From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #40 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, January 7 1998 Volume 02 : Number 040 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 98 00:36:42 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [Fwd: FW: Internet with the meter running] (fwd) 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. Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 18:35:15 -0800 Reply-To: psc@u.washington.edu Sender: PSC-owner@u.washington.edu From: Ron Armstrong To: "Puget Sound Conservatives" Subject: FW: Internet with the meter running 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:40:51 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Supreme Court rules for our side.. - ---------- 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 -- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 16:42:21 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: RE: "Texas Court Ruling - A Setback for NWO Globalism..." (TiM GW Bulletin 98/1-3, 1/05/98). (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 13:08:45 -0700 From: Bob Djurdjevic Reply-To: act@efn.org To: timed@djurdjevic.com Subject: RE: "Texas Court Ruling - A Setback for NWO Globalism..." (TiM GW Bulletin 98/1-3, 1/05/98). 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) - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 17:58:10 -0500 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Sweeney Press Release! >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 > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 09:24:43 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Filegate Footdragging/Are we as free as we ought to be? - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: gcruse@worldnet.att.net (Gary Cruse) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 07:46:48 GMT Subject: CAS: Lambeth Tackles Filegate Footdragging 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. ========================================================================== From: tmulkern@mail.ameritel.net (Trent C Mulkern) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 05:43:39 -0500 Subject: CAS: As Free As We Ought To Be? Investor's Business Daily As Free As We Ought To Be? Date: 1/6/98 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 - ------------------------------ - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 11:08:49 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: Internet with the meter running] (fwd) 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 - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 14:18:34 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Does this mean the Pope supports Communism? - ---------- 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. _________________________________________________________________ - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 19:50:41 -0600 From: jim bohan Subject: Clinton issues edict 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?" - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 21:38:09 -0600 From: jim bohan Subject: first a democrat runs into a tree, then a republican. If I was Ross Perot I'd move to the sahara desert. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 07:45:18 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: New Pro-Gun Web Site to Visit (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 23:43:26 -0500 (EST) From: cyrano@ix.netcom.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: New Pro-Gun Web Site to Visit 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. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 09:06:39 -0500 From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Re: 4TH AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK >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 = ============================================================= - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 08:43:19 -0600 (CST) From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Fwd: National Park Service runs amok (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 19:18:04 -0500 (EST) From: cyrano@ix.netcom.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Fwd: National Park Service runs amok - ------Begin forward message------------------------- Subject: Re: The power of the 'net 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. - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #40 ************************