From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #44 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, January 12 1998 Volume 02 : Number 044 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:32:58 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Harry, I could not agree more. -Boyd - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:32:58 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) Harry, I could not agree more. -Boyd - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 98 12:39:48 PST From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) 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 | - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:23:04 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) 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 - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:41:46 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) 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 - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:46:46 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Navy Brass Suspect Missile (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 16:22:31 -0500 From: Ian Goddard To: libernet-d@listserv.prodigy.com Subject: Navy Brass Suspect Missile 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 - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 98 18:35:51 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:47:02 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) 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 - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 12:01:18 -0500 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: FLASH - IMPORTANT - Sweeney Update >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. > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 07:06:20 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Washington State Top Court Rejects Term Limits (fwd) 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 - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:09:32 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Clinton and Perot - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: jim hofmann Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:29:21 -0400 Subject: CAS: Clinton and Perot conspired against Bush in '92? 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 From: "M. Taylor" Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 10:35:51 -0500 Subject: CAS: Re: Clinton and Perot conspired against Bush in '92? 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. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:19:10 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Oklahoma bomb - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- - ------------------------------ From: "Allan J. Favish" Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 09:20:08 -0800 Subject: CAS: Bomb Grand Jury to Hear 'Major Surprises' 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. - - --------------1B2B8264E56-- =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From: Bill Nalty Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 16:08:01 -0600 Subject: CAS: OT: Torments that will not end - Why Terry Nichols escaped ex= 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 - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #44 ************************