bit part in the impeachment drama that ultimately drove Richard Nixon from the presidency in 1974. In 1972, a Nixon campaign strategist tapped Goldberg to work as a spy on George McGovern's campaign plane, where she posed as a magazine writer covering the Democratic presidential candidate. Her role in the Nixon campaign came to light a year later during the Watergate investigation, which revealed that Nixon's re-election campaign conducted an extensive political dirty tricks operation to damage Nixon's Democratic rivals and derail McGovern's bid for the White House. "I was working for Murray Chotiner," Goldberg told Reuters, referring to a Nixon political operative known for his slashing campaign tactics. Asked if she was part of the Nixon dirty tricks operation, Goldberg said: "Well, they called it dirty tricks at the time, but I was not part of any dirty tricks thing." ... 3. From NameBase: GOLDBERG LUCY Petrusenko,V. A Dangerous Game: CIA and the Mass Media. 1977 (53) Weissman,S. Big Brother and the Holding Company. 1974 (42) From Petrusenko: In August, 1973, it was learned that a free-lance writer, Lucy Goldberg was paid $1,000 a week by the Republican Party during the 1972 presidential election campaign to keep tabs on the Democratic Party's candidates. Miss Goldberg is said to have received a total of more than $10,000 plus expenses. Another free-lance journalist, Seymour Freidin was paid over $10,000 by the Republicans for similar services. Then Jack Anderson wrote in his column that Seymour Freidin was a CIA agent. Freidin apparently realized that Anderson had the proof, so, when other wire service corespondents asked him whether this was true or not, he did not deny it. "I gave my word to Dick Helms," he said, meaning Richard Helms, CIA director 1966-1973. From Weissman: It was a remarkable operation, and it ran on information. According to Strachan, it was common knowledge in the Nixon camp that they were getting information from Senator Muskie's driver. "Fat Jack" (John Buckley) covered Muskie's Washington headquarters. "Chapman's Friends" (Seymour Freidin and Lucy Goldberg) posed as reporters on the campaign planes, and "Sedan Chair II" (Michael W. McMinoway) posed as a volunteer security guard at the Democratic convention. It was "Sedan Chair II" who reportedly overheard Mankiewicz discuss the health problems of Senator Thomas Eagleton. Public Information Research, Inc., PO Box 680635, San Antonio TX 78268 Tel:210-509-3160 Fax:210-509-3161 Nonprofit publisher of NameBase http://www.pir.org/ dbrandt@crl.com A question at Friday's afternoon press briefing: Q Mike, one of the people who has emerged in this whole Lewinsky affair is this Linda Tripp, who had a GS-15 Army Intelligence, came out as an operative of the Bush White House, was very much involved in the Delta Force operations. Doesn't her credentials and her own political activity indicate that this is really a very clearly targeted operation to discredit the President and the presidency, and that Mr. Starr, with his own connections to the -- people, is playing the role of the grand inquisitor? MR. MCCURRY: I didn't pay this guy, by the way. (Laughter.) Look, I don't know enough about her. I don't know enough about the circumstances of her involvement in this issue to address that, nor do I know that anyone at the White House does, so I think it would be highly improper for us to speculate as to motive. ------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: The current Question of the Day Date: 24 Jan 1998 08:14:39 -0500 >Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:06:23 -0500 >From: netline@mylink.net >To: foolery@bright.net >Subject: The current Question of the Day > >Dear Netline-To-Congress Participant: > >Thank you for your participation in the Netline-To-Congress program. > >The current events with respect to allegations that President Clinton had an affair with a >24-year-old female White House intern dominates the news. The Netline-To-Congress >Question of the Day concerns this issue. The matter has such serious possible consequences >for the President that the Question of the Day will be continued untill at least 12:00 noon >on Monday, 1-26-98. > >The results of the voting will be distributed to the Members of Congress as usual. >Additionally, the results will be distributed to all major networks, news agencies, and >Newspapers. > >If you have not already voted your opinion, please take a moment and vote before 12:00 noon >on Monday. If you have contact with others on the Internet, please advise them of the >question posted on the Netline-To-Congress web site. http://www.netline-to-congress.com > >Again, thank you for your participation. > >Netline-To-Congress > > >/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //// >If you wish to be removed from Netline-To-Congress's mailings, please reply >with the Subject Field containing the word "Remove" and Netline's software will automatically block you from receiving future mailings. >/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///// > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: NEW PARADIGMS IN THE CIVIL-RIGHTS MOVEMENT Date: 24 Jan 1998 08:40:15 -0500 >Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:16:58 -0600 >From: "Chris W. Stark" >Reply-To: "Chris W. Stark" >To: email-subscribers@JPFO.org >Subject: NEW PARADIGMS IN THE CIVIL-RIGHTS MOVEMENT >X-Mailer: Chris W. Stark's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] > > ****JPFO e-mail Alert!**** > > Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. > Aaron Zelman - Executive Director > 2872 So. Wentworth Ave. > Milwaukee, WI 53207 > Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 > http://www.JPFO.org > email: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org > > 01/24/98 > -------- > > >....if you do not MAKE the time to read this, you will have walked >by the answer that has eluded us for many years. -Chris > > >NEW PARADIGMS IN THE CIVIL-RIGHTS MOVEMENT: Yes, Virginia, We Can >Win; but First We Must Define the Question, and Then, We must Hold >Hands and Work Together. > > >By Robert G. Heinritz, Jr., J.D. > > >Speech to Gun Rights Conference, Denver, Colorado, >September 28, 1997 > > >There is story about Sol, the Jewish tailor-haberdasher, who won >a trip to Italy. Included in the trip was a tour of Rome and an >audience with the Pope. Sol was a religious man, so he considered >it an honor to meet with the leader of another great religion. When >he returned home Sol s partner, Al, asked him, So what about the >Pope? Sol s reply, About a 38-portly. > >The lesson, of course, is that we all tend to see things in ways >that relate to what we know. > >So what do I know, and what does that have to do with the Second > Amendment movement? I m an attorney and have worked for a >big-deal law firm trying big-deal lawsuits, but my first love is >management. For the last dozen years, far more of my work has been >as a management consultant; specializing in strategic planning, >productivity, and business turnarounds. > >In plain English, that means helping CEO s and their companies >define who they are, where they want to be in 5 or 10 years; >and then helping them develop clear, written plans with specific >measurable goals for getting there. I also help them implement - >by training them in team-building and productivity. This allows >companies to achieve Win-Win-Win results; a win for the customers, >a win for the employees, and a win for the companies who put their >wealth at risk to create value for the economy. Sometimes this >includes what businessmen call turnarounds; starting with a >company that is in trouble - sometimes near bank-ruptcy - and >helping it become efficient and productive. > >While this can require the use of sophisticated tools, most of >it isn t rocket science. It s pretty fundamental stuff. What is >required includes the ability to: > >a. Face reality as it is, not as we wish it to be, > >b. Admit our mistakes, and learn from them, > >c. Step back to question the fundamental assumptions that had >been taken for granted, and > >d. Make and implement hard decisions. > >In short, I know leadership when I see it. I know good strategy >when I see it. > >For members of the Second Amendment movement I recommend Al >Dunlap s book, MEAN BUSINESS: How I Save Bad Companies, and >Made Good Companies Great, as an example of good strategy. You >will find many parallels - both good and bad. The bad news >includes some of the same self-defeating practices we are >commonly guilty of. (You may be reminded of Pogo s, We have >met the enemy, and they is us. ) But there is also good news. >You'll see Dunlap execute business, organizational, marketing, >and financial strategies - in a manner that any competent >manager could adapt to Second Amendment goals. > >So what is meant by "New Paradigms in the Civil-Rights Movement? > >A paradigm is how one defines the question, or more accurately, >the unstated assumptions in a question. For example, early >astrologers struggled to create a calendar which could accurately >predict the movement of the heavenly bodies around the Earth. Notice >how the question was defined. Until Copernicus with his theory, >and Galilao, with the data gathered from his telescope, taught >us that heavenly bodies do not move around the earth, it was >impossible to create an accurate calendar because of how the >question was asked. The answer was in finding a better way >to state the question. > >In business, new paradigms - new ways of defining the question - >or new ways of thinking out of the box include: > >1. Sam Walton - rather than competing head-to-head against larger, >more powerful retailers in high-priced malls - opened his first >warehouse-discount store in the giant megalopolis of Bentonville, >Arkansas - where the leading occupation had been jury duty. > >2. Domino s Pizza - rather than competing against strong, >established chains and restaurants to fill their stores with >customers - instead took their stores to the customer - with >a revolutionary delivery system. > >3. Hospitals - in an industry with 50% of their beds empty, and >an industry-average-net-profit of $0 - reversed the question of >how to fill their beds with sick people, and developed the concept >of wellness centers, which have succeeded in generating much >higher occupancy with much higher profit-margins. > >It is very likely that the United States wouldn t exist in the form >we know it if the Founders hadn t re-defined the question. They >began petitioning for rights of Englishmen. Ultimately, they >fought for and won rights of Americans - rooted in English rights >- but taking several steps beyond; not the least of which is - >Englishmen were (and still are) subjects of the sovereign - while >Americans are citizens who own the sovereign. That s pretty >fundamental. > > Reality as it is, not as we wish it? We in the Second Amendment >movement are losing because (a) we confuse symptoms with problems >and fail to accurately define the real problem, and (b) we fail to >develop a real long-term strategy to take the initiative and win. > >1. For example, do you think we have a PR problem? Or that >the media aren t fair? Or that politicians who claim to support >the Second Amendment turn on us by voting for anti-gun bills? >Those aren't problems. Those are symptoms of a (much) larger >problem. > >2. Do you think we are winning because there are now 31 states >with concealed-carry laws? If you think so, you may wish to >reconsider. As Dan Polsby said in the March 24th issue of the >National Review, we are kidding ourselves, because in the >national debate we are losing, and losing badly. > >How can this be when the scholarly data is on our side? > > Perception is reality. - All politicians can count. Polsby >didn't provide answers, but he correctly stated the problem. >In a democracy, public policy is tailored to what the people >believe, no matter what the facts might be. For weapons policy >the point is not the connection between guns and violence - but >how people see the connection. In the current atmosphere, >cheerleading for gun rights will look mighty like cheering for >murder and suicide and opposing common decency. > >The larger message - if people don t believe in each of the >specifics in the Bill of Rights, sooner or later all those >rights will be footnotes in history - by popular vote. The >anti-civil rights forces have their own long-term strategic >plans to whittle-down the Bill of Rights to nothing.(Some argue >that 8 of 10 of the Bill of Rights are already gutted.) Henry >Kissinger said, You re not paranoid if they are really out >to get you. We are in a war of information, and they are out >to get us. Their Marxis-styled war of deceit is well-documented >- most recently in Radical Son, by David Horowitz. Until we face >these realities, and adequately define the question" - the real >question - we have little hope of success. > >What are the New Paradigms? Our battle is not for the Second >Amendment - it is for the Bill of Rights. Our targets are not >shooters or politicians - but opinion leaders and the voting >public. Our goal - is to win over the hearts and minds of the >American public. This is our new paradigm. This is our >turnaround. > >Sound grandiose? Maybe not. > >David Kopel has said the Bill of Rights isn t for conservatives >to protect their property or guns, or for liberals to protect >filthy speech or rights of accused. Those rights were meant to >hang together. To the extent any of the rights are abridged, >all are at risk. Or as Dr. Martin Luther King said, Injustice >anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere. > >Our priority may be the Second Amendment, but our perspective >must be civil rights. > >Charlton Heston s 3-year campaign to save the Second Amendment >is wonderful, and very much needed. But that campaign is to our >long-term goals as the original 13 Colonies were to the United >States. > >But first we must define who we are, and where we are going. As >Lewis Carroll said in Alice in Wonderland, If you don t know where >you are going, any road will get you there. > >So who are we? There is nothing inherently wrong with being, say, >a small group of target or bird shooters - anymore than being a >membership-organization of 20-million. But given the political >and societal realities, unless we figure out a way to make allies >of people who have no interest in picking up a gun we could end >up in the same fix as in Great Britain or Australia. As my friend, >Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp said, The Second Amendment ain t about >duck hunting. > >We need allies. Alone, we can't win hearts and minds here - any >more than we could in Vietnam. We need conservatives, liberals, >and agnostics - who may or may not have an interest in guns - but >with whom we can forge common bonds in the Bill of Rights and the >values that made this country. > >1. Do you really want to face reality as it is, and not as we >wish it to be? Politicians don t turn on us. Politicians vote >anti-Second Amendment, anti-Civil rights, because it gives them >power. If it had been necessary for him to gain the Presidency, >even Bill Clinton would have been pro-gun. Perception is reality. >All politicians can count. > >2. So we need the people from A.C.L.U. - as they need us. We >need the environmentalists. We need the libertarians, the >churches, the unions, the doctors, the sociologists, and the >teachers. We need the children. Most of all we need the voting >public. If we have them, the media and politicians will follow. > >(So how do we do this?) > >Action Plans > > Like a well-run business with competitors trying to put it our >of business, we must have clear, written, long-term strategic >plans. This can help us with many things, including: > >First: A clear definition who we are and what we stand for - >not against. > >Second: Clearly-defined and measurable goals, enabling us to take >the initiative. Politics is almost inherently short-term oriented, >so in the absence of clear, long-term plans it is almost impossible >not to get pulled into defensiveness by reacting to the opposition's >initiatives. With long-term goals, it is easier to make incremental, >short-term gains toward our objectives. By taking and maintaining >the initiative, it is easier to manage the public debate, frame >the issues and get good press. Our tests have proven that. > >Third: Finding a Ronald Reagan leader - or several of them - who >are good T.V. communicators, friendly, welcoming, inclusive, bringing >more people into the efforts; but absolutely reliable and unwavering >on principles and fundamental values. There can be more than one, and >they should include women. Rebecca John Wyatt and Dr. Suzanna Gratia >Hupp are good examples. Both are warm, articulate, and effective >communicators. Rebecca is as good with the data as anyone. Suzanna >is the only person I know who successfully got Representative >Charles Schumer to shut up! Fourth: No compromising on principles! >We can pick our battles, and it can be appropriate to compromise to >achieve an advance-ment toward our goals. We should never compromise >our principles. We should never compromise with the people who are out >to get us. Compromising with the devil is a losing strategy! Winston >Churchill strongly condemned Neville Chamberlain s treaty with Hitler >as appeasement. An appeaser, according to Churchill, is someone >who throws his children to the crocodile, in hopes the Crocodile >will eat him last! > >Examples? > >1. How often have we been maneuvered into campaigning for our >gun control bills (and it s not the gun that is being controlled >- it s the civil-rights of the law-abiding) because our anti-rights >bill curbs rights of the law-abiding less than their anti-rights >bill? Often, both are bad bills, exhibiting our failure to have >taken the initiative to frame the issues correctly. > >2. To that end, how could we support any but Representative >Helen Chenoweth s bill to totally repeal the Lautenberg >amendment? The Lautenberg law is totally bad, of questionable >Constitutionality, and questionable ancestry. ( Question-able >ancestry is lawyer-talk for S.O.B.) We screwed up when we >allowed it to be passed in the first place. It needs to be >totally repealed! > >In the real world, compromise happens. But compromise on >principle should never be tolerated. In facing reality as it >is - not as we wish it to be - we should recall Churchill's >promise, > > I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, sweat, and tears. >We are facing exciting opportunities - if we know how to manage >them. Like the Soviet Union in its final years, the anti-civil >rights forces in the United States are big, scary, dangerous - >and from outward appearances - well-funded and nearly invulnerable. >But behind the facade is little depth and staying-power. > >It was Ronald Reagan who was willing to stand firm on principles, >develop the plan, and expend the resources to deter aggression. >He knew where he was going, and he never wavered. In the face >of such resolve, an already weakened Soviet Union folded. Arming >to deter aggression ultimately served non-violence. > >History can repeat itself, but it will take our leadership, effort, >and resolve: > >The anti-civil rights forces in this country will continue to >advance if we let them. But their flaws are more apparent. It's >not for nothing that Rush Limbaugh became a millionaire. The >absurdity of the opposition is their Achilles heel. The >credible scholarly data is on our side, and they know it. > >Much like the N.A.A.C.P. during the first half of this century, >we are many people, with many different interests, doing many >different things, but all for common civil rights goals. It is >in our interest to pull as many people into the effort as we can. > >Our plan must be long-term in orientation, large-scale in >perspective, and inclusive in its execution. We must bring as >many allies as possible into the effort. Most important, it must >clearly state what we are for - not against - to help us gain >the initiative. Then we must implement - with an ongoing policy >of always seeking the initiative. The job isn t easy - but it >is simple if we keep our heads and work together. > >If we do, there is reason for optimism. Despite the day-to-day >media trash, there is an underlying wisdom, goodness, and strength >among the people of this country. They are ready to hear our message. >It is our job - our responsibility - to manage and deliver it >effectively. > > Civil rights, at a minimum, includes the right to defend your life >- and the lives of your babies. If it saves one life, it s worth it! >- so - Let s do it for the children-! > >----- >Bob Heinritz is an honors graduate in management and law, and a >member of the Bar of the states of Arizona, Illinois, and Missouri. >He is a former trial lawyer, and now a business attorney and >management consultant, specializing in strategic planning, >productivity, and business turnarounds. > > > >---------------------------------------------------------- >JPFO would like to thank its membership for their loyal >support. For without our membership, alerts as this would >not be possible. Please consider joining JPFO today. >Membership information is available on our web site. >---------------------------------------------------------- > > >************************************************************** >Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership >Chris W. Stark - JPFO Director of Electronic Communications >2874 So. Wentworth Ave. >Milwaukee, WI 53207 >Ph. (414) 769-0760 >Fax (414) 483-8435 >e-mail: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org > >Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org > >"America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership." >************************************************************** > TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: > > subscribe@JPFO.org > >...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". >************************************************************** > > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Rock You? Date: 24 Jan 1998 07:45:24 PST Ok, I give up, I just can't resist twisting Clinton's tool over this. Being as our resident, "Simon Jester", is temporarily AWOL, we'll just have to do the best we can without him, perhaps even a cooperative effort. Therefore, for those of us who also have nothing better to do, here's a possible start; modify as needed of course.....:-) Ya got cum on her dress, Great Distress; The whole Presidency's in a big mess! We will, we will, "Thwop You!" We will, we will, Swap You! :-) -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Clinton-Resignation Bumper Sticker Slogan Ideas (fwd) Date: 24 Jan 1998 18:26:06 -0500 (EST) ROC and NOBAN list readers: Here are some ideas for some "Bye Bye, Bill!" bumper stickers ... Feel free to snip and to repost any possible bumper sticker slogan ideas you deem worthy to readers of other clinton-scandal lists for review and consideration ... Both of my daughters (age 10 and 19) asked me if # 24 would ever really happen (the grounding, not the resignation!) ... they were not amused by my attempt at humor ... Best regards, Chris Ferris P.S. How pathetic that I have had to explain to my 10 year old daughter that the President of the U.S.A. is an amoral *** sexual predator *** who cannot be trusted to respect women and their bodies. I used gentle language to deliver that message. How utterly pathetic. President Clinton cannot resign (in disgrace) too soon. Yes, I would rather be stuck with Gore until the Year 2000. P.P.S. When will Carville The Jackal/Hyena begin his "Destroy Lewinsky and Tripp" fifth column campaign? Just wondering ... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: 1. RESPECT WOMEN (think of the wide-ranging appeal to men, women and IMPEACH CLINTON even "soccer moms" who mistakenly voted for WJC!) 2. PROTECT THE PRESIDENCY (focusing on restoring dignity to the office!) IMPEACH CLINTON NOW! 3. HONOR WOMEN (another simple slogan?) IMPEACH CLINTON 4. PROTECT WOMEN (implying that WJC is "dangerous" to all women?) IMPEACH CLINTON 5. SAVE AMERICA'S WOMEN (implying duty of people to save women from WJC!) IMPEACH CLINTON NOW! 6. RESTORE HONOR TO THE PRESIDENCY (a bit too sarcastic?) REMOVE "ON HER" FROM OFFICE 7. RESIGN NOW, PRESIDENT CLINTON! (a bit too direct?) KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF INNOCENT WOMEN 8. I RESPECT AMERICAN WOMEN (hard hitting!) PRESIDENT CLINTON ABUSES THEM 9. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, MR. PRESIDENT! RESIGN NOW FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY 10. RESTORE HONOR TO THE WHITE HOUSE (too sarcastic?) FORCE "ON HER" TO RESIGN FROM OFFICE 11. CLINTON "DAMAGE CONTROL" MEANS (anti-Carville hit team!) DESTROYING HIS FEMALE VICTIMS! 12. PRESIDENT CLINTON PRACTICES (key buzz word these days!) VIOLENCE AT THE WORKPLACE 13. I DON'T WANT A SEXUAL PREDATOR (the truth hurts!) EMPLOYED AS OUR PRESIDENT 14. BILL CLINTON IS COMING (funny ha ha?) RUN FOR YOUR WIVES 15. THE FBI WIRE MAY FIRE THE LIAR (too cute?) 16. BILL CLINTON STUMBLED OVER THE FBI'S "TRIPP WIRE" 17. SEX SCANDALS IN THE MILITARY? HEY, CLINTON SERVED AFTER ALL 18. PRESERVE THE PRESIDENCY (again, focusing on the office!) RESIGN NOW, MR. CLINTON 19. OUR COUNTRY ABOVE CLINTON (country above clinton, key theme?) IMPEACH HIM NOW! 20. IN A VERY DANGEROUS WORLD THE U.S.A. NEEDS A REAL PRESIDENT 21. REAL LEADERS DON'T ABUSE WOMEN IMPEACH PRESIDENT CLINTON NOW! 22. CLINTON WANTS PIECE (funny ha ha?) AMERICA WANTS PEACE 23. I DON'T WANT A SEXUAL PREDATOR PERMITTED TO LAUNCH NUKES 24. MY DAUGHTER IS GROUNDED (funny ha ha?) UNTIL BILL CLINTON RESIGNS Some of these slogans may have potential ... the simpler, the better ... feel free to forward to any connected people who can mass-produce whatever will work best ... "resign now" bumper stickers need to start appearing everywhere, and muy pronto! Timing is everything. Fast movement is imperative! Best regards, Chris - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: Re: Clinton-Resignation Bumper Sticker Slogan Ideas (fwd) Date: 24 Jan 1998 18:02:57 -0600 Chris Ferris wrote: > ROC and NOBAN list readers: > > Here are some ideas for some "Bye Bye, Bill!" bumper stickers ... The day Spiro Agnew resigned I was on the pasadena freeway.Heard on the radio that Agnew had resigned. No sooner than the words left the speakers a hippie in a VW bus passed me sporting a bumper sticker that said: "One Down, One to Go!" We need to have that one ready for the day it happens. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Vote for or against Impeachment (fwd) Date: 24 Jan 1998 19:46:35 PST On Jan 24, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Cast your vote: To impeach or not to impeach....that is the question. MM Dear Netline-To-Congress Participant: Thank you for your participation in the Netline-To-Congress program. The current events with respect to allegations that President Clinton had an affair with a 24-year-old female White House intern dominates the news. The Netline-To-Congress Question of the Day concerns this issue. The matter has such serious possible consequences for the President that the Question of the Day will be continued untill at least 12:00 noon on Monday, 1-26-98. The results of the voting will be distributed to the Members of Congress as usual. Additionally, the results will be distributed to all major networks, news agencies, and Newspapers. If you have not already voted your opinion, please take a moment and vote before 12:00 noon on Monday. If you have contact with others on the Internet, please advise them of the question posted on the Netline-To-Congress web site. http://www.netline-to-congress.com Again, thank you for your participation. Netline-To-Congress ****************************************************************** Michael Moxley The Patriot Web Site: mmoxley@foto.infi.net http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6627/ ***************************Live Free or Die!*************************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #69 (fwd) Date: 24 Jan 1998 22:58:44 PST Some recap, some updates, and some interesting details..... On Jan 24, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia January 25, 1998 #69 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html THE FAILED PRESIDENCY As we listen to Clinton lay out his wish list in his State of the Union show next week, perhaps we should all keep a copy of our Constitution nearby. Because, if the Constitution is the "job description" of the federal government, we have a few employees needing reprimand. Below is a short list of unconstitutional acts by the Clinton administration in the last five years: Aircraft passenger restrictions, even more affirmative action laws, the biosphere reserve land grab, church arson laws, more education regulations, the family leave act, a failed child immunization program, the Heritage River private land control scheme, more subsidized HUD homes, oppressive gun laws, internet censorship, television censorship, stricter search and seizure laws, the militarization of federal police, strict controls on our personal money, increasingly oppressive environmental regulations, strict restraints on state and local governments, socialized medicine, more taxes, unnecessary terrorist laws, violations of personal privacy, giving approximately $100-billion of our tax dollars to Asian governments, the disaster at Waco, unilateral legislation through executive orders; and, of course, Hillary interfering in matters of government. Bill Clinton brags that he once taught Constitutional law. If so, he should know better. You will not find one of these activities authorized to the federal government in our Constitution. In fact, some are expressly forbidden by the Constitution and others by the Supreme Court. Yet, the Clinton administration feels free to regulate these areas (and many others) anyway. While we watch the Clinton show, we should also remember the sleaze factor in the White House. Each item in the short list below has been well documented in credible books and publications. The list is offered here only as a refresher so you will remember where this administration is coming from. For instance, there's Hillary's adult sex toys used for White House Christmas tree decorations, the Babbitt investigation, a never ending string of bimbos for Bill, the Ron Brown investigation, the Cisneros investigation, Hillary's commodities scam, the reported drug abusers in the White House, the Espy investigation, the hundreds of instances of failed memories under oath, the filegate scandal, Hubbell's conviction and imprisonment, the Jim Guy Tucker conviction, the Foster "suicide," a long list of illegal fund-raising scandals, the Lincolin Bedroom rentals, the selling of laws and regulations for campaign donations, innumerable instances of obstruction of justice, using the IRS, FBI and Secret Service against political dissenters, repeated perjury by the Clintons and their White House staff, the travelgate fiasco, and the Whitewater scam. The above are just some of the moral deficits that point to the lack of honor in the Clinton presidency. Taken together, these two short lists give us a rather good idea of what we can expect from the Clinton, Clinton & Gore team, and it does not look good for the country. Simply put, the acts of this administration can be outlined in two broad categories: Unconstitutional acts and sleaze. That the Clinton, Clinton & Gore team brings dishonor to the Office of the President, and hence to the United States as a whole, is self evident. Because even this administration's Constitutional acts put the people of the United States in peril. For instance, this administration has pussyfooted around with Iraq so much that the government of Iraq has all but thrown American arms investigators out of their country. Iraq lost the war. But Clinton has mismanaged the situation so badly that today Iraq is actually giving orders to the American government, and the American government is obeying. Already, many factions in Iraq are preparing for a jihad against the American people. Furthermore, the Clinton Administration is giving the communist Chinese government nearly everything it wants. The communists have stated publicly that they are arming against the United States. Still, Clinton provides them with high-tech electronic equipment, super computers, strong encryption devices, and even sophisticated military arms. Simultaneous with helping communist China to arm itself against us, the Clinton administration has been downsizing the American military. Many of today's military units do not even have the necessary funds for equipment maintenance and training. Conversely, other "special" units seem to be training to go to war with the American public. Clearly, something is wrong with this picture. And lately, we hear that the administration intends to permanently federalize the National Guard. To say that this is a failed presidency is an understatement. Generally, the administration has strong socialist -- and hence, anti-Constitutional -- tendencies. The qualifications of the personnel making up the Clinton and Gore administration seem to run from totally incompetent to crooked -- with a few strong authoritarian types mixed in for flavor. The actions of those making up the Clinton administration seem to follow two broad categories. The first is of self indulgence. The second is to initiate complete federal control over the American people. Bill Clinton may put on a good show for the State of the Union Address Tuesday night. But those listening closely will notice that not more than two of the subjects he addresses will be within the bounds set down by our Constitution for the federal government. ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL TRYST Bill Clinton was caught fishing in the intern pool. But that's not much of a surprise to anyone. Even that he was playing with Monica Lewinsky, a girl not much older than his daughter, while his wife and daughter were upstairs, is not much of a surprise. That he got away with it in the White House for about 18 months is somewhat interesting, though. Still, Lewinsky is just one out of one-hundred of his conquests. Early reports of the Clinton Presidency said that he brought a couple of his favorite squeezes with him to the White House. In fact, rumors on the street were that Hillary did too. Apparently, that is their lifestyle. Lying, cheating, obstruction of justice, and perjury also seem to be a big part of the lifestyle of this couple. Congress gave Hillary a pass on all of the lies she told to Congressional investigating committees. It looked like Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr was giving both of the Clintons a free pass on perjury too. It looked that way till last week, that is. Then something changed. Last week, Starr deposed and/or questioned Hillary under oath again. Why the second or third time, and why so late in the game? It could be that Starr is starting to play for keeps. That is, he gave Hillary another chance to correct her story about certain things before charging her with perjury. Bill Clinton was deposed too. He got his six hour inquisition from the Paula Jones legal team. Then, suddenly Ken Starr also became interested in Slick's civil case testimony. Which means, something is up. Then came Matt Drudge, breaking the Monica Lewinsky story on the Internet. It seems that the Lewinsky story is a big break for everyone concerned, except Michael Isikoff, the Newsweek reporter who originally did all the legwork. It's a really good story, too. It has all the elements of a good movie: young girl & older man, national secrets, high level politics, illicit sex, sneaking around, and more than one element of suspense. Better yet, the young woman in question reportedly has tapes of conversations between her and Clinton. And Starr has tapes of her relating the sordid story to Linda Tripp, Lewinsky's friend and coworker. As the Washington Post reported Tuesday: "On the tape recordings . . . Lewinsky described her sexual relationship with Clinton and said the President advised her not to worry about the Jones case because Jones's lawyers would not find out about the relationship. Lewinsky said that when she was notified by Jones's lawyers in mid-December that they wanted her testimony, she called the President and he advised her to deny the affair." At first glance it looks like Starr's involvement in this is little more than chasing bimbo eruptions. But actually there's much more to it than that. Monica Lewinsky was subpoenaed to give a deposition in the Jones sexual harassment case. She planned to do as she was told and lie, saying she had no personal contact with Clinton. In fact, on Jan 7, she actually denied the affair in a sworn affidavit for the Paula Jones case. But, there are those tapes -- 21 of them, at least one of which is an hour and a half long. The tapes are said to imply that Clinton told her to lie while under oath during her scheduled Paula Jones case deposition. Her instructions are to say that she and Clinton never had a relationship. Better yet, when Jones' attorneys questioned him under oath, Clinton denied ever having had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton did admit, however, to sending Lewinsky "personal gifts." Both Clinton and Lewinsky lied. Under oath. Enter Kenneth Starr: Lewinsky had signed an affidavit swearing that she had never had a sexual relationship with the president. But, Starr had the tapes wherein she admitted it repeatedly. So, Starr was suddenly investigating her for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones case. Well, that's what they told her, anyway. Starr's people gave her an inconvenient choice. She could either cooperate with prosecutors, and testify against the president, or face criminal charges. You see, she was working in the White House when many of the "other" scandals happened. She was there to see Hillary's computer system used, she saw a steady stream of fundraiser coffees, and a she was around for a few of the other things Starr is still investigating. Plus, she had a little pillow talk with Clinton himself. So, if Starr can turn her, things might happen in a hurry. Besides, Bill Clinton asked her to commit perjury to protect him. And folks, that is a federal felony seeking an indictment. That the only way a president can be indicted is through articles of impeachment filed in the House of Representatives is another interesting story. FEDERALLY PLANNED DISASTER One need only take an hour's walk around an inner city neighborhood on a warm Friday evening to see the devastation brought on by the failed policies of the Democratic Party. An observer will not need a Ph.D. in sociology or anthropology to see a lack of social structure that borders on chaos in these neighborhoods. Inner city neighborhoods are no longer safe places to live or visit. Anyone with a lick of sense would want to get the hell out of there as fast as possible. And that is exactly why such a walk should be required of every elected and appointed official in the federal government at least once a month. They should be required to experience, first hand, what they have caused. Inner cities were not always this way. Before the Johnson Administration initiated the "Great Society" programs as an attempt to "lock in the Negro vote," before welfare programs began paying young girls to have babies out of wedlock, and before the federal government started experimenting on children in public schools, rather than teaching them, things were different. Years ago, folks had to work for what they received. Therefore, even the poor took care and pride in what little they had. Today, the poor have more than they ever had in our history. But the pride of ownership is gone, and the lack of care for possessions is obvious. That is because they no longer need work for anything. Everything is provided free by the federal government. Undereducated single mothers raising children on government subsistence soon begot less educated children raising their children on government subsistence. And these even less educated children started raising feral boys and girls who looked back to three or more generations of single parent households on welfare as their only role model. The girls only needed to get pregnant to "get paid" by welfare. The boys were left totally behind. Uneducated, unsupervised, lacking anything resembling social skills, the only role models for the boys became the older punks on the street. Booze and drugs are the means to an end for most of these boys, the drugs becoming both their release and often the only available profit center. The gun became the standard symbol of manlyhood and power for many. These boys understand that their mothers "get paid" from government, a government which takes the money from others to give to their mothers. Men and boys, however, cannot qualify for welfare. They cannot "get paid." So one should not feel too surprised when many of these feral boys decide to "take" the money and goods they want from others. In their minds, all they have done is to eliminate government from the process. Before federal government intervention there were poor people. Just not so many. And there were single parent families. But not many. Back then, strangers could walk through poor neighborhoods. And, although a stranger might be chided for one reason or another, they seldom needed to fear for their life. Before federal government intervention, all boys and girls of all colors and nationalities acted exactly the same to all adults: polite. No child back then swore at a teacher. No child threatened a teacher. And every child was expected to learn to read, write and do mathematics. Back then, children were not asked if they were having a problem. They were told to do the work. Most of them did. And many of them prospered. Many of the poor children who grew up before federal government intervention are now starting to retire. Ninety percent have never robbed anyone, never had reason to shoot or stab anyone and have lived productive lives. And because they were productive members of society, they will retire as middle class citizens of society, in relative comfort. The numbers are nearly opposite for the inner city children of the Great Society programs. Many of these inner city children will never be able to retire. That is because one must first be able to speak, read and write properly before acquiring a decent job, and the new system of education robbed them of that. Few of this group will return to school to learn the necessary skills, because they lack the discipline necessary to plan ahead. The welfare culture of the Great Society has robbed them of all role models. They cannot be expected to plan a course for acceptance into the mainstream of society for which they know absolutely nothing about. Clearly, changes are needed. But, they shall not come. Not yet, anyway. This week, Clinton is expected to propose even more additions to the "Great Society" social programs. And again, millions of Americans will be awaiting more free goods and services from the federal government. The unexpected consequences will continue to be devastating. NO RESIGNATION IMMINENT A piece of interesting news was offered to Heads Up Friday. And, because it is verified from two separate people "really" in the know, and another who should be, we'll use it. It seems that some Democrats in Washington feel that Clinton may resign within 48 hours of Monica Lewinsky giving her deposition in the Jones case. But, only "if" she tells the truth. If she sticks to her story, all bets are off. She may get charged with something later, but if she sticks to her story, Clinton will be safe for a while. Then there's the problem of the craven national press. The press, as we were told (and knew anyway), are covering their own backsides in selectively breaking this story. First, they have been totally negligent in reporting the Clintons' misdeeds. And second, there are certain members of the White House press corps who themselves have had an affair with Bill Clinton. The national press corps most certainly does not want that information to come out. And, for the moment, neither does the Clinton White House. Anyway, so the story goes from the Democrats I spoke with Friday, the Jones legal team found a number of women who Clinton has sexually abused in the White House. At least three were, like Monica Lewinsky, young interns at the time. Linda Tripp is cooperating with Starr's investigators. If Monica Lewinsky also cooperates, and they verify each others stories, at least a few high ranking Washington Democrats think the Clinton presidency is over. Few fear that the looming perjury charge against Lewinsky will get very far. Still, the threat of a charge is useful as a trick and device by the prosecutors. However, a charge of the suborning of perjury by the President of the United States is another matter altogether. If that is proven, sparks will fly; immediately. Worse (to the Democrats), these two women have quite a lot of first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of the White House -- information that Kenneth Starr desperately wants. Therefore, if Lewinsky accepts total immunity, which Starr is expected to offer, she will be expected to tell all. So will Linda Tripp. If that happens, it is feared that Gore will be in trouble too. However, it will take Starr months to do anything, and his investigation will be completely masked by a cloak of secrecy. That means that Bill and Hillary stay in Washington for a few more months. Some Democrats want that to happen. They want Clinton out, but not until next year, after the election. That gives Gore the Presidency for two years, and enables him to run for two terms on his own. Rep. Bob Barr's impeachment resolution is not a problem with the Democrats. Henry Hyde, House Judiciary Committee Chairman, will probably never let it come up for discussion. The problem lies in the House Rules Committee. Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Soloman could allow the impeachment bill/resolution to come out for open discussion on the floor of the House just about any time he wishes. We would bet that he's considering it. . . . So, it seems, the Clintons have few friends left in Washington (except for a few in the press). But, there are quite a number of people within the Beltway who have a vested interest in making sure he stays in office at least one more year. The oppressive, Fascist (Hillary) side of the White House is putting an attack team together to publicly discredit Starr, Tripp and Lewinsky this weekend. Hillary's protecting her power-base, so look for them to be brutal. The few Hillary will be able to line up to help will probably be the most vicious in the corrupt pack of pit-bull disinformation artists. So, look for more lies. Our opinion is that we should wait (and hope) for Starr. That investigation can nail Gore too. Because, if Clinton goes, so too goes the Starr investigation. Then we go from the totally dishonorable to the totally stupid for president. Either way, it's bad for the country. STATE OF THE UNION REPORT POSTED "The State of the Union, 1998 -- A view from the foothills of Appalachia" is available on the Internet. The text may be found at two sites: http://www.netcom.com/~feustel and, http://www.jollytax.org/state98.htm Anyone interested in a no-holds-barred report on how the federal government was able to usurp our unalienable and Constitutional rights may want to take the time to read this report. Consider the State of the Union report as a companion piece to the Heads Up newsletter. The report is also available in Word for Windows format for those who wish to make copies. All we ask is that you respect the copyright. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Carville's Commandos Suit Up for "WAR" (Carville's Word!) Date: 25 Jan 1998 15:53:06 -0500 (EST) I watched with utter amazement this morning on a Sunday A.M. political talking head show as Clinton damage controller and junkyard dog James Carville, using a hateful and ugly and loud tone of voice, said, "This is WAR!" When asked by a startled commentator, "War against whom?", Carville repeated the word "WAR" and stated that the independent counsel (Judge Ken Starr) was the person against whom "war" would be waged. A rabid Clintonista threatening "WAR" against Judge Ken Starr ??? Hmmmm. Can Carville spell f-e-d-e-r-a-l p-r-i-s-o-n ??? Carville was seething as he was being filmed and quoted. Am I over-reacting, or does his threat of making "WAR" against an independent counsel who is a federal judge constitute a THREAT OF VIOLENCE against a member of the federal judiciary? I am serious. Could he be charged and indicted? Or at least excoriated by Americans as a leader of an off-the-wall, women-hating left-wing-extremist-militia of Clintonistas out to make "WAR" on a federal judge? If others saw Carville on TV this morning ("Meet The Press", if I recall correctly), what did you think of his tone, his choice of verbiage, his facial expressions ??? If I were Ken Starr, I would ask the Attorney General to obtain a warrant for Carville's arrest for criminal threatening at the very least and toss his sorry rear end in jail ... where he could meet some real Bubbas ... Ouch! Best regards, Chris Ferris N.B. You had to see Carville say "WAR" (almost shouting) to appreciate the exact context of his use of the word ... against an independent counsel, against a federal judge !!! Unreal, but then again, the guy is a long time FOB. So, anything goes. Or does it? Find out exactly what he said from transcripts and then write your Congressman and Senators to demand that he be indicted and tried for threatening Judge Starr !!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Carville's Commandos Suit Up for "WAR" (Carville's Word!) Date: 26 Jan 1998 09:06:19 -0800 (PST) I hope none of my conservative friends take me wrong here. Words like "elitist" or "police" state have been long abused by people with no idea of their meaning. But in the Websters (tm) sense of the word, Carville is an elitist. He senses his power crumbling at the edges and feels a righteous (ha!) anger that -we- could impune -his- president. The rule of law is endangered (being diplomatic here) by the cult of personality, has been for some time. When we pass laws that we know in advance aren't enforceable (guns, speech, drugs, seizure, travel etc etc etc) when we make our "meta" law (the constitution) a "living document" we get guys who build and reinforce other systems of authority, like Carville and company. Here in Washington several years ago, people were made aware of federal laws against the -criticism- of federal judges (the Woodbridge case) but those were people without name appendages (JD., Sen., PHD, etc) people who were not known to the likes of Carville. It will be interesting indeed to see how he fares. Since IMO we do not live in a nation ruled by law I don't think anything at all will come of it. He can't spell f-e-d-e-r-a-l p-r-i-s-o-n, he has people to do that for him. And, not to dampen the gleeful celebration surrounding recent events, but I do have one word for the list: Algore. Not something -I'm- excited about I can tell you, obviously not a move toward an America the Free. All IMO. -Boyd Kneeland At 3:53 PM -0500 1/25/98, Chris Ferris wrote: >I watched with utter amazement this morning on a Sunday A.M. political >talking head show as Clinton damage controller and junkyard dog James >Carville, using a hateful and ugly and loud tone of voice, said, "This is >WAR!" When asked by a startled commentator, "War against whom?", Carville >repeated the word "WAR" and stated that the independent counsel (Judge >Ken Starr) was the person against whom "war" would be waged. A rabid >Clintonista threatening "WAR" against Judge Ken Starr ??? Hmmmm. Can >Carville spell f-e-d-e-r-a-l p-r-i-s-o-n ??? > >Carville was seething as he was being filmed and quoted. Am I over-reacting, >or does his threat of making "WAR" against an independent counsel who is >a federal judge constitute a THREAT OF VIOLENCE against a member of the >federal judiciary? I am serious. Could he be charged and indicted? Or at >least excoriated by Americans as a leader of an off-the-wall, women-hating >left-wing-extremist-militia of Clintonistas out to make "WAR" on a >federal judge? > >If others saw Carville on TV this morning ("Meet The Press", if I recall >correctly), what did you think of his tone, his choice of verbiage, his >facial expressions ??? If I were Ken Starr, I would ask the Attorney >General to obtain a warrant for Carville's arrest for criminal threatening >at the very least and toss his sorry rear end in jail ... where he could >meet some real Bubbas ... Ouch! > >Best regards, Chris Ferris > >N.B. You had to see Carville say "WAR" (almost shouting) to appreciate the >exact context of his use of the word ... against an independent counsel, >against a federal judge !!! Unreal, but then again, the guy is a long time >FOB. So, anything goes. Or does it? Find out exactly what he said from >transcripts and then write your Congressman and Senators to demand that >he be indicted and tried for threatening Judge Starr !!! > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: (fwd) Re: 'I NEVER HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN....." (fwd) Date: 26 Jan 1998 12:16:42 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater > >The prez just said two things, forcefully, and i believe, >truthfully....first: > >"I never had sexual relations with that woman....Miss Lewinsky" > >True. Webster's defines sexual relations as coitus; coitus is >further defined as pxxxs/vxxxxa sex leading to ejaculation and deposit >of sperm in the vxxxxa.....all Bill got from Monica was oral sex - >blow jobs.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, Notice that over the weekend it was brought up several times that he has told others (State Troopers, etc) that he does not consider oral sex as "adulterous". This just fits, doesn't it? >"I never....not one time....told anyone to lie." > >True. No good suborner is going to say, "get up there and lie." >He might very well say, deny, deny deny though! > >Once again Slick Willy is lawyering us to death with weasel words!!! >>>>>>>>>>>> Well at least we had the satisfaction of the talking heads FINALLY admitting that he does and HAS DONE that since he came to office. A little too late, if you ask me....... > Sheila -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: 'I NEVER HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN....." (fwd) Date: 26 Jan 1998 14:21:18 -0500 (EST) If this guy continues with this strategy and the evidence Starr has holds up (including the physical evidence and possible third-party witnesses), clintoon is going to look increasingly pathological. the truth will out, at least little pieces of it. this goes back to some character analysis that has been bandied about. he is beyond "flawed" and into "pathological liar, pathological philanderer, ... etc.". he either has a big hammer to wield to dislodge Starr's witnesse's, evidence, tapes, etc. *OR* he is detached from reality. Deny, deny, deny....... i think his friends have turned on him and this won't fly any longer. > >> >>The prez just said two things, forcefully, and i believe, >>truthfully....first: >> >>"I never had sexual relations with that woman....Miss Lewinsky" >> >>True. Webster's defines sexual relations as coitus; coitus is >>further defined as pxxxs/vxxxxa sex leading to ejaculation and deposit >>of sperm in the vxxxxa.....all Bill got from Monica was oral sex - >>blow jobs.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >True, Notice that over the weekend it was brought up several times that he >has told others (State Troopers, etc) that he does not consider oral sex >as "adulterous". This just fits, doesn't it? > > >>"I never....not one time....told anyone to lie." > >True. No good >suborner is going to say, "get up there and lie." >He might very well >say, deny, deny deny though! > >Once again Slick Willy is lawyering us to >death with weasel words!!! >>>>>>>>>>>> > >Well at least we had the satisfaction of the talking heads FINALLY admitting >that he does and HAS DONE that since he came to office. >A little too late, if you ask me....... > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Carville's Commandos Suit Up for "WAR" (Carville's Word!) Date: 26 Jan 1998 11:22:27 -0700 Boyd, [...] And, not to dampen the gleeful celebration surrounding recent events, but I do have one word for the list: Algore. Not something -I'm- excited about I can tell you, obviously not a move toward an America the Free. All IMO. [...] Just for the fun of it, I typed "algor" into my American Heritage Dictionary, and this is what popped out: algor mortis n. 1. The cooling of the body that follows death. Kind of appropriate, eh? ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Day 6 Clinton in Heat Date: 26 Jan 1998 13:38:47 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The greatest danger to the country is that Bill Clinton probably has not had a woman's lips around his private parts for about 6 days. Any woman who would do that now would be looking at a possible subpoena; and Hillary is probably not doing it for him. Therefore, this may be the longest period of time that Bill has gone without such servicing in a long, long time. He is looking more and more like Mr. Spock going through the "seven-year itch" in "Amok Time"* and this means that he could become very unstable. *Episode 34 Title: Amok Time Stardate: 3372.7 Original airdate: 9/15/1967 Writer: Theodore Sturgeon Director: Joseph Pevney Guest stars: Arlene Martel T'Pring Celia Lovsky T'Pau Lawrence Montaigne Stonn Byron Morrow Komack Synopsis: It's Spock's time of pon farr - the Vulcan mating cycle. McCoy informs Kirk that Spock will die unless they divert to Vulcan, his home planet, immediately! There, T'Pring, Spock's arranged bride, chooses the rite of combat, forcing Spock to fight to the death for her. But she selects Kirk as her champion! - -- Regards, Allan J. Favish http://members.aol.com/AllanF8702/page1.htm ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Carville's Commandos Suit Up for "WAR" (Carville's Word!) Date: 26 Jan 1998 11:22:27 -0700 Boyd, [...] And, not to dampen the gleeful celebration surrounding recent events, but I do have one word for the list: Algore. Not something -I'm- excited about I can tell you, obviously not a move toward an America the Free. All IMO. [...] Just for the fun of it, I typed "algor" into my American Heritage Dictionary, and this is what popped out: algor mortis n. 1. The cooling of the body that follows death. Kind of appropriate, eh? ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Carville's Commandos Suit Up for "WAR" (Carville's Word!) Date: 26 Jan 1998 11:22:27 -0700 Boyd, [...] And, not to dampen the gleeful celebration surrounding recent events, but I do have one word for the list: Algore. Not something -I'm- excited about I can tell you, obviously not a move toward an America the Free. All IMO. [...] Just for the fun of it, I typed "algor" into my American Heritage Dictionary, and this is what popped out: algor mortis n. 1. The cooling of the body that follows death. Kind of appropriate, eh? ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: The Dysfunctional President Date: 26 Jan 1998 09:47:17 -0600 (CST) NY Post BILL HAD "HUNDREDS' By DEBORAH ORIN - Washington Bureau Chief Monica Lewinsky claims on tape that President Clinton told her he'd had sex with "hundreds" of women - making it impossible for him to settle the Paula Jones case, a source told The Post yesterday. Lewinsky says Clinton was obsessed with the Jones case, particularly after the Supreme Court last May 27 unanimously rejected his bid to postpone it until after he left office, the source said. The young ex-intern was at the White House with the president one afternoon, begging him to settle the case when he made the stunning revelation, said the source, who has listened to tapes made by Lewinsky's friend Linda Tripp. According to the source, Lewinsky said the conversation occurred soon after the Supreme Court ruling, and she retold it this way: Lewinsky: "What do you need this headache for? Why don't you just settle" - and give Jones some cash and the apology she wanted. Clinton: "I can't." Lewinsky: "Why not?" Clinton: "Because they'll all come forward." Lewinsky: "So what? How many could there be?" Clinton ^sighing_: "Hundreds." The Monica tapes prompted Whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr to get approval from Attorney General Janet Reno and a three-judge panel to enter the case and explore possible obstruction-of-justice charges against Clinton. The tapes, according to those who have heard them, record Lewinsky telling of her doomed affair with Clinton and that he and First Pal Vernon Jordan told her to lie to cover it up. The Washington Post reported today that Lewinsky spoke bitterly of wanting to get a White House job as "special assistant to the president for ^oral sex_." She made the remark after she was shifted, apparently against her will, from the White House to the Pentagon and began referring to Clinton as "the creep," the report added. It also said Clinton increased phone-sex sessions with Lewinsky after he stopped the physical sex last summer because of concern over charges by another White House worker, Kathleen Willey, that he'd made an unwelcome pass at her. And it quotes Lewinsky as acknowledging that other White House staffers referred to her as "The Stalker" because of her eagerness to get close to Clinton. New questions about Clinton's relations with Lewinsky erupted last night after TV networks aired video that shows Clinton singling Lewinsky out of the crowd to give her a big hug when he returned to the White House last fall after winning re-election. Clinton is seen walking along a line of people shaking hands in quick succession when he stops to give her an exuberant hug while she beams over his shoulder and chats with him. The growing crisis has caused even ex-Chief of Staff Leon Panetta to come close to calling on Clinton to resign. Panetta told the San Jose Mercury-News that if Clinton had sex with Lewinsky and covered it up, it would be better "if ^Vice President Al_ Gore became president, and you have a new message and a new individual up there." Newsweek magazine yesterday released extensive transcripts of some of the Monica tapes it obtained, in which Lewinsky and Tripp agonize together over how to handle questions about Lewinsky's ties to Clinton. The transcripts suggest the two women are close friends who are torn and distraught by Lewinsky's plan to lie, and Tripp's decision to tell the truth. On another bombshell tape revealed earlier this week, Lewinsky says she was upset because Clinton was cheating on her with four other women, three of them White House staffers, CBS News reported. She identified the other women by name, but CBS didn't report the names. Lewinsky, now 24, also lamented that the other women could handle the situation but she just couldn't, the report said. Other tapes reportedly quote Lewinsky as saying that Clinton frequently called her at home late at night and engaged in explicit phone-sex. The tapes of the two women's conversation were made by Tripp, who, like Lewinsky, was an ex-White House staffer who'd moved to the Pentagon. New York literary agent Lucianne Goldberg yesterday said she'd encouraged Tripp to make the tapes of Lewinsky to protect herself. The furor goes back to Jones, who claims in her lawsuit that on May 8, 1991, Clinton had a state trooper bring her to a Little Rock, Ark., hotel room where he dropped his pants and asked for oral sex. At the time, he was Arkansas governor and she was a state worker. She also claims that she was denied promotions she deserved after she rebuffed his plea to "kiss it." To buttress her lawsuit, Jones' lawyers are seeking to prove that Clinton had a habit of making unwanted sexual advances to female subordinates. The Jones legal team subpoenaed Lewinsky as part of that effort. Tapes secretly recorded by Tripp record Lewinsky saying Clinton - "the Big Creep" - and his pal, Vernon Jordan, told her to lie and deny the affair. Another witness subpoenaed by Jones, ex-White House volunteer Willey, has testified under oath that Clinton made an unwelcome pass at her in a hideaway off the Oval Office. The Washington Post yesterday reported that Lewinsky gave Clinton the blue patterned tie that he wore to deliver his State of the Union address a year ago. In all, she sent him at least eight packages by courier from her post at the Pentagon from early October to late December 1996, the report added. It also said that Clinton saw Lewinsky at a White House reception last year and walked across the room to embrace her. Sources have previously told The New York Post that Clinton showered her with gifts including a dress, a pin and a copy of Walt Whitman's book of poetry, "Leaves of Grass." As part of his deposition in the Jones case on Jan. 17, sources say Clinton denied having sex with Lewinsky but admitted giving her gifts. In that same deposition, sources have confirmed, Clinton belatedly admitted that he had an affair with Gennifer Flowers - something he flatly denied in the 1992 presidential campaign. In 1992 - in an interview on the CBS show "60 Minutes" on Super Bowl Sunday - Clinton was asked if he categorically denied an affair with Flowers and he nodded affirmatively as he replied: "I've said that before, and so has she." Flowers on Friday told CNBC's "Rivera Live" that her 12-year affair with Clinton led to a pregnancy in 1977, early in the relationship, and he paid $200 for her to have an abortion. Flowers said she has records of the abortion but no proof of Clinton's role because he paid in cash. "He gave me cash. He gave me two $100 bills, which is how much it cost back then. No, he didn't write me out a check. He was a married man and he was at least cautious about that," she told Geraldo Rivera. MORE NEWS ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas NY Post PUTTING BILL ON THE COUCH SHRINKS: PREZ CAN'T HELP HELPING HIMSELF TO SEX By JOHN O'MAHONY "At times of distress ... rumors abounded about Clinton's depressed mood and extramarital affairs. By 1988 ... his list of sexual partners was said to be extensive but incomplete, because he could not recall them all."DR. PAUL FICK THE only way to understand why a man as powerful as Bill Clinton would risk everything on a cheap fling is to put him on the couch. So that's exactly what The Post did. Few can tell much from the president's denials on TV, so to demystify the character and complex personality of the alleged phi-landerer-in-chief, The Post consulted the best shrinks in town. Our experts say: Clinton's apparent compulsive sexuality could well be the result of growing up with an alcoholic stepfather and philandering mother. Powerful individuals like Clinton are more prone than others to be sexually abusive. Clinton's laissez-faire attitudes toward power, sex and women have their roots in adolescent experiences in the free-lovin' '60s. Clinton is likely to have lied to his wife about his alleged affairs. Last week's allegations of an affair with a young aide were added to Bill Clinton's black book of shame. They joined the well-known stories of a politician driven by reckless lust that have been told by a procession of women in the past six years including Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones. As the latest scandal with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky spins out, psychiatrists told The Post that for someone in a position of power, risking it all for the hot love of a young babe is nothing new - and that temptation is immense. "For the powerful man, it's a heady thing," said Lonnie Barbach, a psychologist with the University of California, San Francisco. "You feel good about yourself and, if the sex is there for the taking then - well, it's yours. You can have it all and that too." Faced with such temptations, even the strongest buckle. But besides this power-driven lust, there are many other fascinating factors that drive such wanton passion and lack of judgment. PSYCHIATRISTS tend to agree that power is the kind of all-powerful aphrodisiac that chews discretion to shreds and spits it out. But Dr. William Samek, director of the Florida Sexual Abuse Treatment Program, said men who pursue positions of power are driven by insecurity and an excessive desire for acceptance. "Would a sane person go through what you have to do to be a senator or a president?" he asked. "You really have to have a great ego ... most normal people would not be willing to take the abuse you have to take when you run for office. It just isn't worth it." Bill Clinton clearly had a yen for the bright lights from the get-go. In his biography of Clinton, "First in His Class," Washington Post reporter David Maraniss wrote that it was no coincidence that Clinton became a politician and his brother, Roger, a rock musician. Their career choices "revealed a common desire to perform and to gain approval from large audiences," he said. It was a craving they learned from their mother, the gaudily painted and flirtatious Virginia Kelly. "Like her son Roger, she loved to jump on stage and sing along with the band; and like her son Bill, she would walk into a room and try to win over every person there," Maraniss revealed. The power aphrodisiac cuts both ways - while a power broker is the aggressor, there is no shortage of willing servile sycophants. Maraniss said the world of the politician and the rock star are inextricably bound up with sex. "Performers in both realms are often surrounded by groupies, their sexual charisma enhanced by power and unrestrained ego," Maraniss wrote. "The desire to perform, the need for approval and the supply of idolaters can be a habit-forming triangle." Few of the psychiatrists consulted by The Post had any difficulty believing that someone in a position of power - even the president of the United States - would have had second thoughts hitting on a junior staff member. Audrey Ashendorf, a Manhattan psychotherapist, said powerful men are driven by narcissistic needs to use women to burnish their egos. "The people used are like mirrors to enhance his sense of self," she said. "The kind of man who has many affairs has a grandiose sense of self and betrays a lack of empathy toward others." Barbach, who's the author of the recently published "Turn Ons: Pleasing Your Lover While You Please Yourself," believes that the excitement in having forbidden fruit is what drives people over the edge. "This is where it really gets interesting," she said. "You don't give a lot of thought to the negative outcomes. You don't say "What if someone finds out?' That's not what you think about." "You think, "This feels terrific.' There's something very erotic about the danger of it, and that makes it so much more intense." B UT it's just not the sense of absolute power that drives the presidential libido, the experts said. One must look to deep-rooted psychological needs and pain to learn more. Maraniss explores the president's psyche in his book and wrote that the president's mother and grandmother are "central to understanding the man he would become. "He had been reared by a mother who loved to flirt, who walked around in a tube top and short shorts and spent considerable time each day trying to make herself sexually alluring." Clinton's mother and grandmother loved their "golden boy" excessively and had many love affairs in their time, he claimed."There is little history of sexual restraint," he said, in Clinton's "family culture." The president's formative years are also tainted by the lack of a real father figure. Little is known about Clinton's natural father, who was killed three months before the president was born, Maraniss said, except that he was an exceptional liar and had a string of wives before he married Bill's mother. The president's first stepfather, the one he knew best - and there would be two more - was a failed car dealer, a womanizer, a drunk, a gambler and a wife-beater. Manhattan psychiatrist Dr. Paul Salkin told The Post that Clinton's background was a breeding ground for a "risk-taker." "He was born without a father, and that has to have a significant effect on a boy's development," said Salkin. "There's a tendency for them to develop into what they call a risk-taker. The worst that can happen has happened, and they feel they can take more risks than the average person." Ever since they coined the phrase "Slick Willie," commentators have theorized about why the president exhibits a strong tendency to lie and often deny personal responsibility. "A man does need to have the consistent presence of a father figure to solidify those qualities that people label the ethical system within oneself," Salkin said. D R. Paul Fick, author of "The Dysfunctional President," said that to truly understand the president's behavior, one has to go back to the history of alcoholism and violence in the Clinton family home. "As a child, the president witnessed the frequent battering of his mother at the hands of his alcoholic stepfather," he said. "On one occasion in the Clinton home, and in the president's presence, the stepfather shot at Bill's mother, the bullet narrowly missing her head. "The president responded to this extremely difficult home life by overachieving and sheltering friends, neighbors and classmates from any awareness of the chaos which was his daily existence." Fick believes that sexuality became an obsession for the president as a means of covering up his emotional frailty. "At times of distress such as Roger's arrest and his gubernatorial election loss in 1980, rumors abounded about Clinton's depressed mood and extramarital affairs," Fick said. "By 1988, when Clinton was considering a presidential run, his list of sexual partners was said to be extensive but incomplete because he could not recall them all." Explaining the background to compulsive sex, Helen Friedman, a clinical psychologist in private practice in St. Louis with a radio show on KKWK, says it's a coping mechanism learned in childhood. It is a similar type of addiction to excessive gambling and substance abuse, she said. "A child learns to use sex to obtain comfort and at the same time has to deal with a message that being sexual is perverse, shameful and humiliating," she said. "The conflict results in self-loathing, which in turn leads to more pain and loneliness and all the more need for sex." The main point about sexually compulsive people is that they are doing it even though they don't want to. Fick maintains that when Clinton undertook additional stress by becoming president, he assured a dangerous escalation to his sexual compulsion. In his book in 1994, Fick concluded, "With relative ease, one can predict from past behavior that Clinton's sexual behavior will continue to produce problems for his presidency." As Clinton sidesteps allegations about the latest sex scandal to shatter his life, Fick's words would appear to have been prophetic. P SYCHIATRISTS consulted by The Post also pointed to a number of cultural components that may have influenced Bill Clinton's character. "Men have this sense that sex is available for them and that they can feel good about their masculinity by getting it," Barbach said. "It's not the same for women. That attitude is not seen as a respectable one for them, but for men, it's seen as being more manly." Clinton lived out his formative adolescent years in the 1960s - the so-called free-love years. Since then, however, attitudes toward sex and sex roles have undergone a massive change. "When we were boys, womanizing was a cool and very masculine thing," said Samek. "A guy could say, "I've got a wife and three lovers,' and people would say, "Aren't you something?' Today we are changing our opinions of that. That's using people, and that's selfish, we think. But that's a new cultural value." Bill Clinton, growing up with the whiff of marijuana smoke in his nostrils - even if he didn't inhale it - and readily available sex with the introduction of The Pill, was a true flower child. Perhaps he was seduced forever by the attractiveness of those values and never grew up. In today's more conservative world, he would appear to be a prisoner of his past - especially for someone who's pressured to be the moral leader for the nation. "Interestingly, what Clinton's accused of is nothing new - Roosevelt and Kennedy both had affairs in the White House," said Barbach. "What's new about it now is it has become a public issue and the country has become more conservative about sexuality." Samek agrees. Look at the difference in attitudes to the behavior of JFK and Clinton, he said. "All the reports make Kennedy look more of a womanizer than Clinton by any standard, but society is changing." M ORE troubling for the president than his alleged affair with Lewinsky is the charge that he may have urged her to lie under oath to save his hide. Clinton has been adamant that there was no "improper" relationship between him and his former aide and that he didn't ask her to lie. What are the chances that the president is lying? "Well, you know what Lenny Bruce said," said Ashendorf. "His advice was that a man should never admit to adultery, ever. Even if one was caught in the act by a spouse, his advice was to ask her, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?'" Ashendorf said she believed that Clinton, like most men, would lie to his wife, but when the chips were down, he would not lie in court. "He might lie to Hillary and to the press, but he's trained as an attorney and knows too well that it would be very wrong to lie in court." She argues that despite all the alleged affairs, the most important woman in Clinton's life is still his wife. And, Ashendorf adds, if he ever had an affair, it was with someone he considered to be of little importance. "If there are other women, these people exist simply to reflect his glory back to him, whether he's aware of it on a conscious level." Barbach said that if Clinton is really guilty and continues to deny he ever had a fling with Lewinsky, it will show extreme ruthlessness on his part - a willingness to blame others and make them look bad. And if he does lie, Barbach says it could well lead to a psychological crisis for him. "As president, he sees himself as the moral leader, and it may be difficult for him to live up to his own idea of what his role ought to be," she said. Fick is more direct. He says it's clear that Bill Clinton is a dysfunctional president who is only too capable of lying to protect himself. His solution is that the president should seek treatment and that the country should face up to the fact that Clinton's own psychological history has caused him to self-destruct. "His demise was determined by his avoidance of his problems," he said. "Let us as a nation not fail in our responsibility to hold him accountable and pray for his recovery." ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Text of HR 2734 (fwd) Date: 26 Jan 1998 16:51:02 PST On Jan 26, Doug Spittler wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Time to call your representatives... HR 2734 IH 105th CONGRESS 1st Session To clarify the standard required for the importation of sporting arms into the United States, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 24, 1997 Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. WISE, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. BARCIA, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, and Mr. BRADY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To clarify the standard required for the importation of sporting arms into the United States, and for other purposes. [Italic->] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [<-Italic] SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Consumer's Choice Protection Act of 1997'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. (a) FINDINGS- Congress finds the following: (1) Citizens have a right, under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms. The Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 were not enacted by Congress with the intent of frustrating the free exercise of that right, including giving law abiding firearms owners the widest possible consumer choice in firearms types and models. (2) The Congress has only twice in the Nation's history, in 1934 and in 1994, elected to limit, restrict, or prohibit the type of firearm a law abiding citizen may own. Of the 2 actions, the last one by Congress in 1994 was only taken after a long and very divisive debate, resulting in passage of the restrictions by only a very few votes. Subsequently in 1996, the House of Representatives, but not the Senate, passed a measure to repeal the 1994 ownership restrictions. (3) The Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to section 925(d) of title 18, United States Code, is charged by Congress to approve the importation of firearms into the United States for private ownership if such firearms are determined to be for `sporting purposes'. (4) The executive branch has interpreted `sporting purposes' in a narrow and obstructive manner, impeding firearms imports over the years, interfering with the citizenry's constitutional rights, and diminishing consumer choice to the point where the current administration has clearly and forcefully indicated its intent to ban the importation of firearms that are not only lawful to own if domestically produced in the United States, but otherwise meet the criteria that the Congress and the current administration defined in 1994 for a lawful firearm. (b) PURPOSE- The purposes of this Act are as follows: (1) To clarify the standard used to import firearms into the United States. (2) To make it clear that firearms imports may not be subject to discriminatory treatment, and that citizens should retain the choice to own and use such firearms for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self defense, collecting, competitive shooting, or plinking. (3) To prevent the further impediment of commerce by providing for a fast track consideration of import permits. SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF STANDARD FOR IMPORTATION OF FIREARMS. (a) IN GENERAL- Section 922(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `(d)(1) Within 30 days after the Secretary receives an application therefor, the Secretary shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition-- `(A) is being imported or brought in for scientific or research purposes, or is for use in connection with competition or training pursuant to chapter 401 of title 10; `(B) is an unserviceable firearm, other than a machinegun as defined in section 5845(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (not readily restorable to firing condition), imported or brought in as a curio or museum piece; `(C) is not-- `(i) a firearm (as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); or `(ii) subject to the prohibition of section 922(v) of this title, and if the Secretary has denied an application to import a firearm pursuant to this subparagraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be prohibited if assembled; or `(D) was previously taken out of the United States or a possession by the person who is bringing in the firearm or ammunition. `(2) Within 30 days after the Secretary receives an application therefor, the Secretary shall permit the conditional importation or bringing in of a firearm or ammunition for examination and testing in connection with the making of a determination as to whether the importation or bringing in of such firearm or ammunition will be allowed under this subsection.'. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 922(r) of such title is amended by striking `925(d)(3)' and inserting `925(d)(1)(C)'. SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply to applications pending on or after October 1, 1997. ************************************************** * If you think you have the answer, you probably * * didn't understand the question! * ************************************************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Text of HR 2721 (fwd) Date: 26 Jan 1998 16:51:38 PST On Jan 26, Doug Spittler wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Call your representatives... HR 2721 IH 105th CONGRESS 1st Session To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 23, 1997 Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans. [Italic->] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [<-Italic] SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Protection Act of 1997'. SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FEDERAL HARASSMENT PERIOD. Public Law 103-159 is hereby replaced, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act has not been enacted. SEC. 3. REPEAL OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN BAN. Title XI of Public Law 103-322 is hereby repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such title are restored or revived as if such title had not been enacted. SEC. 4. REPEAL OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION. (a) Section 201 of title 11 of Public Law 90-618 is amended by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes,' and `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.' (b) Public Law 90-351, as amended, is amended as follows: (1) In section 902, strike `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes,' `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes,' `a projectile which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,' `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community,' `determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes and,' `(A) determined by the Secretary to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and (B),' `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes,' and `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes;'. (2) Strike `lawful sporting purposes' and inserting in lieu thereof `lawful purposes'. SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment. ************************************************** * If you think you have the answer, you probably * * didn't understand the question! * ************************************************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: The Dysfunctional President Date: 26 Jan 1998 17:20:02 -0800 (PST) At 9:47 AM -0600 1/26/98, wrote: >From: Ann Khan >Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 10:33:37 -0600 >Subject: CAS: BILL HAD "HUNDREDS' > >NY Post >BILL HAD "HUNDREDS' > > By DEBORAH ORIN - Washington Bureau Chief Is this the headline the Post had? Because it clearly is -not- what Clinton said. He said hundreds -would-come-forward-. Claiming differently leaves the weasel room open for him and it's why he so often gets out of stuff like this. He can portray his opponents (us) as mischaracterizing the truth. There comes a time when you only mount attacks that will -succeed- I submit this is one of those times. There's -plenty- of evidence of wrongdoing here, we don't need to bend stuff to fit. All IMO. Boyd >========================================================================== >This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If >you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas > > > > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: The Dysfunctional President Date: 26 Jan 1998 17:20:02 -0800 (PST) At 9:47 AM -0600 1/26/98, wrote: >From: Ann Khan >Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 10:33:37 -0600 >Subject: CAS: BILL HAD "HUNDREDS' > >NY Post >BILL HAD "HUNDREDS' > > By DEBORAH ORIN - Washington Bureau Chief Is this the headline the Post had? Because it clearly is -not- what Clinton said. He said hundreds -would-come-forward-. Claiming differently leaves the weasel room open for him and it's why he so often gets out of stuff like this. He can portray his opponents (us) as mischaracterizing the truth. There comes a time when you only mount attacks that will -succeed- I submit this is one of those times. There's -plenty- of evidence of wrongdoing here, we don't need to bend stuff to fit. All IMO. Boyd >========================================================================== >This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If >you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas > > > > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Re: Carville's Commandos Suit Up for "WAR" (Carville's Word!) Date: 26 Jan 1998 20:38:21 -0500 (EST) Points well made, Boyd. Great food for thought. Please understand that watching Carville made me nauseated. He is really an evil SOB who hates Americans deep in his heart. I believe that. That aside, I agree with you about # 2. I am hoping that # 1 will be forced to resign within weeks. But he will not go down without a fight, the likes of which none of us have ever seen. He is drunk with power and will not let go of it without kicking and screaming wildly as he goes. And go he must (via resignation), for the good of the Country. Best regards, Chris Ferris On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Boyd wrote: > I hope none of my conservative friends take me wrong here. Words like > "elitist" or "police" state have been long abused by people with no idea of > their meaning. But in the Websters (tm) sense of the word, Carville is an > elitist. He senses his power crumbling at the edges and feels a righteous > (ha!) anger that -we- could impune -his- president. > > The rule of law is endangered (being diplomatic here) by the cult of > personality, has been for some time. When we pass laws that we know in > advance aren't enforceable (guns, speech, drugs, seizure, travel etc etc > etc) when we make our "meta" law (the constitution) a "living document" we > get guys who build and reinforce other systems of authority, like Carville > and company. > > Here in Washington several years ago, people were made aware of federal > laws against the -criticism- of federal judges (the Woodbridge case) but > those were people without name appendages (JD., Sen., PHD, etc) people who > were not known to the likes of Carville. It will be interesting indeed to > see how he fares. Since IMO we do not live in a nation ruled by law I don't > think anything at all will come of it. He can't spell f-e-d-e-r-a-l > p-r-i-s-o-n, he has people to do that for him. > > And, not to dampen the gleeful celebration surrounding recent events, but I > do have one word for the list: Algore. Not something -I'm- excited about I > can tell you, obviously not a move toward an America the Free. All IMO. > -Boyd Kneeland > > > At 3:53 PM -0500 1/25/98, Chris Ferris wrote: > >I watched with utter amazement this morning on a Sunday A.M. political > >talking head show as Clinton damage controller and junkyard dog James > >Carville, using a hateful and ugly and loud tone of voice, said, "This is > >WAR!" When asked by a startled commentator, "War against whom?", Carville > >repeated the word "WAR" and stated that the independent counsel (Judge > >Ken Starr) was the person against whom "war" would be waged. A rabid > >Clintonista threatening "WAR" against Judge Ken Starr ??? Hmmmm. Can > >Carville spell f-e-d-e-r-a-l p-r-i-s-o-n ??? > > > >Carville was seething as he was being filmed and quoted. Am I over-reacting, > >or does his threat of making "WAR" against an independent counsel who is > >a federal judge constitute a THREAT OF VIOLENCE against a member of the > >federal judiciary? I am serious. Could he be charged and indicted? Or at > >least excoriated by Americans as a leader of an off-the-wall, women-hating > >left-wing-extremist-militia of Clintonistas out to make "WAR" on a > >federal judge? > > > >If others saw Carville on TV this morning ("Meet The Press", if I recall > >correctly), what did you think of his tone, his choice of verbiage, his > >facial expressions ??? If I were Ken Starr, I would ask the Attorney > >General to obtain a warrant for Carville's arrest for criminal threatening > >at the very least and toss his sorry rear end in jail ... where he could > >meet some real Bubbas ... Ouch! > > > >Best regards, Chris Ferris > > > >N.B. You had to see Carville say "WAR" (almost shouting) to appreciate the > >exact context of his use of the word ... against an independent counsel, > >against a federal judge !!! Unreal, but then again, the guy is a long time > >FOB. So, anything goes. Or does it? Find out exactly what he said from > >transcripts and then write your Congressman and Senators to demand that > >he be indicted and tried for threatening Judge Starr !!! > > > >- > > > > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg Subject: bumperstickers Date: 25 Jan 1998 08:35:01 -0800 (PST) > Chris Ferris wrote: > > > ROC and NOBAN list readers: > > > > Here are some ideas for some "Bye Bye, Bill!" bumper stickers ... > lobo added: > The day Spiro Agnew resigned I was on the pasadena freeway.Heard on the radio > that Agnew had resigned. No sooner than > the words left the speakers a hippie in a VW bus passed me > sporting a bumper sticker that said: > > "One Down, One to Go!" > > We need to have that one ready for the day it happens. I remember the week after Nixon fired Archibald Cox, somebody printed up a bumpersticker that read: IMPEACH THE COX-SHUCKER Brewster -- *********************************************************************** "Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges." Tacitus W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA ************************************************************************ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: "My Part Will Go On" (R-RATED "Gov Theme" from "Clintontanic") Date: 26 Jan 1998 21:19:25 -0500 (EST) THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE With apologies to Celine Dion ... (Take it away, Wee Willie ...) Every night in my schemes, I squeeze you, I feel you, That is how I know you go on, Far across The White House, And desktops between us, You have come to show you go on, Near, far, wherever you are, I'm relieved that my part does go on, Unsure, you opened the door, And you've seen, yes, my part, And my part will go on and on, This Gov can touch you one time, And last for a wifetime, And don't you let go 'til I'm done, Love was when I shoved you, One screw time I hold to, Despite my wife, we'll always go on, Near, far, wherever you are, I'm relieved that my part does go on, Unsure, you opened the door, And you've seen, yes, my part, And my part will go on and on, My dear, your lawyers should fear, 'Cause they know that my part will go on, Whatever you say, it won't matter anyway, Girls aren't safe near my part, And my part will go on and on. THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE The shame is, I just * love * Celine Dion's rendition of the haunting love song "My Heart Will Go On" ... and we all know that WJC, dressed as Hillary, would have surely boarded one of the Titanic's lifeboats, don't we, had he been a passenger in April of 1912 when the liner was sinking in the North Atlantic ... Best regards, Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Hallmark Pulls "April Morning" (fwd) Date: 26 Jan 1998 20:32:51 PST On Jan 26, Norman Olson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] "APRIL MORNING" - A Samuel Goldwyn Home Entertainment Production released through Hallmark Home Entertainment. The True Story of the birth of a nation. Revealed against the backdrop of the British attack on Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775, are the lives and personalities of those who stood that April Morning. Tommy Lee Jones plays Moses Cooper, a father of 15-year old Adam, played by Chad Lowe. Cooper is frightened. The British have harrassed and intimidated the citizens in the area. Guns, powder and shot have been found hidden in merchandize moving between the towns and villages. Cooper knows that his leadership role in the Lexington Militia will soon be put to the test. Rip Torn plays Solomon Chandler, a merchant and war veteran who has fought against the French and the Indians. Chandler has been stopped and beaten by redcoats. His cargo has been broken into by British soldiers--guns have been found. The story begins on April 18. The events of that day in Lexington will bring about the decision for the Lexington Militia to stand as word comes that the British are coming. Young Adam Cooper is about to become a man. In one sensitive scene, Moses Cooper instructs his son how to prepare for shooting a man. "Don't count the pellets...feel the weight...you won't have time if they are shooting at you." Adams loves Ruth, played by Merideth Salanger. Their talk is about the future, hopeful and bright. The young lovers cannot know what is about to happen. The morning of April 19 dawns quietly and peaceful. The militia presents itself on the Lexington green as in the distance the sound of drums beat out march cadence. The rattle of armor and swords and the hoofbeats of horses near. Nervous and frightened the militia waits, but absent from the group is Solomon Chandler, the braggart who has spoken only of his war experience and who secretly wants to retaliate against the British for what he has suffered. Chandler hides behind a stone wall, within rifle distance of the British who have arrayed themselves in front of the militia. The British commander orders the militia to disperse.... tensions rise.... the British soldiers are nervous and frightened.... and then a shot rings out, a shot that will be heard around the world. April Morning is more than a movie. It is an echo from the past that finds its place in America in 1998. Any American who has wondered if parallels exist between our time and theirs must see April Morning. After viewing it, all doubts will be gone. Fathers and mothers need to view April Morning together. There can be no doubt that what is about to happen in America will plunge entire families into crisis. Review by Norman Olson, Commander, Northern Michigan Regional Militia and Pastor, Freedom Church *************************************************** But April Morning isn't available, even though Hallmark has had the authority to release it. In fact, about six months ago, a small number of the videos were released, only to have the release stopped for some unknown reason. The people at Hallmark Home Entertainment won't explain why the release was halted. I suspect that the emotional nature and historical accuracy of April Morning makes it politically dangerous. Patriot and Militia people across America need to phone Hallmark Home Entertainment at 213-634-3000 and demand that April Morning be released. Merchants need to provide this video in their shops. Churches need to encourage their congregations to view it. I encourage people everywhere to inquire as who why the release of this movie has been stopped. Perhaps the best review I can give is to tell you "The federal government does not want you to see April Morning." Knowing this, I am sure it is something you'll want to do. Kind Regards, Norm Olson [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Hallmark Pulls "April Morning" Date: 26 Jan 1998 20:52:19 -0800 >"APRIL MORNING" - A Samuel Goldwyn Home Entertainment Production >released through Hallmark Home Entertainment. > >The True Story of the birth of a nation. > >Revealed against the backdrop of the British attack on Lexington and >Concord, April 19, 1775, are the lives and personalities of >those who stood that April Morning. Tommy Lee Jones plays >Moses Cooper, a father of 15-year old Adam, played by Chad Lowe. >Cooper is frightened. The British have harrassed and intimidated >the citizens in the area. Guns, powder and shot have been found >hidden in merchandize moving between the towns and villages. >Cooper knows that his leadership role in the Lexington Militia >will soon be put to the test. >Rip Torn plays Solomon Chandler, a merchant and war veteran who >has fought against the French and the Indians. Chandler has >been stopped and beaten by redcoats. His cargo has been broken >into by British soldiers--guns have been found. > >The story begins on April 18. The events of that day in Lexington >will bring about the decision for the Lexington Militia to stand >as word comes that the British are coming. > >Young Adam Cooper is about to become a man. In one sensitive scene, >Moses Cooper instructs his son how to prepare for shooting a man. >"Don't count the pellets...feel the weight...you won't have time >if they are shooting at you." > >Adams loves Ruth, played by Merideth Salanger. Their talk is about >the future, hopeful and bright. The young lovers cannot know >what is about to happen. > >The morning of April 19 dawns quietly and peaceful. The militia >presents itself on the Lexington green as in the distance the sound >of drums beat out march cadence. The rattle of armor and swords >and the hoofbeats of horses near. Nervous and frightened the >militia waits, but absent from the group is Solomon Chandler, the >braggart who has spoken only of his war experience and who secretly >wants to retaliate against the British for what he has suffered. >Chandler hides behind a stone wall, within rifle distance of the >British who have arrayed themselves in front of the militia. >The British commander orders the militia to disperse.... tensions >rise.... the British soldiers are nervous and frightened.... >and then a shot rings out, a shot that will be heard around the >world. > >April Morning is more than a movie. It is an echo from the past >that finds its place in America in 1998. Any American who has >wondered if parallels exist between our time and theirs must see >April Morning. After viewing it, all doubts will be gone. > >Fathers and mothers need to view April Morning together. There can >be no doubt that what is about to happen in America will plunge >entire families into crisis. > >Review by Norman Olson, Commander, Northern Michigan Regional Militia > and Pastor, Freedom Church > > *************************************************** > >But April Morning isn't available, even though Hallmark has had >the authority to release it. In fact, about six months ago, a >small number of the videos were released, only to have the release >stopped for some unknown reason. The people at Hallmark Home >Entertainment won't explain why the release was halted. I suspect >that the emotional nature and historical accuracy of April Morning >makes it politically dangerous. > > Patriot and Militia people across America need to phone >Hallmark Home Entertainment at 213-634-3000 and demand that >April Morning be released. Merchants need to provide this >video in their shops. Churches need to encourage their >congregations to view it. > > I encourage people everywhere to inquire as who why the release >of this movie has been stopped. > > Perhaps the best review I can give is to tell you "The federal >government does not want you to see April Morning." Knowing >this, I am sure it is something you'll want to do. > > >Kind Regards, > >Norm Olson - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Now I've heard it all! Date: 27 Jan 1998 02:17:49 PST You should hear this guy on the Art Bell Show! Revealing everything he knows about the saucer people will save Clinton's bacon!.....:-) He wants everyone to start a massive email campaign to let Clinton know! :-) -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: OKC-Langan 1993 Secret Service Informant (fwd) Date: 27 Jan 1998 08:53:49 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Remember Peter Langan (a/k/a Commander Pedro)? Remember Strassmeir, Brescia, Ward and the Aryan Republican Army? In cleaning out the archives, I just found this very interesting tiny excerpt from a newspaper clipping. Excerpts, yes -- but the name and date of the newspaper were included in the notice and the complete article can be obtained. Peter Langan became a Secret Service informant as early as August 1993, almost two years before the OKC bombing. For those who believe that Michael Brescia was one of the John Doe IIs, it should be somewhat interesting to now deal with the reality that he was under the command, while in the ARA, of a Secret Service informant. Think about that for a while. Forwarded from the archives: Excerpts from a 'Columbus Dispatch' article 1/20/96 [Headline Unknown] by Brent LaLonde and Michael J. Berens In an informant-for-hire deal, the man arrested after a shootout in Columbus Thursday -- and now a suspect in 18 Midwestern bank robberies--was released from a Georgia jail in 1993 at the request of the Secret Service. Peter K. Langan was released from the county jail in Carnesville, Ga., in August 1993 to help the Secret Service investigate threats against the government, said Lindsay Tise, district attorney for the Northern Judicial Circuit in Georgia and the person who approved the deal. The band of bank robbers may have safe houses and weapon caches nationwide and ties to a white supremacist militia group, the FBI said yesterday. [END OF EXCERPTS] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: OK grand jury looking at more people Date: 27 Jan 1998 09:31:52 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Witness List Given to Grand Jury By Brian Ford World Capitol Bureau 1/27/98 Tulsa World OKLAHOMA CITY -- State Rep. Charles Key's bombing investigation committee has recommended 24 new witnesses to a grand jury, including Gov. Frank Keating's brother Martin. An Oklahoma County grand jury has been investigating the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building since last summer. The jury is investigating alternative theories concerning the bombing, including whether suspects other than Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were involved in the bomb plot; whether some federal government officials may have received prior information concerning the bomb plot; and whether the bombing involved more than one explosive device. McVeigh and Nichols were convicted in the bombing. Key's group recommended a list of 39 witnesses last summer. Most of those people have since testified before the grand jury. The grand jury is not required to hear from any of the witnesses that are recommended. Among those on the new list is Martin Keating, the author of the novel ``The Final Jihad,'' a story about a terrorist attack on a federal office in Chicago. ``I think the two men who were primarily responsible (for the Oklahoma City bombing) were caught and convicted,'' Martin Keating said. He said those convictions do not mean, however, that McVeigh and Nichols were necessarily the only two involved in the bombing. When asked if he felt he could provide new information to the grand jury, Martin Keating said, ``I doubt it.'' According to Key's summary of the witnesses, Martin Keating told a radio show host on Aug. 21 that he has received information in 1989 from the FBI concerning targeted attacks in the United States including a federal office in middle America. Martin Keating said the FBI never mentioned a federal office in Oklahoma City. He said the FBI was primarily concerned about attacks from foreign terrorists. The Tulsa author said he is working on a sequel titled ``Seekers of the Infidel.'' Another recommended witness is Kathy Wilburn, wife of the late Glenn Wilburn and grandmother of Chase and Colton Smith, who were among the 168 people killed in the bombing. According to Key's summary, Kathy Wilburn was at the Murrah Building scene within five minutes of the bombing and can testify about the number of federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents there. Eight Kansas people are also on the witness list, including a man who was allegedly seen with McVeigh in a bar in Dwight, Kan., during the week of April 7, 1995. The man allegedly told another bar patron: ``Look for something big to happen on the 19th.'' Also on the list are seven people who may provide testimony about the presence of an Oklahoma County bomb squad truck near the Murrah building shortly before the explosion. A member of the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office bomb squad testified before the grand jury in November. Oklahoma County Sheriff John Whetsel said that on the morning of April 19, 1995, said the bomb squad member, Bill Grimsley, had taken the bomb disposal truck out from the Sheriff's Office headquarters three blocks to the Oklahoma County Courthouse. Grimsley drove to the courthouse to take part in a regular organizational meeting of the courthouse's security detail, Whetsel said. The bomb disposal vehicle was no closer than three blocks from the Murrah Building around 8 a.m. in the morning, Whetsel said. The sheriff said Grimsley took the bomb truck so he could drive straight from the courthouse to a bomb squad training exercise that had been scheduled for months. Whetsel said the bomb squad had received no prior warning of the bombing. Absent from the list were Oklahoma County reserve deputy sheriffs David Kochendorfer and Don Hammons, who alleged during a press conference last week that U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook may have known of prior knowledge of the bomb plot. Key said the two reserve deputies were recommended last week to the grand jury. Istook vehemently denied their accounts. Former Oklahoma City television reporter Jayna Davis testified before the grand jury on Monday. She has testified at least twice before. Davis aired reports in 1995 that dealt with alleged sightings of McVeigh with another man days before the bombing. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Carville's Commandos Suit Up for "WAR" (Carville's Word!) Date: 27 Jan 1998 08:41:19 -0800 (PST) Actually, I over reacted, I feel a little like a puppy who's gotten whacked one time to many with a newspaper. There've been so many times when I thought "wow, this is the one, now even the highly intelligent well educated people I work with are going to finally get a clue about what's happening in this country". Only to have the "expose" turned on it's head in the popular media. Maybe I've gotten to used to waiting for that gigantic newspaper to come down out of the sky ; ) -Boyd >Points well made, Boyd. Great food for thought. Please understand that >watching Carville made me nauseated. He is really an evil SOB who hates >Americans deep in his heart. I believe that. That aside, I agree with you >about # 2. I am hoping that # 1 will be forced to resign within weeks. But >he will not go down without a fight, the likes of which none of us have ever >seen. He is drunk with power and will not let go of it without kicking >and screaming wildly as he goes. And go he must (via resignation), for the >good of the Country. > >Best regards, > >Chris Ferris > >On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Boyd wrote: > >> I hope none of my conservative friends take me wrong here. Words like >> "elitist" or "police" state have been long abused by people with no idea of >> their meaning. But in the Websters (tm) sense of the word, Carville is an >> elitist. He senses his power crumbling at the edges and feels a righteous >> (ha!) anger that -we- could impune -his- president. >> >> The rule of law is endangered (being diplomatic here) by the cult of >> personality, has been for some time. When we pass laws that we know in >> advance aren't enforceable (guns, speech, drugs, seizure, travel etc etc >> etc) when we make our "meta" law (the constitution) a "living document" we >> get guys who build and reinforce other systems of authority, like Carville >> and company. >> >> Here in Washington several years ago, people were made aware of federal >> laws against the -criticism- of federal judges (the Woodbridge case) but >> those were people without name appendages (JD., Sen., PHD, etc) people who >> were not known to the likes of Carville. It will be interesting indeed to >> see how he fares. Since IMO we do not live in a nation ruled by law I don't >> think anything at all will come of it. He can't spell f-e-d-e-r-a-l >> p-r-i-s-o-n, he has people to do that for him. >> >> And, not to dampen the gleeful celebration surrounding recent events, but I >> do have one word for the list: Algore. Not something -I'm- excited about I >> can tell you, obviously not a move toward an America the Free. All IMO. >> -Boyd Kneeland >> >> >> At 3:53 PM -0500 1/25/98, Chris Ferris wrote: >> >I watched with utter amazement this morning on a Sunday A.M. political >> >talking head show as Clinton damage controller and junkyard dog James >> >Carville, using a hateful and ugly and loud tone of voice, said, "This is >> >WAR!" When asked by a startled commentator, "War against whom?", Carville >> >repeated the word "WAR" and stated that the independent counsel (Judge >> >Ken Starr) was the person against whom "war" would be waged. A rabid >> >Clintonista threatening "WAR" against Judge Ken Starr ??? Hmmmm. Can >> >Carville spell f-e-d-e-r-a-l p-r-i-s-o-n ??? >> > >> >Carville was seething as he was being filmed and quoted. Am I >>over-reacting, >> >or does his threat of making "WAR" against an independent counsel who is >> >a federal judge constitute a THREAT OF VIOLENCE against a member of the >> >federal judiciary? I am serious. Could he be charged and indicted? Or at >> >least excoriated by Americans as a leader of an off-the-wall, women-hating >> >left-wing-extremist-militia of Clintonistas out to make "WAR" on a >> >federal judge? >> > >> >If others saw Carville on TV this morning ("Meet The Press", if I recall >> >correctly), what did you think of his tone, his choice of verbiage, his >> >facial expressions ??? If I were Ken Starr, I would ask the Attorney >> >General to obtain a warrant for Carville's arrest for criminal threatening >> >at the very least and toss his sorry rear end in jail ... where he could >> >meet some real Bubbas ... Ouch! >> > >> >Best regards, Chris Ferris >> > >> >N.B. You had to see Carville say "WAR" (almost shouting) to appreciate the >> >exact context of his use of the word ... against an independent counsel, >> >against a federal judge !!! Unreal, but then again, the guy is a long time >> >FOB. So, anything goes. Or does it? Find out exactly what he said from >> >transcripts and then write your Congressman and Senators to demand that >> >he be indicted and tried for threatening Judge Starr !!! >> > >> >- >> >> >> >> >> - >> > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: GOA Blasts Clinton, BATF Date: 27 Jan 1998 00:44:28 -0500 Forwarding along... > As Congress Gets Set to Reconvene, > Your gun rights need protecting! > >Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert >8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 >Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 >http://www.gunowners.org > >Friday, January 23, 1998 > > >GOA Blasts Clinton, BATF on Import Ban > > Gun Owners of America recently blasted the Clinton >administration for its continued assault on the Constitutional >rights of gun owners, and chided the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, >Tobacco and Firearms) for its overt hypocrisy in enforcing >firearms regulations. > > Gun Owners was responding to the President's decision from >November when he placed a 120-day freeze on the importation of >certain semi-automatic firearms. One White House official >described the gun ban this way: "We are taking the law and >bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of >guns." (Source: Los Angeles Times, 10/22/97.) > > At the end of this 120 day period, the Clinton >administration will make a final decision on whether the firearms >will be permanently banned. > > Earlier this month, GOA sent an official protest to the >Clinton administration after the Treasury Department (through the >BATF) solicited comments from several organizations, including >GOA. > > "The members of Gun Owners of America object to the >'sporting purposes' test itself," said GOA Executive Director >Larry Pratt. "The framers of our Bill of Rights wisely provided >for a 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' and not for >the sake of deer hunting or competitive shooting." > > ACTION: Go to http://www.gunowners.org/import.htm to read >GOA's official testimony in its entirety. Tell your Congressman >that you support both bills in Congress (H.R. 2734 and H.R. 2721) >that would effectively invalidate any permanent import ban. > > [The latter bill, introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), would >not only repeal the "sporting purposes" test which Clinton is >using to enforce the ban, the bill would also repeal the Brady >Law and the 1994 ban on semi-automatic firearms.] > > POSSIBLE ACTION: Gun Owners of America has asked the >Treasury department to extend the comment period on the import >ban proposal to individuals so that GOA members can send their >comments as well. Please stay tuned. > > >GOA Opposing Clinton-appointed, Anti-gun Judge > > Gun Owners of America has joined with several pro-freedom >groups to block a Clinton-appointed judge from taking a seat on >the federal bench. > > As early as next week, the Senate may consider the >nomination of Margaret Morrow to a U.S. District Court position. >Ms. Morrow is not only extremely anti-gun, she's a "judicial >activist" who thinks that judges can disregard the law and use >the court's rulings to reshape society. > > If nominated to the federal bench, she could affect the >outcome of several gun cases, and ensure that the federal courts >hand down even more anti-gun rulings. > > ACTION: Gun owners should call their senators at >1-800-522-6721 or 202-224-3121 and ask them to oppose the >Margaret Morrow nomination. The GOA website contains fax and >e-mail contact info for Congress. > > STAY TUNED for some good news in an upcoming alert regarding >Hatch's Horror Bill (S. 10)! > > >*********************************************************** >Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of >getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider >joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service >is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume >is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week >indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward >this notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and include your >state of residence in either the subject line or the body. > ************************************************************** * "Just when you think you've got me figured out * * The season's already changing..." -- Meredith Brooks * * mestetsr@post.drexel.edu * ************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: CAS: President Clinton nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (fwd) Date: 27 Jan 1998 11:38:56 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: act@efn.org I mean, is life getting too weird and funny for words, or what? ROTFLMAOPIM= P (A new whatchamacallit coined by Barefoot ... last part is Peeing in My Pants ....=20 Patty President Clinton nominated for Nobel Peace Prize 11.03 a.m. ET (1602 GMT) January 27, 1998 OSLO, Norway (AP) =97 President Clinton has been nominated for the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to protect world peace and promote democracy, three Norwegian legislators announced today.=20 Clinton, embroiled in a sex scandal in the United States, was nominated by members of the right-wing Party of Progress, one of the largest blocs in Norway's Parliament.=20 "Throughout his presidency he has been a guarantor and friend of peace,'' the lawmakers said in a statement.=20 They praised Clinton for helping end the war in former Yugoslavia and for standing up to "despots who want to repress human rights and democracy's rules of play.''=20 One of the legislators, Vidar Kleppe, said by telephone that they made the decision to nominate Clinton in December, before his current problems.=20 The nomination deadline for this year's peace prize is Jan. 31, although the Oslo-based awards committee usually accepts nominations postmarked by then. The committee refuses to release the names of nominees, usually 120-130 each year, or comment on candidates.=20 Members of national legislatures are among those with nomination rights and often announce the name of their candidate.=20 The winner is announced in Oslo, usually in mid-October, and the award is presented Dec. 10, the anniversary of the death of Alfred Nobel, the Swede who invented dynamite and endowed the prizes that bear his name. Last year's Nobel Peace Prize was shared by American Jody Williams and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: RE: CAS: President Clinton nominated for Nobel Peace Prize Date: 27 Jan 1998 09:45:06 -0800 (PST) I beielve you mispelled a word -- it is "piece" isn't it? :-) At 11:38 AM 1/27/98 -0600, you wrote: > > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:51:15 -0400 (EDT) >From: Patricia Neill >Reply-To: act@efn.org >To: jadinardo@lucent.COM >Subject: RE: CAS: President Clinton nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (fwd) > >I mean, is life getting too weird and funny for words, or what?= ROTFLMAOPIMP >(A new whatchamacallit coined by Barefoot ... last part is Peeing in My >Pants ....=20 >Patty > > >Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:33:01 -0600 >From: Ann Khan >To: cas@majordomo.pobox.com, cas@majordomo.pobox.com >Subject: CAS: President Clinton nominated for Nobel Peace Prize > >President Clinton > nominated for Nobel > Peace Prize > 11.03 a.m. ET (1602 GMT) January 27, 1998 > > OSLO, Norway (AP) =97 President Clinton > has been nominated for the 1998 > Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to > protect world peace and promote > democracy, three Norwegian > legislators announced today.=20 > > Clinton, embroiled in a sex scandal in > the United States, was nominated by > members of the right-wing Party of > Progress, one of the largest blocs in > Norway's Parliament.=20 > > "Throughout his presidency he has > been a guarantor and friend of peace,'' > the lawmakers said in a statement.=20 > > They praised Clinton for helping end > the war in former Yugoslavia and for > standing up to "despots who want to > repress human rights and democracy's > rules of play.''=20 > > One of the legislators, Vidar Kleppe, > said by telephone that they made the > decision to nominate Clinton in > December, before his current > problems.=20 > > The nomination deadline for this year's > peace prize is Jan. 31, although the > Oslo-based awards committee usually > accepts nominations postmarked by > then. The committee refuses to release > the names of nominees, usually > 120-130 each year, or comment on > candidates.=20 > > Members of national legislatures are > among those with nomination rights > and often announce the name of their > candidate.=20 > > The winner is announced in Oslo, > usually in mid-October, and the award > is presented Dec. 10, the anniversary > of the death of Alfred Nobel, the > Swede who invented dynamite and > endowed the prizes that bear his name. > > Last year's Nobel Peace Prize was > shared by American Jody Williams > and the International Campaign to Ban > Landmines. > >=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If >you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas > > > > >- > > S. "Getting the facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality." -- Peter W. Huber - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: Re: CAS: President Clinton nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (fwd) Date: 27 Jan 1998 12:11:13 -0600 is this a joke? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: (fwd) RESIGN! James K. Glassman (fwd) Date: 27 Jan 1998 16:15:18 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- WHAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD SAY TONIGHT By James K. Glassman Washington Post Tuesday, January 27, 1998; Page A17 What should President Clinton say tonight in his State of the Union address? Something like this . . . My Fellow Americans: The state of the Union is strong, but the state of the presidency is not. The nation is enjoying a time of peace and prosperity unprecedented in this century. But, at the same time, the office of the president has been weakened. I accept full responsibility for this condition. It is a too-common practice for politicians to blame others for their own mistakes, or to hide them in the language of deception. I admit that I have done this in the past, but I will do it no longer. Accordingly, when I leave the Capitol tonight, I will return to the White House, where I will sign a letter to the secretary of state resigning as president of the United States, effective at noon tomorrow. I have complete confidence in the man who will succeed me, Albert Gore Jr., and I know that he will continue to lead this nation and the world on the path that we have charted together. In recent months, there has been much discussion of my legacy, my place in history. My resignation will be my legacy. I believe this act will begin a new day of candor, ethical conduct and personal responsibility in this nation. Not just among politicians -- who, the good Lord knows, need it -- but among all Americans. Most of all, this is my legacy to America's children, who should not have to watch adults in high office dissemble and distort -- or act in ways that abuse the trust of the voters or the young people with whom they work. I will not dwell on the claims that have been made against me. I will only say that there is enough truth to them to sully this office, and since the office is greater than any of its occupants, I must leave in order to preserve its honor -- and, just as important, its strength. In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution: And a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be in practice a bad government." That is one of my fears -- a weakened presidency with new economic and military threats on the horizon. My other fear is that to stay in office will be to trivialize the importance of moral behavior in this society. In 1791, the British philosopher and parliamentarian Edmund Burke wrote a letter to a Frenchman about the relationship between personal morality and public service. Let me quote part of it to you: "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. . . . Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere." I agree with that. And, in this case, the controlling power will come from myself. I said at the beginning that the state of the Union is strong. That is true and fortunate. It is, at least at this time, strong enough to endure a transfer of power to Al Gore, the man seated behind me, who has had exceptional preparation for the job he will assume. Our economy is growing at 3.9 percent a year, the highest rate among major industrial countries; unemployment is only 4.7 percent, inflation 1.7 percent. Our federal budget is balanced. In fact, we may run a surplus this year for the first time since 1969. Still, it has been my concern that Americans do not trust their government. Polling research shows that trust has risen over the past two years but that it is still less than half the level of the 1960s. I recognize that the controversies surrounding my personal behavior have damaged that trust. My decision tonight should go a long way toward restoring it. All of us -- in politics, business, education and within our families -- must accept personal responsibility for what we do. That was the principle behind our welfare reform plan and the actions we have taken that have sharply reduced the rate of crime in this country. I cannot urge personal responsibility on the rest of the nation without adhering to it myself. And so I take this step, freely and willingly. I could have chosen to fight the charges, but that would damage the nation and the office. Instead, with good cheer and serious purpose, I will leave for other endeavors. As America's greatest poet, Walt Whitman, wrote: I anchor my ship for a little while only. . . . I depart as air, I shake my white locks at the runaway sun. Thank you, and God bless the United States of America. -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Phila. Daily News Poll Date: 27 Jan 1998 17:05:57 -0500 The Daily Snooze is running a poll on Bill Clinton. The question is: "Do you believe him?" This is in regards to his sex denial. Here are the numbers: Yes: (215) 854-2604 No: (215) 854-2605 It's just voicemail that's counting the number of calls. I've called a couple of times already. It's fun! :-) Rachel ************************************************************** * "Just when you think you've got me figured out * * The season's already changing..." -- Meredith Brooks * * mestetsr@post.drexel.edu * ************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: FW: [Fwd: CDF Update 1-16-98] Date: 27 Jan 1998 17:01:57 -0500 This was posted to the "Pennsylvania Alliance for Democracy" list. Ironically, the man that posted it has a sig file with a Paine quote. I left the quote in for you all to read. Go figure. Rachel >"Those who expect to reap the blessings >of freedom must undergo the fatigue of >supporting it." - Thomas Paine > >-----Original Message----- >>Central Directory of Resources >>UNC@CH/CB # 7340 >>Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7340 >> >>(919) 966-0332 >>(800) 852-0042 >> >>Home: teton@mindspring.com >> >>visit our web page! >> >>http://www.med.unc.edu/commedu/familysu >> >>Children's Defense Fund >>January 16, 1998 >> >>In this issue: >> >>-- Juvenile Justice >>-- Children's Health >>-- Annual Conference >> >> >>*** Juvenile Justice *** >> >> -- HELP STOP SENATE BILL 10 -- >> >>Senate Bill 10 (S.10) is a tremendous threat to the safety of >>children, especially minority children. Driven by fear rather than >>facts, S. 10 would represent a major step backward in both criminal >>justice and opportunity for youth. The Children's Defense Fund and >>the Black Community Crusade For Children (BCCC) encourage children's >>advocates, community leaders, parents, and concerned citizens >>nationwide to act on behalf of children by opposing S. 10 as it is >>currently written. >> >>? S. 10 would allow children to be put in jails and prisons with >>adults. >>? S. 10 would fail to insure that any of the $500 million in new money >>it allocates for juvenile crime related purposes will be spent on >>prevention. >>? S. 10 would make no efforts to prevent gun violence, the root of all >>of the increase in youth violence. This bill chooses to lock up >>children, not guns. >>? S. 10 would broadly and indiscriminately open up juvenile records, >>significantly affecting the future of hundreds of thousands of our >>nation's children by limiting their future educational and employment >>opportunities. >> >>* This week is your last chance to visit your Senators while they are >>still in their home districts. On January 27th, they will come back >>to Washington and may bring S. 10 to the floor at any time. >> >>--- MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY --- >> >>For those of you organizing or participating in events on Dr. Martin >>Luther King Jr. Day, the Black Community Crusade for Children offers >>inserts on the horrors of S.10 that can be used in speeches, on >>flyers, or other MLK materials. (See below for sample speech insert). >> For additional information or assistance, call Holly Jackson at >>202/662-3664 or mail her at: . >> >> >>** Suggested Martin Luther King Day Speech Insert ** >> >>We've come here today to celebrate the birthday of one of the most >>celebrated leaders of our time, a leader who was the symbol for modern >>leadership and justice. I stand to let you know that Martin Luther >>King, Jr., were he alive, would find many causes for hope and many >>causes for alarm in this country today. I believe that one cause of >>alarm would be a bill that I would more appropriately be called the >>"Child Rape Opportunity Act". The title I have given it may startle >>you, and it should. Because in Washington, DC there is a bill in >>Congress which has passed the House of Representatives and is pending >>in the Senate -- this bill, S. 10, would allow more children to be put >>in jails and prisons with adults, with little protection from the >>adult population. Children incarcerated with adults are eight times >>more likely to commit suicide and five times more likely to be >>sexually assaulted than children in youth facilities. >> >>We are not only talking here about children who have committed violent >>crimes, we are talking about all of our children -- children who have >>run away from home, children who skip school, children who shoplift >>candy, your children, my children -- they are all in danger from this >>terrible bill. >> >>S.10 will ruin many of our children's future. Under this bill, the >>records of children who are arrested will be shared with schools, >>colleges, and the FBI. One youthful mistake will be allowed to ruin a >>child's future. We all know that far too many Black men now have >>problems finding jobs. They will be joined by many of our children if >>this bill passes. We cannot and will not let this happen. We have to >>stand up for our children now and defeat S.10. >> >>We are here today because we honor Dr. King. Let's join with the >>Black Community Crusade for Children to fight this bill, because we >>love our children. For more information on S. 10 call the BCCC at >>202/662-3664. >> >>*** Children's Health *** >> >> --- LETTER URGING OFFICIALS TO CONSIDER HEALTH NEEDS OF CHILDREN --- >> >>The National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related >>Institutions (NACHRI) has drafted a letter to Health and Human >>Services Secretary Shalala and Labor Secretary Herman urging them, in >>developing managed care standards, to take into account the unique >>health needs of children. More than 70 national, state, and local >>groups, including the Children's Defense Fund have already signed the >>letter. For more information, please contact Bruce Lesley at the >>National Association of Children's Hospitals at 703/684-1355 or by >>sending an email to: . >> >>*** Conference *** >> >>--- Field Organizing Training Track --- >> >>"Mobilizing Your Community to Work for Children" Training Track >>Speaker: Nancy Amidei >>9:00 am to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 25th >> >>Family and children's advocates and concerned citizens are turning to >>neighborhood and civic groups for community solutions to protect >>children. Learn the essential elements of community organizing, >>grassroots lobbying, on-line advocacy, and linking community action to >>important state and national policy changes. >> >>Nancy Amidei will conduct a simulation of a state legislative session >>deliberating a child care proposal. The simulation takes the trainee >>>from start to finish of the legislative process. This simulation has >>become quite popular among children's advocates in Washington state. >> >>Nancy Amidei is currently a Senior Lecturer at the University of >>Washington, School of Social Work. Nancy Amidei is also a former >>Director of the Food Research and Action Center, a private non-profit >>group and she served in the Carter Administration. Among her >>writings, is a guide to policy advocacy called, "So You Want To Make A >>Difference." >> >>****************************************************************** >>-- OUR STRENGTH IS IN OUR NUMBERS -- >>SHARE THIS LEGISLATIVE UPDATE WITH YOUR FRIENDS!!! >> >>Our typical email is about a page or two long and generally comes once >>a week. To join our legislative update email list, sign-up on our >>website or send an email to: and write in >>the body of the message: subscribe cdfupdate >> >>PLEASE NOTE: WHEN SUBSCRIBING OR CANCELING YOUR SUBSCRIPTION, PLEASE >>DO NOT SURROUND YOUR ADDRESS WITH BRACKETS. >> >>Kimberly Taylor >>Children's Defense Fund >>25 E Street, NW >>Washington, DC 20001 >>202/662-3540 (fax) >>CDFupdate@childrensdefense.org >> >>"What is done to children, they will do to society." --Karl Menninger ************************************************************** * "Just when you think you've got me figured out * * The season's already changing..." -- Meredith Brooks * * mestetsr@post.drexel.edu * ************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Clinton = Una-Banger Date: 27 Jan 1998 23:40:15 PST Heard on Michael Reagan's Talk Show: Someone this morning was floating one of those, "Trial balloons", to see if they could get a measure of forgiveness for Clinton. What did they try? That the reason that he's the, "Una-Banger", is that Hillery is a Lesbian! While there _have_ been certain possible indications, like the crowd she hangs with etc., this just gets wilder and weirder. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Clinton = Una-Banger Date: 28 Jan 1998 00:30:26 -0800 At 11:40 PM 1/27/98 PST, you wrote: >Heard on Michael Reagan's Talk Show: Someone this morning was floating one >of those, "Trial balloons", to see if they could get a measure of >forgiveness for Clinton. What did they try? That the reason that he's the, >"Una-Banger", is that Hillery is a Lesbian! While there _have_ been certain >possible indications, like the crowd she hangs with etc., this just gets >wilder and weirder. > Next you'll be saying that Bill has been telling the truth all along; it was HILLARY that Monica was visiting all those late nights! Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without merit. A politician is anyone who asks individuals to surrender part of their liberty - their power and privilege - to State, Masses, Mankind, or whatever. The State, those masses, that mankind will then be run by .... politicians." P.J. O'Rourke, "All the Trouble in the World" !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Dallas Morning News was right. Date: 28 Jan 1998 08:56:14 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "A source told The Post last night that the witnesses who=20 saw an intimate encounter are Secret Service agents who=20 are ready to talk if subpoenaed and required to do so."=20 http://www.nypostonline.com/news/3099.htm <---Still There!!! New York Post January 27, 1998 WAS PREZ CAUGHT WITH HIS PANTS DOWN? By DEBORAH ORIN and BRIAN BLOMQUIST=20 Witnesses caught President Clinton and intern Monica Lewinsky last spring in a compromising position at the White House, sources said last night in the latest stunning Sexgate bombshell.=20 Soon after that close encounter, Lewinsky was shifted from her White House job to a Pentagon post that carried a top-secret clearance, sources said.=20 Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr is investigating charges that Clinton had sex with Lewinsky and told her to lie about it - spurred by tapes of Lewinsky secretly recorded by her friend, Linda Tripp.=20 A source told The Post last night that the witnesses who saw an intimate encounter are Secret Service agents who are ready to talk if subpoenaed and required to do so.=20 "They can't volunteer anything because they'll get fired. But when they get the subpoena, the dam breaks," the source told The Post. "Those guys are crawling to talk because none of them are apparently big on Clinton."=20 The Washington Post today reports Starr is checking allegations that at least one Secret Service agent alerted a White House official after witnessing a close encounter - and was told not to discuss it further.=20 A former White House official last night confirmed that then-Deputy Chief-of-Staff Evelyn Lieberman was behind Lewinsky's Pentagon transfer - - but said Lieberman wasn't told of any improper contact and acted solely based on a sense of unease about Lewinsky's behavior.=20 Lieberman and her former boss, ex-Chief-of-Staff Leon Panetta, issued a joint statement saying neither was ever alerted by a staffer or Secret Service agent claiming to have witnessed an intimate encounter between Clinton and Lewinsky.=20 Asked about the report of eyewitnesses, White House spokesman Mike McCurry replied: "I have not been able to find anyone at the White House aware of such a report, and obviously, the president's denial stands."=20 If indeed there are people who claim to be witnesses to intimate contact between Clinton and Lewinsky, it would dramatically compound the legal and political dangers facing the president.=20 A batch of new polls underscored those dangers yesterday, finding that a majority of Americans think Clinton should go if he lied or told Lewinsky to lie.=20 ABC News, which first reported on the close encounter, said it didn't know if the witnesses were Secret Service agents or White House staffers. Fox News Channel said Starr had yet to identify the witnesses.=20 The witnessed incidents allegedly took place in Clinton's private study off the Oval Office or the White House movie theater in the East Wing (the First Lady's domain), the Washington Post said.=20 Clinton could face perjury charges if he had sex with Lewinsky, because he denied it under oath in a deposition to Paula Jones' lawyers. If he asked her to lie, he risks obstruction-of-justice charges.=20 If there are self-proclaimed witnesses, it would also increase the pressure on Lewinsky to make an immunity deal with Starr quickly or risk perjury charges.=20 And Starr's apparent efforts to line up independent witnesses to intimacies between Clinton and Lewinsky suggest he could be seeking to build a case against the president regardless of what Lewinsky says.=20 Lewinsky swore in a Jan. 7 affidavit that she'd never had sex with Clinton, but she was recorded by Tripp saying she had sex with the president and that he and his pal Vernon Jordan told her to cover it up with lies.=20 Lewinsky's lawyer, William Ginsburg, has repeatedly hinted that his client is standing by her affidavit only "for now" and is ready to tell all - whatever that is - if granted immunity.=20 Secret Service agents guard the First Family and inevitably can be privy to private matters, but operate under rules of absolute discretion.=20 The Clintons have had sometimes-tense relations with the Secret Service - - Hillary Clinton is said to have blamed agents for reports that she angrily threw a lamp at her husband soon after he took office. She denied the report.=20 Meanwhile, Newsweek magazine claims that the president's closest advisers now think he will soon be forced to admit he had sex with Lewinsky, although so far, he has told friends their only closeness was emotional.=20 The magazine also says that on the Monica tapes, Lewinsky claims that Clinton told her of strains in his marriage and hinted he'd be "alone" after he left office and would have more time for her.=20 Newsweek also quotes a Pentagon official as describing an incident in which Clinton publicly embraced Lewinsky - in addition to the Nov. 5, 1996, scene on the White House lawn in which video aired on TV networks shows he singled her out of the crowd for a hug.=20 Copyright (c) 1998, N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas nica http://www.dallasnews.com/clintoncrisis/crisis1-27.htm Dallas Morning News January 27, 1998 Intermediary talks with Starr's staff=20 Source says witness or witnesses fear subpoena on seeing Clinton, Lewinsky=20 By Carl P. Leubsdorf and David Jackson / The Dallas Morning News=20 WASHINGTON - An intermediary for one or more witnesses who report having seen "an ambiguous incident" involving President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in the White House has talked with independent counsel Kenneth Starr's office about possible cooperation, two sources said Tuesday. The witness or witnesses, including one or more current or former Secret Service agents, were described by one of the sources as "frightened and worried" about being subpoenaed to describe what they had seen. Mr. Starr's office and the Secret Service refused Tuesday to comment on any aspect of the investigation. Mr. Clinton has repeatedly denied he had a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, who reportedly told a friend in tape-recorded conversations that they had an affair and that he urged her to deny it. Mr. Clinton rejected that Monday, declaring, "I never told anybody to lie." The Dallas Morning News reported in its early edition Tuesday that Mr. Starr's staff had spoken with a Secret Service agent who was prepared to testify he had seen Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky in a "compromising situation." The story was also posted on the paper's Internet Web site. But it was withdrawn after one edition when the principal source, a longtime Washington lawyer familiar with the case, said some of the information he had provided was inaccurate. On Tuesday, however, former U.S. Attorney Joseph di Genova, who is not directly involved in the case, said the intermediary had made contact for the witness or witnesses with Mr. Starr's office. "In essence, your story is correct," Mr. di Genova said. He declined to give details. Another source familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named, said that it was unclear if the potential witness or witnesses had seen the president and the former White House intern in a compromising situation. "What's incorrect is the phrase 'compromising situation,' " said the source, who had used that term in talking with a News reporter on Monday. After the story by The News was published on its Web site and distributed by wire services Monday night, the source said he had been mistaken in describing the nature of the contacts between the witness and Mr. Starr's staff. He said he had been incorrect in saying earlier Monday that the counsel's staff had talked directly with the witness and expected cooperation in its investigation of the president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. On Tuesday, the source said he had felt compelled to withdraw his confirmation of the initial story because of the time pressure and because those elements of the story he had initially outlined were incorrect. "It was a unique situation Monday night when a primary source suddenly reversed field," Ralph Langer, executive vice president and editor of The News, said Tuesday. "This was after originating the information, confirming and expanding on it in several conversations, and confirming it again after its publication in early editions and on our Internet site. "At that late time, well past midnight in Washington, D.C., we felt the only responsible thing to do was tell our readers that a primary source was now claiming that he had provided us incorrect information. That's been cleared up today." On Tuesday, deputy White House press secretary Joe Lockhart issued the following statement: "The president has emphatically denied he had a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. We are not going to respond to every anonymous source, rumor or leak, especially from a source who can't seem to make up his mind on what his story is from day to day." In discussing the matter Tuesday, the source said he could not provide details of the intermediary or what the witnesses would say. "I think it was the observation of an ambiguous incident involving the president and Ms. Lewinsky which needed to be fleshed out through investigation and testimony," he said. The goal of the intermediary was "to fix them up with the independent counsel's office so that they could give information that would enable him to craft a subpoena that would include them without naming them," the source said. The Washington Post, citing sources familiar with the investigation, reported on Tuesday that investigators are seeking to interview Secret Service agents to determine if they may have observed any intimate encounters between Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky. Secret Service spokeswoman Arnette Heintze had no comment Tuesday. "The Secret Service has a well-recognized and longstanding policy that precludes discussing elements relating to ongoing investigations," Mr. Heintze said. "Given the current status of the independent counsel's investigation, we will not be commenting on these issues." ABC News first reported the existence of a White House witness on Sunday but without providing details. Later Sunday, however, ABC changed its version of the story to say that "Starr's investigating claims that, in the spring of 1996, the president and Lewinsky were discovered in an intimate encounter in the White House" but that ''it was not clear who in the White House discovered the pair." The Dallas Morning News reported in Monday's editions that attorneys familiar with the situation had confirmed there was a witness to such a "compromising situation." White House officials said they knew of no incident involving Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky. William Ginsburg, Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer, also said he knows of no witness to anything, ambiguous or otherwise, between his client and the president. "I have no information of any such incident," Mr. Ginsburg said. On Monday night, David Kendall, Mr. Clinton's attorney, called the report of a witness having seen them in a compromising situation "false and malicious."=20 =A9 1997 The Dallas Morning News =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: The War for Clinton and the Media has started: Date: 28 Jan 1998 09:12:17 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Both the New York Times (TIM WEINER and JILL ABRAMSON) and The Washington Post (Howard Kurtz) have very similar article about the 'right wing connection" working against the Clintons. Nice touch for the White House to get this kind of immediate follow-up. I'm sure it is just a coincidence and these stores had been planned for weeks. =20 Fienman just said on Geraldo Newsweek will be doing a similar one but he indicated they would try to look at all sides including how forthcoming the Clintons have been. =20 I guess the pundits are right this will be the final battle to the death, Armageddon, with everyone required to publicly choose sides. In the end the media=92s credibility will be totally on the line. =20 Anyone think that these two outlets will publish a similar article about the Clintons media surrogates and those others similar to those mentioned in the two articles who are supporting Clinton. My bet not a chance. =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas "I am quite convinced there is a cover-up by the White House=20 on this issue," Evans-Pritchard said. "If you pulled at that string, a lot of things would unravel."=20 http://www.nytimes.com The New York Times January 28, 1998 Clinton Foes Have Ties, but They Deny They Are Acting in Concert By TIM WEINER and JILL ABRAMSON WASHINGTON -- Monica Lewinsky's alleged account of a sexual relationship with President Clinton were steered to the Whitewater special counsel by two lawyers active in conservative causes.=20 Several of the president's defenders are citing the involvement of the two lawyers as one piece of evidence in support of Hillary Rodham Clinton's claim that the Lewinsky sex scandal was propelled by a loose-knit group of anti-Clinton conservatives that included independent counsel Kenneth Starr as well as other individuals and groups.=20 The two lawyers, George T. Conway III of New York and James A. Moody of Washington, as well as Starr, say that is preposterous, that there was nothing ideological in their handling of the case.=20 While no proof has been offered to support Mrs. Clinton's allegations of a conservative conspiracy, it is clear that many of the figures in the case against the president have common ties in conservative groups and causes.=20 Conway, a behind-the-scenes figure in Paula Corbin Jones' sex harassment case against the president, referred Linda Tripp, who tape-recorded Lewinsky's allegations against the president, to Moody on Jan. 9. Three days later she went to Starr, who himself has been active in conservative legal causes and once considered writing a brief in support of the Jones lawsuit.=20 Like Starr, Moody and Conway are members of the Federalist Society, a legal organization in Washington that is composed of a few hundred conservative lawyers and judges.=20 Although White House and Democratic operatives have challenged Tripp's motives for surreptitiously recording her friend, Lewinsky, Moody said Tuesday, "Her only motive was to protect herself and her ability to tell the truth."=20 Moody and Starr have another common connection in the Landmark Legal Foundation, a nonprofit group that is involved in a number of lawsuits pressing conservative issues. Moody has been handling a Landmark suit against the IRS for alleged harassment of conservative nonprofit groups. Starr represented a client allied with Landmark plaintiffs in another suit, championing the rights of parents in Wisconsin to send their children to private schools.=20 Conway helped write the critical Supreme Court brief for Jones, which successfully argued that her case should proceed against the president while he is still in office.=20 Conway declined to offer details about how he came to be acquainted with Tripp or her situation with Lewinsky. He has known Moody for a decade, and is also a member of the Federalist Society.=20 Conway, a 34-year-old partner at the New York law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, worked on the Jones case on his own. His firm was in no way involved in the case.=20 All three men agree, as Conway put it, that there is no "right-wing conspiracy." Starr flatly called the idea "nonsense."=20 Another person whose role is raising questions by Clinton's defenders is a New York literary agent, Lucianne Goldberg, a close friend of Tripp. Goldberg says the secret tape-recordings by Tripp were her brainchild, although she denied having any political motive to bring down the president .=20 "I think I'm probably still a registered independent," Goldberg said in an interview Tuesday. "I don't have an ideological bone in my body."=20 Then she quipped, "Of course, I did listen to Rush Limbaugh on the way over to our lunch."=20 Goldberg has done best-seller business with Alfred Regnery, a friend of Starr and the publisher of "Unlimited Access" by Gary Aldrich, a former FBI agent who charged without apparent basis that Clinton regularly sneaked out of the White House to a nearby hotel for secret sexual liaisons.=20 But the first lady's charge that "a vast right-wing conspiracy" was out to topple the president went beyond the charges being examined by Starr. By implication, her remarks were aimed at right-wing radio talk-show hosts, Internet web sites, various conservative foundations in Washington and political lobbying groups.=20 She specificallly accused people "like Jerry Falwell, with videos, accusing my husband of murder, of drug running."=20 Falwell, the evangelist, has sold more than 60,000 copies of a video called "The Clinton Chronicles" on his televised "Old Time Gospel Hour." That video also accused Clinton of treason, among other things.=20 Such sweeping charges have also been published under Regnery's imprint. He has just brought out "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton," by a British journalist, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, which accuses the president or his aides of having been involved, directly or indirectly, in mysterious deaths and conspiracies.=20 "There's been a lot of talk about 50 dead bodies or 36 dead bodies," Evans-Pritchard said in an interview Tuesday. He focused hardest on Vincent Foster, the Arkansas lawyer and close friend of the Clintons who committed suicide in 1993 while serving as a deputy White House counsel.=20 Foster's death was ruled a suicide by three government investigations, two congressional panels and one independent counsel, -- Starr. But "I am quite convinced there is a cover-up by the White House on this issue," Evans-Pritchard said. "If you pulled at that string, a lot of things would unravel."=20 Evans-Pritchard knows Lucianne Goldberg. "She was very nearly my agent," he said.=20 So does Aldrich, the former FBI agent. "I sent her an outline, a general outline, for a sequel, a second book," he said in an interview Tuesday.=20 And so does Regnery. "I know Lucianne Goldberg well," Regnery said. "I introduced Lucianne Goldberg to Mark Fuhrman," the Los Angeles police detective and convicted perjurer who investigated and wrote about the O.J. Simpson murder case.=20 Regnery, in turn, is a longtime friend of the independent counsel, Starr.=20 "I knew Ken Starr when I worked at the Justice Department," Regnery said in an interview. "I've known him since 1981, when I was a deputy assistant attorney general and he was a special assistant to the attorney general, William French Smith. We're friends. I see him three, four, five times a years."=20 Behind many of the legal, political and journalistic attacks on Clinton's morals is the money of Richard Mellon Scaife, a fourth-generation heir to the Mellon banking fortune. Scaife given many millions to the conservative legal and political foundations that have challenged the Clinton White House for the past five years.=20 In a 1995 interview with The New York Times, Scaife said the death of Foster was "the Rosetta Stone to the whole Clinton administration," and agreed with the idea that, in the words of his chief aide, Richard M. Larry, the president of several Scaife foundations, the public record of the Clinton administration was one of "immense corruptness."=20 Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas Inside the Beltway Political tidbits and other shenanigans from around the nation's capital ====================================================================== By John McCaslin THE WASHINGTON TIMES ====================================================================== Morris' musings Dick Morris' return to what he calls President Clinton's "crisis Cabinet" might be short-lived, after indelicate musings about the sex lives of the president and first lady yesterday. During an interview with Peter Tilden and Ken Minyard on radio station KABC in Los Angeles, Mr. Morris, who was forced to leave Mr. Clinton's inner circle after his own sex scandal in 1996, said: "There are a thousand things, not including oral sex, which could have gone on, which fall well short of adultery. ... We're talking about fantasies over the phone. ... We're talking about a kind of Walter Mitty life, a sort of vicarious enjoyment. We're talking about a sort of -- really an emotional connection that isn't a physical one that basically is a sexual relationship that you never act on." Q: "How do you get semen on a dress via the telephone?" Morris: "You don't. ... By the way, it ruins the dress. ... She couldn't go out that night, really. ..." Q: "Do you think [phone sex] is what it's going to be reduced to?" Morris: "It could be something well like that. None of what I'm about to say is necessarily a fact. I don't know it. "But let's assume, OK, that his sexual relationship with Hillary is not all that it's supposed to be. Let's assume that some of the allegations that Hillary sometimes not necessarily being into regular sex with men might be true. "Let's assume that this is a guy who has been sexually active for a long time and then got in as president and he'd have to shut himself down. You would then expect a variety of things which would be quasi-sexual in nature but which would fall short of it. "Phone sex would be one of them, fantasies might be one of them, a close emotional relationship with a young person might be one of them. Those all could be real things without actually committing adultery. =2E.." Mr. Morris later denied he was "speculating" about the Clintons' sex lives. He was, he said, responding to "a hypothetical that was given to me. I batted it down." White House officials were amused and appalled at the Morris comments. "Every time I think this guy can't get any sleazier ...," said one official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Conspiracy talk is nothing new for Clintons ====================================================================== By Ralph Z. Hallow THE WASHINGTON TIMES ====================================================================== Blaming her husband's latest woes on a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is nothing new for Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is a tactic the Clinton camp has used repeatedly in times of crisis. Now, however, even some Democrats express doubts that trying to blame the president's problems on political "enemies" will work. "There is a grain of truth in what she said in that Clinton's political enemies want to get him, but that comes with every presidency," said Brian Lunde, a Democratic campaign consultant and former executive director of the Democratic National Committee. "It doesn't have to do with party. People tried to get Ronald Reagan and George Bush on the Iran-Contra affair." Mr. Lunde said the "strategy of claiming a conspiracy really does work when your political enemies are leading the charge, but not when your own staffers and political friends are leading the charge. Monica Lewinsky is a political friend that has turned on them." A Democratic operative with long-standing ties to the Clintons noted a parallel that the first lady might not appreciate. "When she was on the staff of the [House] Judiciary Committee during the Nixon [Watergate] scandal she was part of the left-wing conspiracy," he said, calling Mrs. Clinton's accusation "ludicrous." David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said that claiming conspiracy and persecution is an old tactic employed by the Clintons and their friends. "One thing consistent about Bill Clinton and the first lady is that in their minds, neither one of them has ever been responsible for anything," said Mr. Keene. "Everything bad that has happened to them and the country, politically and personally, has always been somebody else's fault." In instance after instance, Mr. Keene and other critics noted, the president and his supporters have tended to impugn the integrity and motives of Mr. Clinton's accusers. As far back as the 1992 presidential campaign, stung by GOP criticism on moral issues, Mr. Clinton charged Republicans with creating a "family-values debate" which they "polarized for short-term political purposes." During the 1996 re-election campaign, the White House denounced a book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich that purported marital infidelities by Mr. Clinton as president as "wholly untrue" and "one more right-wing smear." In September 1996, Mr. Clinton characterized independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's investigation as a "well-financed effort to attack me personally." During a C-SPAN appearance in December 1996, Mr. Clinton told host Brian Lamb that talk radio was "hostile, shrill ... overwhelmingly right-wing ... and therefore very hostile to me and to my administration, and to my wife, to others and to our policies." Perhaps the most memorable use of the tactic came a year ago, when the White House compiled a 331-page report that maintained conservatives were engaged in a "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce." The report said the conspiracy ran from the Western Journalism Center, the American Spectator monthly and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review newspaper to stories reprinted on the Internet, to "right-wing" newspapers in England and back to the United States, appearing in The Washington Times and the New York Post. Mrs. Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" claim would seem to include some players who are not usually identified with the conservative end of the political spectrum: * Leon Panetta, chief of staff in the Clinton White House when Monica Lewinsky was an intern there, has said that if her charges are true, Mr. Clinton should resign. * A leading reporter on the Paula Jones story was Michael Isikoff, an ex-Washington Post staffer who now works for Newsweek -- where his work helped break the current scandal. * Anita Hill, who accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, has come to the defense of Miss Lewinsky. In the Feb. 3 issue of the Village Voice, she says she knows what the ex-intern is going through. "Her story -- whatever it is -- is being used by others to advance their own agenda. Unwittingly, she has become a pawn in a national morality play." Mr. Lunde said Mrs. Clinton's "conspiracy" talk is inappropriate in the current scenario, involving charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. "But a conspiracy now, in the Monica Lewinsky story? I don't think you call it that," Mr. Lunde said. "This is normal political behavior. I don't think it was a left-wing conspiracy that got Richard Nixon. This is not a right-wing conspiracy to get Clinton." Nevertheless, the Clinton forces have been remarkably consistent in their suspicions that a conspiracy is at work to get them. In an interview a year ago on C-SPAN, Mrs. Clinton said, "There is a very effective, well-organized advocacy press that is, I think, very up-front in its right-wing, conservative inclinations and makes no apologies [about it]." =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Allies back Clinton in Public, Worry in Private (fwd) Date: 28 Jan 1998 13:16:34 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Wednesday January 28 9:34 AM EST Allies Back Clinton in Public, Worry in Private By Paul Taylor, Diplomatic Editor LONDON (Reuters) - In public, allied governments are rallying around President Bill Clinton, saying his entanglement in a sex scandal is not affecting his conduct of foreign policy. They cite consultations with key European and Middle Eastern allies on possible military action against Iraq as evidence that Clinton is actively engaged in meeting key policy challenges. But privately, European and Arab officials are concerned that Clinton may be unable to provide strong leadership on other issues, especially where he risks clashing with the U.S. Congress. These include forcing the pace of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, providing financial aid to Asia's battered economies, working for peace in Northern Ireland and easing sanctions on Iran. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Clinton's staunchest ally, expressed sympathy Tuesday for the embattled president, who has denied allegations of a sexual liaison with a White House intern in her 20s. Blair's spokesman said the prime minister had told Clinton in a telephone call that he had been following events in Washington and "he was thinking of him." The spokesman described it as an expression of support. Blair, current president of the 15-nation European Union, is going ahead with plans to visit Washington next week. French President Jacques Chirac, whose relations with the United States have sometimes been tense, has also rallied to Clinton's defense, saying the American president's authority is unchallenged. Among European leaders, only Italian Foreign Minister Lamberto Dini appeared to question whether Clinton could remain in office. "It is not tolerable in the United States, and I don't think it is tolerable in other countries, that the highest government and state official makes statements which do not correspond to the truth," Italian media quoted Dini as telling Italian journalists in Brussels. However, he said he did not believe the president was guilty of lying. Arab diplomats and media have expressed dismay that the scandal over Clinton's alleged relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky could distract him from putting pressure on Israel to respect its obligations to withdraw from Palestinian territory. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's communications chief, David Bar-Illan, played down suggestions that the sex scandal would deflect U.S. efforts to drive forward Middle East peace talks. "I don't think this will make any real difference expect perhaps it will cause a slight delay in moves on the part of the administration," he told Reuters. "I think the mechanisms put in place previously...will continue to push the process forward." Some officials in the Gulf are already talking in terms of U.S. foreign policy under the next president, but they expect little change if resolutely pro-Israeli Vice-President Al Gore should take over. "From the political point of view, regarding the Middle East, Clinton has been the president who has helped Israel more than any other president," said one Gulf Arab official who asked not to be identified. "The foreign policy of the United States will not change a lot between one person and another," the official said. "People thought that when Clinton comes he will be less harsh on Iraq. He was more harsh." Arab commentators are not alone in fearing that Clinton might use a military strike against Iraq to deflect public attention from his domestic problems. Independent-minded British Labor parliamentarian Tam Dalyell asked the government in the House of Commons on Monday: "May I ask if there is concern...in the present febrile atmosphere in Washington that we are not going to start into what was somewhat indelicately called in the Arab press 'the war of Clinton's penis'." The Irish Independent newspaper quoted an adviser to Prime Minister Bertie Ahern as voicing disquiet over the impact of Clinton's troubles on the Irish peace process. "We had access any time we needed it. Bertie Ahern could ring up and be sure of getting through at any time," the aide was quoted as saying. "His (Clinton's) commitment was total. He assured us that if we were getting near the completion of the peace process he would always be available and so would every facility and everyone at the White House." Reuters Limited - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Clinton = Una-Banger Date: 28 Jan 1998 11:19:15 PST According to Rush Limbaugh, the source on this one is none other than Head Toe-Sucker, Dick morris, clandestinly back at work for Clinton. On Jan 27, Bill Vance wrote: >Heard on Michael Reagan's Talk Show: Someone this morning was floating one >of those, "Trial balloons", to see if they could get a measure of >forgiveness for Clinton. What did they try? That the reason that he's the, >"Una-Banger", is that Hillery is a Lesbian! While there _have_ been certain >possible indications, like the crowd she hangs with etc., this just gets >wilder and weirder. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Scanland Subject: Re: Clinton = Una-Banger Date: 28 Jan 1998 14:32:56 -0600 See my sig below. With friends like these... At 11:19 AM 1/28/98 PST, Bill Vance wrote: >According to Rush Limbaugh, the source on this one is none other than Head >Toe-Sucker, Dick morris, clandestinly back at work for Clinton. > >On Jan 27, Bill Vance wrote: > >>Heard on Michael Reagan's Talk Show: Someone this morning was floating one >>of those, "Trial balloons", to see if they could get a measure of >>forgiveness for Clinton. What did they try? That the reason that he's the, >>"Una-Banger", is that Hillery is a Lesbian! While there _have_ been certain >>possible indications, like the crowd she hangs with etc., this just gets >>wilder and weirder. > > >- > > > ================================================================ "None of what I'm about to say is necessarily a fact, but let's assume, O.K., that his sexual relationship with Hillary is not all it's supposed to be, let's assume that some of the allegations that Hillary -- sometimes not necessarily being into regular sex with men -- might be true..." Dick Morris, on KABC radio in L.A., 1/27/98 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Remember those 2000 AK47's smuggled into California Date: 28 Jan 1998 17:16:53 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I received this article as part of a reply to the short Clinton scandal discussion 2 days ago. Especially to each of those who replied, please read the following and provide your own comments. The facts stated here are acknowledged by the US Dept. of Commerce as correct, without further comment. Gary Gary C. Gerlach, Ph.D. E-mail: ggerlach@oriongroup.com Orion Group (USA), Ltd. E-mail2: ggerlach@stanford.edu 4826 Rio Vista Ave. Tel: 1.408/554-1685 San Jose, CA 95129 USA Fax: 1.408/554-1761 International Systems Engineering (Excerpted from: The Sunday Telegraph (London, April 30, 1997) In the last election President Clinton and the Democratic National Committee received huge, thinly laundered contributions for foreign sources arranged by the DNC's chief fund-raider John Huang. Huang worked for the Riady's, the owner of Lippo Hong Kong and Indonesia. The bottom line, the Lippo Group has shown extraordinary interest in getting Clinton elected. Let's see who and what's behind the curtain. First, a routine story hints at a larger picture. In New York City, a company named Standard Forex had invited dozens of Chinese immigrants, most seniors to invest in various futures markets. Instead of investing the money, they simply pocketed it, which bilked the senior's life savings. Lawsuits were filed, but criminal prosecution by the Justice Department went nowhere. There were elements of sophisticated organized crime present and 50% of Standard Forex was owned by company called China Venture Techno International. China Venture was at least in part owned by agencies of the People's Republic of China. The name associated with China Venture Tech .... LAO YUN YI. Disturbed by elderly immigrants losing their life-savings, Randolph Quon, an American child of Chinese immigrants, had worked in mainline China for Lao Yun Yi, at the First Shanghai company that Lao Yun Yi owned. Yi told Quon, there's nothing to be worried about, that there will be no criminal prosecution of him because they have a special channel to Washington to a high decision-making circle. He's immune and has access to the top and that he's one of the "Princelings." Who's involved with Standard Forex? LAO YUN YI, CHEN WEILI, and DEN NANG ... Lets start with LAO YUN YI, He's Director at First Shanghai and its parent company, China Venture Tech, one of the largest enterprises in China. LAO's father -- LAO SUN, Director of Intelligence LAO's boss -- CHEN WEILI, Chairman of First Shanghai CHEN's father -- CHEN YUN who ran China's economy during the Seventies DENG NANG -- Owns major shares in First Shanghai DENG's father -- DENG XIAO PING ... the late Supreme Ruler of China DENG YUNG -- DENG XIAO PING's daughter who wrote the best selling biography of her father DENG YUNG'S husband -- HE PING, equipment commander of the People's Liberation Army, of PLA and general manager of a company called Poly Technologies. WANG JUN -- Head of China International Trust and Investment Corporation that owns Poly Technologies, Norinco and others. WANG JUN's father-- GENERAL WANG ZHEN - Implemented the Tianemen square massacre. The pattern: all of the Princelings have the right parents and they all do business with each other. Throughout Chinese history there has been no official mechanism for a change in power, a power struggle is inevitable. At the same time, family connections are paramount and the Princelings are the natural heirs. Now enters -- WAN JIN NAN. Wan is known here in the states as a go-between the White House and the Chinese people and the Lippo Group. The Lippo Group has been presented as just another financial conglomerate, one that traded campaign contributions for a few political favors. But the Lippo group is a FRONT for much more malevolent force ... the new leadership of China. WAN's name? You know him as JOHN HUANG. It has now been revealed that US security agencies and the Justice Department criminal divisions have an ongoing counterintelligence investigation that included JOHN HUANG and China. And it turns out that this has been ongoing for years. It also turns out that US counterintelligence agents and the FBI discovered Chinese efforts to interfere in American campaigns since as early as 1991. In 1992, shortly before the election of President Clinton, Lippo Hong Kong was overextended. In search of liquidity MOCHTAR and STEVEN RIADY, Lippo's owner, offered shares of its prize possession, the Hong Kong Chinese Bank. In a move that was puzzling to market analysts, China Resources Holding Company purchased 15% of the shares at a discount rate. Shortly thereafter, Clinton was elected and the Lippo Group quickly demonstrated their White House access -- a revolving door of private meetings between President Clinton and the RIADY's (who are ethnic Chinese) and JOHN HUANG (Wan Jin Nan). In June of 1993, China was awarded MFN status. One month later, China Resources raised their stakes in Hong Kong Chinese Bank to 50%, but this time they bought in at 50% over the stock's value, delivering a massive kick-back to the RIADY'S. (The Riady's have now fled the country.) The question is, who are the Riady's new partners? China Resources, or China Resources Holding Company, actually is under the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade. Again, one of the Chinese characteristics is the creation an ostensible company, but in fact they are ALL CHINESE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. But they do create these, quote companies just for dealing with the West. The vice-president of China Resources is a People's Liberation Army officer. Then American Investigator learned that STEVEN RIADY, the Lippo Chairman holds an official position in Beijing as a Hong Kong Economy Affairs Advisor. But what does the Chinese connection really mean to the United States? Why go to all this trouble to set up a link between the President and the Princelings. Some of the answers are next. AUTOMATIC ACCESS Since taking office the Clinton administration has been criticized for what some consider tactical blunders in dealing with the Peoples Republic of China or the PRC. The late RON BROWN, ;Clinton's Secretary of Commerce= approved the sale of two satellite systems to the PRC that is to be used in China's vast military forces known as the Peoples Liberation Army or the PLA (China has an active army of 3 million soldiers and since 1989 China's annual military spending has tripled. ) GENERAL HE PING, who is the son-in-law of DENG XIAO PING (former Supreme Ruler of China) handles the arm's market -- the small arm's market in the US. That means rifles, hand guns, and bazookas. GENERAL HE PING is part of the same group, China International Trust & Investment Corp. and Poly Technologies and oversees the arms industry. Poly Technologies is a company started by the Chinese government which is actually under the general staff department of the Peoples Liberation Army. Since the beginning of Clinton's presidency, there has been a mind boggling EXPORT OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGY to Red China with U.S. government approval. Michael Ledeen, a State Department official says, "The issue is not whether the Chinese have bought American foreign policy. What's wrong is the fact that WE ARE ARMING CHINA. China. From the Air Force's advanced F-16 fighter jets, to technology for building long-range cruise missiles, to Cray supercomputers for weapons development, the Clinton administration has given China everything it wants. Even the technology to manufacture its own advanced Global Positioning Systems has been given to the People's Liberation Army. GPS is the key to the most accurate targeting systems for cruise missiles and other advanced weapons and will guide them accurately to Los Angeles, for example." Charles Freeman, a senior American diplomat told the London Telegraph of a private meeting with Chinese military officials in which they asserted that America would not risk the destruction of Los Angeles to defend Taipei. It was a ludicrous threat, but an alarming guide to the new mentality. February 2, 1996, the federal government issued IMPORTATION permits for a multimillion dollar shipment of more than 100,000 semiautomatic weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition. The permits were for a company called China Jiang An to deliver these arms made by Norinco and Poly Technologies. Four days later at the White House, President Clinton met with WAN JUN, Chairman of the Chinese government owned conglomerate that owns Norinco and Poly Technologies. Wang was taken to the White House by CHARLIE TRIE, a Little Rock restaurant owner that had helped raise hundreds of thousand of dollars for the DNC. A week before this meeting US authorities had confirmed that the Chinese had just shipped M-11 cruise missiles to the terrorists supporting the anti-American nation of Iran. The day before the meeting with Clinton the US learned that our Chinese trading partners had illegally delivered ring magnets to Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. (American Investigator Thursday February 20, 1997, NET Network) Clinton said he didn't know WANG JUN until the White House meeting and didn't discuss business with him. (Arkansas Democrat, Little Rock, March 14, 1997) WAN JUN attended a reception at the White House on February 6, 1996 after meeting with RON BROWN on the same day. At that time he is alleged to have given two manila envelopes containing $639,000 to Clinton's defense fund. Clinton's attorney's later announced that donations of $600,000 did not meet the guidelines and that they would return the money. (Washington Times - - Gene Crocker, PhD, CA) Recently the Washington Weekly, published in its March 24, 1997 the network of who's in the Chinese Connection. Beginning at the top: PEOPLE's REPUBLIC OF CHINA PEOPLE's LIBERATION ARMY WAN JUN -- (Chairman China International Trust Inc. Norinco, Poly Technologies) --Father was General Wang Zhen -- Tianemen Square Massacre CHARLIE TRIE -- close personal friend of Clinton, and a member of the DNC National Finance Board CHINA RESOURCE HOLDING CO. -- (Run by the Chinese military intelligence) LLOYD BENSON -- former Secretary of the Treasury AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP JOHN HUANG -- (Also Wan Jin Nan, worked as a senior Commerce Department official), one of the principal money funnels for the Lippo Group), and exempted from an FBI security investigation (required by law for all foreign born nationals in that position.) DR. CHIAO JEN WANG. Gave $400,000 to the DNC and Clinton, and was appointed to the 25 member "President's Export Council." LIPPO GROUP -- Client of former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor **KENNETH STARR** -- Client -- China International Trust and Investment Corp. MOCHTAR RIADY (ethic Chinese) -- Head of the Indonesian Corp. called Lippo Group JIM RIADY -- Received a $900 million dollar letter of credit from Import - -Export Bank ROBERT RUBIN - Current Secretary of the Treasury, Coral Reinsurance and ADFA are clients of Treasury Secretary STEPHENS-WORTHEN BANK purchased by Riady's JIM GIROIR, Former Head of Rose Law Firm, brokered ventures between Tyson Food and China WEBSTER HUBBELL - Received a retainer of $250,000 from Lippo after he resigned. ALABAMA SHIP BUILDING LONG BEACH NAVAL STATION BCCI CLINTON * KENNETH STARR: Starr's highly placed client is the China International Trust and Investment Corp. (CITIC), a ministry level corporation owned by the Chinese government and reporting directly to the State Council of the People's Republic of China. Chairman of CITIC is WANG JUN, of Clinton fund-raising fame. Star has continued to represent CITIC and be paid by it, all the while pretending to investigate Clinton. (Strategic Investment March 97) HENRY A. KISSINGER, ;Former Secretary of State= is a key advisor to corporate leaders seeking to expand US, China Trade Relations. He has also advised the Indonesia Lippo Group, lined with the DNC scandal. Mr. Kissinger is known as "Mr. China." After the Tianemen Square massacre of pro-democracy students, Mr. Kissinger publicly defended Beijing's action against the demonstration. The $26 billion American International Group, a major Kissinger client is a leading organizer of the multimillion-dollar lobbying campaigning by the newly formed Business Coalition for US China trade. (Boeing, Motorola, General Motors, GE and IBM) ALEXANDER HAIG ;Former Secretary of State= .. also is advising both American companies and the Chinese government's maritime shipping company, including COSCO, (China Ocean Shipping Company), in fact Haig is an honorary senior adviser. Haig's spokesman said that Haig is paid a minor honorarium. "Minor Honorariums" paid to other former senior US officials by Communist China have been reported to go as high as $1 million for just a visit. Haig is known to have visited China many times since he became Cosco's employee in 1993 (Washington Times, Tuesday, March 25, 1997 and Gene Crocker, PhD (CA) WAN JUN: Chairman of the China International Trust and Investment, and COSCO heads the companies that were implicated in a scheme to smuggle 2,000 illegal Chinese-made weapons into Oakland CA. (Norinco and Poly Technologies. COSCO, a subsidiary of the China Ocean Shipping Co. is the first shipping company owned by the Beijing government to receive a FEDERAL LOAN GUARANTEE under a 40 year old Transportation Department program designed to help American shipyards win business. The RIADY's: Less than two months before the 1996 presidential election, Bill Clinton flew west and declared more than a million acres of southern Utah land off-limits to coal mining by creating a "national monument." It was a bold photo-op, designed to win environmental votes. But it may, in fact, have been much, much more than that. It may also be the first concrete instance in which the growing Lippo banking scandal corrupted American interests and tilted American foreign policy toward Indonesia and China. Turning Kaiporowitz in Utah into a "national treasure" virtually hands Indonesia and China, a clean coal cartel at a time when the US needs such coal to meet the strict ;environmental= requirements. How? Well, the thread is long and complicated but it all seems to start with Lippo and Riadys in Indonesia and China's Fujian Province ends up with the president's signature on the executive order forever locking up $1 trillion of low-sulfur coal. ( The Washington Times Friday, April 11, 1997) And now Long Beach. According to Sen. Strom Thurmond, "The Chinese Ocean Shipping Company has been a tenant of the Port of Long Beach for approximately 15 years. The Naval Station Long Beach and the naval Hospital Long Beach were designated for closing in the 1991 round of Defense Base Closure and Realignment. The City of Long Beach was recognized by the Department of Defense to prepare a reuse plan. The Navy is still engaged in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the environment impacts. The City and the Port want to enter into a lease with Cosco. There is ample time available for a national security review before the property leaves Navy ownership. Additionally several Senators have written to the Department of Defense requesting a security review of the proposal to lease space at the former Naval base to COSCO." (Senator Strom Thurmond Letter to Gerald Mueller, WI., April 1, 1997) Starting this spring, the Chinese government's wholly owned transportation conglomerate, China Ocean Shipping Co., will begin leasing the site of the Long Beach Naval base. Groundbreaking will later begin on building the proposed terminal, which is to be fully equipped with "six post-Panamax gantry cranes, capable of reaching across at least 18 rows of containers." According to the Port of Long Beach, the facility is being designed to accommodate Cosco's new fleet of ships which carry 5,250 containers measuring 20'x8'x8'. The City of Long Beach is spending a reported $200 million dollars to provide Cosco with "a two-unit dockside rail yard to handle Cosco's inter modal shipments to the US Midwest, Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard. With China's historic prowess at opium production and export, one has to at least consider the tempting possibilities offered by such a dedicated terminal for organized heroin smuggling into the US. Relevance asked the Long Beach customs Office if they could reasure the public that it would be safe from smuggling. We were told by one information officer, "There's no way we can reassure you -- there's no way we can check all the containers that come in here ... we've had government cutbacks, so we don't have as many inspectors as we use to." The spokesperson added, "We get 60 ships per day here, and the larger ships carry over five thousand containers." (Relevance January 1997 Vol. III , No. VII ) Long Beach Naval Base is a major deep water port on the West Coast where the worlds largest ships and aircraft carriers can be docked. It can hold most of our Pacific Fleet. The US taxpayer recently spent a reported $50 million to modernize it in the last decade. Expecting to ride out the base closures in 1994, it came as a surprise to all but a few, that Long Beach Naval Base was closed. The base is located a few minutes from the giant McDonnell Douglas Research/Production Complex, where major stealth fighter research and production occur. The base is located within minutes to a few hours Edward's Air Force Base. (Top secret Air Force and NASA testing), China Lake Naval Weapons Test Center (top Navy Weapons Test Center, Point Magu Naval Weapons Center, Vandenberg Air Force Base (top missile and rocket research), Fort Irwin (the most advanced tactical facility in the world), Nellis Air Force Base (home of the most advanced tactical fighters in the world, ;Ultra=Top Secret Area 51 9 home of our steath ???), Camp Pendleton (one of the two Marine Corps training facilities), the Navy Seal base (top secret and covert activity training), Miramar Naval Air Station (Top Gun), and El Toro Marine Air Station (vertical assault helicopter training operations) which is moving after closure south of Long Beach. ( Gene Crocker, Ph.D., CA) Panama Canal On March 29, 1995 the Clinton Administration announced the transfer of America's military headquarters in Latin American, Southern Command, from Panama to Miami, Florida. This decision fulfills the 1977 Panama Treaty's commitment that all US troops be evacuated by December 1999. It also reflects the Clinton's administration view that the Canal be defended without the presence of US forces in Panama. (Central American News -- Gene Crocker PhD, CA) US UPSET AT DEAL CEDING PANAMA PORTS TO CHINA. A Hong Kong conglomerate with ties to the Chinese government has gained control of two key Panama Canal ports in a deal US officials say is "unorthodox." The agreement was made as the canal undergoes a sensitive transition from US to Panamanian control. It also coincides with US static over the Navy's leasing of a former Long Beach base to Cosco, which is operated by the Chinese government. Cosco also won a $138 million government loan guarantee to finance ship construction in Alabama. (The Washington Times, Wednesday March 19, 1997) Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, Benton County, Arkansas: Use of the New Northwest with an additional business complex is being built to the tune of $106 million. This is the Tyson Foods/Walmart/Lippo Deal. $21 million is supplied by the taxpayer via the US FAA Grants. (Business on-line, March 18,1997, American Spectator ON-Line March 1997) US MILITARY WEARING COMBAT BOOTS MADE IN CHINA: Congressional Record, House of Representatives, March 12, 1997: Mr. Traficant: "Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that millions of Chinese dollars have popped up in American politics. I mean, check it out: China alone gets $45 billion from American taxpayers in a sweetheart deal known as most-favored-nation trade status. Now to me, that is absolutely disgusting, with the 17 cents an hour labor wage. But if that's not enough to rip one of those false made- in- America labels on one of those Chinese imports, check this out The United States Air Force just issued military combat boots to our troops that were made in China. That is right. American military personnel are wearing combat boots now made in China. Beam me up Mr. Speaker. What is next, marines in Mao suits? I think it is time to take a look at what China has done and take a look at everyone of those sweetheart trade deals." Charleston, SC... An alliance of three Asian shipping lines will send 52 giant container vessels a year to Charleston. Included in that alliance is the Beijing-based China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) The Port of Charleston has been designated the Atlantic Port for COSCO, and has been undergoing a mult-million dollar construction program. US alters RULE for Chinese ships: Washington DC For the first time since the 1950's, Chinese ships can dock near US military installations with just a day's notice -- a result of the Clinton Administration lifting a Cold-War era restriction still imposed on the former Soviet republic. In one of three deals in the past year helping Beijing's main shipping company, the United States quietly agreed to end the requirement that Chinese ships provide four day's notification when entering one a dozen sensitive ports. (Associated Press 4/01/97) Rep. Jerry Soloman, (R-NY) In the field of national security, what we see is a relentless Chinese military buildup, every more frequent exports of technology for weapons of mass destruction, all subsidized by the American taxpayers and even worse by Americans who have lost their jobs. If China thinks its national interests require undermining the United States, that's one thing ... It's another thing for the White House to help them. Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) Cosco is the same company that smuggled in the AK-47's, 2000 of them. We have M-2's and grenade launcher that are going down to Mexico City out of Long Beach. Yet both the arm's dealer and Cosco gave money to the DNC, President Clinton went along with Long Beach to go ahead and certify them. This same company, as of last week is going to occupy both ends of the Panama Canal. Sen. Dale Bumpers (AR) There is nothing the US Constitution that forbids local or state governments from entering into commercial arrangements with foreign companies, even if those companies are owned by a foreign government. All sensitive equipment will be removed from the Navy base before civilians are allowed to use the facility. (Sen. Bumpers letter March 31, 1997 to Arlene Brightbill, AR) Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) Let me remind Congress as we speak that China got a secret sweetheart of a deal in Long Beach, China is getting a United States guaranteed, government bank loan of $138 million in Alabama, a Chinese company was just awarded a $250 million dollar contract even though they have been convicted of smuggling AK-47's into America, and as we speak, a company with ties to China will operate both ports on each end of the Panama Canal that United States taxpayers built. I think there are more Americans that are tired of Democrat-Republican business. What I think is best for the country is to give a bull dog, like the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the opportunity to get to the bottom of this Chinese mess, regardless who is in the White House, Democrat or Republican. John McCain (R-AZ) asked the Clinton administration on Wednesday to delay US Loan guarantees to the Chinese government China Ocean Shipping Company, until a US probe into its pricing practices is complete. Until the commission finishes its analysis in a few weeks, McCain urged the Clinton administration to hold off on its plans to give the firms $138 million in loan guarantees so the company could buy four large container ships to be built in Alabama. (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel 4/17/97) The revelations of Chinese infiltration of the US government has forced attention on the true intentions of the Chinese. US authors Bernstein and Munro, former Beijing bureau chiefs for the New York Times and the Toronto Globe and Mail, reveal internal Communist party documents marking the US as China's prime enemy and obstacle to its Asian dominance. They also described China's plan to seize control of the South China Sea, and how that would effect Asia, American and world trade. (Washington Times) Granting Most Favored Nations Status (MFN) ... Li Daoyu, China's ambassador to the US stated, "If you deny MFN status to China, in turn, Chines denies MFN status to the US," he told business and trade officials. The ambassador spoke at a reception at The Citadel sponsored by the S.C. World Trade Center -- Charleston and the State Port Authority. London Sunday Times on November 10, 1996 reported that Clinton's fund raising scandal appears to have been a stunning intelligence coup by China. Chinese agents were able to take advantage of lax security procedures and a pattern of corruption in the Clinton administration to gain advance knowledge of America's negotiation positions in trade and economic talks as well as access trade deals subsidized by America. This report by the London Sunday Times was echoed by the US Veteran Dispatch in their January-February 1997 Edition. CNN Headline News -- Harbor Panel Cancels Lease to China, "Stay aware because the method of operation may change, you may see American "middlemen" involved in the original lease, then subcontracting to Communist Red China. We see this situation happening at George AFB. (Marie Gunther, California State Sovereignty Coalition) Long Beach Foes of Chinese cargo facility score victory, " Monday night, April 21, 1997 the city's harbor commission reluctantly bowed to a judge's order. It voted to terminate an agreement with the China Ocean Shipping Co. (COSCO) to operate a 145 acre cargo terminal at the closed US Naval Station. Two commission members of Long Beach were in communist China trying to salvage the deal. Whether Cosco will stick with the deal is not clear. The city is scheduled to file new court papers by May 13 in a case that could go on for months." (The Washington Times - Wednesday April 23, 1997) Duncan Hunter introduced legislation, HR 1138, to prohibit the conveyance of the Naval Station at Long Beach to any commercial shipping company owned or controlled by a foreign country. "COSCO's involvement in arms smuggling and the recent unchecked shipment of machine guns and grenade launchers through Long Beach is unacceptable," said Hunter. "My legislation will prevent a Communist Chinese beachhead at the Naval Station." According to Duncan Hunter's office, April 14, 1997, the following are signers onto HR 1138: Hunter, Cunningham, Bartlett, Solomon, Barr, Danner, Hall (Texas), Hansen, Hayworth, Ney, Stump, Duncan. Let me end with writer Ambrose Pritchards of the London Times on being called back to London, "....It is under this President that domestic terrorism has become a feature of life in America. Nothing does more to sap the life of a democracy than the abuse power. To the American people I bid a fond farewell. Guard your liberties. It is the trust of each generation to pass a free republic to the next. And if I know you right, you will rouse yourself from slumber to ensure exactly that." ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Students fingerprinted for test (fwd) Date: 29 Jan 1998 09:38:04 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- _________________________________________________________________ 01/29/1998 07:08 EST [IMAGE] Students Fingerprinted for Tests DETROIT (AP) -- Parents and legal experts have identified a problem in Michigan standardized testing -- 122,000 fifth-graders provided their fingerprints without permission. All fifth-graders in Michigan's public schools had to fill out a ``Fingerprint Investigation Journal'' as part of the science segment on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program. State law says that with few exceptions, children's fingerprints can't be obtained without parents' permission. ``It's offensive,'' said Andrea Lang of St. Clair Shores, who learned that her 10-year-old daughter provided fingerprints for the test last week. ``It's an invasion of privacy. Only criminals get their fingerprints taken.'' The fingerprint journal was merely a hands-on experiment designed to make the science portion of the test more interesting, Peter Bunton of the MEAP office, said Wednesday. ``No, we are not fingerprinting kids and sending their prints to the FBI or filing them in Lansing,'' he said. The fingerprint journals, he added, are ``thrown away, torn up, discarded, or sent home with the kids.'' ``The law doesn't care if you throw it away,'' said Kerry Morgan, a Taylor attorney who was contacted by one parent. ``It just says you can't do it.'' Robert Sedler, a Wayne State University law professor, agreed fingerprints should only be disclosed voluntarily or in limited criminal circumstances. Bunton said he was unaware of the law. ``I'm very sorry parents may have misunderstood this,'' he said. ``We will not be doing anymore fingerprinting in a classroom ever again.'' Copyright 1998 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Send comments and questions about The WIRE to feedback@ap.org. _________________________________________________________________ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Scanland Subject: Re: Students fingerprinted for test (fwd) Date: 29 Jan 1998 09:52:38 -0600 At 09:38 AM 1/29/98 -0600, pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: [snips] > ``It's offensive,'' said Andrea Lang of St. Clair Shores, who learned > that her 10-year-old daughter provided fingerprints for the test last > week. ``It's an invasion of privacy. Only criminals get their > fingerprints taken.'' Had to chuckle.... Not only criminals: Off the top of my head there is also Texas CCW applicants, prospective individual machinegun owners, employees of banks, licensed insurance salespeople, and probably lots more. Chuck - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Students fingerprinted for test (fwd) Date: 29 Jan 1998 11:14:28 -0500 (EST) Heard in a recent training session for leaders that legislation is in the works to finger print and background check *all* volunteers working with children: Soccer coaches, den leaders, ..... everyone. cost was: ~$35, consistent with lowest level national check. It would, of course, be voluntary. I've already been fingerprinted for: CMP marksmanship program and NH conceal carry. hard to oppose, in practical, political terms. jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Students fingerprinted for test (fwd) Date: 29 Jan 1998 13:42:48 -0700 At 11:14 -0500 1/29/1998, John Curtis wrote: > Heard in a recent training session > for leaders that legislation is in the works to > finger print and background check *all* volunteers > working with children: > > Soccer coaches, den leaders, ..... everyone. > > cost was: ~$35, consistent with lowest level national > check. It would, of course, be voluntary. > > I've already been fingerprinted for: CMP marksmanship > program and NH conceal carry. > > hard to oppose, in practical, political terms. John, Maybe we aught begin in ernest to motivate our elected officials towards removing this as a method for anything except criminal identification. The problem here is that for every one of us who is unwilling to cooperate, there are 100 or more who are, and no amount of shaming them is going to work real soon. While I am not religious in the sense of having one, I am beginning to think that the "mark of the beast" is not so much a 'mark', but the willingness to be marked, read: identified. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Clinton Pal Named in Fund-Raising Indictment (fwd) Date: 29 Jan 1998 16:31:45 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Thursday January 29 4:13 PM EST Clinton Pal Named in Fund-Raising Indictment By Gail Appleson WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first indictment in the Justice Department's probe of alleged fund-raising abuses in President Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign was unsealed Thursday, naming the president's friend, Yah Ling "Charlie" Trie. The 15-count indictment charges Trie and a business associate, Taiwanese national Antonio Pan, with funneling illegal foreign contributions to Democratic Party campaign committees. Justice Department officials have privately predicted for some time that Trie would be among the first indicted. They disclosed their position after Attorney General Janet Reno was widely criticized for refusing to name an independent special prosecutor to investigate alleged fund-raising abuses. The officials have sought to portray the Trie indictment as evidence that they are moving forward with the Justice Department's own investigation. "This is an important step forward in addressing campaign finance abuses associated with the 1996 election," Reno said in a statement. It is unclear, however, whether Trie, 49, or Pan, 50, will be brought to trial as they are both believed to be out of the country. Trie, a former Little Rock restaurateur, left the United States in late 1996 after authorities began investigating his fund-raising activities. It is believed that he has been living in China. The indictment was returned Wednesday but was not unsealed until Thursday. Federal prosecutors had tried to keep the charges sealed in hopes of catching Trie if he left China, but dropped their request Thursday once the indictment was reported widely in the news media. The indictment charges that Trie and Pan arranged for a series of "straw" or "conduit" contributions to the Democratic National Committee, whereby money was contributed in the name of one person who was then secretly reimbursed in cash by Trie or Pan. Although DNC policy precluded all foreign and conduit contributions, the defendants allegedly funneled such money into the DNC through a scheme of secret reimbursement and false reporting. Although Trie was credited with bringing over $600,000 to the DNC through personal contributions and money he solicited. the indictment alleged that much of this money came from foreign sources and was obtained through conduit contributions. The money raised earned Trie a position as Trustee of the Democratic Party. Trustees are awarded benefits and privileges including administrative assistance by the DNC, access to White House officials, and invitations to White House events. The indictment alleges that Trie's status as a Trustee and his access to high-level government officials was used to promote the defendants' business interests. The men are also charged with conspiring to commit wire fraud and to defraud the United States by withholding information about the foreign contributions from DNC campaign treasurers whose reports are submitted to the Federal Election Commission. Trie is also charged with obstruction of justice based on allegations that he instructed an employee to destroy documents that had been subpoenaed by both the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and a grand jury. According to the indictment, Trie was aware at the time he issued the instruction that the Senate Committee and the grand jury were investigating allegations of campaign financing violations. Separately Thursday, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt denied before a House committee that political donations or improper political pressure influenced the department's decision to reject a Wisconsin Indian casino. Babbitt's testimony capped four days of contentious hearings into the Indian casino issue by the House committee, which has been conducting a probe into campaign fund-raising abuses, primarily the flow of foreign money into the 1996 Democratic election campaign. _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: CAS: First Lady's claim of conspirscy elicits (fwd) Date: 29 Jan 1998 17:08:28 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ue } ______ [Arlington Online.]Star-Telegram.com Home http://www.startext.net Updated: Thursday, Jan. 29, 1998 at 02:14 CST First Lady's claim of `conspiracy' elicits By Judy Holland © 1998 Hearst Newspapers WASHINGTON -- Hillary Rodham Clinton's claim that "a vast right-wing conspiracy" was behind the perjury and obstruction of justice investigation of her husband was greeted Wednesday with applause from Democrats and guffaws from Republicans. Mrs. Clinton is definitely "onto something," said Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a long-time ally of President Clinton's. "It's part of a big picture." "There has been a systematic and deliberate effort since day one to get this president," Lewis said, adding that the "religious right" has "tried everything," including accusing Clinton of having White House lawyer Vince Foster killed. Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr is pursuing allegations that Clinton may have carried on an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and then asked her to lie about it under oath. "I think Ken Starr is a pawn," Lewis said. "He's an extension of this element. I don't think there's anything independent about the independent counsel." Starr has been investigating the Whitewater case, centered on Arkansas land deals in the 1970s and 1980s. He also has investigated White House lawyer Vince Foster's death, the improper White House possession of FBI files and the firings of the White House travel office staff. Attorney General Janet Reno earlier this month asked a special three-judge panel here to authorize Starr to check out the allegations surrounding Lewinsky. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said there "clearly are a lot of right-wing people trying to bring him down." Frank said it was right-wing cooperation that led to the appointment of Starr by a three-judge panel headed by Appeals Court Judge David Sentelle, who is a "right-wing activist." "Sentelle was an inappropriate person to be picking an independent counsel," Frank said. "He has picked people who are hostile to the president." Frank said it is Starr's job "to bring the matter to conclusion, not to go on and on like the Energizer Bunny." Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., D-Del., said he sees no evidence the scandal will affect Clinton's legislative agenda, unless the president substantially loses public support or he becomes distracted and doesn't focus on the job. But, Biden added: "This is a serious moving target. It could explode tomorrow and the dome fall off (the Capitol), or it could evaporate in a month." Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., criticized the news media. "Those people (right-wingers) could not really get this off the ground if it were not for the reporters," Rangel said. Republicans brushed off the conspiracy theories. Rep. Bill Paxon, R-N.Y., said anyone pushing a conspiracy theory is "ill serving the public good." "I've never been a believer in left-wing, right-wing or media conspiracies," Paxon said. "This town has trouble organizing a one-car funeral, much less a conspiracy. We have trouble organizing the daily prayer, much less conspiracies." Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, R-N.Y., said Mrs. Clinton was off the mark in trying to blame the allegations on a "right-wing conspiracy." "That has got to be about the most outrageous statement," Solomon said. "It's meant to deflect whatever is out there." Distributed by The Associated Press (AP) _________________________________________________________________ © 1998 Star-Telegram -- Terms and Conditions -- Send us your Feedback. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Students fingerprinted for test (fwd) Date: 29 Jan 1998 19:57:09 -0800 At 09:52 AM 1/29/98 -0600, you wrote: >At 09:38 AM 1/29/98 -0600, pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: >[snips] >> ``It's offensive,'' said Andrea Lang of St. Clair Shores, who learned >> that her 10-year-old daughter provided fingerprints for the test last >> week. ``It's an invasion of privacy. Only criminals get their >> fingerprints taken.'' > >Had to chuckle.... >Not only criminals: Off the top of my head there is also Texas CCW >applicants, >prospective individual machinegun owners, employees of banks, licensed >insurance salespeople, and probably lots more. > And all military and police personnel..... Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without merit. A politician is anyone who asks individuals to surrender part of their liberty - their power and privilege - to State, Masses, Mankind, or whatever. The State, those masses, that mankind will then be run by .... politicians." P.J. O'Rourke, "All the Trouble in the World" !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: CAS: Re: We The People (fwd) Date: 29 Jan 1998 21:55:55 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- At 01:22 PM 1/29/98 -0500, Jean Gully wrote: > I will never again ask the rhetorical question > 'how could the German people let it happen ' > when referring to Hitlers' rise to power. > I saw and heard the throngs of followers at > yesterdays' appearances by Clinton. The lower > he sinks the higher his popularity rises. Is this > the result of the past 40 years of the dumbing > down of America ? While I'm not suggesting that > Clinton is a 'Hitler' is he really the man > that most Americans are satisfied having lead this > country ? Are the majority of the people really so > immoral and dishonest that Clintons' actions don't > bother them. Has depravity and deceit replaced the > good character we once expected from our leaders ? > I understand how a monster can rise to power now. > First and foremost... have the media in your pocket. > Second ....divide people, by color, by wealth, by > morals and religion. Promote envy, resentment and > hate for each other. Third... denigrate traditions, > history, patriotism, family values and the mores > we hold dear to us. Have a disregard for human life. > Fourth....brainwash our young in State Schools. Take > over as much of child rearing as you can get away with. > No I don't say Clinton is another Hitler. He's his own > kind of monster and I watch and I say ' how can the people > let this happen ?' ========================================================================== Very simple ... the average person has little understanding of the tremendous power that can be wielded by a speaker who is trained in the use of linguistic tricks. When we see taped sessions where trained "con men" can make ordinary, honest people take thousands of dollars out of their bank accounts and fall for the "pigeon drop", it is not so hard to believe that Clinton and his "spin doctors" can bamboozle the American people into any trap which serves their political purposes. It is a frightening exercise to take a word-for-word transcript of a Clinton speech and analyze it for hidden meanings, sub-conscious commands, and presuppositions. As you very carefully watch Bill or Hillary speaking, you can soon realize that their minds are working like computers as they speak every word, very carefully selecting the exact words and phrasing which carries a subliminal message which is totally different from the surface meaning of the words. Raised by an alcoholic, and enabled by all the people in his life, Bill Clinton has has expert mentors on which to exercise his "con man" talents at every turn. Over the years, he has developed a patter which has served him well ... as he skirts the edge of the cliff, if only to prove to himself how close he can come to the edge without crashing to his death. His life script is simple ... search out and test every new and exciting way to take risks, and cut the turn closer than anyone else has ever done it before him. Thus has developed the moniker that has attached itself to Clinton ... Slick Willy. His rhetoric has all the attributes of the "pitch" that an expert con man would use on a "pigeon". The reincarnation of the "Snake Oil Salesman" of the distant past of U.S. history lives among us, and contiues to snare his unwary victims into the belief that the government owes them a lifelong free ticket to the easy life. And, while he sells each new program, he tantalizes the masses by behaving in even more bizarre ways at every turn. With the naivete' of guileless children, the American people swarm to his defense, because they share the vain hope that Clinton's love for them will make life better for them someday. Today's grandparents sadly watch the young as both mom and dad struggle to make ends meet, with families partitioned by multiple jobs and children with no parents at their home when they come home from school. The yhoung people of today have no conception of what a good life was like for the average family of 40 years ago, when Mom could take care of the kids, and children grew up to become productive citizens who could read and write and balance a checkbook. Did you believe Clintons's statement in the State of the Nation speech, that unemplowment is down, jobs are up and we have the strongest economy in decades? If you get behind the figures, you find that REAL jobs are down (hamburger-flipping us up), REAL unemployment and REAL underemployment are up (poverty is up), and our standard of living has slipped 20% in the last 20 years. As usual, snake oil wins again. John De Lasaux "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up." Lily Tomlin ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: TWA800: Excellent Article (fwd) Date: 29 Jan 1998 21:48:29 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- O----------------------------------------------------O O--------------- TWA 800 CRASH UPDATE ---------------O The Valley Advocate (1/29/98) has just published an outstanding article on the crash of TWA Flight 800. Here are some key excerpts: ...in December, the National Transportation Safety Board released thousands of pages of data, charts, findings, figures and facts on the investigation of the July 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800. ...to several seasoned military crash experts, these numbers [in the released TWA 800 data] didn't speak; they sang. "I'm looking at the hard physical evidence," Commander William S. Donaldson, a retired Navy aviator and air crash investigator, told the Advocate. "The government is saying one thing, and the evidence is saying another. ... All the physical evidence fits perfectly with an explosion outside of the airplane." Donaldson's credentials are as impeccable as his research is outstanding: http://members.aol.com/bardonia/cdrindex.htm About Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, joining the missile-theory camp, the Valley Advocate article reports that: Donaldson is attracting allies in high places elsewhere within the Beltway as well. Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, attended a Jan. 8 press conference in Washington at which Donaldson announced his findings. Moorer said he found Donaldson's report very persuasive. "Commander Donaldson is a very experienced aviator and very experienced in the process of investigating accidents. He's a highly credible source," Moorer told the Advocate. Moorer found Donaldson's discussion of eyewitness testimony especially compelling. "You can't just brush it off by saying there was no missile, be- cause so many people saw it from beginning to end. "We should seriously consider a formal congres- sional investigation," Moorer added, echoing his previous calls for independent and critical scrutiny of the crash in which, as Moorer told the Detroit News, "all evidence would point to a missile." The Valley Advocate article also covers Commander Donaldson's extensive analysis of eyewitness accounts, which includes a carefully conducted triangulation of the accounts. Important to note is the fact that my own witness triangulation, which I first published last June 14th, based upon my own witness interviews and police reports concluded, just as Donaldson's independent triangulation later found, that the launch site for the most widely seen missile was about 3 miles off shore. (my triangulation: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm) ...Donaldson interviewed 96 people who saw the crash from the ground. All 96, scattered along 11 miles of shoreline, reported seeing a streak of light rise from the surface of the water and merge with the plane before the plane exploded. The FBI and NTSB have countered that the witnesses saw either burning jet fuel falling from the airplane or they saw the 747, decapitated by a fuel tank explosion, climbing several thousand feet before exploding a final time and falling into the ocean. Additionally, using Global Positioning System satellite technology, Donaldson triangulated the locations of the eyewitnesses and the trajectories of the streaks they reported. The data, he said, suggests that they all saw the same "streak of light" emerge from the water. "These people are stretched out along 11 mines of coastline, and they're all pointing to the same place," Donaldson said. "Now, you get 11 miles of coast and dozens of people who have never met before all pointing to the same place. What's the chance of that being coincidence?" To Donaldson's surprise, federal investigators have not done such an analysis. "The NTSB literally did not consider the eyewitness test- imony," he said. "They were operating under the premise that the FBI was already considering that." And the FBI, he added, has never address- ed the eyewitness data as anything more than a series of anomalies. The bureau did not, so far as Donaldson has ever seen, even do his simple triangulation experiment. Instead, as he put it, "The FBI has thrown a cloak over that kind of eyewitness." Referring to the CIA's video that proclaimed--flying in the face of physics--that after loosing its nose section TWA 800 shot upwards like a rocket leading witnesses to believe that they saw a rocket, the Valley Advocate article continues: The CIA's "contract cartoon" is the ultimate in irresponsibility, Donaldson said: It shows just how far some in the government's investigation will go to mislead the public. "It was entertaining but like most cartoons grossly abused universal laws of nature," he wrote to [FBI Director] Freeh. "In my view, the 'Alice in Wonderland' public positions the FBI has taken in this incident have now crossed over from being merely illogical or incompetent to the appearance of obstruction of justice," he added, saying that he had "seen better police work in Pink Panther movies." Donaldson said he finds too much suspicious behavior in the government's investigation to simply write its failure off to bureaucratic ineptitude. "I can't believe anybody can be this incompetent," he said. "I suspect it's a cover-up, yes." ____________________________________________________ You'll find the entire Valley Advocate article here: http://www.valleyadvocate.com/articles/twa01.29.html For more information on Bill Donaldson's extensive research into the TWA 800 crash: http://members.aol.com/bardonia/cdrindex.htm **************************************************************** VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________ GODDARD'S METAPHYSICS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/meta.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: RE: CAS: Re: We The People (fwd) Date: 29 Jan 1998 22:04:07 -0800 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD2D01.D2397500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Conservatives have one thing right, which is American's "moral fiber" is = disintegrating. The reason is we have moved such a large proportion of the economy, and = people, into a zero- or negative-sum game arena. Anyone who is honest = in a negative-sum game (all gov depts, most semi-gov companies such as = military suppliers, banks, RBOCs, etc) is really foolish. Only positive-sum situations (everyone in a small community, any = free-market business, esp entrepreneurial activity) must be extremely = honest. Big government, per se, leads to a dishonest society. We are reaping = the benefits of FDR's initiatives 50 years ago. Perhaps politicians in a previous era could be honest. Nobody in the = modern era, all professional politicians in a big-gov arena, could = possibly be honest and have progressed to the point of running for a = state or federal post. We get the gov we deserve. Lew -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 7:56 PM Cc: against constitutional terrorist; restore our constitution ---------- Forwarded message ---------- At 01:22 PM 1/29/98 -0500, Jean Gully wrote: > I will never again ask the rhetorical question > 'how could the German people let it happen '=20 > when referring to Hitlers' rise to power.=20 > I saw and heard the throngs of followers at > yesterdays' appearances by Clinton. The lower > he sinks the higher his popularity rises. Is this > the result of the past 40 years of the dumbing > down of America ? While I'm not suggesting that > Clinton is a 'Hitler' is he really the man=20 > that most Americans are satisfied having lead this=20 > country ? Are the majority of the people really so > immoral and dishonest that Clintons' actions don't > bother them. Has depravity and deceit replaced the > good character we once expected from our leaders ? > I understand how a monster can rise to power now. > First and foremost... have the media in your pocket. > Second ....divide people, by color, by wealth, by > morals and religion. Promote envy, resentment and=20 > hate for each other. Third... denigrate traditions, > history, patriotism, family values and the mores > we hold dear to us. Have a disregard for human life. > Fourth....brainwash our young in State Schools. Take > over as much of child rearing as you can get away with. > No I don't say Clinton is another Hitler. He's his own > kind of monster and I watch and I say ' how can the people > let this happen ?'=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Very simple ... the average person has little understanding of the = tremendous power that can be wielded by a speaker who is trained in the = use of linguistic tricks. When we see taped sessions where trained "con men" can make ordinary, = honest people take thousands of dollars out of their bank accounts and = fall for the "pigeon drop", it is not so hard to believe that Clinton = and his "spin doctors" can bamboozle the American people into any trap = which serves their political purposes. It is a frightening exercise to take a word-for-word transcript of a = Clinton speech and analyze it for hidden meanings, sub-conscious = commands, and presuppositions. As you very carefully watch Bill or = Hillary speaking, you can soon realize that their minds are working like = computers as they speak every word, very carefully selecting the exact = words and phrasing which carries a subliminal message which is totally = different from the surface meaning of the words. Raised by an alcoholic, and enabled by all the people in his life, Bill = Clinton has has expert mentors on which to exercise his "con man" = talents at every turn. Over the years, he has developed a patter which = has served him well ... as he skirts the edge of the cliff, if only to = prove to himself how close he can come to the edge without crashing to = his death. His life script is simple ... search out and test every new = and exciting way to take risks, and cut the turn closer than anyone else = has ever done it before him. Thus has developed the moniker that has attached itself to Clinton ... = Slick Willy. His rhetoric has all the attributes of the "pitch" that an = expert con man would use on a "pigeon". The reincarnation of the "Snake = Oil Salesman" of the distant past of U.S. history lives among us, and = contiues to snare his unwary victims into the belief that the government = owes them a lifelong free ticket to the easy life. And, while he sells = each new program, he tantalizes the masses by behaving in even more = bizarre ways at every turn. With the naivete' of guileless children, the American people swarm to = his defense, because they share the vain hope that Clinton's love for = them will make life better for them someday. Today's grandparents sadly = watch the young as both mom and dad struggle to make ends meet, with = families partitioned by multiple jobs and children with no parents at = their home when they come home from school. The yhoung people of today = have no conception of what a good life was like for the average family = of 40 years ago, when Mom could take care of the kids, and children grew = up to become productive citizens who could read and write and balance a = checkbook. Did you believe Clintons's statement in the State of the Nation speech, = that unemplowment is down, jobs are up and we have the strongest economy = in decades? If you get behind the figures, you find that REAL jobs are = down (hamburger-flipping us up), REAL unemployment and REAL = underemployment are up (poverty is up), and our standard of living has = slipped 20% in the last 20 years.=20 As usual, snake oil wins again. John De Lasaux "No matter how cynical I get,=20 I just can't keep up." = Lily Tomlin =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. = If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD2D01.D2397500 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IggGAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAQABAAEEkAYAvAEAAAEAAAARAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAASwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHJvY0BsaXN0cy54bWlz c2lvbi5jb20AU01UUAByb2NAbGlzdHMueG1pc3Npb24uY29tAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAA AB4AAzABAAAAFwAAAHJvY0BsaXN0cy54bWlzc2lvbi5jb20AAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEw AQAAABkAAAAncm9jQGxpc3RzLnhtaXNzaW9uLmNvbScAAAAAAgELMAEAAAAcAAAAU01UUDpST0NA TElTVFMuWE1JU1NJT04uQ09NAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAADAHE6AAAAAB4A9l8BAAAAFwAAAHJv Y0BsaXN0cy54bWlzc2lvbi5jb20AAAIB918BAAAASwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAA AHJvY0BsaXN0cy54bWlzc2lvbi5jb20AU01UUAByb2NAbGlzdHMueG1pc3Npb24uY29tAAADAP1f AQAAAAMA/18AAAAAAgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAAAgBhAQSAAQAhAAAAUkU6IENBUzogUmU6IFdlIFRo ZSBQZW9wbGUgKGZ3ZCkAZwkBBYADAA4AAADOBwEAHQAWAAQABwAEABgBASCAAwAOAAAAzgcBAB0A FQA6AC0ABABzAQEJgAEAIQAAADA1MDgyNjhFMzY5OUQxMTE5NTBEMDBBMDI0REYzMzJGAOUGAQOQ BgCYFAAAIwAAAAsAAgABAAAACwAjAAEAAAADACYAAQAAAAsAKQABAAAAAwAuAAAAAAACATEAAQAA ANwAAABQQ0RGRUIwOQABAAIAVgAAAAAAAAA4obsQBeUQGqG7CAArKlbCAABtc3BzdC5kbGwAAAAA AE5JVEH5v7gBAKoAN9luAAAATDpcTGV3c1dvcmxkXE91dGxvb2tcb3V0bG9vay5wc3QAGAAAAAAA AAC6nXMD3PvQEZSOAKAk3zMvooAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAALqdcwPc+9ARlI4AoCTfMy/CgAAAEAAA AAUIJo42mdERlQ0AoCTfMy8hAAAAUkU6IENBUzogUmU6IFdlIFRoZSBQZW9wbGUgKGZ3ZCkAAwA2 AAAAAABAADkAoKi630QtvQEeAHAAAQAAACEAAABSRTogQ0FTOiBSZTogV2UgVGhlIFBlb3BsZSAo ZndkKQAAAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABvS1E37OOJggHmTYR0ZUNAKAk3zMvAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABT TVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAEwAAAHJsZ2xlbmRlQGFsaW5rLm5ldAAAAwAGEM75uR4DAAcQsxMAAB4A CBABAAAAZQAAAENPTlNFUlZBVElWRVNIQVZFT05FVEhJTkdSSUdIVCxXSElDSElTQU1FUklDQU5T Ik1PUkFMRklCRVIiSVNESVNJTlRFR1JBVElOR1RIRVJFQVNPTklTV0VIQVZFTU9WRURTVUMAAAAA AgEJEAEAAAB3EAAAcxAAAOMbAABMWkZ1uIUahncACgEDAfcgAqQD4wIAY4JoCsBzZXQwIAcThwKD AFAO9nBycTIP9iZ9CoAIyCA7CW8yNWY1AoAKgXVjAFALA2MDAEELYG5nMTAzMz8LpwqxCoAIUACA BJB2Ybh0aXYHkQ+AF1AgAiBJF8B0aAuAZyAFEGdgaHQsIHcYMA9wIK8EAA/wB4AFEGMAcCcEIAoi BGByB0AgZmliNQSQIhlCZAQAC4B0ZTcJwBchFXAuFlQWVFRosxfACXBhcwIgGUJ3F8DHF5MEYBdQ ZCBzFIAZMGRhIAtgcmcXwBFAb8pwCRFpHXFvZhgRF8B1BZFuA3B5GNAAcB6QcLJlH6BsZRjQG3Fv HvFyegSQby0X0AXAF/Bn5RcjLR6wbSAjEAeAHvAhCXBuYS4gD/Bueb8X4hjwIiAZUSUQF/BzBUBn C4Ae8SL/ICgHQAMgZ+seYBswZQUwcxjQBGAlsbEPsG1pLSeiBaBtCrCfAwAHkR60BCAowGxpAZB0 cnkeoXALUAiRKCFihQBwayghUkJPQygh+Q/AYykZQh0xJ3AqwAIQywbwBABoHCtPbi0xH7B3AJAj Ny8RdRchFsEnQGXvF1AqsBfiJeNzAMAncSkxdG11AwB0IQMtQQnRLdkAwHJrD8ArgHUbYQeQ+SxC c3AgkAIwCXARQAnw/mUIcRpxANAXMTIhLKAx8PclsRrAIJB4NHEHgC0xJXT9HCtCGJAnkgSRB4AC MBjQnyFwBcAPsBjQIbBhZAQg7yITG0EldR1gYwiQMjAkYfZXI/MdInAYQiBiGsAX8McaoCgQICJG RFIaAQuA6y8hFyU1D+B5HUAPoB7w2yegHCtQBJAPgHAEIB+w/ypxGRAHMAYxJeM0oTWQCGDPBCAE kB8ABaB1bB6QNkHTNxUkcE5vBuBkKsAl4b8gYgRlQnEhESdxH4FmM8H3H/EacUDfYhiQKOMkExjQ /0K0LvEAkAJgKsBDFyEjF5P/H4EJwQQQHoEiESBiH7Abcf0gInIyAAMAGFECEAXAMUH/AZAbkCKy ReAEgUZTN107sX8fUAVAIGInoh3RAQAW4mU9HCtMB9AcOgr0KnAzNn8BQBUQFkEDYBuQNWAQhDHo NiAtVKJPGIELgBpx/k0zwT9QI2BUohw2U7QWQ8cLMVO2KNAxNDQBQCpwuDE4MAFADNBYQ2I9kJUD YToMg2IP4HB3FyBhHWFAdXRkJ2EdUC4BCYB1IFtTTVRQ9jpab1txXRw1WXAGYAIwt1nXHPAIcHNb ACEBSgBwEy/wKrEyORjQMTk5IDggNzo1VIBQTZldZ1RvWddD0CBHMgDMIEIAcV1nQ2NZ1z9Q/wtx JbEgsSWwL9Ef4hpxG5DucgNgBRAlsDsdISWwBbCPF8EIcGSLXWh1YmpT4ZFZ11JlOmNQQVNpYD9p QjuxHPJAUCGSJ0Bmd/xkKVZPV1pTBBXrbe8chf9Uo1SjPZAFsFwgCyAegQeB91WyVJRV+URNUWlg XsEY0G9f4F9SYBRgIDpYsGCANXlUkDA3WNEWY1mTX1BvKmgDoEQXwEwdUGF1CHggPAGgYzMyMb5A EUAHcRfwN2ApMT4clb9hgF9QHUADoGJQLSI8IxDzcMEDAGFAKuEEkCpwK7BaLndhPkhhHVBAAMBq vQWwZANwP3AfsAbgeHeSXxZUaEZpP2pIHDpBBUAwuDE6MhFwYMBgEC9f4G4vYEF0kD7AMF9BeJh3 11OyWdAWYz4kcEkY4AMQ3wMgF/AwkWQEKhFrIFNAcO8PwGXBGdADIHEKUGTBZ5a9grEnJRAH4EK0 IGJHBJD/A4IhdDmxJcEFQECBIXADoP4nCuOCkxjwiNEJcEXgZaD7PGMiIEgqgCGwD6CJAGXR7xgB IiAfsB3QciRggllVsP8H4EoTPwGG5BggA2AVcD1T/wIQJ3CL8j8xVACCZj7wJbC/BJBfEYsxiKIK wABwYweR2mIqwEN6ISIQbiRgHPL/jwOCVx0BG2ErwCBTGDAYoPc5URgwQLJwQtAKwDIhi1P/W1CC 0JPyBACCV4RTB5BC0P9MA0uDHVAFQFhgPuUgNVuAbwbQGEGCV3tgdyATGYUgzj87kRgwasFJJyOg IND5KIF1Zx9QZME8c495kdX7GUIe8SeK1IkAJUIdEy0i/0RzA5KWqBcgKEQZhj8xO/H7VbAXMHMa oB6BF5EYQjnC/5ZDiRhCsTRhKsCbkAcQGAL/oIJ7MZVyl9ZqlCz1HWCCV/8HcBpEITI6eKFzkdWQ sjVh/zAye2AZ8I+IBuAgYQXAIGH6bSRgSCohJ+EaYDWSqVT9BZBliGE0gQtgkWCG44JX/yegBHAp IA+BNVE5UR3RAiD/kWA2YSFwsOEekANSZqM5wv2PMj+CWTIAswIBkEoihnF/HwAEYGRROVEZ0Ytc nFF38xwlgrFGabRRISNM0Siw/05SuLAXhERzCYAHMCXSJLD7ZsEfsGMzMbb4BmAgsR6Q/bixLhtA NZABACFnkaEI4/+84x3QB0AYILziglcaQz8x3yFBCXAqcFUgkiJQA2FTwf00QXYhAUrhNFE44iEj kvh/TVJM0h1AGSGso5JCt6Bkf7iyeXIbshgBGmAbQDATLP+S+GXhBbAhAQqwNHAf8KMR+m0Y0GYj 0AMQKsAXEApB/79URHRK4YkoQyJC4QEACsH/IhEzgK1CF7E6UwlweUJMw/9e0AOCKnBF4Lb5CGEY ILvS/mIaYAuAXCAtsGajuhEYUXUl4VNNQ1MPcC1xlfFU/mEzMIJXOJIqEx7CIDEPcP8DEL+SlVEY USohuhG1k0+C/40QXyCC8c4RgldiIYLgq7N/jPGRtxlCAHCspIrUrUFl7xoBlMKaoYJXawuAHpAg Mf+1JiEyguEXIB7S2qPWUokAf4ZjA5GnGIJXiCKkU4iVP/2JBj3fX+Bv4X/ij+LjFlT+VjChL7Ep UGrBuLIgYheh/xpgH1IrQR1xD4AEICpxivH/tAkYQiA1NpMhQEIytmShc/+1ojZBA/A20HDSkaEx QZEB/zMwsRElFMUxM6EekERFM4DnF8EgQHohZ3Vl4RkQxSH/GRArwE6MicId0Q+wGAE8QL8egkX0 HbGUgcUT7EMiILH9cQFuGvC1ogDAMzAisefB/yqhGNAldYe1AZDy4RggQjH/ITE9U3tgWyGY8lrg ICW3oP8rgzVBpTO/VMfAJ3FM0iBiriI8UB9QHXFkH5EiIdH/JcEEIJxjIiAPgUszGsArIe+5E6po SgQZUSI0ICXhe2A7NWAFsHPyZCuQBtFvev/0Yh0BGYaHpiH0MoHFMTQw/xj0UJOT8/bRRoVGUghw LvH7leEcOkn58x8AMrAYknmBfxhRNnBE4Dswi4T0kx8Ad3V7QS1M0S0GgsUiZFBj/7XgKAAgIh8A nibrIWvw2zT7X3AxgHkiYIhSzFO8QHlxn3EBKXGOYRjQHrBiLWSS/zswQjIxwvUyIRWXYisALwP7 FsEkYEHTlDCSesGKAYGk/9sDOEAncUzhitD10irB6zK/GEEY0NO2HWAdcSzyaQnh/6Fz9qQowPVC O+IGgRFizOH/8uEpMlrgjzOT8xEFIJAO0/8GghjQDt1QkCGwNWE8dTZw9zVRBnO/VHCOMB1QnRIA 9P8PIbXgyHILgipwE8FGUXEW3wD06+JTwC0Ty7BmiiHBoveyQyBiKdBy+CCxgQr1l8Z7GaNOi1Lx gEsS6tIl8Wz/QrDKMQEQDPRIMUkw6qUncf+nGUGRlMLM8hGgECOeJuaC/+aCsbLOAPIi/ZKxUQDl ADH/BVf8w/HzX3D90B2xNFGPUu8WpS/gRPBDoE+DchkCPvP/85GUMa1zy2CSoPAyQcHHEP+w8wED 5oJQk/yinEDKAIMh/7iyJuKTkdmQzgCT9E3QHNH1l9VjzPFm+cGX4NogoDL/i8HAYLkS+pGo4Bhh l+CGY/+SoCliFRGgsXehBcQxRtTC//YyB7DO0YpllMLKgc4RisH/JYSckAe0pHHkqVCQyqDSQv/2 Qcij8+IWtPGgjSSxsAwQv50D1IIF5rXh7mAM9GP2Qf+N4yuRNJTpc/xi07DxoMDA/79ALPSDY6ux CfNDELgyL4L/TotewSb0LVjI5EyA62Khc//mgi4hw1HsYlxANCIAMZ4mrbiyUyMBhDBXJhF5OFTf hJZFdCRVLiG14GIVcZkH//jxD+EqUaGCoLEnVSnlBnHvhsLtAyKB+OYikkSKAFUwbw8hVUCFgkq3 U1VA8uFP/9LA0DAqgceAKjKZJmXhX3DH9AGYUprhVS5TuNHGhP/M4QGCx9COUcrxPhXaIIWA+8hi ADFz81EpdKVQcKHIEf/t8IWANAAABBkC+zOX4hM0+7Axg3FuwZOL8ZPznEC1AP/M8pKgnSEEkO/i 7kHd0jXV/5hQU7LNEQ5QGhARoADxasH/k4Iv4Scxw1I78muxxNHHkf+N8lJBErOT9HsQcTCRdOog v6OVg+H7cfIRZnKZwHobQf/qMZCRKu3um9TRGPMcQFPh/wTgiQCa4e2h3RBREQxR0rLvHmERoP7f asFzcKEe4Tem/80Q2jC80mvwdlCLghYTsKH/pfTIMCUyLaGqO9hhkqDLYf/4dS+xJhLywziz6iAu M21H/xJAuYGQkJJBsGCQkNhhxNHvGhByQSqj9SBkD5csM89jf9HxrJKhsVohqXKkIfPwcn+csfRi AEDyw+jB0gEJAHT/XQFk0sfDG3IDwYWAhYLqpN/SIJegOTA54XswYvfEZrb/dfT6QHbSKqb2pOuw NZGJs38WAzVzexOyQweg0GKSRHn/9PGdIYe1l9JwYrjkedEL0f+RYDlAT5UA8EvSsDQ4s87BfxTU +HbllsfFmuGYl+XQb/tdAojRTbJhhqXy0g8il8b/2ZAM1nj3xNA8AQ2Q+vQ1c/8zUZmQq0HLYTyS CeDw03+C701Cp8EJckRQd6aR5XEaEX/+MK8gsXJN8EYBuoD+YWv97otEvEDTo/s2qpcvAc/y78GT 7JXP5JfVTk90CORnMv+hkaVQuGA50LbQkASrkpqw/xGgeGSiwYghiyMs8rkVdEH/VFE7UwvRwHDb 0P0yagEKsPpzm5BJpvDTstQyYPHZov8ZAqNA7aDJQRGko0DIs6GRMFJFQUyUKJPSICjf5oD+UALQ HNAG8GYCQA2gdxjC6QENkCkRoJqjktV538GXnZWzAZ4KlJQoAvDRsf+uEVZCnVLbUrKStGP6wu1D j2EzLuOckq9RMjAl7Ib/ryDz8aQwLGQwQO6aDmHpAO51+DALcVBjb1DB1MCrgW/l0PGB7ove9Eoi 0E3QRK3y8ExSkGogeO6aItWh93UALjPcE3kf8AKC1dDUMf8RoAO1eFDpAOnD1iG6kH/g/YgRLv3Q ru+v/7EPsh+yyPZMx/JwUG1HAe6a4u+2T/+3X7hv45rEAdIB8YDtcszh//PxBEHDAsuxPnDwk+gC Rvb8QWQTwVIRxOFPktBAomL/0JKX0LTk07LUwM7hytLaMP8LoAei6iEetbptC3HowUBh/xiRlhHt 8bqS+vG05HUAeGDT8yAVQG9AxBcuAvD+YPx4LjVxMECXwNx0HIb+YLZk29AVYTq/+5dgc6iPpAot yJ8KfbUgAMsgAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAEIQAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAwCAEP////9AAAcwQAkH IEQtvQFAAAgwQAkHIEQtvQELAACACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAADhQAAAAAAAAMAAoAIIAYA AAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAFgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAUoUAAHQQAAAe ACWACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABUhQAAAQAAAAUAAAA4LjAyAAAAAAMAJoAIIAYAAAAAAMAA AAAAAABGAAAAAAGFAAAAAAAACwAvgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAADoUAAAAAAAADADCACCAG AAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAARhQAAAAAAAAMAMoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABiFAAAAAAAA HgBBgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAANoUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4AQoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAA AABGAAAAADeFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAEOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA4hQAAAQAAAAEA AAAAAAAAHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAAADAA00/TcAAO62 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD2D01.D2397500-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: CAS: Drudge Flash-Statement by Linda Tripp (fwd) Date: 30 Jan 1998 08:26:56 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Thu Jan 29 23:44:21 1998 Statement of former White House aide Linda Tripp: Because I have chosen the path of truth, I have been vilified by spokesmen for the administration I proudly serve as a political appointee. The very same administration which is now trying to portray me as a disgruntled White House staffer, with a penchant for involving myself in scandals, has promoted me twice, given me a political appointment overseeing a critical public relations program at the Pentagon, consistently given me the highest possible annual evaluations and awarded me numerous certificates and merit pay increases. Although there is no political litmus test for telling the truth, I am a registered independent. Further, as a career civil servant in both the Bush and Clinton White Houses, my responsibility was to serve and support the institution of the presidency rather than its particular incumbent or party. Until January 1998, I had never voluntarily or intentionally inserted myself into any alleged scandal which has tarnished this administration. Because I worked on a daily basis with President Clinton and the counsel to the president, I, along with many others, was subpoenaed by the independent counsel and by Congress to testify in numerous investigations, including Whitewater, the tragic suicide of Vince Foster, and Travelgate. I did not volunteer to become a witness in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathleen Willey named me to the press as a corroborating witness. I was subpoenaed to testify about Ms. Willey and about any other women who may have had an intimate relationship with the president. I went to the independent counsel to report potential crimes, which included the possibility of obstruction of justice and perjury. I was being solicited to participate in a plan to conceal and cover up the true nature of the relationship between Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton. Monica described every detail of the relationship during hundreds of hours of conversations over the past 15 months. In addition, I was present when she received a late night phone call from the president. I have also seen numerous gifts they exchanged and heard several tapes of him. I was also present when Monica made and received numerous phone calls which were of a volatile and contentious nature directly relating to her relationship with the president. I felt especially at risk if I told the truth in my deposition in the Jones case because the president, through his counsel, Robert Bennett, was quoted in the national media last August saying ``she is not to be believed.'' I chose to contact Mr. Starr's staff because I had confidence in his fairness, thoroughness and integrity based on my experience during previous investigations. I considered writing a book following the denunciation former FBI agent Gary Aldrich received for writing his book. A trusted friend put me in touch with Ms. Lucy Goldberg, a literary agent in New York, who wanted me to work with a collaborator on a book. My idea was to do a factual account of life and work in the White House during the Bush and Clinton administrations which would allow the public to draw its own conclusions. I withdrew from this project shortly thereafter because of disagreements over style and format, and because of potential risk to my job. I want to emphasize that whatever political agenda Ms. Goldberg may have is not mine. I went to her as a friend in the fall of 1997 for advice and counsel; she did not seek me out. I continue to value her friendship. I struggled long and hard before contacting the prosecutor. The allegations involved immensely powerful and important people. I was facing substantial risk of losing everything I have aspired to during by 18-year civil service career. The vicious personal attacks against me by an administration spokesman, and the general climate of threats, intimidation, McCarthyistic tactics and guilt by association can only serve to deter those who in the future may dare to bring information to law enforcement officials. No one should be forced to deny the truth under oath, not even a political appointee whose livelihood is dependent upon the good favor of those in power. As a parent of children close to Monica's age, I felt and continue to feel horror at the abuse of power and emotional anguish she has endured over a two-year period. I am disturbed by the smear campaign that maligns Monica. She is a bright, caring, generous soul one who has made poor choices. She was not a stalker, she was invited; she did not embellish, the truth is sensational enough. Monica's moral compass is her own. She, as anyone else, should not be forced to defend her private life as a carefully orchestrated campaign is launched to discredit her. I firmly believe the truth will be her friend as the facts come to light. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: CAS: LAT: Buddhist Temple To Be Indicted in Donor Probe (fwd) Date: 30 Jan 1998 10:12:43 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Los Angeles Times Friday, January 30, 1998 Buddhist Temple To Be Indicted in Donor Probe By WILLIAM C. REMPEL, RONALD J. OSTROW, Times Staff Writers WASHINGTON--Federal prosecutors have notified defense lawyers that they intend to seek a criminal indictment against the Southern California Buddhist temple that hosted a 1996 political fund-raiser for Vice President Al Gore, accusing the religious center of violating campaign finance laws, it was learned Thursday. Attorneys for Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights are expected over the weekend to make a last-ditch appeal to government investigators to spare the religious organization from felony charges, which could include conspiracy allegations, according to sources with knowledge of the matter. A criminal action against a religious institution, although not unprecedented, is highly unusual and appears to signal that the Justice Department is taking a hard line in its investigation of alleged campaign finance violations. A indictment against the temple also threatens to compound the political embarrassment dogging Gore since questions first were raised during the 1996 presidential campaign about the propriety of using the nonprofit religious center as a venue for raising about $140,000 for the Democratic Party. It later was revealed that about $55,000 in donations from nuns and monks was improperly reimbursed by the temple. Three temple nuns, granted immunity from prosecution by the Senate in exchange for testimony, have since cooperated with federal investigators looking into the role of longtime Democratic fund-raiser and temple devotee Maria Hsia. The Arcadia-based immigration consultant helped arrange Gore's temple visit. Hsia's defense attorney Nancy Luque said her client "is saddened by the prospects of a temple indictment but convinced that she and the temple will be vindicated." Temple attorney Brian A. Sun would not comment except to complain about leaks. He blamed the Justice Department and said he was "deeply troubled and disappointed." Gore spokesman Christopher Lehane said a possible temple indictment does not affect the vice president because there is "no basis to suggest that the vice president was aware of or involved with any of the alleged misconduct at the temple event." He acknowledged, however, that Gore's foes will no doubt seek to use any legal charges to inflict more political damage. "It will come as no surprise to us if our partisan opponents continue to exploit this issue for political gain in the future," Lehane said. The government's unexpected move against Hsi Lai Temple, which unlike the nuns did not receive any congressional immunity, came as the Justice Department made public details of the first criminal charges filed in connection with the campaign finance inquiry. On Thursday, prosecutors released copies of the indictment against Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, a longtime friend of President Clinton's and a major Democratic fund-raiser; and against his associate, Yuan Pei "Antonio" Pan. They were charged with conspiracy, mail and wire fraud and election code violations. Trie, 49, also was charged with conspiring to obstruct justice, witness tampering and obstructing the Senate investigation into campaign fund-raising. "This is an important step forward in addressing campaign finance abuses associated with the 1996 election," Atty. Gen. Janet Reno said in announcing the indictment. While the 15-count indictment did not accuse Clinton or Gore of wrongdoing, both men are mentioned as passive players in several "overt acts" to further the conspiracy cited by the grand jury in the case. For example, Overt Act No. 7 in the indictment notes that Trie and an unnamed business associate from Macao attended the Democratic National Committee Presidential Gala on June 22, 1994, in Washington and "Trie sat with the president of the United States." And Overt Act No. 36 notes that on Feb. 20, 1996, Trie, Pan and an unnamed business associate from Macao attended a "DNC breakfast meeting with the vice president of the United States" at a Washington hotel. Such overt acts are related to an alleged conspiracy to buy high-level political access and use it to benefit the private business interests of Trie and Pan, according to the indictments. The alleged conspiracy, which ran from April 1994 to September 1996, also involved channeling foreign money to the DNC through the use of "straw donors"; concealing the source of the money by reimbursing conduit donors in cash and using multiple bank accounts; and receiving benefits from the DNC, which the grand jury described as a victim of the conspiracy. Lehane minimized the significance of references to Gore in Trie's indictment. Trie, a former Little Rock, Ark., restaurateur who followed Clinton to Washington, owned and operated two international trading companies and was associated with a third--all sharing offices in an apartment at the Watergate South complex in Washington. Pan, 50, a Taiwanese national, began working for Trie in August 1995 after serving as senior vice president of Lippo Group-Chinese division. The Lippo Group's owners are the Indonesia-based Riady family, longtime supporters of Clinton. Trie and Pan, the indictment alleges, arranged for a series of straw or conduit contributions to the DNC, with donations made in the name of one person and then secretly reimbursed in cash by Trie or Pan. DNC policy and federal election laws banned foreign and conduit contributions, but Trie and Pan allegedly relied on secret reimbursement and false-reporting schemes to circumvent the rules. Trie was credited with bringing over $600,000 to the DNC--much of it obtained from foreign sources or conduit contributions, the indictment says. By raising the money, Trie was named a trustee of the Democratic Party, an award for major supporters. Such status provided various benefits, including access to White House officials, invitations to White House events, special White House tours, administrative assistance by the DNC and membership on DNC committees and related groups. Pan and Trie used Trie's status as a trustee and his access to high-level government officials to benefit their business interests, the indictment alleges. The indictment does not identify the "high government" officials that Trie and Pan allegedly bought access to, and Justice Department officials declined to elaborate on the charges. Both Trie and Pan are believed to be in China, and federal arrest warrants have been issued for them. Reno has asked China's justice minister for cooperation in the investigation, but federal law enforcement sources said they believe that their best prospects for catching them will come if they travel outside China. Sources familiar with the ongoing Justice Department investigation of campaign finance matters say decisions on the next round of indictments--reportedly involving the Hsi Lai Temple and Hsia--are expected to be made early next month, possibly as early as next week. The temple, a California nonprofit corporation, could face a fine if convicted. No individuals or officials of the temple are believed to be included in the Justice Department notification. Hsia attorney Luque said she believes that the government is threatening to indict the temple "because . . . the nuns [receiving immunity] were unwilling to implicate Maria [Hsia]" in a conspiracy. The nuns have made a number of grand jury appearances, but their testimony remains secret. * * * * ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: CAS: LETTERS TO SOFTWAR (fwd) Date: 30 Jan 1998 12:56:00 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I have received quite a few cards and letters in recent days. I would like to share two of them with you... EMBASSY OF AUSTRALIA MR. CHARLES R. SMITH SOFTWAR Dear Mr. Smith I refer to your fax of 24 November 97, and advise that the Defense Signals Directorate declines your offer of an interview to the article pending publication in INSIGHT magazine. Please address any queries to Defense Public Information Branch tel (612) 6265 2999, Fax (612) 6265 1099 Yours faithfully, Ian Williams Lieutenant Colonel ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Last year I documented the breach of national security by former DNC fund-raiser Ira Sockowitz. Mr. Sockowitz took a Presidential appointment to a job for Secretary Ron Brown in the Commerce Dept. His job was to review and vest companies that flew along with Secretary Brown on overseas trade trips. His immediate supervisor was Commerce General Counsel Ginger Lew. Mr. Sockowitz also shared this task with John Huang. Many of the companies okayed by Sockowitz to travel with Brown also just happen to make large donations to the DNC at about the same time. In 1996 Sockowitz was scheduled to fly with Secretary Brown on the fatal flight into the former Yugoslavia. Last minute changes forced Sockowitz to take an earlier flight, thus he was waiting on the ground with the advance party when Brown's aircraft crashed. Ira Sockowitz performed one last job for his boss in 1996. Ira Sockowitz identified Ron Brown's body. When Sockowitz returned to Washington he followed his supervisor Ms. Lew and took a new job at the Small Business Administration. However, Sockowitz would also take thousands of secret documents from the Commerce Dept. in violation of national security. One of these documents was a highly secret report written by the CIA and the NSA on the international market for encryption software. Because of Sockowitz's breach of security both the CIA and NSA were forced to testify that disclosure of this document would effect the international relations of the US. Specifically, the report contained top secret data from various sources around the world, including Australia's Defense Signals Directorate. One Softwar fax of the NSA/CIA testimony to our southern allies later... Surprise! DSD declines to comment. Perhaps, they are afraid I will put "down under" and "Clinton" in the same sentence without a reference to Monica Lewinsky. Little known to me last November, the US encryption czar, William Reinch, was then traveling on Presidential order, trying to repair the diplomatic damage of the Sockowitz documents. President Clinton is seeking world wide approval for his Key Recovery plan on crypto. Mr. Reinch tried to convince our allies that the current US Administration could be trusted with a back door into all the code keys. However, our allies do not see much advantage in giving their secret keys to an already leaking President. They are not amused by the Sockowitz affair and according to the recent EPIC newsletter, gave Mr. Reinch a cold reception in each capitol. In fact, Japan was so sensitive to his visit (on the heels of the China/Fundraising scandals) that they demanded all meetings be held in secret. So, I am not really surprised that the DSD would decline to talk to me (or any other American) at the moment... Another source also refused to talk to me recently. This one, however, was much closer to home. I had the pleasure of talking to Chris Madison, the Press Officer for Delaware Senator Joe Biden. Madison called me a "f*cking conservative" and an "attack journalist". I, of course, sent a fax to Senator Biden, quoting Chris (without the "*") and asked that, in future, they refrain from using such vulgar terms as "conservative". In response I have a received an unsigned letter from Chris which reads (in part): I sincerely apologize for this morning's exchange. You caught me at a very bad time.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oh, well... No apology necessary, Chris. All is forgiven. The fault, you see, was really mine. I made the mistake of not catching the news before calling. I phoned Chris the same morning that Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky affair. Mr. Madison is much like every Democrat on Capitol Hill right now. He, his fellow Democrats, and even our allies from "down under", are all *VERY* sensitive to questions about President Clinton. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775 Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR http://www.us.net/softwar Pcyphered SIGNATURE: 394859484D43AF3AB8FE8269A9DC2C4B83A254A87AD20B1BB19458CCC55D730B CC253C98AD80BA778B7510C95F77788C2489E92A1FDC846D9F14109B6A62B9CA 0AD98EEB2D90441C ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: JPFO: RKBA and Civil Rights (fwd) Date: 30 Jan 1998 13:43:29 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NEW PARADIGMS IN THE CIVIL-RIGHTS MOVEMENT: Yes, Virginia, We Can Win; but First We Must Define the Question, and Then, We must Hold Hands and Work Together. By Robert G. Heinritz, Jr., J.D. Speech to Gun Rights Conference, Denver, Colorado, September 28, 1997 There is story about Sol, the Jewish tailor-haberdasher, who won a trip to Italy. Included in the trip was a tour of Rome and an audience with the Pope. Sol was a religious man, so he considered it an honor to meet with the leader of another great religion. When he returned home Sol's partner, Al, asked him, "So what about the Pope?" Sol's reply, "About a 38-portly." The lesson, of course, is that we all tend to see things in ways that relate to what we know. So what do I know, and what does that have to do with the Second Amendment movement? I'm an attorney and have worked for a big-deal law firm trying big-deal lawsuits, but my first love is management. For the last dozen years, far more of my work has been as a management consultant; specializing in strategic planning, productivity, and business turnarounds. In plain English, that means helping CEO's and their companies define who they are, where they want to be in 5 or 10 years; and then helping them develop clear, written plans with specific measurable goals for getting there. I also help them implement - by training them in team-building and productivity. This allows companies to achieve Win-Win-Win results; a win for the customers, a win for the employees, and a win for the companies who put their wealth at risk to create value for the economy. Sometimes this includes what businessmen call turnarounds; starting with a company that is in trouble - sometimes near bank-ruptcy - and helping it become efficient and productive. While this can require the use of sophisticated tools, most of it isn t rocket science. It's pretty fundamental stuff. What is required includes the ability to: a. Face reality as it is, not as we wish it to be, b. Admit our mistakes, and learn from them, c. Step back to question the fundamental assumptions that had been taken for granted, and d. Make and implement hard decisions. In short, I know leadership when I see it. I know good strategy when I see it. For members of the Second Amendment movement I recommend Al Dunlap's book, MEAN BUSINESS: How I Save Bad Companies, and Made Good Companies Great, as an example of good strategy. You will find many parallels - both good and bad. The bad news includes some of the same self-defeating practices we are commonly guilty of. (You may be reminded of Pogo's, "We have met the enemy, and they is us.") But there is also good news. You'll see Dunlap execute business, organizational, marketing, and financial strategies - in a manner that any competent manager could adapt to Second Amendment goals. So what is meant by "New Paradigms in the Civil-Rights Movement? A paradigm is how one defines the question, or more accurately, the unstated assumptions in a question. For example, early astrologers struggled to create a calendar which could accurately predict the movement of the heavenly bodies around the Earth. Notice how the question was defined. Until Copernicus with his theory, and Galilao, with the data gathered from his telescope, taught us that heavenly bodies do not move around the earth, it was impossible to create an accurate calendar because of how the question was asked. The answer was in finding a better way to state the question. In business, new paradigms - new ways of defining the question - or new ways of thinking out of the box include: 1. Sam Walton - rather than competing head-to-head against larger, more powerful retailers in high-priced malls - opened his first warehouse-discount store in the giant megalopolis of Bentonville, Arkansas - where the leading occupation had been jury duty. 2. Domino's Pizza - rather than competing against strong, established chains and restaurants to fill their stores with customers - instead took their stores to the customer - with a revolutionary delivery system. 3. Hospitals - in an industry with 50% of their beds empty, and an industry-average-net-profit of $0 - reversed the question of how to fill their beds with sick people, and developed the concept of wellness centers, which have succeeded in generating much higher occupancy with much higher profit-margins. It is very likely that the United States wouldn't exist in the form we know it if the Founders hadn't re-defined the question. They began petitioning for rights of Englishmen. Ultimately, they fought for and won rights of Americans - rooted in English rights - but taking several steps beyond; not the least of which is - Englishmen were (and still are) subjects of the sovereign - while Americans are citizens who own the sovereign. That s pretty fundamental. Reality as it is, not as we wish it? We in the Second Amendment movement are losing because (a) we confuse symptoms with problems and fail to accurately define the real problem, and (b) we fail to develop a real long-term strategy to take the initiative and win. 1. For example, do you think we have a PR problem? Or that the media aren't fair? Or that politicians who claim to support the Second Amendment turn on us by voting for anti-gun bills? Those aren't problems. Those are symptoms of a (much) larger problem. 2. Do you think we are winning because there are now 31 states with concealed-carry laws? If you think so, you may wish to reconsider. As Dan Polsby said in the March 24th issue of the National Review, we are kidding ourselves, because in the national debate we are losing, and losing badly. How can this be when the scholarly data is on our side? Perception is reality. - All politicians can count. Polsby didn't provide answers, but he correctly stated the problem. In a democracy, public policy is tailored to what the people believe, no matter what the facts might be. For weapons policy the point is not the connection between guns and violence - but how people see the connection. In the current atmosphere, cheerleading for gun rights will look mighty like cheering for murder and suicide and opposing common decency. The larger message - if people don't believe in each of the specifics in the Bill of Rights, sooner or later all those rights will be footnotes in history - by popular vote. The anti-civil rights forces have their own long-term strategic plans to whittle-down the Bill of Rights to nothing.(Some argue that 8 of 10 of the Bill of Rights are already gutted.) Henry Kissinger said, "You're not paranoid if they are really out to get you." We are in a war of information, and they are out to get us. Their Marxis-styled war of deceit is well-documented - most recently in Radical Son, by David Horowitz. Until we face these realities, and adequately define the question - the real question - we have little hope of success. What are the New Paradigms? Our battle is not for the Second Amendment - it is for the Bill of Rights. Our targets are not shooters or politicians - but opinion leaders and the voting public. Our goal - is to win over the hearts and minds of the American public. This is our new paradigm. This is our turnaround. Sound grandiose? Maybe not. David Kopel has said the Bill of Rights isn't for conservatives to protect their property or guns, or for liberals to protect filthy speech or rights of accused. Those rights were meant to hang together. To the extent any of the rights are abridged, all are at risk. Or as Dr. Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere." Our priority may be the Second Amendment, but our perspective must be civil rights. Charlton Heston s 3-year campaign to save the Second Amendment is wonderful, and very much needed. But that campaign is to our long-term goals as the original 13 Colonies were to the United States. But first we must define who we are, and where we are going. As Lewis Carroll said in Alice in Wonderland, "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." So who are we? There is nothing inherently wrong with being, say, a small group of target or bird shooters - anymore than being a membership-organization of 20-million. But given the political and societal realities, unless we figure out a way to make allies of people who have no interest in picking up a gun we could end up in the same fix as in Great Britain or Australia. As my friend, Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp said, The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting. We need allies. Alone, we can't win hearts and minds here - any more than we could in Vietnam. We need conservatives, liberals, and agnostics - who may or may not have an interest in guns - but with whom we can forge common bonds in the Bill of Rights and the values that made this country. 1. Do you really want to face reality as it is, and not as we wish it to be? Politicians don't turn on us. Politicians vote anti-Second Amendment, anti-Civil rights, because it gives them power. If it had been necessary for him to gain the Presidency, even Bill Clinton would have been pro-gun. Perception is reality. All politicians can count. 2. So we need the people from A.C.L.U. - as they need us. We need the environmentalists. We need the libertarians, the churches, the unions, the doctors, the sociologists, and the teachers. We need the children. Most of all we need the voting public. If we have them, the media and politicians will follow. (So how do we do this?) Action Plans Like a well-run business with competitors trying to put it our of business, we must have clear, written, long-term strategic plans. This can help us with many things, including: First: A clear definition who we are and what we stand for - not against. Second: Clearly-defined and measurable goals, enabling us to take the initiative. Politics is almost inherently short-term oriented, so in the absence of clear, long-term plans it is almost impossible not to get pulled into defensiveness by reacting to the opposition's initiatives. With long-term goals, it is easier to make incremental, short-term gains toward our objectives. By taking and maintaining the initiative, it is easier to manage the public debate, frame the issues and get good press. Our tests have proven that. Third: Finding a Ronald Reagan leader - or several of them - who are good T.V. communicators, friendly, welcoming, inclusive, bringing more people into the efforts; but absolutely reliable and unwavering on principles and fundamental values. There can be more than one, and they should include women. Rebecca John Wyatt and Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp are good examples. Both are warm, articulate, and effective communicators. Rebecca is as good with the data as anyone. Suzanna is the only person I know who successfully got Representative Charles Schumer to shut up! Fourth: No compromising on principles! We can pick our battles, and it can be appropriate to compromise to achieve an advance-ment toward our goals. We should never compromise our principles. We should never compromise with the people who are out to get us. Compromising with the devil is a losing strategy! Winston Churchill strongly condemned Neville Chamberlain s treaty with Hitler as appeasement. An appeaser, according to Churchill, is someone who throws his children to the crocodile, in hopes the Crocodile will eat him last! Examples? 1. How often have we been maneuvered into campaigning for our gun control bills (and it's not the gun that is being controlled - it's the civil-rights of the law-abiding) because our anti-rights bill curbs rights of the law-abiding less than their anti-rights bill? Often, both are bad bills, exhibiting our failure to have taken the initiative to frame the issues correctly. 2. To that end, how could we support any but Representative Helen Chenoweth's bill to totally repeal the Lautenberg amendment? The Lautenberg law is totally bad, of questionable Constitutionality, and questionable ancestry. ( Question-able ancestry is lawyer-talk for S.O.B.) We screwed up when we allowed it to be passed in the first place. It needs to be totally repealed! In the real world, compromise happens. But compromise on principle should never be tolerated. In facing reality as it is - not as we wish it to be - we should recall Churchill's promise, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, sweat, and tears." We are facing exciting opportunities - if we know how to manage them. Like the Soviet Union in its final years, the anti-civil rights forces in the United States are big, scary, dangerous - and from outward appearances - well-funded and nearly invulnerable. But behind the facade is little depth and staying-power. It was Ronald Reagan who was willing to stand firm on principles, develop the plan, and expend the resources to deter aggression. He knew where he was going, and he never wavered. In the face of such resolve, an already weakened Soviet Union folded. Arming to deter aggression ultimately served non-violence. History can repeat itself, but it will take our leadership, effort, and resolve: The anti-civil rights forces in this country will continue to advance if we let them. But their flaws are more apparent. It's not for nothing that Rush Limbaugh became a millionaire. The absurdity of the opposition is their Achilles heel. The credible scholarly data is on our side, and they know it. Much like the N.A.A.C.P. during the first half of this century, we are many people, with many different interests, doing many different things, but all for common civil rights goals. It is in our interest to pull as many people into the effort as we can. Our plan must be long-term in orientation, large-scale in perspective, and inclusive in its execution. We must bring as many allies as possible into the effort. Most important, it must clearly state what we are for - not against - to help us gain the initiative. Then we must implement - with an ongoing policy of always seeking the initiative. The job isn't easy - but it is simple if we keep our heads and work together. If we do, there is reason for optimism. Despite the day-to-day media trash, there is an underlying wisdom, goodness, and strength among the people of this country. They are ready to hear our message. It is our job - our responsibility - to manage and deliver it effectively. Civil rights, at a minimum, includes the right to defend your life - and the lives of your babies. If it saves one life, it's worth it! - so - Let's do it for the children-! ----- Bob Heinritz is an honors graduate in management and law, and a member of the Bar of the states of Arizona, Illinois, and Missouri. He is a former trial lawyer, and now a business attorney and management consultant, specializing in strategic planning, productivity, and business turnarounds. JPFO would like to thank its membership for their loyal support. For without our membership, alerts as this would not be possible. Please consider joining JPFO today. Membership information is available on our web site. ************************************************************** Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Chris W. Stark - JPFO Director of Electronic Communications 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53207 Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 e-mail: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership." ************************************************************** TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: subscribe@JPFO.org ..and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". ************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ABA001@aol.com Subject: Blue Wolfe howls his last Date: 31 Jan 1998 01:00:03 EST It is with deep sadness and a loss for words that I bring this news to you. I was informed earlier this evening that LoboAzul passed away from us yesterday afternoon. I am told that he had a massive heart attack while in front of his computer. Respects can be paid at: Buffington Funeral Home Yoakum, TX Sun. from 1 till 9 and Mon. all day. More information is available from: Tim Richard 915-267-6658 cajunaussie@xroadstx.com I hope one of you can find more eloquent words than I, to post for those not fortunate enough to have known Jim Bohan on a more personal basis. Jim would have told all of us to throw back a few cold ones for him, and to move on. It may take more than a few. We have lost a great fighter, a dedicated campaigner, a true present day PATRIOT! Goodbye Lobo, GOD speed. Al Alcock - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: How an ordinary American can become "a security risk" Date: 31 Jan 1998 09:11:29 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- #Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:05:17 -0500 #From: John Young #To: cypherpunks@toad.com #Subject: Why This List Is A Security Risk Setting policy on national security risk for the entire USG, the DoD proclaims a trustworthy person does not engage in the following: Sec. 147.14 Guideline L--Outside activities. (a) The concern. Involvement in certain types of outside employment or activities is of security concern if it poses a conflict with an individual's security responsibilities and could create an increased risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information. (b) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include any service, whether compensated, volunteer, or employment with: (1) A foreign country; (2) Any foreign national; (3) A representative of any foreign interest; (4) Any foreign, domestic, or international organization or person engaged in analysis, discussion, or publication of material on intelligence, defense, foreign affairs, or protected technology. ----- >From 32 CFR Part 147 published today. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Blue Wolfe howls his last Date: 31 Jan 1998 10:12:54 -0600 Al Alcock gave us the sad news: >It is with deep sadness and a loss for words that I bring this news to you. > >I was informed earlier this evening that LoboAzul passed away from us >yesterday afternoon. I am told that he had a massive heart attack while in >front of his computer. He howls yet in our memories. He died at his post. God speed you to you rest, Lobo; we shall remember you when we have won this, our fight. You will be sorely missed. With great respect, Neil Dickey - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Blue Wolfe howls his last Date: 31 Jan 1998 07:48:20 -0700 Al, [...] I was informed earlier this evening that LoboAzul passed away from us yesterday afternoon. [...] What say, the warrier, who in his heart knows all manner of grief, sorrow, sadness? To look at today, and see tomorrow, and know there will be happeness. We here, saw his pain, and saw his fight; we here knew the words he spoke were true, were right, and measured ourselves in his light. No warrier dies in vein, and none can really know his pain, but we who live on can for ourselves, sustain his efforts, and turn his dreams into reality. Though our size now be numerically smaller, by our efforts and his knowledge, we can be intellectually taller. He has passed to that other place, let us pick up his standard and maintain our pace. If we look back, let us always see, the ole Blue Wolf prodding us on, to victory. Later, Jim. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: How an ordinary American can become "a security risk" Date: 31 Jan 1998 09:00:20 -0700 Brad, [...] Setting policy on national security risk for the entire USG, the DoD proclaims a trustworthy person does not engage in the following: Sec. 147.14 Guideline L--Outside activities. [...] Oh well, guess I'm not trustworthy anymore. I work for a corporation which does all of those things, and I do some on a daily basis for the corporation. But then, I'm retired from all that! screwit! ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jaspar Subject: Re: Blue Wolfe howls his last Date: 31 Jan 1998 09:26:09 -0700 >I hope one of you can find more eloquent words than I, to post for those not >fortunate enough to have known Jim Bohan on a more personal basis. It's hard to be eloquent when one is so shocked and saddened. Last week, I snail-mailed Jim a copy of our local (So. CA) newsletter, because I respected his opinion, and wanted his feedback. On Wed., 1/28, he wrote back: "Got it, today. Nice work. The cover is particularly effective." I needed that encouragement, and he was always there to give it. Always. Above all, for me, Jim was a superb mentor. Whenever I posted or wrote, I'd ask myself, "What will Lobo think of this?" Jim kept me focused, because he was so bright, and his standards were so high. Well, I know that Jim's still looking over my shoulder, from where he is now, and he's telling all of us to give 'em hell. What a man, what a patriot. My God, he will be sorely missed. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Blue Wolfe howls his last (fwd) Date: 31 Jan 1998 09:55:38 PST A sorrowful Duty indeed to pass along this news. Having earned the respect of us all in his various ways, he will be sorely missed. Aside from all the reasons we all have to miss him, he's the only person besides myself that I know of, who could use playing cards like shuriken, so our fellow Martial Artists have an extra reason to miss him, as he can no longer pass along a rare art. There are others who will miss him too. Some of you may recall him as co-founder of DF8, the De-Foley-ate Congress movement, that ousted House Speaker Tom Foley, with Richard L. Hartman, or again with Richard, the co-founder of the NoBan list, (noban@mainstream.com). In any case, one of the gallant ones is gone. EYES RIGHT!!!!! Review friends, troops long past review. . . . . TAPS cajunaussi@xroadstx.com, rlh@comtch.iea.com It is with deep sadness and a loss for words that I bring this news to you. I was informed earlier this evening that LoboAzul passed away from us yesterday afternoon. I am told that he had a massive heart attack while in front of his computer. Respects can be paid at: Buffington Funeral Home Yoakum, TX Sun. from 1 till 9 and Mon. all day. More information is available from: Tim Richard 915-267-6658 cajunaussie@xroadstx.com I hope one of you can find more eloquent words than I, to post for those not fortunate enough to have known Jim Bohan on a more personal basis. Jim would have told all of us to throw back a few cold ones for him, and to move on. It may take more than a few. We have lost a great fighter, a dedicated campaigner, a true present day PATRIOT! Goodbye Lobo, GOD speed. Al Alcock -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Tucson School District Hosts Anti-American group (fwd) Date: 31 Jan 1998 22:17:23 PST On Jan 31, Jo wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Forwarded from education loop: >>Hi All, >>Our local school district has rented out a high school and has invited >>speakers from the Chicano Moratorium Committee and M.e.ch.a. to speak to >>High school students. This weekend 5000 members of this group and >>Mexican nationals (from Nogales-Sonora)will be marching though the city >>of Tucson. The march is in protest over "the day the United States Stole >>our land" this Saturday marks 150 years since the treaty of Guadeloupe >>Hidalgo was signed. The newspaper that was handed out in classrooms has >>a full page picture of Che and the pages are riddled with anti-american >>slogans like "capitalist pigs" "White Gringo slave owners" and on and >>on. Below is a brochure that was handed out. All of the literature >>clearly promotes communism. read on! >> >>URGENT INFORMATION - >>TUCSON SCHOOL DISTRICT HOSTS ANTI-AMERICAN DEMONSTRATION >> >>Dear Fellow Concerned Citizens, Parents, Legislators, Educators, Members >> >>of the Press and Friends, >> >>Within the last week or so it has been brought to my attention that our >>school district (TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT) will be playing host to >> >>a march and rally by the Hispanic group called M.E.Ch.A. and organized >>by the National Chicano Moratorium Committee. These groups have been >>identified as the "radical" fringe of the Hispanic Community and have >>demonstrated in their own writings that they advocate the overthrow of >>the United States government. On January 31st 1998 at PUEBLO High school >> >>3500 S. 12th Tucson, Arizona, these radicals will be meeting at Tax >>Payer expense, on School property, to protest 150 years of U.S. >>Occupation of their lands. Not only is this a slap in the face to all of >> >>the citizens that have fought to defend our country but it appears to be >> >>a violation of TITLE 18 of the U.S. code concerning ANTI-AMERICAN >>Activities (which is a felony). It must also be noted that these groups >>are also being funded and endorsed by the school district as a drop out >>prevention tool. Does this really belong in our schools? I have typed in >> >>the exact text of the brochure which was obtained from Pueblo High >>School. If you have any other questions please e-mail me. >>-------------------------------------------------------- >>February 2, 1848:The Day the United States Stole Our Land >>RAZA MARCH AGAINST 150 years of U.S. Occupation >> >>MARCH AND RALLY >>JANUARY 31, 1998 >>10 a.m. Pueblo High School 3500 S. 12th >>Tucson, Arizona >> >>February 2 1998 marks 150 years of U.S. Yankee invasion and the >>anniversary of the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo. This treaty was signed >>to end the war of aggression against the Mexican people by the U.S. >>Government and which robbed over half of Mexican National territory. >>This treaty, which has never been respected by the U.S. Government, >>converted Mexicanos living on this land into second class citizens, For >>this reason February 2, 1998 will be a national day of resistance for >>the people of Mexico. >> >>Somos un Pueblo - Sin Fronteras! >> >>DEMANDS: >>*Rescind the Immigration Reform Law >>*Demilitarization of the Border >>*The Abolition of the Border Patrol >>*End the U.S. Intervention in Mexico >>*End the Militarization of Mexico by the PRI-PAN Government >>Cancellation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) >>*Freedom for all Political Prisoners >> >>To all RAZA who believe in our people's right to self-determination and >>our right to be on our own land, come to Tucson and unite with RAZA >>Power. >>-Organized by the national Chicano Moratorium Committee. >>For More Info: (619) 696-9804 or (520) 498-9405 >> >> >>-- >>Steve Goss >> >>Arizona Parents for Traditional Education >>http://www.theriver.com/Public/tucson_parents_edu_forum/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- -