From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #142 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, May 27 1998 Volume 02 : Number 142 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 May 98 08:10:31 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Claire Wolfe: After the Fall of Justice (fwd) On May 24, Mike**Schneider wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] AFTER THE FALL OF JUSTICE When Justice Leaves the Courtroom, Hope Turns Elsewhere This article was written for the Loompanics Unlimited summer 1998 catalog supplement. In Alaska, a demonstrator is charged with felony jury tampering for shouting, "Call 1-800-TEL-JURY!" within the hearing of jurors. Those who dial the number hear a recording that simply informs them they have a right to vote their conscience. In Washington state, a judge and three U.S. attorneys covertly excise key pages from a booklet before allowing it to be entered as defense evidence in the trial of several militia members. They are not charged with evidence tampering. Another day in the American court system. Justice, or its simulacrum, is dispensed as judges and prosecutors see fit. There's nothing new in that. What's new, or what's dangerously on the increase, is the systematic rigging of the court system to preserve judicial power and punish anyone who dares challenge it. And what's more important -- but clearly unforeseen by the riggers -- is the catastrophe likely to arise from this power grab. Myths and Hopes We cherish a myth that the justice system is the last, best hope for the beleaguered "little guy" in the world of the powerful. No matter what happens, we've been told, even the humblest of us can "have our day in court," be heard and be vindicated, as long as truth and fairness are on our side. This was never literally true, of course. Any poor, black man can tell you the reality of justice. The surviving, imprisoned Branch Davidians can tell you, as can the girlfriend of a drug dealer, locked away for years for sitting in a car during a transaction. Dozens of militiamen, set up by government informants, can tell you. As can dope smokers, tax resisters and businesspeople who made the mistake of violating arcane regulations. Nevertheless, justice is sometimes served, and the myth prevails. There are good reasons why it must prevail. In a civil society, the myth of justice serves two related -- if contradictory -- purposes. On one hand, ordinary people need the myth to give them hope against the powerful. On the other, the powerful require ordinary people to believe in the myth because it keeps the rabble complacent. A belief in justice -- even an erroneous belief -- can be the line that separates gentility from riots in the streets. Even in these days of cynicism, there has still existed a flame of optimism about the power of ordinary people in the courtroom. The belief is so strong that some advocates of limited government have built their main hope upon it. The constitutionalists -- loosely, the legal researchers, sovereign citizens and pro se litigants who seek to limit the influence of government -- have spent endless hours and endless dollars building cases for, and on, the law. These hopeful Good Citizens have cherished the belief that they could go into court, present their arguments and (if those arguments proved intellectually, historically and constitutionally correct) prevail against institutionalized injustice. Not only prevail, personally, but return America to a land of limited government and individual rights. With that hope, and armed with reams of legal documents, many have besieged courts and other government agencies. Some of their arguments have been bogus. Some undeniably correct. A few have won the day. Most have been futile. A Change in the Tide Recently, a tiny time bomb landed in my e-mail box. In one sense, there was nothing new about it; some of us radical anti-government curmudgeons have been shouting a similar message for years. But given the source, it was revolutionary.[Note 1] Headed "Citizen Soldiers," the message said, in part: I have just returned from a meeting with a true constitutionalist attorney here in town, one with past and quite recent important victories in the area of tax issues....Basically, he intimated we as Americans must finally realize there is no such thing as an unassailable constitutional protection in this republic anymore. .....Face it, we're on our own; there is not and CAN NEVER BE any 'silver bullet.' So what's new, you ask? Check the endless well reasoned posts on this list, as well as the other lists many of you monitor. We know the law better than the DOJ, we have higher judicial scruples than the judges, and we're losing ground every day. In essence, we are fielding the GE College Bowl winners against the Gestapo. I have spent endless hours over the last five years studying and applying the law, contacting the IRS, my congressman...and the only difference it has made is that I understand PERFECTLY the gargantuan fraud this government (sic) is perpetrating on its citizens. The question arises: do I continue the futile? Within days, confirmations poured fourth. One came from attorney Steffan Bertsch of Lake Stevens, Washington, author of the book Crisis in Our Courts: I am sorry to admit that your writer is correct in that there is little or no law running the "justice" system; American justice has given way to ignorance, cowardice and corruption. .....Henry David Thoreau told us that if a law was immoral, that we as moral people must realize that we will not live long enough to change the immoral law by any democratic process and that we must realize that "if it [a law] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." On Civil Disobedience. This advice is especially true today when Congress and state legislatures pass so many laws that lawyers cannot read the annual output and are forced to resort to reading summaries of statutes and regulations, hence are left vastly ignorant of the laws. American laws are so numerous that "ignorance of the law" should be made a defense if a reasonable person would not know of the law.[Note 2] The essential point is, again, not the words, but the source. The last dogged proponents of "the system" are beginning to abandon hope. The justice system was the last legal avenue for these "little guys" and their principled attorneys.[Note 3] What has changed? Why are they abandoning it now when it never has been a perfect system? And, perhaps more important, what happens after they bail out? Why Now? The various justice-system reformers have seen some victories, some defeats. The record is inconclusive. But the very existence of these challengers threatens the security of the powers-that-be. Recently, those powers have been taking harsh steps to fight back: In a now-notorious case, political activist Laura Kriho of Colorado became the first American juror in more than 300 years put on trial after refusing to convict a defendant. She was, among other things, charged with perjury for failing to volunteer information about her past that she was never actually asked to give. In the Team Viper cases in Arizona (and many others) the judge refused to allow defendants to question the constitutionality of the laws they were charged with violating, even though the Supreme Court declared in one of its most famous cases: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" and have no force from the moment they are passed (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)). The judges shrug, "Take it up on appeal," knowing all the while that, by then, an innocent person may have spent years in prison and be bankrupt. Fearful of the power of minority opinions on juries, the state of Oregon changed its laws to enable conviction on an 11-1 vote. The U.S. Supreme Court decreed that states may authorize conviction on a 10-2 vote. In Albany, New York, a juror refused to convict a defendant in a drug case, saying the law under which the defendant was charged was wrong. Instead of declaring a mistrial, as has been done in the past, the judge simply fired the juror and granted the rest of the jury the spurious power to convict 11-0. In Washington, Republican state representative Karen Schmidt circulated a memo warning fellow members of government they might be "victims" of a type of "organized crime" committed by "extremists." Schmidt's newly defined crime, Paper Terrorism, is characterized primarily as an attempt to use the justice system to challenge the status quo: "Frivolous lawsuits against government entities"; challenging judges in court cases; "disrupting the court system by persuading fellow jail inmates to defend themselves..."; "distributing the extremist Citizens Handbook (sic) to foster jury nullification" and "requesting information from courts, government agencies, elected officials and businesses..." California, Indiana and other states soon followed suit. Legislatures and enforcement agencies are now actively prosecuting courtroom "terrorists." The Attack on the Jury An increasing number of judicial power plays involve attempts to curb jury nullification. Nullification is the historic, common-law practice by which jurors pass judgment on the law, as well as the facts of the case before them.[Note 4] Today, trial judges habitually inform jurors that they may deliberate on the facts only -- that they may never ask, "Is the law just?" or, "Is the law justly applied to this defendant?" Until the Kriho case, jury-rights activists (notably the Fully Informed Jury Association, FIJA[Note 5]) considered their position to be win-win; even if activists were arrested for telling jurors about nullification, or if jurors were charged for practicing it, the juries who tried their cases would -- voila! -- hear jury-rights arguments or see jury-rights literature presented in evidence. Naturally. How else could jurors gauge activists' actions? But under a recent Colorado law, defendants facing six months or less don't receive jury trials.[Note 6] Therefore, a judge and prosecutor got together and carefully structured charges against Kriho to ensure she would not have the benefit of a jury. Facing only a judge, whose power was directly threatened by her stand, Kriho naturally lost (although the judge's decision vindicated part of her position). But this was only one early, and highly visible, example of the attack on those who challenge the authority of judges and the will of prosecutors. The two cases cited at the top of this article are others. In the Washington State Militia case, what did the judge and prosecutors excise from the evidence? The jury-rights section of The Citizen's Rulebook. The attack on the jury extends across national borders, as well. In Canada, a juror in that country's longest and most expensive murder trial (Regina v. Bhudpinder Johal et al., Court File No. CC940998) now faces up to 10 years in prison for obstruction of justice. There is evidence the juror, Gillian Guess, behaved foolishly -- visiting several defendants and, after the verdict, forming a sexual relationship with one of them. However, she never received an order not to visit them, and there is no evidence she influenced the outcome of the trial. Why charge Guess? For one thing, the jury humiliated the prosecution -- finding every defendant not guilty in this highly publicized trial. But Guess was the only one who went on television afterward and declared that the government should never have brought "such flimsy charges" against the defendants. In previous cases of juror misconduct, judges have declared mistrials, or appeals courts have overturned guilty verdicts. But for 300 years, the independence of the jury has never been threatened, even by the angriest prosecutor or most dictatorial judge. Prosecuting jurors is a new trend whose danger as an intimidation tactic can't be overstated. There is, however, not only a trend to cow jurors into obedience, but to fill juries with those who are predisposed to obey orders. The process of voir dire was originally intended to screen out friends of either side or people with unshakable prejudices. However, it has become, as syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz and attorney Bertsch have both pointed out, a jury-stacking scheme. Jurors are grilled on their sex lives and the number of guns in their homes. (The very process screens out anyone with enough spine to refuse to answer outrageous questions.) In high-profile trials they are subject to private investigation and "management" by jury consultants, looking not for impartiality, but for desired forms of bias. If prospective jurors express knowledge of jury rights or hint that conscience might take precedence over authority, they're out. The truly independent-minded juror is automatically abolished from the panel. Thus, the news is filled with tales from jurors, who cry that they had "no choice but to convict," over the objections of their own conscience and common sense. In a notorious 1997 case, jurors emerged from deliberations weeping and demanding a governor's pardon for an 18-year-old boy they had just convicted of child molesting. His "crime" carried a horrifying mandatory sentence. Yet he had done nothing worse than get his 15-year-old girlfriend pregnant. Jurors recognized they had before them a normal teenager who, in fact, wanted to "do the right thing" and marry the girl. But the judge decreed his jurors could only judge the facts, not the fairness of the law. The jurors were, as the old Nazi claim goes, "only following orders." Swimming with Piranhas We have reached a point at which "the law is whatever I say it is" -- as long as the "I" in question is a judge or a prosecutor. Because the appeals system is populated by members of the same "club," the most outrageous injustices are often upheld. Those who dissent are like minnows among piranhas. Their earnest belief in the truth is no defense against a frenzy of carnivores. Yet, the piranhas fear the minnows -- or are at least determined to show the next little school of challengers not to mess with guys who have sharp teeth. Clearly many of the above judicial maneuverings are in response to the perceived threat posed by self-taught legal scholars and jury-rights activists. The problem is this: No matter why authorities maneuver to curb the power of juries and political dissidents, the effect of their power play can strike anyone. A judge may issue orders in defiance of FIJA, but it isn't FIJA who suffers when the jury convicts against its own conscience. It's the poor pot smoker, militia member or gun owner convicted of violating an unconscionable law. A judge may refuse to admit constitutional arguments to her courtroom out of frustration with "paper terrorists." And indeed the "terrorists" suffer and become more outraged. But the status of justice suffers worse. Even victories present dangers. When a FIJA activist or drug user goes free because of a hung jury, those momentary triumphs inspire courtroom crackdowns, revenge against jurors, and laws to further curtail jury power. Ultimately, the myth dies. Whether you're a constitutional scholar or a semi-literate kid, you know you won't get justice in the justice system. Remember, the justice system isn't the little guy's first hope. It's the last. What do you do when that hope is snuffed? The weary, but principled writer of "Citizen Soldiers" says: In my humble opinion, we should ALL be deciding on the level of civil disobedience we are willing to engage in. If this is the law, we should all become LAWBREAKERS, encourage others to become LAWBREAKERS, be steadfast on juries to free LAWBREAKERS, stand tall in the rightness of being LAWBREAKERS. But this cry of defiance sounds sweetly innocent when compared with what a less principled "little guy" is likely to do if he knows he can't get justice in the courts. As Vin Suprynowicz wrote, commenting upon the New York 11-0 verdict, which was partially supported by the Court of Appeals: The segment of the American populace who should be most concerned about the arrogant, elitist trend reflected by this New York appeals court ruling should be police officers. So far, when advising an armed suspect to "Give it up, and I'll see you get a jury trial," the average cop has had a fair chance of success. But once the average suspect realizes that government-salaried judges now can and will remove any juror who votes to acquit -- or who admits under questioning that he might favor a defendant's view of the law over the government's -- that suspect is far more likely to figure "I'm dead anyway, and I might as well take one lying government bureaucrat with me." The same is true of any form of court-rigging. Those who crave authority should understand that when they do anything to reduce the power of ordinary citizens in court -- whether jurors or defendants -- they do so at their own peril. The justice system serves as a safety valve on the overheated engine of society. Plug the valve and something explodes. Ultimately, prosecutors and judges who behave like tyrants in the courtroom will find that it isn't the little guy -- the demonized "paper terrorist," the jury-rights advocate, the pot smoker, the militia member, the drug entrepreneur or the errant juror -- who suffers the most dire consequences when the justice myth dies. No. When the powerful close the doors to justice -- and when common people understand that the doors are closed, we have one more place to turn: the streets. # # # 1.1 The message was posted anonymously to the ICE Internet list. The author copied it to me, under his own name. 2.Both Bertsch's essay and "Citizen Soldiers" can be read in full at Wolfe's Lodge http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2110. 3.Yes, believe it or not "principled attorney" isn't always an oxymoron. 4.The 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Sparf v. U.S. (also known as Sparf and Hansen v. U.S.) firmly denounced this ancient right, citing more than 100 years of court precedents and legal opinion. Contrary to the mythology of the jury-rights movement, Sparf did not, in any way, uphold the concept that juries have a right to judge the law as well as the facts. However, a resounding dissent by Justice Gray traced jury nullification much farther back into history and showed that such a right did -- and does -- indeed exist. Even the elitist majority, which held that the judge is the sole arbiter of the law, conceded that, since jurors can vote any way they please, they effectively can nullify the law, whether or not anyone else approves. And this is exactly what juries have always done: Slavery and prohibition were, in part, ended by juries' refusal to convict runaway slaves, underground railroad operators and buyers and producers of alcohol. Three juries have refused to convict Dr. Jack Kevorkian, in part because they disagreed with the laws he was accused of breaking. In some areas, prosecutors are finding it increasingly difficult to convict drug users and dealers because juries simply won't deliver the desired verdicts. The Sparf decision can be found on the Internet. Go to http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html In the site's search engine, select the option "Supreme Court Cases 1893+." Then type "Sparf." 5.FIJA, P.O. Box 59, Helmville, Montana 59843, (406) 793-5550, http://www.fija.org/. Prospective jurors call 1-800-TEL-JURY. Also see The Jury Rights Project, http://www.lrt.org/jrp.homepage.htm 6.The Colorado statute and similar statutes in other states are unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights, Article VI, says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." © 1998 Claire Wolfe. This article may be reprinted for non-commercial purposes, as long as it is reprinted in full with no changes whatsoever, and is accompanied by this credit line. Partial or edited reprints may be made with written permission of the author. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To prevent email spam, my email address is altered. To reach me, you must replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS. -- Today's Political Definition -- Moderate: n. one too cowardly to steal in person, so he elects a proxy. Distinguised from those who steal overtly, and those who do not steal. [------------------------- 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: Wed, 27 May 1998 10:15:18 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER (fwd) At 3:35 PM -0700 5/23/98, Boyd Kneeland wrote: >What bank was the check drawn on?? By golly, I'm glad you asked that Boyd : ) see note below >I think it's a hard case in todays world to argue that presenting checks on snip see note below >If on the other hand, this was a first union check written by a first union >customer to a non first union recipient (our guy) then the whole thing is >even scarier. snip - -----------note below----------- Today I (very quickly) got a reply from Patrick Poole indicating that this was a 1st Union check. (I'm stifling the urge to contract the banks name to it's initials) S o o,... I'll reiterate that I think it's pretty, well, dim, to argue contract law with a teller. It's a bit like walking up to a McDonalds employee and sharing the methodology of the latest research on free radicals (I'm not talking gun owners here ; ). But it sure as hell ain't cause to be arrested IMNSDHO. The incident alledgedly took place in the Dutch Square branch in Columbia SC. Once I've gotten phone numbers and info from the branch, PD and DA I'll inflict those on the list (busy day, probly later). I also asked Patrick if there was a trust or legal defense fund set up. Boyd Kneeland, CLAW pres. (any opinions expressed are mine alone) >Boyd (I do not argue contract law with bank tellers) Kneeland - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 10:27:54 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: 1st Union/Poole Details Let me start with a disclaimer of sorts, IMO the beef here is with Bank policy. Had it been me, having previously faced this problem with 1st U., I would've politely informed my customer that 1st Union had unreasonable requirements for paying out checks and would he/she kindly pay me in a different manner. That said, everything that happened to this poor sod at the bank is wrong wrong wrong IMNSDHO and anybody who gives a hoot about civil rights (looks like we'll see if that includes SC ACLU) ought to be jumping -all- over the Columbia SC Police Dept., and DA IMO. Boyd Kneeland (all opinions expressed by me are mine alone). PS, can someone confirm SC has no law requiring prints? That's a pivotal point (If they do, all y'all ought to be spiking it) IMO. =46rom: Patrick Poole To: "'Boyd Kneeland'" Subject: RE: Fratrum: Fw: [FP] FW: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER (fwd) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:04:40 -0400 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 =46eel free to send it out. I spoke with the President of the SC ACLU, and they are considering taking up the case. You may want to contact Leigh Heflin (who sent me the info) at: mailto:HighV@aol.com for more information and updates about the case. Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyd Kneeland [SMTP:boyd@seanet.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 1:03 PM > To: Patrick Poole > Subject: RE: Fratrum: Fw: [FP] FW: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER > (fwd) > > Thank you for your rapid reply. If you have any information > about a trust or legal defense fund please send it to me > and I will fwd to lists in Washington. > > May I forward the text of the html you sent me, or would > you prefer I keep that private? Boyd - ------------------------------------------ Text of Patricks original message to me (boyd): Lee, the rest of the story!!!! Steve=8A=8A=8A, 29=8Aa tree-surgeon and self-employed Contractor, worked a= full day for a customer with whom he had a CONTRACT. Steve received the customers check as payment in full for the work he had completed, in the amount of $300. Since the check was drawn on the customer's account at First Union Bank, Steve went to a First Union Bank branch at Dutch Square, Columbia, SC at 5:45 P.M. on May 15, 1998, to cash check at customer's bank, having been assured by the customer that the check was good. Steve presented the check AND his driver's license for identification to a teller. Steve was informed by the teller he must give his thumbprint in order to have the check cashed. Steve requested the teller call the customer to verify that Steve was given the check by the customer; (name and phone number on the check). The teller refused to do so. Steve asked to speak to the "head teller"; to explain he had been through this before=8Athat the request to call customer had been carried out and check cashed. Steve was told no, by the 'Head Teller' " I will not honor this check". Steve asked to speak to bank manager. The Branch Manager, Ms. Melsen INVITED Steve into her office and pointed to a plaque on the desk stating no checks cashed for non-account holders without fingerprint. Steve explained to the Branch Manager, that the plaque was a simply a "sign" that did not explain the law. Steve asked the Branch Manager to please give him a copy of the law. The Branch Manager said it was a bank policy and she did not know where the law was filed. Steve pointed to her Banking Manual and said it must be in there. The bank manager and teller began looking for the policy. At that point in time another teller walked into the office, and said "never - mind, Richland County is on the way". It is apparent that the police had been called WITHOUT Steve's knowledge or any warning given to Steve that Steve was doing anything wrong. It is important to note that at no time was Steve requested to leave the ban= k. Steve asked to make a phone call, was given permission to do so, by the Branch Manager. Steve was in the process of making the phone call when 3 Richland County Sheriff 's deputies (?) came in the building and motioned to Steve to come outside. Steve told them he was not resisting, but wanted to complete his phone call. [His wife and two of his small children were in the parking lot in their van - but he did not know where they were and what was going on]. He again said he needed to make a phone call. One of the Deputies asked teller if he had been given permission to call and she replied in the affirmative. One of the Deputies said, "I don't think so", forcibly removed the phone from Steve's hand, and two deputies pushed him out of the bank. The deputies told Steve he had 3 seconds to leave the premises. Seeing his wife and children were not in the van and he did not know where they were, Steve told the Deputies he could not leave without them. One of the Deputies repeated the 3 second warning. Steve then said he would leave the premises after the deputies identified themselves. He requested their names. Steve repeated his request to find his wife and identification from them, whereupon the Deputies immediately arrested and cuffed Steve; put him in a Sheriff's Patrol car. One of the deputies shoved his card in his pocket. Another removed the card and wrote his name on the back. The third never identified himself. Steve had no idea what to do next; has never been arrested for anything, and told them so. The response Steve got from the Deputies was a laugh=8A. One question was asked of Steve, on the way to the detention center,--- what is your SSN #. When he replied he did not know if he was supposed to talk to them or answer questions, the remark was made by the Deputies - "you just want to make it hard on yourself, don't you". Steve spent the night in jail, was released the next day (in a closed bond hearing, without assistance of counsel or any witnesses allowed to be present) on $1000 PR bond. The charge was "trespass after notice". [Criminal offense] Remember! Steve was never noticed, or asked by the BANK to leave. The Arrest report states "Victim 1" is Bank Manager. [No bank manager's signature on complaint.] Hearing June 23. *The officers report implies he overheard the disturbance, that Steve was uncooperative and disruptive, even on way to detention center, none of which is true. Additional info and similar incident: On May 19, 1998, Steve's brother, Scott, received a check written to him for work from a customer, with whom he had a CONTRACT. Check written on Nation's bank account. Scott told her that Nation's bank would not cash her check, as he, Scott, did not have an account there. His customer insisted they would and said to have Nation's Bank call her to verify the check. Scott went to the Nation's Bank closest to his customers home, and was told by the teller when he attempted to cash the check, his thumbprint must be placed on the check. Scott asked the teller to call his customer to verify the check, which she did. Nation's Bank teller told the account holder (check writer), the bank would not cash the check without Scott's fingerprint, or she could come in, cash the check, and give Scott the money. The account holder said she did not bank that way. Scott left, without check being cashed. The first incident occurred in Richland County, South Carolina; as did the second. The Reporter of this story knows both men, personally, and has read subsequent report from deputy. [ there is no SC State or Congressional Law mandating thumbprints. Only bank policy - not law} Information on actions soon to commence are withheld at this time in order not to jeopardize legal procedures being taken. Will be forthcoming in the future for those interested. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:00:37 -0700 From: Jack Perrine Subject: Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings Dr. Laura Schlessinger 5/21/98 I have something I think is very important to say. This seems kind of stupid because, frankly, every time I open my mouth I'm trying to be important. But I think you better listen up. It's one of those situations where when you look at a unique event, one raindrop falling from the heavens, you go, "It's a unique experience." If you stand back and see that there are 40 million scrillion raindrops falling from the heavens with a big wind behind them, you have a whole different perspective. When you stand back and look at the whole of it, you see you're in a hurricane and the top of your house just went. So perspective is everything. So sometimes when you just look at each event, define it and put it away, you can feel very safe, but you're not. You better stand back and see that it's one raindrop in a hurricane. On my way to work today, I heard about the student in the public high school in Oregon, killed his parents and his sister, somebody else at school, and a score or two of other children are seriously hurt. If you look at each one of these events, kids doing drive-by shootings. Just take one event in the newspaper on one day, you go, "Bad kid." Shooting each other in schools. Isolated event. Bad kid. Kids committing suicide at rates unknown in modern times. Well, listening to bad music. Kids having babies at 11 and 12 and 13 and 14 and 15 and 16, and killing them, or wrapping them up in a towel and burying them in the earth, or flushing them down a toilet. It's an isolated event. The kids on drugs and alcohol at levels I never heard of when I was a kid. If somebody sneaked a beer, and it wasn't me because I couldn't even stand the smell. But if somebody sneaked a beer, that was a big deal. And if you listen to this program at all, you can tell that there are very few parents out there who feel any sense of authority with their children. The children rule. So if you stand back and look at all of these things, not as an isolated raindrop, you see an apocalypse. And I am really dead serious about this, and it would seem lately, more and more, dead is the operative term. I perceive this as the ultimate in backlash and revenge of the children brought up by a generation who invented a whole new way of life. New and improved way of life. And these are the improvements. Commitment is temporary. We've redefined it. There are even books out called A Good Divorce. We've got people shacking up, making babies, moving on, making babies, moving on, not seeing their kids, moving away. Judges saying, "Not a problem. You want to move your kids away from their dad? Honey babe, you deserve to be happy. Screw the kid." Got women living with guys they're not married to who are molesting their children, at much higher rates than marital situations by far. We have daycare. That's new and improved. Women have the right to abandon their children, and their children will be happy about it as long as the mommies are happy. Whose moronic idea is that? Abortion is commonplace. You get pregnant, you don't want it, you suck it into a sink. No problem. It's not a person. You don't think all this mentality gives a complete irreverence for life? How do children feel important when they're not? Whether you stay married. Whether you are married. It's all unimportant. The children don't matter. It's your happiness. So we have chaos in the home. We have, therefore, chaos in society. My children are not safe from your children any more. These are not isolated raindrops. And the best, the best new and improved idea in our society is to remove God as an issue in the family, so that all holidays we now have magazines and news articles extolling the virtues of interfaith-less marriages, where we eat a little matzo and paint a few eggs and call it a holiday. It is so cute! It's adorable! See how tolerant we are? But you better keep God out of the holiday. But as long as we have a little matzo and a little eggs that we can paint, we think we've brought God to our kids and our lives. We've more and more become unwilling to study, to pray, to observe because, you know why? It's time consuming and annoying and it's not really necessary anyway. The most important thing is my fulfillment. Damn backwards! Damn backwards! So generation provided this chaos, lack of home, lack of parents, lack of family, lack of stability, lack of reverence for life, lack of God, and we have a big hurricane. Now I was on Meet the Press and something else when other kids killed in other schools and I don't think anybody heard me clearly. Maybe I said it too tactfully, so I'm going to be a little less tactful now. This is a lab experiment that failed! We've created international Lord of the Flies. Kids have no respect for life. They know they're not important. They don't see any purpose. They don't see any security. They don't ultimately see any love because we have no time and no interest in anything but acquisition. That's what's important. Character, fidelity, stability, the preciousness of life, God - these are not relevant as long as the economy is okay. Isn't that indicative of "we don't care"? I am not the slightest bit surprised, although I am beyond myself in grief for the parents who are losing children this way. I mean I can't imagine the pain of sending your kid to school and having this happen. Even having the threat of it. But our kids are going to continue to do drive-bys, to blow away mass murder in school, to kill themselves, to make babies, kill them and abandon them and abuse them, be on drugs, be on alcohol and scare the crap out of you and everybody else and each other because we taught them that they don't matter and nothing else does. This is the revenge for our new order. You still want to argue with me? How foolish can you be? - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:53:38 -0700 From: Cyrano Subject: [Fwd: Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------763FE41FD3ADEF011483478B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - -- Steve Silver Proud Member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy & Vice President, The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329, Encino, CA 91316 * (818) 734-3066 For a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, "The Liberty Pole," e-mail your snail-mail address to: LSAS3@aol.com The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation * * * Self defense is not a crime. Firearms: They save lives. - --------------763FE41FD3ADEF011483478B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from lists.xmission.com (lists.xmission.com [198.60.22.7]) by ixmail3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7/(NETCOM v1.01)) with SMTP id NAA04147; ; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0yemeb-0000Vo-00; Wed, 27 May 1998 14:18:29 -0600 Received: from (mail.xmission.com) [198.60.22.22] by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0yemeQ-0000RC-00; Wed, 27 May 1998 14:18:18 -0600 Received: from (med3.minerva.com) [192.88.236.16] by mail.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yemXw-0006j9-00; Wed, 27 May 1998 14:11:36 -0600 Received: from minerva.com by med3.minerva.com ; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:17 PST Received: from barak ([199.172.23.2]) by avatar.minerva.com (sFSRV.0b0 10/22/97) with SMTP id 000118Y; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:10:40 -0700 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:00:38 -0700 Message-ID: <01BD896F.720EA720.Jack@minerva.com> From: Jack Perrine To: "Jack Perrine (E-mail)" Subject: Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:00:37 -0700 Organization: Athena Programming X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings Dr. Laura Schlessinger 5/21/98 I have something I think is very important to say. This seems kind of stupid because, frankly, every time I open my mouth I'm trying to be important. But I think you better listen up. It's one of those situations where when you look at a unique event, one raindrop falling from the heavens, you go, "It's a unique experience." If you stand back and see that there are 40 million scrillion raindrops falling from the heavens with a big wind behind them, you have a whole different perspective. When you stand back and look at the whole of it, you see you're in a hurricane and the top of your house just went. So perspective is everything. So sometimes when you just look at each event, define it and put it away, you can feel very safe, but you're not. You better stand back and see that it's one raindrop in a hurricane. On my way to work today, I heard about the student in the public high school in Oregon, killed his parents and his sister, somebody else at school, and a score or two of other children are seriously hurt. If you look at each one of these events, kids doing drive-by shootings. Just take one event in the newspaper on one day, you go, "Bad kid." Shooting each other in schools. Isolated event. Bad kid. Kids committing suicide at rates unknown in modern times. Well, listening to bad music. Kids having babies at 11 and 12 and 13 and 14 and 15 and 16, and killing them, or wrapping them up in a towel and burying them in the earth, or flushing them down a toilet. It's an isolated event. The kids on drugs and alcohol at levels I never heard of when I was a kid. If somebody sneaked a beer, and it wasn't me because I couldn't even stand the smell. But if somebody sneaked a beer, that was a big deal. And if you listen to this program at all, you can tell that there are very few parents out there who feel any sense of authority with their children. The children rule. So if you stand back and look at all of these things, not as an isolated raindrop, you see an apocalypse. And I am really dead serious about this, and it would seem lately, more and more, dead is the operative term. I perceive this as the ultimate in backlash and revenge of the children brought up by a generation who invented a whole new way of life. New and improved way of life. And these are the improvements. Commitment is temporary. We've redefined it. There are even books out called A Good Divorce. We've got people shacking up, making babies, moving on, making babies, moving on, not seeing their kids, moving away. Judges saying, "Not a problem. You want to move your kids away from their dad? Honey babe, you deserve to be happy. Screw the kid." Got women living with guys they're not married to who are molesting their children, at much higher rates than marital situations by far. We have daycare. That's new and improved. Women have the right to abandon their children, and their children will be happy about it as long as the mommies are happy. Whose moronic idea is that? Abortion is commonplace. You get pregnant, you don't want it, you suck it into a sink. No problem. It's not a person. You don't think all this mentality gives a complete irreverence for life? How do children feel important when they're not? Whether you stay married. Whether you are married. It's all unimportant. The children don't matter. It's your happiness. So we have chaos in the home. We have, therefore, chaos in society. My children are not safe from your children any more. These are not isolated raindrops. And the best, the best new and improved idea in our society is to remove God as an issue in the family, so that all holidays we now have magazines and news articles extolling the virtues of interfaith-less marriages, where we eat a little matzo and paint a few eggs and call it a holiday. It is so cute! It's adorable! See how tolerant we are? But you better keep God out of the holiday. But as long as we have a little matzo and a little eggs that we can paint, we think we've brought God to our kids and our lives. We've more and more become unwilling to study, to pray, to observe because, you know why? It's time consuming and annoying and it's not really necessary anyway. The most important thing is my fulfillment. Damn backwards! Damn backwards! So generation provided this chaos, lack of home, lack of parents, lack of family, lack of stability, lack of reverence for life, lack of God, and we have a big hurricane. Now I was on Meet the Press and something else when other kids killed in other schools and I don't think anybody heard me clearly. Maybe I said it too tactfully, so I'm going to be a little less tactful now. This is a lab experiment that failed! We've created international Lord of the Flies. Kids have no respect for life. They know they're not important. They don't see any purpose. They don't see any security. They don't ultimately see any love because we have no time and no interest in anything but acquisition. That's what's important. Character, fidelity, stability, the preciousness of life, God - these are not relevant as long as the economy is okay. Isn't that indicative of "we don't care"? I am not the slightest bit surprised, although I am beyond myself in grief for the parents who are losing children this way. I mean I can't imagine the pain of sending your kid to school and having this happen. Even having the threat of it. But our kids are going to continue to do drive-bys, to blow away mass murder in school, to kill themselves, to make babies, kill them and abandon them and abuse them, be on drugs, be on alcohol and scare the crap out of you and everybody else and each other because we taught them that they don't matter and nothing else does. This is the revenge for our new order. You still want to argue with me? How foolish can you be? - - - --------------763FE41FD3ADEF011483478B-- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #142 *************************