From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #130 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Sunday, May 10 1998 Volume 02 : Number 130 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:13:31 -0400 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) >Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 09:01:24 -0800 >From: Jon Roland >Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) >To: misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net >X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] > >There are two basic issues involved with the "missing 13th amendment". The >first is how many states were required to ratify it, and was it ratified by a >sufficient number. The second is what is included in "titles of nobility". > >If 3/4 of the states admitted at the time the amendment is proposed are >sufficient to ratify the amendment, then it was probably ratified, although >without the evidence of legislative action in the Virginia legislature we can >probably never prove it. > >However, some reflection should satisfy the scholar that the number of states >required to ratify an amendment must increase as the number of states admitted >increases. On this principle, the missing 13th was almost certainly not >ratified. If we do not grant the principle, then we could have the absurd >situation of the second of the original proposed 12 amendments, proposed in >1789, and ratified by 3/4 of the then admitted states in 1992, being >ratifiable 203 years later by only 10 of the original 13 states, but binding >on all the rest of them, without their consent. > >The second question concerns what is "nobility", and whether a mere "title" is >the operative term, or whether the constitution, and the missing 13th, >prohibits the substance of "nobility" even if no "title" is involved. > >First, let us dispose of the notion that "lawyer" or "attorney" or "esquire" >is a "title of nobility". It is not, simply considered as a title. Considering >that most of the members of Congress in 1810, when the missing 13th was >adopted by Congress, were themselves lawyers, it is hardly likely that they >intended to terminate their citizenship or deny themselves the right to hold >office. "Esquire" is an affectation by lawyers, and was never more than a >title of "dignity", not "nobility". > >On the other hand, a case can be made that what was of concern to the Framers >was the substance of nobility and not the mere title of it. If so, then any >class of persons on whom is conferred the privileges and immunities associated >with nobility constitutes the substance of what the Constitution prohibits, >and that therefore what is prohibited is the conferring of such privileges and >immunities on anyone. > >Now, clearly the conferring of some privileges and immunities is permissible. >It is part of the normal functions of government. So the question is, what >kinds or degrees of privilege or immunity is contemplated as prohibited. >Clearly, it is the privilege to abuse the rights of others, combined with the >immunity from prosecution or civil claims therefor. > >Can we identify any class of person who might fit that definition? >Unfortunately, it appears that we can. "Law enforcement official" is beginning >to cross the line into that realm, not as a matter law, perhaps, but as a >matter of established practice. > >--Jon > >=================================================================== >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 05/10/98 Time: 09:01:25 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=================================================================== > > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:18:53 -0400 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Fw: ComLaw> Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) >Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 11:13:29 -0800 >From: Jon Roland >Subject: Fw: ComLaw> Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) >To: misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net >X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] > > > >------------------------ > From: Gary Hunt > Subject: ComLaw> Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) > Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 10:37:28 -0700 > > >This response by Jon Roland was to a recent post to the list. It was >posted on another list and is being responded to at both lists. Gary >Hunt, Outpost of Freedom > >Jon Roland wrote: >> >> There are two basic issues involved with the "missing 13th amendment". The >> first is how many states were required to ratify it, and was it ratified by >a >> sufficient number. The second is what is included in "titles of nobility". > >History bears out the original intent and application being such. see >http:///www/illusions.com/opf/HH02.htm >> >> If 3/4 of the states admitted at the time the amendment is proposed are >> sufficient to ratify the amendment, then it was probably ratified, although >> without the evidence of legislative action in the Virginia legislature we >can >> probably never prove it. > > This depends upon what you deem "proof". For someone to say, now, that >publication (found, of all those old law books) by so many could >possibly have been in error, is ludicrous. As far as Virginia, her own >actions, in the absence of the records of the period, should suffice. >James Monroe sent a letter to South Carolina and Virginia asking whether >they had ratified the Titles of Nobility Amendment. South Carolina >responded by that she had not ratified. Virginia, on the other hand, >responded indirectly by publishing the Titles of Nobility Amendment in >"Acts passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia -- >1819". > Now, in today's understanding (misunderstanding) of the relationship >of the federal to the state, and vise versa, we would think that there >was an obligation to notify the federal of ratification or refusal. >Remember, however, that there was disdain for federal authority in most >states in 1819. So, what proscribed act would be necessary? From a May >17, 1994 report from the National Archives to "NN", in response to an >oral request, "The Acting Archivist has no authority to determine, as a >matter of law, whether any amendment, including the Titles of Nobility >amendment, is actually a part of the Constitution." There is no function >of federal government which has the authority to rule on such matters. >Instead, it is left to the States, themselves, to accept ratification -- >which they did until well after the later stages of life or death of >those involved in its ratification. >> >> However, some reflection should satisfy the scholar that the number of states >> required to ratify an amendment must increase as the number of states admitted >> increases. On this principle, the missing 13th was almost certainly not >> ratified. If we do not grant the principle, then we could have the absurd >> situation of the second of the original proposed 12 amendments, proposed in >> 1789, and ratified by 3/4 of the then admitted states in 1992, being >> ratifiable 203 years later by only 10 of the original 13 states, but binding >> on all the rest of them, without their consent. > >Again, I refer you to http://www.illusions.com/opf/HH02.htm. Until the >Civil War, there is no doubt as to the proper application of the >Constitutional provision. Not being a participant in the "submittal" >portion of the process denied a state the authority to participate in >the ratification process. Now, after the Civil War, and after the >Congressional Act in 1988 which granted the Office of Legal Counsel >(OLC) the authority to make such determinations. > >> >> The second question concerns what is "nobility", and whether a mere "title" is >> the operative term, or whether the constitution, and the missing 13th, >> prohibits the substance of "nobility" even if no "title" is involved. > >Similar to the question of who decides if something has been ratified, >we are posed with: What does Titles of Nobility" Mean. This is a >difficult question, since the application of the meaning has been lost >with disuse. Is it possible that Section I, article 9 & 10 prohibitions >against the federal or state government's granting Titles of Nobility >was out of fear that the legislatures of either would "crown" someone a >prince, or even king? Again, we must look top the past to find what was >intended by the phrase. > > The Alabama Supreme Court gives us the best indication in an 1872 >case. The Court, in "Horst v. Moses", 48 Alabama 129, 142 (1872) gave >the following description of a title of nobility: > >To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to >whom privileges are granted at the >expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and >the objection to it rises more from >the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title >or order. These components are >forbidden separately in the terms "privilege", "honor", and >"emoluments", as they are collectively in the >term "title of nobility". The prohibition is not affected by any >consideration paid or rendered for the grant. > > >> >> First, let us dispose of the notion that "lawyer" or "attorney" or "esquire" >> is a "title of nobility". It is not, simply considered as a title. Considering >> that most of the members of Congress in 1810, when the missing 13th was >> adopted by Congress, were themselves lawyers, it is hardly likely that they >> intended to terminate their citizenship or deny themselves the right to hold >> office. "Esquire" is an affectation by lawyers, and was never more than a >> title of "dignity", not "nobility". > >Lawyer or Attorney is not the issue. There is a very string distinction >between lawyer (which I am often referred to as being) and Bar attorney. >Let's just consider why the Supreme Courts of all of the states I have >looked in to DO NOT license lawyers. They can't under Articles 9 & 10, >mentioned above. Instead, and to circumvent the Constitution, they >recognize a private association, known as the Bar Association, to grant >membership to those who meet their (the Bar association) requirements >for membership -- and discipline, to make the determination as to who >might represent another before the courts of the government. > >Now, Jon, you made a statement that many of those "most" members of >Congress were lawyers. First, I think you err, unless you consider that >they were lawyers secondary to the primary vocation. Second, they were >not members of the "Bar", rather, they were "Lettered in the Law" -- a >far cry from the current state of affairs. Consider, also, that it was >considered improper to receive payment for representing an accused in >court. > >> >> On the other hand, a case can be made that what was of concern to the Framers >> was the substance of nobility and not the mere title of it. If so, then any >> class of persons on whom is conferred the privileges and immunities associated >> with nobility constitutes the substance of what the Constitution prohibits, >> and that therefore what is prohibited is the conferring of such privileges and >> immunities on anyone. >> >> Now, clearly the conferring of some privileges and immunities is permissible. >> It is part of the normal functions of government. So the question is, what >> kinds or degrees of privilege or immunity is contemplated as prohibited. >> Clearly, it is the privilege to abuse the rights of others, combined with the >> immunity from prosecution or civil claims therefor. >> >> Can we identify any class of person who might fit that definition? >> Unfortunately, it appears that we can. "Law enforcement official" is beginning >> to cross the line into that realm, not as a matter law, perhaps, but as a >> matter of established practice. > >There is no doubt the "law enforcement officers" (LEO) and even their >dogs, have become a privileged class which would be prohibited under the >Amendment. Why would the killing of an LEO (prince, etc.) provide for >capital punishment when the killing of a "People" (serf or subject) >would not, under the same circumstances? This is not the extent of >Titles, but is sufficient to begin to understand what the framers were >concerned with. > > >-- >Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom mailto:opf@illusions.com >http://www.illusions.com/opf & http://www.committee.org > >---------------End of Original Message----------------- > >=================================================================== >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 05/10/98 Time: 11:13:29 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=================================================================== > > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:23:24 -0400 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) >Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 11:18:45 -0800 >From: Jon Roland >Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) >To: misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net >X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] > > > >------------------------ > From: Gary Hunt > >> Again, I refer you to http://www.illusions.com/opf/HH02.htm. Until the >> Civil War, there is no doubt as to the proper application of the >> Constitutional provision. Not being a participant in the "submittal" >> portion of the process denied a state the authority to participate in >> the ratification process. Now, after the Civil War, and after the >> Congressional Act in 1988 which granted the Office of Legal Counsel >> (OLC) the authority to make such determinations. > >One has to ask what the Founders would have understood on this question if it >had been brought up. They clearly did not anticipate that the number of states >might change between proposal and ratification. Early practice might have >simply been an accident rather than a positive position. When a new state is >admitted into the Union it constructively "receives" all the national >legislation adopted up to the date of admission, and that would include >pending amendments, without the need for a special submittal procedure. In >parliamentary procedure, if the number of members on the floor changes between >the time a motion is made and it is voted on, it is the number present and >voting at the time the vote is called that determines the decision, and this >would apply even if abstensions are counted as nays, which is what happens in >the ratification process. Likewise, if the number present and voting changes >during a roll call vote, where members absent when called have the right to >have their votes heard upon their arrival, it is the number present at the >moment the deciding vote is cast that determines the number of votes needed to >decide. > >> Let's just consider why the Supreme Courts of all of the states I have >> looked in to DO NOT license lawyers. They can't under Articles 9 & 10, >> mentioned above. Instead, and to circumvent the Constitution, they >> recognize a private association, known as the Bar Association, to grant >> membership to those who meet their (the Bar association) requirements >> for membership -- and discipline, to make the determination as to who >> might represent another before the courts of the government. > >Historically, the role of state bars to license and discipline their members >seems to have arisen not because of any constitutional prohibition, but >because laywers did not want to be regulated by non-lawyers, and had the >political clout to avoid it. > >And it appears that in some states lawyers are not licensed or disciplined by >their state bars, but by their supreme courts. In California there is a move >to remove the state bar from that role. > >Nor is it quite true that only lawyers can represent other persons in court. >In federal court, and in the small claims courts of Texas and some other >states, corporations can be represented by designated officers, and >historically, in criminal cases the state has sometimes been represented, as >prosecutor, by a law enforcement officer who is not a lawyer, and this >sometimes still occurs in misdemeanor cases in some states. Texas provides for >the appointment of special "pro tempore" prosecutors in criminal cases, who >could in principle be non-lawyers. > >> There is no doubt the "law enforcement officers" (LEO) and even their >> dogs, have become a privileged class which would be prohibited under the >> Amendment. Why would the killing of an LEO (prince, etc.) provide for >> capital punishment when the killing of a "People" (serf or subject) >> would not, under the same circumstances? This is not the extent of >> Titles, but is sufficient to begin to understand what the framers were >> concerned with. > >I include under "law enforcement officer" judges and prosecutors, not just >policemen. We should also include "federal agent", although they are not >officers. > >I submit that we need to raise the public awareness of government officials or >agents acquiring de facto "nobility" status, and incite protest of it. > >--Jon > >---------------End of Original Message----------------- > >=================================================================== >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 05/10/98 Time: 11:18:45 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=================================================================== > > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 98 15:38:13 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FLC 17 - Nothing Original against the War on Drugs (fwd) Some interesting thoughts on the Drug Situation from Britain's Arch Libertarian..... On May 10, Sean Gabb wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Free Life Commentary Editor: Sean Gabb Issue Number Seventeen Sunday, 10 May 1998, 2:26am ========================== "Over himself, over his own mind and body, the individual is sovereign" (J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859) ========================== Nothing New, but Still Worth Sending Out; Another 1400 Words Against Drug Prohibition by Sean Gabb I notice I have not written about drugs for several years. There is nothing in the news that prompts me to write about them now. I simply feel inclined to see how well I can express what has become a huge argument in a small number of words. And so here are my thoughts on why the sale and use of recreational drugs ought not to be illegal. Let us begin with the libertarian argument. People should be regarded as having the right to do with themselves as they please. This necessarily includes the right to do things that others think stupid or distasteful or immoral. If I want to, I have the right to join an odd religious group, and give it all my wealth; to have tattoos put all over my body, and to have parts of my body pierced in artistic ways; to devote myself to the poor in Africa; to be hung up on hooks and be flogged within an inch of my life by someone wearing a leather mask; and of course, to consume whatever mood-altering substances take my fancy. No one else automatically has the right to interfere with my choices. If you think I am doing wrong, you can persuade me. You can get down on your knees and beseech me to better behaviour. You can threaten me with exclusion from your company and that of your friends. Beyond that, you have no right to go any further, unless you can prove that what I am doing involves the use of force or fraud against another person, or that it is the sort of act - like selling defence plans to an enemy in arms - that threatens the dissolution of the entire community. Taking one's own drugs in consenting company is not an act of the first kind - it causes no one else the sort of harm against which they can legitimately demand protection. Nor is it an act of the second kind. We are told endlessly that drugs are a danger to social stability - that they lead to crime and degradation and so forth. There is no evidence for this claim. The British past provides a compelling example. Until 1920, drug use was uncontrolled. Between 1827 and 1859, British opium consumption rose from 17,000lb to 61,000lb. Workmen mixed it in their beer. Gladstone took it in his coffee before speaking. Scott wrote The Bride of Lammermoor under its influence. Dickens and Wilkie Collins were both heavy users. Cannabis and heroin were openly on sale. There was no social collapse. There were few deaths from taking drugs. Most deaths involving opium were individual accidents, and even these were negligible - excluding suicides, 104 in 1868 and thereafter to 1901 an annual average of 95. Hardly anyone even recognised that a problem might exist. The claim that drugs are bad for a society is a lie. The truth is the opposite. It is the criminalisation of drugs that is bad. All the ills that are now blamed on the availability of drugs is more accurately to be blamed on the illegality of drugs. When drugs are illegal, only criminals will supply them. And when criminals are allowed to dominate an entire market, they will be able - indeed required - to form extended, permanent structures of criminality that could never otherwise exist. They will then make drugs both expensive and dirty. They will be expensive because bribes, transport inefficiencies, rewards of special risk, and so forth, all raise the costs of bringing drugs to market. Therefore much of the begging, prostitution and street crime that inconvenience Western cities. As many as two-thirds of American muggings may be to finance drug-use. They will be dirty because illegal markets lack the usual safeguards of quality. When a can of beer is stamped "8 per cent alcohol by volume", this does not mean anything between 0.5 and 30 per cent. Nor will caustic soda be used to make it fizzy. Brewers have too much to lose by poisoning or defrauding customers. Drug dealers can afford to be less particular. Therefore frequent overdosing. Therefore poisonous additives. Therefore, the frequent transmission of aids even today by the sharing of dirty needles. Moving from the costs of the crime resulting from illegality, we come to the costs of enforcement. These also are massive. In the first place, the Police need to become a virtual Gestapo if they are to try enforcing laws that create no victim willing to complain and help in any investigation. They need powers to stop and search people and to search private homes that would never be necessary to stop things like burglary and murder. They need to get involved in entrapment schemes. They are exposed to offers of bribes frequently too large to be turned away. In one way or another, the War on Drugs leads to the corruption of every enforcement agency sent into battle. And that War cannot be won. The British Customs and Excise have no land border to worry about. They can track every boat and aeroplane that enters British territory. They have far wider powers of investigation than the regular Police. Even so, they themselves estimate that they stop less than three per cent of the drugs that are smuggled into the United Kingdom every year. In the second place, we have the war on money laundering. since it is impossible to stop the import and sale of the drugs, attention has switched in recent years to stopping the profits of the trade from being enjoyed. The idea now is to confiscate these profits and use them for further investigations. However, before the money can be taken, it must be found. This requires a tight surveillance and control over all financial transactions. Because any one of us might be a drug dealer trying to launder dirty money, we must all provide endless documentation when we open bank accounts. We are not allowed to pay in large amounts of cash - presently more than 20,000 - without facing an inquisition from the bank clerks. Our banking details are open to official inspection virtually on demand. Just as with drugs, the war on money laundering is also a war on freedom. In this case, it frees the authorities from the requirements of due process. The confiscations of alleged drug money are increasingly made without any pretence of a trial. In America, civil asset forfeiture, has become legalised theft of the plainest kind. In Britain, we are moving slowly towards a similar breach of Common Law rights. Moreover, the fact that our financial transactions can now be monitored gives the authorities an entirely new power over us. Its means of exercise are not yet in place. But we are moving fast into a world where all our purchases can be stored in a database. All of this knowledge is collected for commercial reasons - loyalty cards, for example, to let a supermarket know whether to offer us a discount on a certain brand of dog food. It can also be commandeered by the State and added to our police or medical records. We can try to avoid this surveillance by using cash. But there are experiments in both Britain and America to see how anonymous cash can be replaced by cards that leave a record of every transaction. Already, known smokers are unable to adopt children in certain areas. They have also been denied treatment under the National Health Service in a number of famous cases. Just think of a world where the authorities know exactly how many cream cakes or condoms we buy, and what magazines we read. And that is the sort of world to which the war on money laundering is taking us. Therefore, on the grounds both of individual freedom and of social utility, there is no argument whatever for continuing with the present War on Drugs. It is a War that benefits only criminals and a few drug enforcement agencies, and that harms every one of the rest of us, whether or not we take drugs. Of course, the special interests have so far prevailed; and they may within the next few years get the publication of articles like this made into the criminal offence of "sending out the wrong sort of message to young people", or whatever. But even with our controlled media, the lies cannot be kept up very much longer. This is neither a profound nor an original article. But I send it out, hoping that it will be another tiny nail in the coffin of drug prohibition. ========================== Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment, published on the Internet. To receive regular issues, send an e-mail To: old.whig@virgin.net Body: Subscribe "Free Life Commentary" Your Name - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Clickable version: Subscribe - mailto:old.whig@virgin.net?body=Subscribe%20FL-Commentary - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Issues are archived at Contact Address: 25 Chapter Chambers Esterbrooke Street London, SW1P 4NN Telephone: 0956 472 199 If you like Free Life Commentary, you may also care to subscribe to my longer, hard copy journal, Free Life, subscription details for which can be obtained by writing to me at the above address. Legal Notice: Though using the name Free Life, this journal is owned by me and not by the Libertarian Alliance, which in consequence bears no liability of whatever kind for the contents. - -- Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own | E-mail: old.whig@virgin.net | mind and body, the individual| | is sovereign" | Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 | [------------------------- 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: Sun, 10 May 98 15:39:12 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #84 (fwd) On May 10, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia May 10, 1998 #84 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://www.jollytax.org/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html - --------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMOCRATS DEFEND CROOKS Who shall be our champion of justice? Apparently, no one. No matter what level of political squabbling we hear coming from D.C., the law, as inflicted on us serf citizens, obviously does not apply to the members of the protected class in Washington. Unless there's an independent counsel around, that is. Last week, Rep. Dan Burton played the political talk show route reporting on the obstruction of justice (and Congress) by the Democrats. Burton took the badgering by the liberal talking heads in stride and made some good points -- particularly that there are 92 Clinton cronies who have either taken the fifth or fled the country. The TV talking heads accused him of editing the Webb Hubbell prison tapes. "Release all the tapes," the Clinton surrogates repeated in a well-rehearsed chorus. Burton did. Now they're complaining about that. There was a big sign above that jail house telephone Hubbell used to talk with his wife and others. It informs all telephone users that their conversations are being recorded. Hubbell was a sneak thief, a crook, a felon. That's why he was in prison. That's why he needed to be watched. And that's why he knew he was being watched. So, shall we believe this past chief justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, partner in the Rose Law Firm and number three man in the Justice Department is stupid? No, he's a crook. He's not stupid. He knew his conversations were being recorded. He knew the Clinton White House would be scanning those tapes. Therefore, he played to that audience. And, as the Washington Times editorialized on May 6 about Social-Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman's antics in defending the criminal class in the administration: "Exactly what part of Hubbell's declaration, 'So, I need to roll over one more time,' does Mr. Waxman not understand?" Hubbell owed a couple hundred thousand dollars in back taxes on the money he stole from his partners and clients at Rose. Yet, when he pulled in $700,000 the year before going to prison, he only paid $30,000 of it in income tax. His excuse? They needed the money to pay bills. Actually, they also needed it for fancy vacations, housekeepers, new expensive clothing, and generally to maintain the lifestyle for which they had become accustomed while ripping off all that money at the Rose Law Firm. The sorry point is that, were it not for Starr's investigation, the Hubbell's would have gotten away with that income tax fraud. Now Hubbell is using Susan McDougal's script. Starr wants him to lie about the Clintons, he says. Funny thing is that both Hubbell's and McDougal's lawyers are playing from the same script, too. We also expect both attorneys to get the same results for their clients: prison. Others in the Dixie Mafia got nailed, too. Charles C. Owen, Hubbell's friend, and a veteran Little Rock tax lawyer, was indicted in Washington for helping the Hubbells pay next-to-nothing in income taxes on three quarters of a million bucks. Funny thing, too; last week Owen conducted an Arkansas Bar Association seminar in Little Rock on "ethical considerations in tax and business matters." The seminar, as was reported, had special emphasis on "the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion." The Arkansas Bar Association advertises Owen thusly: "His practice focuses primarily in the areas of advising businesses in corporate and partnership income tax planning and individuals in wealth preservation, income, estate and gift tax planning with emphasis on legal strategies to preserve assets from lawsuits, creditors' claims and taxation." Now folks, we know there are some honest people in Arkansas. There must be! It's just that things look really bad for that state right now. They let Bill Clinton teach Constitutional law, Joycelyn Elders teach medicine, Hillary Clinton become a partner in a major law firm, and made Webb Hubbell Chief Justice of their Supreme Court. Then there's the drug running at Mena Airport, massive money laundering, a long series of untimely deaths associated with Clinton, flimflam land deals, and massive bank and S&L fraud. Yup. Just your typical Democrat controlled little State. Incidentally, anyone interested can listen to the Hubbell tapes. They are posted at: http://www.cspan.org/guide/executive/investigation/hubbell.htm and http://www.audionet.com/news/hubbelltapes/ BOTH NEGLIGENT AND CRIMINAL One famous quote from 19th century Supreme Court Justice John Marshall states, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." That is exactly what Congress did, too: It used the power to tax to totally and completely disgrace the Constitution for the United States. Many of today's Lords and Ladies of The Hill try to act surprised and outraged when told in hearings that the Internal Revenue Service uses fear as its main tactic against the American public. They act like they didn't know the IRS uses military-like assault teams to break into unsuspecting citizen's homes. And they would have us believe that they are not aware the IRS makes it a practice to hound innocent Americans into forking over money they do not owe, just so IRS collection reports will look good. This smells even worse than the wet manure I spread out back yesterday! Every Member of Congress was informed of these very common illegal IRS tactics thousands of times by their constituents. No Member of Congress acted on these atrocities because they chose not to act. Simply put, Congress did not care. Worse yet, Congress changes the tax law every year, causing there to be so much poorly written income tax law that not even the tax attorneys in the IRS understand it all. Then Congress gave the IRS a high profile police position in the "war on drugs." Now, the current tax bill in Congress has at least 100 more changes in the law to "help" the American public. When will this foolishness end? In the last Senate hearings, specific questions were asked but never answered. For instance, one IRS collection officer actually stole over 20 automobiles from the government. Yet, the man was not prosecuted or even fired. Nor would the IRS give his name when asked. The Senate committee, with their typical lack of cojones, dropped the issue. It was reported that IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti "inspected" the New York office. IRS examiner Maureen O'Dwyer testified that senior managers in her office carefully controlled what Rossotti was able to see: "As the commissioner watched and listened, selected employees told of great accomplishments. Hidden in the back rooms was the ineptness and discord." O'Dwyer and others testified that they have heard IRS managers say that reforms ordered by Congress don't mean a thing. And it's true. For instance, the IRS still uses collection quotas for promotions. The whole culture in the IRS, starting from the top on down, is rotten. There is no fix available for that mess. Senators Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Connie Mack (R-FL) suggested that the only way to change that oppressive culture would be to fire the executives. Rossotti refused, saying instead that it will take years to change, and require continuing help from Congress. So, Congress gave the IRS executives a big raise (to $175,000). Rossotti, evidently, has no intention of changing anything anytime soon. Congress can, though. Easily. Last week, we described the "deprivation of rights under color of law" law (18 USC 242): "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both . . ." All Congress need do is to pass a bill stating that all public servants must honor every section of the Constitution and respect all rights and liberties of the people while enforcing any law, rule regulation or executive order. No exceptions. Period. Violation should require mandatory prison time. Who's the idiot saying the tax man has a general search warrant? Lest anyone forget, the issuing of general search warrants was one of the main reasons we had a revolutionary war. That is why the procedure is unconstitutional today. So, who's the idiot who gave the IRS unconstitutional powers? Congress, that's who. And they can fix it with one simple bill. Any enforcement officer or bureaucrat of any branch of government who violates the rights of a citizen should go to prison. And, while we're thinking about idiots: The IRS spent many billions of taxpayer's dollars on a new computer system that does not work. Finally they admitted it. It will never work. They wasted billions of dollars. Yet, no one was ever fired for this incompetent negligence. Worse yet, these rocket scientists at the IRS didn't even know that we have a century change coming up. Their computers will not work after January 30, 1999. Breaks my heart. So, what is Congress' fix for all these problems? Congress is going to give the IRS an $18-Billion raise for modernization. Only in government. For more on the IRS, the new bill, and other such foolishness, visit the Senate Committee on Finance web page at: http://www.senate.gov/~finance/fin-pres.htm Hint: Keep sharp objects and guns away from the desk while reading. SECRET COURTS, DESTROY RIGHTS The acts of Jimmy Carter still prey on the American people. Add Clinton's propensity for issuing oppressive executive orders, and together they managed to trash the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Back in 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That gave federal agents authority to secretly bug any individual suspected of, or knowing someone suspected of, being an agent of a hostile foreign government. Today, potential terrorists, or those who may know or have contact with potential terrorists, are included. In other words, the targeted person need not be suspected of any crime. This secret spying on American citizens is handled by secret federal agents, authorized by warrants issued by a secret federal FISA court and both the procedure and the results are, of course, secret. It gets better, though. Clinton's Executive Order 12949 gives the secret FISA court authority to approve black-bag operations, and allows the Department of Justice to conduct physical, as well as electronic, searches -- without first obtaining a warrant in open court. Nor would they have to notify the subject, or provide an inventory of items seized. That's secret. Actually, this secret FISA court is more or less the court of last resort for federal agents. That is, when federal agents don't have Constitutional basis to obtain a warrant in a real court, they go to the secret court. Because, unlike regular courts, there is no requirement for probable cause for FISA judges to issue a wide-sweeping surveillance authorization against a citizen, or group of citizens, of the United States. And, issue they do. The secret court has cooperated 100% of the time so far. The court, conveniently located on the 6th Floor at the Department of Justice Building, has approved over 10,000 requests for surveillance since 1978. According to records provided to Congress, it never turned down a request to snoop. In 1995, 581 such surveillance and bugging operations requests were honored by all federal judges throughout the country. The secret FISA judges issued another 697. And remember, these are wide reaching surveillance and bugging operations, in that they include any and all associates of the "targets," as well as their relatives and casual contacts. Because of its "special" status, this court need not honor the Fourth Amendment. But it gets worse yet. Suspects charged in this court are not normally allowed to see any of the information gathered on them. Neither are their lawyers. How that works is also secret. The only information that the Department of Justice is required to give to Congressional oversight committees is the number of applications approved. Not even the members of the intelligence subcommittees are allowed to review any secret court cases, or any information at all, evidently. So, there you have it: A secret federal court that authorizes secret black bag jobs and secret wide- spread surveillance and bugging operations, produces secret reports, holds secret trials, and keeps court records secret. Apparently the Constitution and its first ten amendments must be secret from this court. Because, they certainly do not honor any of them. Nor do the judges get anywhere near honoring their oath of office. And, as usual, Congress is negligent. Instead of providing oversight, Congress passed those oppressive anti-terrorist bills. The anti-terrorist bills in turn gave the secret court more secret powers (and more reasons to use them) to allow federal agents to operate secretly against the American people. None of this is Constitutional, by any stretch of the imagination. But then, not much that happens in Washington is Constitutional anymore. GOOD vs. EVIL Let's put the current political squabbles into proper prospective: If our Constitution, as written and explained to us by the Founding Fathers, is good, what then would be the reverse of that coin? If the elected officials in our representative republic are elected to government to represent their constituents, what then shall we call those in office who represent other interests to the detriment of their electors? Evil can loosely be defined as something that is morally bad or wrong. Is breaking the law morally bad or wrong? Is supporting those who break the law morally bad or wrong? There's a little soul searching to be done here, folks; and that's a personal thing, so don't look for the ultimate answers here. You decide. We only provide information. We know that the labor unions laundered millions of illegal dollars into the last campaign cycle. Something like $35-million was used to present the Social-Democrat's position to the American public -- a position totally foreign to the expressed intent of the Founding Fathers of our nation. Furthermore, nearly a third of Congress received the bulk of their campaign funds from union associated groups. Is it any wonder, then, that the sparks are flying in Congress when committees investigate illegal money laundering by these groups? What we are seeing is that two thirds of the Democrats in Congress are publicly defending an ongoing criminal enterprise. Both Clinton and Gore (and at least a dozen of their aids) were involved in this very same criminal enterprise, as was nearly half of Congress in some way. No wonder, then, that the Democratic Party members are upset. They can't really get out of it, either. Some of the union activists most involved in illegally laundering money to the Democrats already pled guilty in open court. They also promised to cooperate in exchange for mercy. There were millions of illegal dollars laundered into campaign funds from the communist Chinese, too. A couple dozen Congressional Democrats already publicly pled guilty to receiving that money. Of course, they are the protected class and so were not prosecuted for receiving the illegal campaign donations. Rather, as a public relations gimmick, some of them returned some of the illegal funds. "Some" of them returned "some" of it. A major function of the federal government is the protection of the people of the United States. Yet, Clinton and Gore, with the acquiescence of many Democrats in Congress, gave communist Chinese access to top secret ICBM nuclear missile technology for use against us. Now, huge nuclear missiles are again pointed at many of our cities. If it is morally bad or wrong to support known criminal activity, what then shall we think of the national media? They are in full assault of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, Rep. Dan Burton and others investigating wrongdoing. That is most evident in the recent media support for Susan McDougal and Webster Hubbell, two convicted sneak thieves. The national media bashes the investigators and protects the perpetrators in the White House and Congress. Should we accept that? You will have to decide which of these acts are good and which are evil. It's time to sort it out. But, whatever your personal determination may be, please act on it. Changes must be made. Now is the time to force the issue. - ----------------------------- Just as an aside here: Last week, we recommended that everyone send a simple postcard of support to Rep. Dan Burton. This week, KSFO Radio (San Francisco) morning talk show hosts Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan are suggesting that listeners put a buck in an envelope and send it to Burton as a show of grass roots support for his investigation, and to counter the vicious anti-Burton campaign of the Clinton Crime Syndicate. The response is said to be quite good. One report states that Congressman Burton has called the Lee Rodgers show twice and sent a personal e-mail to thank him. He indicated that they are getting a lot of "Bucks for Burton" and they are quite overwhelmed by the expressions of support. FOX NEWS CHANNEL LET US DOWN By: Craig Brown -- for Heads Up I wish someone would explain Fox to me. Rupert Murdoch is the antithesis of Ted (who am I?) Turner. The Fox News Channel was trumpeted as the great alternative, the Populist News Channel to answer the cries of the millions upon millions of Americans, lately known as the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Fox would be the network that would lay bare and let the sun shine on the festering treason of our current administration and the Congress that has abandoned its duty to the people. It was to be all of this and had Fox kept its promise, it would have been rewarded with a following unheard of in this age of communication. So what happened? Rather than fulfill its promise, Fox News dropped into lock step with the other Administration lackeys. They competed with them for the best coverage of Monica Lewinsky while ignoring the treasonous payback to China for its help to the Clinton campaign fund. While Fox devoted itself to Monica watching, Mr. Clinton quietly signed Executive Orders designed to strip away our Constitutional rights. With the Fox Network, Mr. Murdoch has an opportunity to make a great difference in the salvation of this country. The shame . . . the utter shame . . . lies in not using it. - ----------------------------- Note: For more on the socialist-supporting antics of the liberal national media, visit The Media Research Center web page often. The site is located at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/ THE MASTERS MUST CONTROL The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, an alliance of consumer, health, safety and insurance groups who work on highway and auto safety issues is after us again. And, sure enough, they want government to pass even more oppressive laws "to protect our safety." First their spiel: American drivers apparently are sick and tired of cars running red lights, with 65 percent saying in a poll released last week that they favor installing cameras at intersections to take pictures of those who fail to stop. And, sure enough, along comes Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater announcing a nationwide crackdown on red-light running. Who says hefty campaign contributions and bribes don't work in a free society. . . . In 40 years of driving, I have to admit that I have seen a few people run red lights. Most of them, however, were emergency vehicles with lights and sirens on. Others were police cars, probably late for the donut shop. Never mind, though. Government is going to fix it anyway. Big government plans to install cameras to take pictures of people who run red lights. That way, all they need do is mail a ticket to the vehicle owner. The problem is that in most jurisdictions an officer must actually see an offense happen to issue a citation. But that type of legal inconvenience is irrelevant to the controlling class. As always, long-standing conventional practices must fall to the expediency of the police. Another problem is that most municipal areas have a lot of traffic control lights, which will require a lot of cameras. That could get very expensive. So, we've got a better way. More foolproof, too. The controlling elite should require that all vehicles be equipped with a small computer. Traffic signals could then send a signal to the vehicle computer stating the signal light's location and the status of the light respective to that oncoming vehicle. Run a red light, and the computer sends a signal off to the local cop-house, giving vehicle information and location, as well as the date and time of the offense. And, how will they know who the driver is? Easy. A card reader mounted in the dashboard. We'll all soon be required to carry big brother's identification card at all times. Inserting the card in the vehicle should be a requirement to drive. That way, the police will know who, what, where, and when. Better yet, if traffic speed signs were also encoded with bar-codes or whatnot, the computer could also snitch on speeders. It could regulate restricted drivers, too. So you see, the controlling class is missing the boat by installing cameras. It's much less expensive for government to make the vehicle owners foot the bill for the necessary computer upgrades. The corresponding upgrades to the traffic light systems, then, would only cost forty to sixty bucks a copy, rather than hundreds of dollars each for cameras. And the ancillary duties this same system can handle are only limited by the imagination of the masters. -- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #130 *************************