From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #364 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Friday, July 7 2000 Volume 02 : Number 364 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Jul 00 16:16:18 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [newsucanuse] VIN: Classic July 4 column (fwd) On Jul 4, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Most Americans should be ashamed to celebrate the Fourth Editor's note: The following essay, which was originally published on July 3, 1997, is excerpted from Vin Suprynowicz's book, "Send in the Waco Killers." # # # What an inconvenient holiday the Fourth of July has become. So long as we stick to grilling hot dogs and hamburgers, hauling the kids to the lake or the mountains, and winding up the day watching the fireworks as the Boston Pops plays the "1812" -- written by a subject of the czar to celebrate the defeat of our vital ally the French -- we can usually manage to convince ourselves we still cling to the same values that made July 4, 1776, a date that continues to ring in history. Great Britain taxed the colonists at far lower rates than Americans tolerate today -- and never dreamed of granting government agents the power to search our private bank records to locate "unreported income," nor to haul away our children to some mandatory, government-run propaganda camp, swamping their immune systems with dozens of mandatory vaccinations and doping up the more spirited young lads on Luvox or Ritalin against our will. Nor did the king's ministers ever attempt to stack our juries by disqualifying any juror who refused to swear in advance to leave his or her conscience outside and enforce the law as the judge explained it to them. The king's ministers insisted the colonists were represented by Members of Parliament who had never set foot on these shores. Today, of course, our interests are "represented" by one of two millionaire lawyers -- both members of the incumbent Republicrat Party -- between whom we were privileged to "choose" last election day, men who for the most part have lived in mansions and sent their kids to private schools in the wealthy suburbs of the imperial capital for decades. Yet the colonists did rebel. It's hard to imagine, today, the faith and courage of a few hundred frozen musketmen, setting off across the darkened Delaware, gambling their lives and farms on the chance they could engage and defeat the greatest land army in the history of the known world, armed with only two palpable assets: one irreplaceable man to lead them, and some flimsy newspaper reprints of a parchment declaring: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. ..." Do we believe that, still? Recently, President Clinton's then-Drug Czar, Lee Brown, told me the role of government is to protect people from dangers, such as drugs. I corrected him, saying, "No, the role of government is to protect our liberties." "We'll just have to disagree on that," the president's appointee said. The War for American Independence began over unregistered untaxed guns, when British forces attempted to seize arsenals of rifles, powder, and ball from the hands of ill-organized Patriot militias in Lexington and Concord. American civilians shot and killed scores of those government agents as they marched back to Boston. Are those Minutemen still our heroes? Or do we now consider them "dangerous terrorists" and "depraved government-haters"? In Phoenix last week, an air-conditioner repairman and former military policeman named Chuck Knight was convicted by jurors -- some tearful -- who said they had no choice under the judge's instructions, on a single federal conspiracy count of associating with others who owned automatic rifles on which they had failed to pay the $200 transfer tax. This was after a trial in which defense attorney Ivan Abrams says he was forbidden to bring up the Second Amendment as a defense. In The Federalist No. 29, James Madison sought to assuage the fears of anti-federalists who worried the proposed new government might someday take away our freedoms: "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude," he wrote, "that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." Any such encroachments by government would "provoke plans of resistance," Mr. Madison continued in The Federalist No. 46, and "an appeal to a trial of force," made possible by "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Were Arizona's Viper Militia readying plans of resistance, as recommended by Mr. Madison? Would the Constitution ever have been ratified at all had Mr. Madison and his fellow federalists warned the citizens that such non-violent preparations would get their weapons seized and land them in jail for decades? Happy Fourth of July. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at $21.95 plus $3 shipping through web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html, or by dialing 1-800-244-2224. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jul 00 16:18:11 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [Traficant] Bill permits U.S. troops to patrol border [Passed House] (fwd) Call your Critters and tell them _NO_ violations of Posse Commitatus! On Jul 4, Bard wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Tuesday, July 4, 2000 Bill permits U.S. troops to patrol border Critics fear trend to use military for civilian law enforcement by Jon E. Dougherty The House of Representatives has passed a measure that would allow U.S. troops to be permanently deployed along the United States border to assist the Border Patrol in the interdiction of drugs and illegal immigrants. The bill authorizes the secretary of defense to "assign members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps to assist" the Immigration and Naturalization Service "in preventing the entry of terrorists and drug traffickers into the United States." The measure also would permit the military to assist the U.S. Customs Service "in the inspection of cargo, vehicles and aircraft at points of entry" into the U.S. "to prevent the entry of weapons of mass destruction, components" thereof, "prohibited narcotics or drugs, or other terrorist or drug trafficking items." Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio The bill, HR 628, passed 243-183 with 8 abstentions on May 18. Sponsored by Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, the measure was originally introduced in February 1999. If passed by the Senate and signed into law, the Traficant amendment would amend Chapter 18 of Title 10, United States Code. Title 10 governs the use of American military forces and personnel and already permits the use of military personnel to operate equipment in support of domestic law enforcement agencies, as well as the training of civilian law enforcement personnel. U.S. law currently prohibits, with exceptions, the "direct participation" of U.S. military personnel in "search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law." While there remains support for the deployment of U.S. military forces in a domestic border patrol capacity, not all officials who are engaged in border enforcement welcome the addition of American military personnel. The National Border Patrol Council, the country's largest Border Patrol union, is opposed to the Traficant provision because the organization does not believe U.S. troops are adequately trained for such a mission and because of past experiences with troops on the border. While the Traficant provision would require that any military personnel deployed in a border-patrol capacity first receive training, the National Border Patrol Council, in a statement, said, "We all know that the training will last a few hours at most, in sharp contrast to the comprehensive 19-week training program that Border Patrol Agents must complete." Also, the Border Patrol union is worried that another incident like the death of 18-year-old Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., will occur. Hernandez was shot and killed by U.S. Marines near Redford, Texas, on May 20, 1997. Marines claimed the teen shot at them; they were later cleared, but the incident drew sufficient outcry to force the Pentagon to drop deployment of military forces along the border for the time being. Supporters of the provision, however, point out that it specifically prohibits U.S. troops from conducting "a search, seizure or other similar law enforcement activity or to make an arrest," in accordance with Posse Comitatus laws. It also requires the attorney general or secretary of the treasury to notify local officials and state governors when forces are being deployed in support of Border Patrol functions. Controversy over the plan is as old as the bill itself. One year ago, in an interview with WorldNetDaily, Gregory Nojeim, legislative counsel for the Washington, D.C., chapter of the ACLU, said the sum total of the new military roles in civilian law enforcement would eventually destroy "what was left" of the Posse Comitatus Act. "These provisions ... will blow a hole in Posse Comitatus large enough to drive a thousand tanks onto our city streets," he said. Nojeim said he is most concerned about language in the bill that gives much more arbitrary judgement on the potential conditions in which the military could be used in the hands of the secretary of defense, the attorney general and the secretary of the treasury. "They're trying to make it more of a routine thing to have the military involved in enforcing American civil law," he added. "Imagine having troops on your streets and in your back yard for an undetermined amount of time for what could be an ambiguous reason." Tim Lynch, a spokesman for the libertarian think tank, the CATO Institute, said he believes it is a precursor to end the strict limitations on civilian law-enforcement use of military assets and personnel. Last year, he said that while the provision had not yet been passed into law, he feared it was "a certainty" it would be. The fact that the measure passed the House last month bears out his concerns. "Not too many people are talking about it, not many are objecting to it, and it looks like it's just going to sail through," he said. "That concerns us." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/readerservice/printer_friendly.php3?item=http:/ /www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/20000704_xnjdo_bill_permi.shtml Bard I Love My Country! I Hate My Corrupt Government! [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jul 00 09:36:24 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Gore & Ark. DNC violate Voting Laws This one should be sent to _all_ the Politicians in all the Parties, along with the questions: 1. Don't you think that this is an issue that should be addressed in a bi-partisan manner? 2. What are _you_ doing about this? "On Jul 6, House, David Alan wrote:" > I'm not concerned about what happens to Larouche, Gore, or the DP. What >does concern me is a continuing DEMONstration of a 'Might makes Right', >or 'The Ends justify the Means', attitude, wherever it shows its ugly >face. > > This action by the DNC, if recanted or eventually defeated in legal >realms, (which will likely not be resolved prior to the DP convention and >therefore have the effect of injustice), may be the careful and barest of >openings in the facade which we call 'democracy' but which often can fairly >be categorized as 'rigged'. It could well be the beginnings of a method to >bring the voting system back to its just function. > > On the other hand, and the easier and therefore more likely option, it >could mean a final open declaration of war upon the voting system and >thereby a complete and visible divorce of representation of the people >from their government. As such, there can only be the horrific remedy >of violent revolution, as declared for us in our founding documents. >Otherwise if we determine that it is too high a price, we will settle >back in our lazy chairs and dream of how it once was and should be. > > The article is clearly biased towards Larouche, however the question >is valid, and it is this. Are the rules which we've applied to ourselves >only appropriate when they don't get in the way, and have no meaning when >it becomes inconvenient to apply them? If so, then we have already sunk >below the waves and are simply waiting for the remaining air in our >cabin to expire. > > This question is one which our entire society, at levels ranging from >the largest bureaucracy and international organization, be it corporate, >non-governmental, or otherwise, to the youngest cognizant individual, must >consider and conclude in order to 'form a more perfect union'. Any answer >other than 'NO', is a vote for anarchy. > >David House >housed@indiana.edu > > > LAROUCHE SUES TO PROTECT=20 > ARKANSAS DELEGATES > > > > June 20--A lawsuit was filed today in Pulaski County Circuit >Court, on behalf of Democratic Presidential Candidate Lyndon H. >LaRouche, Jr. and 9 Arkansas Democrats who seek to represent LaRouche >at the Los Angeles Democratic National Convention. The suit was filed >after the delegate candidates were notified by Arkansas Democratic >Party Chairman Vaughn McQuary, that pursuant to orders from >Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew, they would not be >allowed to participate in the state Democratic Convention, despite >the fact that they were duly elected as delegates in the May 23, >Presidential Preference Primary, in which LaRouche received 53,181 >votes, or 21.52%. > > This exclusionary action of Andrew and McQuary not only >effectively disenfranchises the 53,181 Democratic voters in Arkansas >who voted for LaRouche, but it harkens back to the tactics of >Democratic Party segregationists, who sought to define the Party as >a "private club" in order to exclude African-Americans from voting.=20 > > In a statement released earlier today, Debra Hanania-Freeman, >LaRouche's national spokesman, said, "DNC Chairman Joe Andrew, and >a small group of Gore henchman, based at DNC headquarters in >Washington, DC, have, from the very beginning of this campaign, >been determined to silence anything or anyone that posed a potential >challenge to Al Gore's pre-anointed status as the Democratic >presidential nominee, despite a growing recognition that Gore is >simply unelectable. To that end, Mr. Andrew has shown himself to be >a liar and a racist. He has arrogantly ignored appeals from over >1,000 Democratic elected officials from across the nation. Now, in >Arkansas, in a blatantly illegal action, he has robbed over 50,000 >Democratic voters of their most sacred right as Americans. We were >left with absolutely no choice but to sue; this kind of fascist >action cannot go unchallenged. It is necessary to protect the rights >of those who were so callously disenfranchised, and to defend the >most basic right we share as Americans. If this kind of activity is >permitted to continue unchecked, the Democratic Party will lose the >Presidency, be dealt a crushing defeat in the Congress, and, indeed, >the very future of this republic threatened." > > Arkansas state law requires the Democratic Party to hold a >Presidential Preference Primary and to apportion its delegates to the >Democratic National Convention according to the votes cast. Under >that law, and the Democratic Party rules, LaRouche is entitled to 7 >of the state's 37 pledged delegates. Nevertheless, Andrew and McQuary >plan to award all the state's delegates to Vice-President Al Gore.=20 > > The lawsuit asks the Court to order the Democratic Party to seat >LaRouche's duly-elected delegates to the state convention, and to allow >those delegates to represent LaRouche in Los Angeles on August 14-17. > > LaRouche and the delegates are represented by attorney John Wesley >Hall of Little Rock. > = >=20 > >For more information: Call Angela Vullo >phone: 1-800-929-7566 or >fax: 1-703-771-1229 - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jul 00 20:31:32 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: UN/US Rapid Deployment bill (fwd) On Jul 6, Huck wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Proof that our so called representatives do NOT listen to us. Ken - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sage Bushy" To: Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 4:48 PM Subject: UN/US Rapid Deployment bill > WorldNetDaily > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/20000706_ > Thursday, July 6, 2000 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > THE NEW WORLD DISORDER > U.N. rapid reaction force > House bill pushes for United Nations standing army > by Jon E. Dougherty > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > A measure that would create a United Nations Rapid Reaction > Force, calling for the U.S. representative to the U.N. to push > for the creation of a 6,000-man force capable of deploying to > trouble spots on a moment's notice, has been introduced into > the House of Representatives. > > Rep. James P. McGovern, D-Mass. > > The bill, HR 4453, titled the "United Nations Rapid Deployment > Police and Security Force Act of 2000," was referred to the > House Committee on International Relations May 15. It was > sponsored by Rep. James P. McGovern, D-Mass., and to date > has garnered 19 cosponsors. > > According to a bill summary, key portions of the measure > require the president to direct the U.S. representative to the > United Nations to use the voice, vote and influence of the > United States to urge the U.N. to: > > * establish a United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and > Security Force under the authority of the Security Council > that is trained to standardized objectives; > > * recruit force personnel; and > > * provide equitable and reliable funding. > > The bill would require lawmakers to establish clear mission > statements as to when, where and how the force would be > used, "including when the Security Council determines that an > imminent threat to the peace requires a preventive deployment > or that ongoing gross violations of human rights or breaches of > the peace require rapid intervention." > > The bill also sets a 6,000-man limit on the number of forces > that would constitute such a unit, made up of "volunteers from > U.N. member nations who will be deployed only by Security > Council resolution." > > Finally, the measure limits deployments to six months and > "requires [the forces'] basing and infrastructure service to be > leased from existing member nations' institutions. > > According to lawmakers, the bill is in response to Presidential > Decision Directive 71, which, according to a bill summary, > "calls for a stronger United States response to maintaining > order in societies recovering from conflict." If passed, the > bill would "improve coordination of United States efforts and > ... enhance the ability of other countries, the United Nations, > and regional organizations to plan, mount, and sustain > operations in support of the rule of law." > > It would not, however, support deployment of a rapid reaction > force to an area where "peace has been restored to a region > but the rule of law has not yet been reestablished." > > Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who reportedly favors > the bill, said Feb. 24 in response to delayed deployment of > U.N.-sponsored police forces to Kosovo, that "present > international capabilities are not adequate" to deal with such > demands. > > "In response, we must recognize that old models of peace > keeping don't always meet current challenges," Albright said. > "Peace operations today often require skills that are neither > strictly military nor strictly police, but rather, a combination of > the two. > > "The international community needs to identify and train units > that are able to control crowds, deter vigilante actions, > prevent looting and disarm civilian agitators while, at the > same time, winning the trust of the communities in which > they are deployed," concluded Albright. > > U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan also supports the rapid > reaction force. > > In his April 2000 report, "We the Peoples: The Role of the > United Nations in the 21st Century," Annan said the process > the U.N. implements in launching peacekeeping missions > "has sometimes been compared to a volunteer fire department, > " a description he said was often "too generous." > > "Every time there is a fire, we must first find fire engines and > the funds to run them before we can start dousing any flames," > Annan said. "The present system relies almost entirely on > last-minute, ad hoc arrangements that guarantee delay, with > respect to the provision of civilian personnel even more so > than military." > > The House summary also noted that in "July 1999, 4,700 civilian > police officers were requested to be deployed to the Serbian > province of Kosovo, but as of April 17, 2000, the United > Nations has deployed only 2,901 of the requested police > officers, resulting in the breakdown of law and order and the > escalation of unrest in Kosovo." > > And legislators supportive of a U.N. rapid reaction force say > that in the case of Sierra Leone earlier this year, in > Srebrenica, Bosnia, on July 11, 1995, and in a few other > recent cases, U.N.-backed troops and civilian law personnel > have been chased out of their assigned duty areas, sometimes > leaving behind equipment and supplies, stolen and used by > warring factions. > > Lawmakers also complain that U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping > missions are staffed, almost by design, by "undertrained" > personnel, and that such missions are routinely "understaffed." > > > Though the measure states that Congress and the U.S. > government would retain the right to back out of any U.N. > Security Council decision to undertake peacekeeping missions > "not in the interests of the United States," critics worry nonetheless > that U.S. interests could too easily be undermined by a > supranational world body with no accountability to the American > people. > > The measure will likely face stiff opposition in the Senate, > where it would ultimately end up at the Senate Foreign > Relations Committee, chaired by vehement U.N. critic Sen. > Jesse Helms, R-N.C. > > In a speech to the U.N. Security Council in Washington, D.C., > on March 30, Helms offered to work with the U.N. to improve > the U.S.-U.N. relationship, but said, "others want the U.N. to > travel down a very different path" anathema to U.S. national > interests. > > "They envision a United Nations which has the sole authority > to legitimize the use of force, and to insist on the authority to > sit in judgment of the foreign policy decisions of the United > States," said Helms. "They are pressing for an International > Criminal Court that purports to hold American citizens under > its jurisdiction, even if the United States has neither signed > nor ratified the treaty. They see the U.N. as the central > authority of the new international order of global laws and > global governance." > > Helms added, "Improved U.S. relations with a U.N. that travels > down this path will be difficult, if not impossible." [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jul 00 22:57:39 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: A Dr. Seuss parody (fwd) On Jul 4, Swftl@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Subj: If Dr. Seuss Talked to your Rabbi Date: 06/30/2000 4:09:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: webmaster@jpfo.org (JPFO Alerts) Reply-to: webmaster@jpfo.org - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization Date: June 30, 2000 ALERT: If Dr. Seuss Talked to your Rabbi If you're crabby cause your rabbi says you can't go out and shoot Cause about the 2nd amendment he doesn't give a hoot, Then get savvy bout your history and you'll soon become astute On the lessons that it teaches about freedom, faith and truth If he says that they are evil and you shouldn't own a gun And he thinks they are for killing -- never safety, food or fun, Then ask him why in Israel every school guard there is armed To protect the little children there from terror murder -- harm If he says that they're too easy for children to obtain Ask why 40 years ago most schools contained a range And rifle teammate members gladly brought them on the bus And never once an incident for anyone to fuss If your rabbi he is crabby 'cause your family you'll defend, And he does not understand why your firearm is your friend, "Cause he thinks the cops must save you if 911 you dial, Just ask him if a court has ever said such at a trial The state's not liable says the court To grant for you relief by tort If the bad guys rape and rob and pillage, And the cops they fail to save our village So ask your rabbi -- teacher -- friend, who it is that will defend "gainst murder, robbery, plunder, rape, when laws say guns must be in safes And what if -- God in Heaven forbid -- of another Hitler we must be rid How many this time to the showers'll go -- for want of a pistol, we'd like to know? by Charles Heller c.heller@juno.com "Everyone may reproduce it to their heart's content." JPFO has published a book "Dial 911 and Die" by Richard Stevens -- see http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 00 10:14:47 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FTalk: FEAR: FEAR's letter in support of Cal. SB 2106 (fwd) On Jun 22, Swftl@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:41:47 -0700 From: Brenda Grantland To: "fear-list@mapinc.org" Subject: FTalk: FEAR: FEAR's letter in support of Cal. SB 2106 Reply-To: Brenda Grantland FEAR also offers a low-volume announcements list and digest mode for all lists, email to update your subscription. FYI - Here's the letter we submitted in support of California SB 2106: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Brenda Grantland, Esq. President, Board of Directors 20 Sunnyside Suite A-204 Mill Valley, CA 94941 (415) 380-9108 June 16, 2000 Assembly Public Safety Committee State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Statement in support of SB 2106 Dear Sirs: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights is a national non-profit organization dedicated to reform of state and federal asset forfeiture laws to restore due process and protect property rights in the forfeiture process. We have worked closely with now Senator John Burton in relation to the 1994 reform of California forfeiture law, and with U.S. Representative Henry Hyde in his six-year effort to reform federal asset forfeiture laws, culminating in the recent passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, which takes effect on August 23 of this year. We endorse Senator Lewis' forfeiture reform bill SB 2106 in its entirety, but we particularly endorse the provisions that allow return of the property to the property owner pending trial on a showing of substantial hardship, and the waiver of sovereign immunity for damages to the property while detained. These two provisions are among the more important reforms made in the new federal law, and the California legislature needs to adopt these reforms to make the state law keep pace with federal reforms. Allowing the property owner to retain possession of the property pending trial makes sense for many reasons. When private property is detained pending trial, the property owner can be financially destroyed, prior to any showing of guilt. When the property seized is the family car, the property owner may lose the ability to get to work, resulting in loss of employment, and a downward spiral into poverty or even homelessness. This impacts innocent children and elderly dependants, who lose their transportation to school or health care. This Through the Looking Glass concept of "punishment first, trial later" not only offends our notions of Due Process, but often results in irreparable damages even when the property owner eventually wins. It also makes the cost of Due Process prohibitively expensive when the seized asset is a depreciating car (and cars depreciate mechanically when subjected to long periods of storage) the car may be worth nothing by the time the property owner takes the case through the trial process and wins. Those people least likely to afford to fight the forfeiture those who can only afford a car worth less than $5000 -- are often forced to give up instead of contesting the forfeiture, because the cost of fighting for a year or two to win back an asset that will be worth half as much, combined with the cost of having to replace the car in the meantime, make litigation unaffordable. Returning assets to the property owner pending trial also results in substantial savings to the state, especially when the seized asset is an automobile, boat, or airplane. Storage costs, even in remote areas where impound lots are located, start at $10 per day per vehicle. Multiply $3650 per year times the number of years it takes to get to trial, and then by the number of detained vehicles impounded by the state each year, and the costs are staggering. This money is wasted no one benefits from these costs except the impound lots. Even when the state wins its forfeiture case after trial, the state's victory is a phyrric one if, as often is the case, the cost of storing the vehicle pending trial exceeds the value of the vehicle. There is no reason the state should favor preserving the status quo. The only thing to be gained from detaining the property pending trial is the extortionary effect forcing the property owner to settle early, despite having a meritorious case, because it is not economically feasible to wait for his day in court. This is simply not a legitimate reason to preserve the current system. The risk that the property could be concealed or transferred if it is returned to the claimant pending trial can be minimized with the filing of a lis pendens. The second important reform in SB 2106 is the ability to sue for damages to the property while detained. In my 16-year career as a forfeiture defense attorney, I have often won the case only to find that the property had deteriorated, or suffered vandalism while detained. Often the cars I won back were never driveable again because of the years of nonuse. Vandalism in the impound lots is commonplace. This reform will also have a positive effect on law enforcement. Potential liability for damages will encourage government agents and contractors to prevent vandalism, and take measures to keep property from deteriorating due to nonuse. This benefits the state because in those cases where the state wins, the value of the property is preserved. The economic impact of this reform will be greatly reduced by the prior reform, since vehicles can be returned to the owner rather than sitting and deteriorating, in which case the state would not be liable for any damages to the property. This bill's amendments to the computer forfeiture statute are also good reforms, although they are not as important in our estimation as the other two reforms. We urge every Assemblyman to support this important bill. Sincerely, Brenda Grantland [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 00 21:16:09 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Citizen Soldier Protection Act (fwd) On Jun 22, Swftl@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] From: Joe Sager Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:13:05 -0500 Subject: Citizen Soldier Protection Act Reply-To: webmaster@mikenew.com Organization: Michael New Action Fund Dear Friends, HR 4669, swftl@aol.comCitizen Soldier Protection Act of 2000, is building momentum. This bill was introduced Thursday June 15th by Rep. Helen Chenoweth - Hage (R) Idaho, with Rep. Tom Delay (R) TX as primary co-sponsor. Also signing on as original co-sponsors are Rep. Roscoe G.Bartlett (R) MD, Rep. Ralph M. Hall (D) TX, Rep. Ron Paul (R) TX, Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R) PA., and Rep. James A., Traficant Jr (D) Ohio. The bill, which is a clarification of existing law, does not preclude U.S. involvement in United Nations "peacekeeping operations," where American troops may still serve as volunteers. But it makes it clear that U.S. military personnel may not be forced to serve against their conscience. It is regarded as a fundamental definition of freedom, that citizens of a country may not be forcibly drafted into a military obligation that goes beyond their oath of exclusive allegiance to their own country. A Congressman (who will go unnamed) told me today that if he sees 30-40 letters from his district on this subject, it will tell him the issue is 'hot' and he will then co-sponsor. Will you see to it that your Congressman gets 30 letters? Call ten people and ask each one to write a letter, then to get two more to do the same, and you may very well change the course of history! At any rate, you'll slow down the New World Order, and that's a good day's work! A copy of the bill is available at http//www.mikenew.com/csp_act2k.html Follow the progress at http//thomas.loc.gov Locate your congressman at http//www.mikenew.com/alert.htm#congress If you are a member or Veteran from any branch of the US Military and you would like to express your support for Michael New publicly sign up at http//www.mikenew.com/battalion.html. Civilians who would like to show their support may do so at http//www.mikenew.com/homeguard.html. Daniel New, Project Manager Joe Sager, Webmaster [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #364 *************************