From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 01 Oct 1996 02:15:55 EDT On Mon, 30 Sep 96 18:21:31 PST roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) writes: >Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" >is so >simple, everyone's missing it. > >1. Educate the kids to be against it. >2. Re-Legalize it. >3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time >they > want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self >solving). Let's see. Hmmm? Didn't I say that a while back and got jumped because I was told that _I was insensitive_? By George I think I did. It seems that someone else has the same idea. >This solution costs much less in time, money, and loss of Freedom, >than >anything anyone else has come up with. > >Think of it as evolution in action. > >-- >An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | >Keep >weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | >Your >hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | >Powder >on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | >Dry. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Oct 1996 00:58:20 PST This "FAQ" is auto-posted once a month via cron triggered script, and may be triggered off by hand from time to time in between if the info is requested by someone, such as when the House recently voted down the AW Ban and the Media threw a hissy fit. The purpose of this FAQ is to inform people what they can do about Media generated lies and misinformation. While the FCC only handles Broadcast Media, (TV and Radio), some of these techniques will work for magazines and newspapers too. If I've missed something, or you find errors, let me know and I'll add/fix it. 1.a. Send letters of complaint to the Station Manager every time it happens with all the time, details, other info, and your complaint(s). 1.b. Send an additional copy for their FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Public file. 1.c. Send an additional copy to the FCC itself, in case they don't put it in their Public file. 2.a. Send a letter of complaint to their Station Owner as per above, with copies as per above (1.b and 1.c). 3. Send copies of their replies to you along with yours to them to their FCC Public file, so that it gets nice and fat, again, with copies to the FCC itself. 4. If you can afford it, send all corespondence by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested. Send a copy of the Return Receipt with everything that goes to the FCC itself, so that they will have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their Public File. 5.a. Go to the Public Library and look up "Standard Rate and Data Services" (SRDS) "Directory of National Advertisers." It is found in many major Libraries (in the business/reference stacks), and lists EVERY current advertiser, who the players are at both the company and advertising agency(s), and the appropriate telephone and fax (and probably E-Mail by now) addresses. If your Library doesn't have it, it can be requested. Otherwise you can watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all their advertisers. There are other references that have the addresses for the nation's business headquarters too. look them all up and pass the addresses and phone/FAX numbers etc., around so that everyone can bitch to the sponsors. IF enough people do that, it'll get back to the Station. Tell them if the Station continues their nastiness you'll _consider_ changing to brand(X), (otherwise they'll just write you off as a loss). 5.b. The above, (5.a.), can be a lot easier and less time consuming if you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads, as they are right in front of you for the listing. 6. If they put on something good or even just more reasonable, call and compliment them on it, but do _not_ send any kudos to their FCC file, or write to them about it. That way they have to keep it up and hope, as there is nothing good in the file or in writing that they can show the FCC to justify their Station's License. 7. Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and Compliance Division Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 FAX: 202-653-9659 FCC Attn: Edythe Wise -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | The _only_important_difference_ between Nazi-ism, Fascism, weapon in every | Communism, Communitarianism, Socialism and (Neo-)Liberalism hand = Freedom | is the _spelling_, and that the last group hasn't got the on every side! | Collective brains to figure it out. -- Bill Vance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 01 Oct 1996 01:08:00 PST On Oct 01, GARY H. BURKEPILE wrote: >On Mon, 30 Sep 96 18:21:31 PST roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) >writes: >>Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" >>is so >>simple, everyone's missing it. >> >>1. Educate the kids to be against it. >>2. Re-Legalize it. >>3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time >>they >> want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self >>solving). > >Let's see. Hmmm? Didn't I say that a while back and got jumped because >I was told that _I was insensitive_? By George I think I did. It seems >that someone else has the same idea. These days, if someone accuses me of being insensitive, I know without any doubt whatsoever, that I'm on the right track. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 07:02:40 -0400 (EDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. These signs began to appear all over yesterday. WARNING THIS AREA HAS BEEN DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. Boundaries _________________________ Dates and Times _________________________ Larry D. Soulsby Chief of Police (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:06:20 -0500 (CDT) I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on punks. What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of the law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) > From: Black Unicorn > Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > > Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > > These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > > WARNING > THIS AREA HAS BEEN > DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE > > Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on > public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for > the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of > illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being > instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the > Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An > arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, > Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. > > Boundaries _________________________ > > Dates and Times _________________________ > > Larry D. Soulsby > Chief of Police > (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 32 (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:07:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following is brought to you thanks, in part, to the kind assistance of CyberNews and the fine folks at Cornell University. Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 32 ====================================== ("Quid coniuratio est?") OCTOBER'S EVE ============= Sherman Skolnick Commentary 09/30/96 ------------------------------------ (From Mr. Skolnick's recorded message: 312-731-1100) ---------------------------------------------------- Hi! Sherman Skolnick, Citizens' Committee to Clean Up the Courts, 9800 S. Oglesby. Some say the First Lady is facing criminal indictments, and the indictments (some state, some federal) have already been handed up by a grand jury but the indictments have been sealed. Is all this political? Before the election it would cause an unprecedented situation. Bill Clinton might feel compelled to resign, but at the same time release his impounded medical records, showing, supposedly, some medical crisis -- such as, his nose might fall off from having snorted cocaine over a period of many years. Release of indictments against Hillary after the election could also be considered political. If the Independent Counsel knew before the election, why would he time the release for after? Of course, remember the Nixon situation: Prior to the 1972 landslide re-election, the press fakers played down Watergate. By the Spring of 1973, however, Watergate was the buzzword most every day. And what is Hillary facing? In New York, charges of defrauding the state while a consultant; in Little Rock, causing the misappropriation of federally insured funds of a savings & loan; in the District of Columbia, perjury and obstruction of justice regarding both Travelgate and Filegate; that is, causing the frame-up of White House Travel Office carry-over employees and using FBI records to blackmail various persons, primarily those of the Bush administration. A good question: *When* are they going to indict Hillary and Bill for the $50 million embezzlement and massive tax fraud that is the subject of *our* civil damage suit against her and others? So far, Hillary Clinton's defense is primarily to convince the federal judges in Chicago that we are, supposedly, "bad people" and no judge should listen to us! Of course, the federal judges here already hate us for our campaign of exposing bribery of the federal courts in Chicago. Now whether before or after the election, the expected indictments may cause a crisis. Even prior to the indictments the stock market was already reaching new, all-time highs, and headed for a crash. (Of course, cynics contend that the market would rally! That is, happy to be rid of the Clinton White House gang.) Now just consider the possibilities. The mass media liars and whores might finally have to admit that White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. was murdered. And that Bill and Hillary, supposedly his friends, covered it up. Vince Foster was implicated in various types of espionage, such as selling nuclear missile secrets to a foreign power; such as heading a project to spy on foreign banks, both friend and foe; such as money-laundering dope and gun-running funds, with Hillary, for a Little Rock bond broker: some 18 Arkansas-based firms would be scandalized for reportedly using dope loot to finance their business -- including Tyson Chickens, J.B. Hunt truck line, Wal-Mart, and Beverly Enterprises, the nursing home chain. The whole mess involves both political parties: both Bill Clinton and George Bush are criminally implicated in the CIA dope through the airport at Mena, Arkansas. And the dope loot was reportedly washed through the Garfield Ridge Trust & Savings Bank of Chicago, owned by de-frocked congressman Dan Rostenkowski and Hillary's brother, and then through the Chicago markets. The bottom line? Maybe all of this is to pave the way for Jay Rockefeller to become the President without an actual election. Such as by an emergency, provided for under the 25th Amendment. Will the press fakers surprise us with all of this someday? *Or*, just dribble it out to get us used to a disaster? Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief. I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation." If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1") For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom See also: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn.html See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Gun Ban Endorsed By GOP (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:12:23 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Joe Horn <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> >Date: 30 Sep 96 21:02:19 EDT >From: "Barbara j. Beier" <73622.1250@CompuServe.COM> >To: BlindCopyReceiver:;@CompuServe.COM >Subject: Gun Ban Endorsed By GOP > >Hi: > >"...you just call, out my name, and you know, wherever I am, I'll coming >running, >running, running, don't you know, you got a friend..." James Taylor > >Unless you're a gun owner trying to get somebody's ear in Congress, that is. > >I have just one question: we made such a big difference in 1994 that even Mr. >Clinton acknowledged it. We gave the Republicans Congress. Why then, have they >abandoned us in 1996? > >I think it's because we ordinary folks rocked a boat we weren't supposed to. >Power...it's all the same, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat; when >you're in the halls of power, it boils down to "us" (inside the Beltway, or >Albany, etc.) against "them" (the rest of America). If it wasn't for the >Libertarians, I truly think I'd sit this election out, even if it meant not >using a sorely needed civil right. > >Folks, I believe we are in for a hellacious time over the next few months and >years as all the chickens sown of our cynical power plays during the Cold War >come home to roost. Compromise every belief you hold dear, or else fasten yer >seatbelts for a rough ride! > > >=:-o >Barb Beier > ***************************** > >AP 30-Sep-1996 15:29 EDT REF5521 > >Copyright 1996. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. > >The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, >rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The >Associated Press. > >By DAVID PACE > >Associated Press Writer > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats, >congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic violence gun ban, >abandoning most of their alternative proposal. > The final language was hammered out over the weekend as part of the huge >spending bill before the Senate. It expands the current ban on gun ownership or >possession by felons to include virtually anyone convicted of a misdemeanor >involving domest >ic violence. > "This legislation will save the lives of thousands of battered women and >abused children," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who proposed a similar ban >that was endorsed by the Senate 97-2 earlier this month. > Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., a former U.S. attorney, proposed an alternative last >week that would have extended the gun ban to people convicted of domestic abuse >misdemeanors only if physical force was involved, and only if the person was >notified of t >he gun ban when arrested, given the right to counsel and a trial by jury. > Last week, congressional Republicans initially agreed to substitute Barr's >alternative for the Lautenberg amendment. That brought protests from Senate >Democrats and the White House, since President Clinton initially proposed the >gun ban during h >is train trip to the Democratic Convention in August. > Barr contended Lautenberg's original bill was unconstitutional. States do not >uniformly define misdemeanor crimes, he said, so Lautenberg's bill would have >violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. > He also complained that Lautenberg proposal ignored the general law exemption >that would have kept the gun ban from applying to police officers and military >personnel. The final agreement included Barr's language removing that exemption. > > In the agreement reached during the weekend, congressional Republicans >dropped Barr's language requiring notification of the gun ban at the time of >arrest. They also agreed to modify Barr's language extending the ban only to >persons convicted af >ter a jury trial, or after having waived a jury trial. > Democrats claimed that would have exempted most convicted abusers from the >ban because few such cases carry punishments severe enough to guarantee the >right to a jury trial. The final agreement simply requires that persons charged >with domestic >abuse, who are entitled to a jury trial, must be given one or must waive that >right before they would come under the gun ban if convicted. > > > -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Rep. Dornan: I am preparing papers of indictment (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:13:10 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html >From: Washington Weekly >Subject: Rep. Dornan: I am preparing papers of indictment > > > > FOLLOW THE MONEY AND LOOK AT THE NOSE > Rep. Bob Dornan (R-CA) > House of Representatives - September 26, 1996 > >[Rep. Bob Dornan held a total of three one-hour special orders >last week focusing on the President and his talk of pardons to >convicted Whitewater associates. In the present speech he >describes his papers of impeachment and reads from Roger Morris >and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard] > >[...] > >Now, something else happened to me today. Besides meeting a young >man who told me he was corrupted here as a page on the elevator >in one of the Rayburn buildings, said it cost him 2 years of >school and finally he is getting out of the university late. I >also saw Clinton come to the Longworth Office Building, so I >thought I would stand in the hall, ask him about tampering with a >grand jury system by telegraphing pardon messages through the >media, specifically through PBS on Jim Lehrer's show. Got the >transcript here from the Wall Street Journal. It is unbelievable. >Outrageous is what it is. It is just what the Wall Street Journal >calls it. > >So I am standing there and out comes that battered wife, George >Stephanopoulos. That is what Bob Woodward of Watergate Woodward >and Bernstein fame, naval officer, Robert Woodward wrote: George >Stephanopoulos is like a battered wife. The volcanic eruptions >come out of the man's head with lava flowing all over George, and >he is treated like a battered wife. I did not see whose head; the >man. > >So here comes the battered wife, and he comes up and said what >are you doing. You going to talk through the man? > >I will insert `the man' a lot tonight. > >And I said, `Oh, just wanted to find out about jury tampering, >telegraphing messages through media interviews and tampering with >witnesses that are at this moment going before the grand jury in >Little Rock.' > >He says OK. > >He runs back into the Ways and Means room, a whole operation is >organized. I saw the secret service smiling. I saw the Capitol >police laughing. We saw the advance men talking in their little >hand mikes, and I cost hundreds of people, I guess, 10 or 15 >minutes as they had to run an operation kind of like the Bowery >boys, you know playing 24 A, the diversion, to fake me out, and >it worked. Got to give it to him. > >But they had to announce to the entire press corps, the AP camera >man, the Washington Post: Look, here comes the President, >everybody--actual word out of advancement: all the press look >this way. > >So of course I looked that way, too, and we are all looking, and >behind me comes Al Gore, Vice President, and the man, and up to >the microphone. I turn around, I said, `Well done, guys.' > >But he will get his day in court. I was going to remind him that >Paula Corbin Jones had her day in court and he will have his day >in court because I am filing impeachment papers. I have got >lawyers working on them and have been for about 5 or 6 months, >and this may be the crowning issue, this may be the straw on the >camel's back, telegraphing pardon messages to people. It is >unbelievable. > >So I stood there, and I looked, and the first thing that came in >my mind was baby boomers in power, and the second thing came to >my mind were the words of Maureen Dowd about the scenes on sacred >Omaha Beach, that hallowed territory, that hallowed sand where so >many Americans died, a thousand in few hours there in Utah Beach >on the gorgeous coast of Normandy, France. And I thought of >Maureen Dowd, New York Times reporter, her words: The >prepubescent yuppies running around serving the man. > >Well, listen to this, Mr. Speaker. Seven pounds of heroin were >found in the nose cone of an Air Force One aircraft taking the >President to the U.N. in New York from Bogota, Colombia. The >President in this case is Ernesto Samper, the man whose >Presidency is collapsing in Bogota, Colombia, a nation which drug >users in this country have helped to destroy, particularly >cocaine users. They have helped to destroy it. > >When you see somebody with a big red bulbous nose and doctors >tell me it is not allergies; that makes your eyes water. The nose >only swells from alcohol or from tearing up your nasal passages >with cocaine. When you see that, you will know that that is a >person who has caused--Nancy Reagan had it right, just say no-- >who has caused a thousand young police officers to be killed in >Colombia in the last year, calendar year 1995. This year we are >running ahead of a thousand young men. > > >[...] > > >Partners in Power. This is tough, so I am going to leave out the >man and only talk about people who are not protected by rule 18. > >First of all, story: London, Sunday. Imagine the respect factor >in Europe. Here is the Sunday Telegraph, London, by Ambrose >Evans Pritchard. Some day I am going to get to meet this great >journalist. > >`The longer he resists pressure to release his medical records, >the stronger the suspicions become that he is hiding something >important, perhaps even something that could affect the outcome >of some elections.' > >`Some press secretary,' I am leaving out names here, `was >distinctly ambiguous when reporters asked in public whether >someone was suffering from a sexually transmitted disease. It >seemed almost as if the press secretary wished to encourage this >sexual line of inquiry, because the calculation apparently is >that nobody cares much about encounters long ago of a sexual >nature. The impact, in post-Puritan America, would be nil.' > >Imagine the British people reading this in the tube, on the >subway. > >`But not everybody has fallen for this diversionary tactic. In a >biting editorial last week,' that I missed, so I will have to put >it in the Record in January, `the Wall Street Journal asked >whether' someone was covering up a history of drug use. `Drugs >are a much more serious matter. If the American people were ever >led to believe that somebody was a heavy user of cocaine while >head of a certain subgovernment entity in a certain state, the >scandal would be thermonuclear.' > >Stories about past drug use by some are a staple of the talk show >programs around America, but no major paper in the U.S. has had >the guts yet to publish an investigative expose. The Washington >Times almost did this week. They came that close. They sent out >sheets to people around the country saying, `Here it comes >tomorrow.' Then they backed off, and I got a headline story out >of it, interesting, with my subcommittee on a Czech general >saying that Americans were used as guinea pigs from the Korean >and maybe the Vietnam War, because it left the whole area above >the full front-page story empty. > >So he goes on to say, Ambrose Evans Pritchard, to his London >audience, in the biggest circulation paper in Great Britain, he >says: This is not because drug use is too much of a tabloid >issue. Far from it. The mainstream media were quick to print >uncorroborated allegations of a stupid convicted felon in the >slammer who claimed to have sold marijuana years ago to a young >Dan Quayle. Remember how that moved on the network news, the >headlines, of establishment paper after liberal paper? > >In the case of someone, a number of people have come forward with >direct knowledge of drug use, but the press always finds a reason >to impugn the source's credibility; hence, a fascinating meeting >with 20 of us telling Gary Aldrich, `We will protect you,' giving >him a round of applause, and then came his two little children. >Dan Burton and I said, `We were applauding for your honorable >dad, Gary Aldrich, author of `Unlimited Access.' > >Back to the London paper. This is not a tabloid, this is like the >New York Times in London, or like the New York Post or Daily >News. > >He says, in the case of these people that have come forward, >nothing short of documentary proof, though, will induce the >newspapers to examine the claims. > > >Hence, the intense speculation in Washington about the medical >records. But there are other records. A freelance journalist, >Scott Wheeler, has obtained copies of the Arkansas State police >surveillance audio tapes from the 1984 investigation of a Roger, >whose last name is Clinton, the younger brother of somebody. He >was eventually convicted for dealing in cocaine and sent to >prison. > >The tapes revealed that Roger Clinton was a drug trafficker, not >just an addict who crossed the line. He can be heard describing >how he used to smuggle large amounts of cocaine right through the >airports hidden under his clothes. And I have a tape somebody is >going to play for me tomorrow where he says, I'm not worried >about the cops surveilling me, I've got other cops watching those >cops, because I've got a friend in a high place. > >And it says, the most interesting comment he makes about the >Governor is, got to get some for my brother. He's got a nose like >a vacuum cleaner. Then there is the case of Charlene Wilson, >currently serving a prison term in Arkansas for drug offenses. >She told the Sunday Telegraph in London 2 years ago that she had >supplied somebody with cocaine during his first term. He was so >messed up that night he slid down the wall into a garbage can. > >The story has credibility because she told it under oath to a >Federal grand jury in Little Rock in December of 1990. At the >time she was an informant for the 7th Judicial District drug task >force in Arkansas. Gene Duffy, the prosecutor in charge of the >task force, talked to this Wilson lady days after her grand jury >appearance. She was terrified, the drug task force person, the >prosecutor, says, prosecutor Gene Duffy, she was terrified. She >said her house was being watched and she made a big mistake, she >shouldn't have talked. > > >That was when she told me she testified about seeing someone get >so high on cocaine he fell into a garbage can. I have no doubt >she was telling the truth. What happens to her, Duffy? She's now >in hiding in a secret place somewhere in Texas. > >What about Charlene Wilson. Charged with drug violations. In 1992 >she was sentenced to 31 years for selling a half ounce of >marijuana and $100 worth of methamphetamine to an informant. She >protested she was set up to eliminate her as a political >liability and she appealed on the grounds of entrapment. With the >help of a brilliant Arkansas lawyer, John Wesley Hall, her case >went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court--across the street, >Mr. Speaker. Finding a violation of her constitutional rights, >the court ordered the State of Arkansas to give Ms. Wilson a >fresh trial or set her free. She's being set free as of >November--probably after the election. > >And what about those grand jury transcripts? They are secret, of >course, sealed in perpetuity, but every witness has the right to >the transcripts of their own testimony if they make a formal >request. > >So she will probably formally request them and we will get to see >them and it may be too late because America has a morality test, >all day long until the polls close, a morality test on November >5. And then at the same time it has an IQ test to see what we are >going to tell the children in this country. > >In this book, `Partners In Power,' page 325: > >On one of the 1983-84 videotapes--I better give the publisher, >Henry Holt. Get this book, folks, Pop for the $27.50, for pete's >sake. Henry Hold, `Partners In Power.' > >A fabulous biographer, Roger Morris, writes: > >Yeah, there was a mansion in the guest house, Roger answered, oh, >they love it. Even sketchy State trooper entry and exit logs at >the Governor's mansion would bear him out showing him coming and >going at the family quarters accompanies by females, girl, a >friend, at least 36 times after February 7, 1983, the height of >drug trafficking, and guards recorded visits within days of the >women that he was bringing. Roger in with 2 females to change for >party. Roger and girl going to the mansion, 2 hours. Girl, in, >out. And on one of the 1983-84 videotapes filmed by the local >narcotics officers, Roger Clinton was said to tell a supplier >jauntily: Got to get some for my brother, he's got a nose like a >vacuum. > >So there it is, folks. You want the line. Get the book. > >ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE > >The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MICA). The Chair must ask the >gentleman from California to suspend for a moment at this point. > >The Chair would remind all Members that it is not in order to >engage in personalities toward the President. Although remarks in >debate may include criticism of the President's official actions >or policy, it is a breach of order to question the personal >conduct of the President whether by actual accusation or by mere >insinuation. > >The gentleman may proceed in order. > >Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a question. > >The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his question. > >Mr. DORNAN. If a Member has read--and, of course, I was talking >about this Member--over 10 books, traveled Arkansas, spoken to >people, and believes that a high public official was and may >still be a cocaine addict, do I not have a right to state that >publicly on the floor of this House? > >The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond not on the floor >of this House. And also in response to a question concerning the >proper bounds, the requirements of decorum in debate prohibit any >personal abuse of the President spanning the full range of >affronts from the attribution of unworthy motives to name- >calling. > >The gentleman may proceed in order. > > >Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, then let me deviate in the remaining few >moments to point out the headline--these are public issues--the >headline of yesterday's Washington Times: `In Jail, McDougal >Plays Media Queen,' is cocky. In Dayroom 212 of Pod B of the >Faulker County Jail, she is the queen, she thinks she is going to >get pardoned. `Clinton's Words Fuel Pardon Talk. Will Whitewater >Figures Go Free?' Imagine if a Republican tried this. Today's >headline: `Whitewater Log On Files Has 6-Month Gap.' > >These people are being charged with looting banks, and the >taxpayers having to make up the difference, pirating money from >banks, and if one person is immune from discussion, then let us >talk about all the others. A person is known by the company he >keeps. > >I want to close discussing this rule XVII because people watching >this House may be confused about the separation of powers. To >keep order in this place, there is comity between Members and the >Members in the other body, and it can be stretched when one >Member criticizes on the Senate floor this Member for being a >hobbyist on a gut-ripping issue like POW issues and Missing In >Action, but we have to have some comity here. > >But only in this Congress, the 104th Congress, was the office of >the President and the office of the Vice President put under the >rules, thereby damaging the separation of powers. I can assure >you after I file charges of impeachment, articles of impeachment, >and I can do it from zero to 1,000, after that, I will move when >we reassemble, God willing I am back and you are back, I will >demand in our rules from our leadership to finally show the guts >to go back to the way this existed for over 200 years, and have >this separation of powers so that the offices of the President >and the Vice President are no longer included in our rule XVIII >that demands civility between ourselves. > >Let me read one line about President Samper of Colombia: A >scathing assessment of the Bogota scene with its dozens of >censored stories, crippling folly and indolence, intellectual >shallowness, and social and mercenary corruption by the political >world it is supposed to monitor, resulting in a `day of the >locusts' talk-show demagoguery by liberals. > >Mr. Speaker, when you read this, the reaction to a young person >would be holy schnikes, how did our great country come to all >this corruption and scandals? > > > > > > > http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: piml] Rep. Waters Responds To Los Angeles - Mena Date: 01 Oct 1996 10:07:54 -0400 >>>We have citizens who say, `Ms. Waters, I do not agree with you on >>>a lot of things, but I agree with you on this. We want you to >>>stick with it, to stay with it. We are outraged at the idea that >>>our government could have known, could have been involved with >>>this, could have been a part of a plot.' > >I'm flabbergasted. I've never agreed with Waters ever before, but _this_ I >agree with; anything the government has done along these lines deserves to >be investigated and the culprits horsewhipped and hanged. Ms. Waters and the Black Caucus could be on to something here. When various random conservatives were complaining about Mena, it was just a right-wing conspiracy. When a whole bunch of prominent black people stand up and demand an investigation, its going to be harder to dismiss. (N.B. This is how the media perceives it, not my personal opinion.) Just on the face of it, it is pretty damn awful. The Feds are pushing for harsher drug penalties, using the military to fight drup producers overseas, *locking up close to 1% of the population, the highest incarceration rate of all the industrialized nations*, and at the same time they are smuggling, selling, and profiting from cocaine. I don't care what turns up, or what it takes. I don't care if this sullies Bush, Reagan and half their staffs. Clinton is guilty as sin, and the whole thing makes Watergate look like a third rate burglary. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT) On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Bill Vance wrote: > Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" is so > simple, everyone's missing it. > > 1. Educate the kids to be against it. > 2. Re-Legalize it. > 3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time they > want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self solving). > > This solution costs much less in time, money, and loss of Freedom, than > anything anyone else has come up with. > > Think of it as evolution in action. Bill - you'll never make it in this politics business. You got to learn that you get votes talking about MORality, not REality. Ask Newt if you don't believe me. Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (Fwd) Re: =U.S. National Guard moved drugs for (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 15:43:47 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Witness claims U.S. National Guard moved drugs for cartel > > >Copyright c 1996 Nando.net >Copyright c 1996 Reuter Information Service > >HOUSTON (Sep 30, 1996 5:48 p.m. EDT) - A former insider of the Gulf >drug cartel testified on Monday in the >trial of alleged drug kingping Juan Garcia Abrego that members of the >U.S. National Guard shipped marijuana >and cocaine in military trucks for the illicit organisation. > >Carlos Rodriguez, now serving up to 60 years in federal prison on >drug charges, said one of the cartel >members had "a special deal" with a group in the National Guard to >transport drugs from south Texas to >Houston. > >National Guard members "carried the drugs in an army trailer or >something, a military truck," he said. >Rodriguez did not say when the shipments were made, but they would >have occurred before his arrest in April >1993. > >It was not the first time in a trial that was expected to produce >revelations about public corruption in Mexico that >testimony has shown U.S. officials were not immune to the lure of >drug money. > >Earlier, cartel insiders said the organisation bribed guards at a >federal highway checkpoint in south Texas so >that their drug shipments could pass through without problems. > >One cartel member also testified that the drug ring paid U.S. >Immigration and Naturalisation Service workers in >south Texas to stash cocaine in INS buses that were used to carry >illegal immigrants to Houston. > >Agents at highway checkpoints routinely waved the buses through >without searching for drugs because they >were assumed to be clean, the witness said. Once in Houston, both the >drugs and immigrants were dropped >off. > >Garcia Abrego, once on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, faces up to >life in prison if convicted on 22 drug-related >counts. He was captured in January in Monterrey, Mexico, and flown to >Houston for trial. > >Prosecutors say the former cookie factory worker from Texas led the >Gulf cartel, which shipped up to one-third >of the cocaine used in the United States from its base in northern >Mexico. Defence attorneys said the >government has the wrong man. > >Rodriguez testified on Monday that he believed Garcia Abrego was the >head of the cartel. He described a >meeting in the border city of Matamoros in which a top lieutenant in >the drug ring introduced to him to the >defendant. > >"He introduced him as the Patron, El Jefe (the boss)," he said. > >Rodriguez said the Gulf cartel got its cocaine from the Cali cartel >in Colombia and would fly it to isolated >airstrips in northeastern Mexico for delivery to the United States. >Corrupt officials on the Mexican side of the >Rio Grande, which forms the Texas-Mexico border, would look the other >way so the drugs could get through. > >He estimated that more than 50 tons of cocaine were shipped to New >York City via south Texas and Houston >during his several years with the drug ring. > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >** For PGP public key send message with "request pgp key" as subject ** >** It will automatically be sent to you return email. ** >** PGP Encouraged. >================================================== ** > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ** For PGP public key send message with "request pgp key" as subject ** ** It will automatically be sent to you return email. ** ** PGP Encouraged. ================================================== ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 18:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Last time I checked, the following two things were true: 1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably assemble. 2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering "for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's purposes were anyway? bd On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: > I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on punks. > What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of the > law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's > > Larry Ball > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) > > From: Black Unicorn > > Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > > > > > Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > > > > These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > > > > WARNING > > THIS AREA HAS BEEN > > DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE > > > > Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on > > public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for > > the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of > > illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being > > instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the > > Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An > > arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, > > Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. > > > > Boundaries _________________________ > > > > Dates and Times _________________________ > > > > Larry D. Soulsby > > Chief of Police > > (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Do 2 + 2 = 4 ? Date: 01 Oct 1996 18:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Our "friends" the Republicans are doing this to us. bd >AP 30-Sep-1996 > >Under pressure from the White House and Senate >Democrats, congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic >violence gun ban, abandoning most of their alternative proposal. > The final language was hammered out over the weekend as part of the huge >spending bill before the Senate. It expands the current ban on gun >ownership or possession by felons to include virtually anyone convicted of >a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. [...] > > In the agreement reached during the weekend, congressional Republicans >dropped Barr's language requiring notification of the gun ban at the time of >arrest. They also agreed to modify Barr's language extending the ban only to >persons convicted af ter a jury trial, or after having waived a jury trial. > Democrats claimed that would have exempted most convicted abusers from the >ban because few such cases carry punishments severe enough to guarantee the >right to a jury trial. [...] > > > *********************************************************************** >On June 24, 1996, ... the Supreme Court quietly voted 7 to 2 to limit >our Sixth Amendment's guarantee to trial by jury. > >In Lewis v. United States, 95-6465, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for >the majority of the Court said: > >"...We conclude that no jury trial right exists where a defendant is >prosecuted for multiple petty offenses. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of >the right to a jury trial does not extend to petty offenses, and its scope >does not change where a defendant faces a potential aggregate prison term in >excess of six months for petty offenses." > [...] >Now the U. S. Supreme Court has made "...the most >serious incursions on the right to jury trial in the Court's history, and it >cannot be squared with our precedents." (Justice Kennedy writing for the >minority of the Court) [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 17:56:43 -0500 (CDT) Certain signs depict trouble and illegal activity just as much as natural forces predict events or activit Scientists make valid observations and conclusions based upon natural force activity, cannot the policy make similar valid observations of impending illegal activity? The right os PEACEFUL assembly is indeed guaranteed. It is guaranteed to the PEOPLE of the United States. Does this include gangbangers and juveniles? I think not. The history of police activity in the United States makes it clear that to break up such "loitering" or "hanging out" activity controls crime and juvenile deliquency. What the Wash. DC police are after is not "political" activity and that especially is what the Constitution protects. You civil libertarians need to keep in mind that the term "civil" pertains to conduct and the GOOD of society. It does not allow for anarchia liberteria. I, personally, think that it is time to bust up the loitering and hanging out. A 10:00pm curfew suits me just fine. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > Last time I checked, the following two things were true: > > 1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably assemble. > > 2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. > (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) > > So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, > they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them > alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering > "for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. > > When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's purposes > were anyway? > > bd > > On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: > > > I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on punks. > > What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of the > > law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's > > > > Larry Ball > > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) > > > From: Black Unicorn > > > Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > > > > > > > > Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > > > > > > These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > > > > > > WARNING > > > THIS AREA HAS BEEN > > > DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE > > > > > > Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on > > > public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for > > > the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of > > > illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being > > > instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the > > > Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An > > > arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, > > > Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. > > > > > > Boundaries _________________________ > > > > > > Dates and Times _________________________ > > > > > > Larry D. Soulsby > > > Chief of Police > > > (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 17:48:16 -0700 While agreeing with those who feel we should roust and arrest these gangbangers, I do not agree with making more laws when we are failing to enforce the laws that already exist. It is already illegal to loiter on the street for the purpose of conducting an illegal activity, simply by the fact that the illegal activity IS. How many more laws can this country stand before the nations capitols sink below the earth surface from the weight of redundant paperwork! This is the same as making it illegal to kill someone with a gun. It is already illegal to kill someone with any device. Just enforce that law and the new one becomes redundant. Our lawmakers are overwhelmed with their own importance, yet our courts are overwhelmed with their own "sensitivity". In order to "Restore our Constitution", we need to replace lawmakers who want to make new laws instead of eliminating bad laws, and we need to replace our justices with those who are just! Are we going to do this by whining about whether the D's, R's, or L's are right, or are we going to do this by choosing grass roots local politicians, who will eventually grow into the federal jobs, who believe in the Constitution? I propose the latter as the answer. Jerry Wootan Who happens to believe that voting for the lesser of evils is not as repugnant as allowing the greater of the evils to prevail. I'll be holding my nose, but I'll be moving to stop the disaster currently in place. THEN, I'll be working on a local grass roots level and looking for a better choice in 2000 starting in November! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 21:29:44 -0500 (CDT) I agree with the idea that we allready have enough law, all we need to do is enforce them. I am not sure that we have the ability to "roust and arrest." Our Judges and criminal advocates in the criminal justice system have pretty well demonized this idea. If new law gives fresh direction to the system, then we need new law. Beginning with the Jimmy Cagny "Father So &So" movies of the thirties we have now gone through three whole generations of civil libertarian bleeding heart liberal that believe that law abiding granny's and others should die just so scuzz bait and juvnile delinquents can have their liberty. Such philosophy is killing our country and by the way taking away our right to keep and bear arms. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > While agreeing with those who feel we should roust and arrest these > gangbangers, I do not agree with making more laws when we are failing to > enforce the laws that already exist. It is already illegal to loiter on the > street for the purpose of conducting an illegal activity, simply by the fact > that the illegal activity IS. How many more laws can this country stand > before the nations capitols sink below the earth surface from the weight of > redundant paperwork! > > This is the same as making it illegal to kill someone with a gun. It is > already illegal to kill someone with any device. Just enforce that law and > the new one becomes redundant. > > Our lawmakers are overwhelmed with their own importance, yet our courts are > overwhelmed with their own "sensitivity". In order to "Restore our > Constitution", we need to replace lawmakers who want to make new laws instead > of eliminating bad laws, and we need to replace our justices with those who > are just! > > Are we going to do this by whining about whether the D's, R's, or L's are > right, or are we going to do this by choosing grass roots local politicians, > who will eventually grow into the federal jobs, who believe in the > Constitution? I propose the latter as the answer. > > Jerry Wootan > > Who happens to believe that voting for the lesser of evils is not as repugnant > as allowing the greater of the evils to prevail. I'll be holding my nose, but > I'll be moving to stop the disaster currently in place. THEN, I'll be working > on a local grass roots level and looking for a better choice in 2000 starting > in November! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 20:48:26 -0600 Larr Ball said: >Beginning with the Jimmy Cagny "Father So &So" movies of the thirties >we have now gone through three whole generations of civil libertarian >bleeding heart liberal that believe that law abiding granny's and >others should die just so scuzz bait and juvnile delinquents can have >their liberty. Such philosophy is killing our country and by the way >taking away our right to keep and bear arms. "civil libertarian" and "bleeding heart liberal" put together in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Just because the news media cannot get it straight doesn't mean that it is the same. And I don't think that anyone including liberals think that grannys and other law abiding folks should die so that scuzz bait can have their liberty. The "conservative" idea that THEIR laws are OK to pass and infringe on people's liberties "for the greater good" fail for the same reason that "bleeding heart liberals" laws passed in the name of "the greater good." That reason is: it is wrong to pass a law for its intended effect and at the same time to ignore the means. The END does NOT justify the means. Whether liberal OR conservative. What was it that Franklin said about trading liberty for a little security and deserving neither? It applies the same to conservative do-gooders as to liberal do-gooders. best regards Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 22:10:34 -0500 At 05:56 PM 10/1/96 -0500, you wrote: >Certain signs depict trouble and illegal activity just as much as >natural forces predict events or activit Scientists make valid >observations and conclusions based upon natural force activity, cannot >the policy make similar valid observations of impending illegal >activity? No Larry, the police cannot be assumned to be psycic. They can move to a state of heightned watchfullness, so as not to miss any likely illegal activity. Until an illegal act is committed. Do do otherwise would amount to the power to arrest anyone for any reason, "I thought he was going to commit crime, judge" > >The right os PEACEFUL assembly is indeed guaranteed. It is guaranteed >to the PEOPLE of the United States. Does this include gangbangers and >juveniles? I think not. You couldn't be more wrong. They are people too, juveniles may be a specail case, they don't have complete rights, although mostly that is with respect to their parents and in some cases teachers. If the gangbangers have *already* committed illegal acts they shouldn't be out on the streets, if nothing else associating with known criminals (each other) has got to be a violation of the terms of their parole. However just belonging to a gang is not a crime. It would be hard to define a gang in such away as to *not* include such organizations as the boy scouts, or for that matter the young republicans or young democrats. > >The history of police activity in the United States makes it clear >that to break up such "loitering" or "hanging out" activity controls >crime and juvenile deliquency. What the Wash. DC police are after is >not "political" activity and that especially is what the Constitution >protects. For some such activity is "political", just not in the partison Politics sense. > >You civil libertarians need to keep in mind that the term "civil" >pertains to conduct and the GOOD of society. It does not allow for >anarchia liberteria. > >I, personally, think that it is time to bust up the loitering and >hanging out. A 10:00pm curfew suits me just fine. If they are legally adults, then it's no ones business how late they are out on the streets. Provided of course they are not disturbing the peace (a vague enough crime) or hassling others who also choose to be out and about. Again juveniles may be a different case. Plenty of reasons to bust the people in question, lets just not sweep up the innocent revelars along with the criminals. Now I *know* they don't roll up the streets that early in Lincoln. As someone has said, freedom means letting other people do things you don't approve of. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 02:00:12 EDT Sign, sign, everywhere a sing. Do this don't do that... So they put up another stupid sign. Is any one going to pay attention? Gary On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 07:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan writes: > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) >From: Black Unicorn >Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > >Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > >These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > >WARNING >THIS AREA HAS BEEN >DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 02:00:12 EDT I totally agree. Maybe we should put one of these signs on all four sides of the white house. GHB On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan writes: >Last time I checked, the following two things were true: > >1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably >assemble. > >2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. > (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) > >So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, >they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them >alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering > >"for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. > >When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's >purposes >were anyway? > >bd > >On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: > >> I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on >punks. >> What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of >the >> law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's >> >> Larry Ball >> lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Do 2 + 2 = 4 ? Date: 02 Oct 1996 02:00:12 EDT "Don't worry, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. GHB On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan writes: >Our "friends" the Republicans are doing this to us. > > >bd > > > >>AP 30-Sep-1996 >> >>Under pressure from the White House and Senate >>Democrats, congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic >>violence gun ban, abandoning most of their alternative proposal. >> The final language was hammered out over the weekend as part of >the huge >>spending bill before the Senate. It expands the current ban on gun >>ownership or possession by felons to include virtually anyone >convicted of >>a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. >[...] >> >> In the agreement reached during the weekend, congressional >Republicans >>dropped Barr's language requiring notification of the gun ban at the >time of >>arrest. They also agreed to modify Barr's language extending the ban >only to >>persons convicted af ter a jury trial, or after having waived a jury >trial. >> Democrats claimed that would have exempted most convicted abusers >from the >>ban because few such cases carry punishments severe enough to >guarantee the >>right to a jury trial. > >[...] >> >> >> > > >*********************************************************************** > >>On June 24, 1996, ... the Supreme Court quietly voted 7 to 2 to >limit >>our Sixth Amendment's guarantee to trial by jury. >> >>In Lewis v. United States, 95-6465, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, >writing for >>the majority of the Court said: >> >>"...We conclude that no jury trial right exists where a defendant is >>prosecuted for multiple petty offenses. The Sixth Amendment's >guarantee of >>the right to a jury trial does not extend to petty offenses, and its >scope >>does not change where a defendant faces a potential aggregate prison >term in >>excess of six months for petty offenses." >> > >[...] > >>Now the U. S. Supreme Court has made "...the most >>serious incursions on the right to jury trial in the Court's history, >and it >>cannot be squared with our precedents." (Justice Kennedy writing for >the >>minority of the Court) > >[...] > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 01:29:31 PST Make 'em "Bill" board size! :-) On Oct 02, GARY H. BURKEPILE wrote: >I totally agree. Maybe we should put one of these signs on all four >sides of the white house. > >GHB > >On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan >writes: >>Last time I checked, the following two things were true: >> >>1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably >>assemble. >> >>2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. >> (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) >> >>So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, >>they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them >>alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering >> >>"for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. >> >>When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's >>purposes >>were anyway? >> >>bd >> >>On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: >> >>> I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on >>punks. >>> What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of >>the >>> law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's >>> >>> Larry Ball >>> lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Juror Trial Continues to Wed (10/1) Date: 02 Oct 1996 07:16:51 -0400 >Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:38:38 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Juror Trial Continues to Wed (10/1) > >Juror on Trial >Update on 1st day of trial >10-1-96 > > The trial of ex-juror Laura Kriho for contempt of court ended its first >day on Tuesday. The trial will continue tomorrow and will probably >conclude by the late afternoon. > Five other jurors were called by the prosecution to testify >against Laura. The jurors testified to the judge about their >recollections of their deliberation process. They told five very >dis-similar stories about their deliberations. > About 75 people attended the trial. Court TV sent a camera >team, but were denied access to the courtroom by Judge Nieto. > This historic trial will probably conclude on Wed. Please, come >if you can! > >Wed - Oct 2 - 9am >Gilpin County Justice Center >Hwy. 46 (Golden Gate Canyon State Park Road) >One mile east of Hwy. 119 >From Boulder, take 119 through Nederland to Colo. 46. >From Denver, Hwy. 72, Hwy. 46, Hwy. 6, or I-70 all connect to Hwy. 119 > >Call the Gilpin County Clerk Court to confirm that the trial has not been >re-scheduled. (303) 582-5522. > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be removed from this mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Are we under Martial Law? (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 08:39:24 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Below is a document that has very specific meaning to those who can spot exactly what is going on in government, BATF, FBI, "Police organizations", etc... Albeit true to form, the concept has been corrupted to conform to commercial enforcement in this day and age, but the foundations after the overthrow remain. Some still cling to the belief that the de jure Constitution is still in effect, and sometimes I even get caught up in the ravel rousing and flag waiving. However, it only takes remembering a few sentences of that below which makes one realize just where We The People Stand in this country. It can not be disputed, upon reading this document enacted into law in 1868 under executive order no. 100, what the very foundations of our civilizations are today, and how it is absolutely certain that the government can "get away with murder", while we real in agony and disbelief. We are under Martial Law, or at least a form of it called Martial Rule, and the Government has a license to kill, when necesary. Remember, peace was never declared after the civil war. This document is long, you might consider reading it offline. Alan ******************************************************************* INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863. The text below is reprinted from the edition of the United States Government Printing Office of 1898; and reprinted in Schindler & Toman, eds., The Laws of Armed Conflicts. Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office. TABLE OF CONTENTS Articles Section I Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation. 1-30 Section II. Public and private property of the enemy - Pro- tection of persons, and especially of women, of religion, the arts and sciences - Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile countries. 31-47 Section III. Deserters - Prisoners of war - Hostages - Booty on the battlefield. 48-80 Section IV. Partisans - Armed enemies not belonging to the hostile army - Scouts- Armed prowlers - War-rebels. 81-85 Section V. Safe-conduct - Spies - War-traitors - Captured messengers - Abuse of the flag of truce. 86-104 Section VI. Exchange of prisoners - Flags of truce - Flags of protection 105-118 Section VII. The Parole 119-134 Section VIII. Armistice - Capitulation 135-147 Section IX. Assassination 148 Section X. Insurrection - Civil War - Rebellion 149-157 * * * SECTION I Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation Article 1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest. The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law. Art. 2. Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same. Art. 3. Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation. The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority. Art. 4. Martial Law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of war. Military oppression is not Martial Law: it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As Martial Law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity - virtues adorning a soldier even more than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms against the unarmed. Art. 5. Martial Law should be less stringent in places and countries fully occupied and fairly conquered. Much greater severity may be exercised in places or regions where actual hostilities exist, or are expected and must be prepared for. Its most complete sway is allowed - even in the commander's own country - when face to face with the enemy, because of the absolute necessities of the case, and of the paramount duty to defend the country against invasion. To save the country is paramount to all other considerations. Art. 6. All civil and penal law shall continue to take its usual course in the enemy's places and territories under Martial Law, unless interrupted or stopped by order of the occupying military power; but all the functions of the hostile government - legislative executive, or administrative - whether of a general, provincial, or local character, cease under Martial Law, or continue only with the sanction, or, if deemed necessary, the participation of the occupier or invader. Art. 7. Martial Law extends to property, and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy or aliens to that government. Art. 8. Consuls, among American and European nations, are not diplomatic agents. Nevertheless, their offices and persons will be subjected to Martial Law in cases of urgent necessity only: their property and business are not exempted. Any delinquency they commit against the established military rule may be punished as in the case of any other inhabitant, and such punishment furnishes no reasonable ground for international complaint. Art. 9. The functions of Ambassadors, Ministers, or other diplomatic agents accredited by neutral powers to the hostile government, cease, so far as regards the displaced government; but the conquering or occupying power usually recognizes them as temporarily accredited to itself. Art. 10. Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations. Art. 11. The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith concerning engagements concluded with the enemy during the war, but also the breaking of stipulations solemnly contracted by the belligerents in time of peace, and avowedly intended to remain in force in case of war between the contracting powers. It disclaims all extortions and other transactions for individual gain; all acts of private revenge, or connivance at such acts. Offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers. Art. 12. Whenever feasible, Martial Law is carried out in cases of individual offenders by Military Courts; but sentences of death shall be executed only with the approval of the chief executive, provided the urgency of the case does not require a speedier execution, and then only with the approval of the chief commander. Art. 13. Military jurisdiction is of two kinds: First, that which is conferred and defined by statute; second, that which is derived from the common law of war. Military offenses under the statute law must be tried in the manner therein directed; but military offenses which do not come within the statute must be tried and punished under the common law of war. The character of the courts which exercise these jurisdictions depends upon the local laws of each particular country. In the armies of the United States the first is exercised by courts-martial, while cases which do not come within the "Rules and Articles of War," or the jurisdiction conferred by statute on courts-martial, are tried by military commissions. Art. 14. Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war. Art. 15. Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God. Art. 16. Military necessity does not admit of cruelty - that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult. Art. 17. War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy. Art. 18. When a commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, in order to lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though an extreme measure, to drive them back, so as to hasten on the surrender. Art. 19. Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard a place, so that the noncombatants, and especially the women and children, may be removed before the bombardment commences. But it is no infraction of the common law of war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity. Art. 20. Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political, continuous societies, forming organized units, called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy, suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war. Art. 21. The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of the war. Art. 22. Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit. Art. 23. Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war. Art. 24. The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous armies, that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and still is with uncivilized people, the exception. Art. 25. In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants in other portions of the globe, protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule; privation and disturbance of private relations are the exceptions. Art. 26. Commanding generals may cause the magistrates and civil officers of the hostile country to take the oath of temporary allegiance or an oath of fidelity to their own victorious government or rulers, and they may expel everyone who declines to do so. But whether they do so or not, the people and their civil officers owe strict obedience to them as long as they hold sway over the district or country, at the peril of their lives. Art. 27. The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage Art. 28. Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution. Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther and farther from the mitigating rules of regular war, and by rapid steps leads them nearer to the internecine wars of savages. Art. 29. Modern times are distinguished from earlier ages by the existence, at one and the same time, of many nations and great governments related to one another in close intercourse. Peace is their normal condition; war is the exception. The ultimate object of all modern war is a renewed state of peace. The more vigorously wars are pursued, the better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are brief. Art. 30. Ever since the formation and coexistence of modern nations, and ever since wars have become great national wars, war has come to be acknowledged not to be its own end, but the means to obtain great ends of state, or to consist in defense against wrong; and no conventional restriction of the modes adopted to injure the enemy is any longer admitted; but the law of war imposes many limitations and restrictions on principles of justice, faith, and honor. SECTION II Public and private property of the enemy - Protection of persons, and especially of women, of religion, the arts and sciences - Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile countries. Art. 31. A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete. Art. 32. A victorious army, by the martial power inherent in the same, may suspend, change, or abolish, as far as the martial power extends, the relations which arise from the services due, according to the existing laws of the invaded country, from one citizen, subject, or native of the same to another. The commander of the army must leave it to the ultimate treaty of peace to settle the permanency of this change. Art. 33. It is no longer considered lawful - on the contrary, it is held to be a serious breach of the law of war - to force the subjects of the enemy into the service of the victorious government, except the latter should proclaim, after a fair and complete conquest of the hostile country or district, that it is resolved to keep the country, district, or place permanently as its own and make it a portion of its own country. Art. 34. As a general rule, the property belonging to churches, to hospitals, or other establishments of an exclusively charitable character, to establishments of education, or foundations for the promotion of knowledge, whether public schools, universities, academies of learning or observatories, museums of the fine arts, or of a scientific character such property is not to be considered public property in the sense of paragraph 31; but it may be taxed or used when the public service may require it. Art. 35. Classical works of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious instruments, such as astronomical telescopes, as well as hospitals, must be secured against all avoidable injury, even when they are contained in fortified places whilst besieged or bombarded. Art. 36. If such works of art, libraries, collections, or instruments belonging to a hostile nation or government, can be removed without injury, the ruler of the conquering state or nation may order them to be seized and removed for the benefit of the said nation. The ultimate ownership is to be settled by the ensuing treaty of peace. In no case shall they be sold or given away, if captured by the armies of the United States, nor shall they ever be privately appropriated, or wantonly destroyed or injured. Art. 37. The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, religion and morality; strictly private property; the persons of the inhabitants, especially those of women: and the sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously punished. This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader to tax the people or their property, to levy forced loans, to billet soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially houses, lands, boats or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses Art. 38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity. Art. 39. The salaries of civil officers of the hostile government who remain in the invaded territory, and continue the work of their office, and can continue it according to the circumstances arising out of the war - such as judges, administrative or police officers, officers of city or communal governments - are paid from the public revenue of the invaded territory, until the military government has reason wholly or partially to discontinue it. Salaries or incomes connected with purely honorary titles are always stopped. Art. 40. There exists no law or body of authoritative rules of action between hostile armies, except that branch of the law of nature and nations which is called the law and usages of war on land. Art. 41. All municipal law of the ground on which the armies stand, or of the countries to which they belong, is silent and of no effect between armies in the field. Art. 42. Slavery, complicating and confounding the ideas of property, (that is of a thing,) and of personality, (that is of humanity,) exists according to municipal or local law only. The law of nature and nations has never acknowledged it. The digest of the Roman law enacts the early dictum of the pagan jurist, that "so far as the law of nature is concerned, all men are equal." Fugitives escaping from a country in which they were slaves, villains, or serfs, into another country, have, for centuries past, been held free and acknowledged free by judicial decisions of European countries, even though the municipal law of the country in which the slave had taken refuge acknowledged slavery within its own dominions. Art. 43. Therefore, in a war between the United States and a belligerent which admits of slavery, if a person held in bondage by that belligerent be captured by or come as a fugitive under the protection of the military forces of the United States, such person is immediately entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman To return such person into slavery would amount to enslaving a free person, and neither the United States nor any officer under their authority can enslave any human being. Moreover, a person so made free by the law of war is under the shield of the law of nations, and the former owner or State can have, by the law of postliminy, no belligerent lien or claim of service. Art. 44. All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense. A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior. Art. 45. All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of war, primarily to the government of the captor. Prize money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed under local law. Art. 46. Neither officers nor soldiers are allowed to make use of their position or power in the hostile country for private gain, not even for commercial transactions otherwise legitimate. Offenses to the contrary committed by commissioned officers will be punished with cashiering or such other punishment as the nature of the offense may require; if by soldiers, they shall be punished according to the nature of the offense. Art. 47. Crimes punishable by all penal codes, such as arson, murder, maiming, assaults, highway robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, forgery, and rape, if committed by an American soldier in a hostile country against its inhabitants, are not only punishable as at home, but in all cases in which death is not inflicted, the severer punishment shall be preferred. SECTION III Deserters - Prisoners of war - Hostages - Booty on the battle-field. Art. 48. Deserters from the American Army, having entered the service of the enemy, suffer death if they fall again into the hands of the United States, whether by capture, or being delivered up to the American Army; and if a deserter from the enemy, having taken service in the Army of the United States, is captured by the enemy, and punished by them with death or otherwise, it is not a breach against the law and usages of war, requiring redress or retaliation. Art. 49. A prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army for active aid, who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the field or in the hospital, by individual surrender or by capitulation. All soldiers, of whatever species of arms; all men who belong to the rising en masse of the hostile country; all those who are attached to the army for its efficiency and promote directly the object of the war, except such as are hereinafter provided for; all disabled men or officers on the field or elsewhere, if captured; all enemies who have thrown away their arms and ask for quarter, are prisoners of war, and as such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled to the privileges of a prisoner of war. Art. 50. Moreover, citizens who accompany an army for whatever purpose, such as sutlers, editors, or reporters of journals, or contractors, if captured, may be made prisoners of war, and be detained as such. The monarch and members of the hostile reigning family, male or female, the chief, and chief officers of the hostile government, its diplomatic agents, and all persons who are of particular and singular use and benefit to the hostile army or its government, are, if captured on belligerent ground, and if unprovided with a safe conduct granted by the captor's government, prisoners of war. Art. 51. If the people of that portion of an invaded country which is not yet occupied by the enemy, or of the whole country, at the approach of a hostile army, rise, under a duly authorized levy en masse to resist the invader, they are now treated as public enemies, and, if captured, are prisoners of war. Art. 52. No belligerent has the right to declare that he will treat every captured man in arms of a levy en masse as a brigand or bandit. If, however, the people of a country, or any portion of the same, already occupied by an army, rise against it, they are violators of the laws of war, and are not entitled to their protection. Art. 53. The enemy's chaplains, officers of the medical staff, apothecaries, hospital nurses and servants, if they fall into the hands of the American Army, are not prisoners of war, unless the commander has reasons to retain them. In this latter case; or if, at their own desire, they are allowed to remain with their captured companions, they are treated as prisoners of war, and may be exchanged if the commander sees fit. Art. 54. A hostage is a person accepted as a pledge for the fulfillment of an agreement concluded between belligerents during the war, or in consequence of a war. Hostages are rare in the present age. Art. 55. If a hostage is accepted, he is treated like a prisoner of war, according to rank and condition, as circumstances may admit. Art. 56. A prisoner of war is subject to no punishment for being a public enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the intentional infliction of any suffering, or disgrace, by cruel imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other barbarity. Art. 57. So soon as a man is armed by a sovereign government and takes the soldier's oath of fidelity, he is a belligerent; his killing, wounding, or other warlike acts are not individual crimes or offenses. No belligerent has a right to declare that enemies of a certain class, color, or condition, when properly organized as soldiers, will not be treated by him as public enemies. Art. 58. The law of nations knows of no distinction of color, and if an enemy of the United States should enslave and sell any captured persons of their army, it would be a case for the severest retaliation, if not redressed upon complaint. The United States cannot retaliate by enslavement; therefore death must be the retaliation for this crime against the law of nations. Art. 59. A prisoner of war remains answerable for his crimes committed against the captor's army or people, committed before he was captured, and for which he has not been punished by his own authorities. All prisoners of war are liable to the infliction of retaliatory measures. Art. 60. It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with prisoners. Art. 61. Troops that give no quarter have no right to kill enemies already disabled on the ground, or prisoners captured by other troops. Art. 62. All troops of the enemy known or discovered to give no quarter in general, or to any portion of the army, receive none. Art. 63. Troops who fight in the uniform of their enemies, without any plain, striking, and uniform mark of distinction of their own, can expect no quarter. Art. 64. If American troops capture a train containing uniforms of the enemy, and the commander considers it advisable to distribute them for use among his men, some striking mark or sign must be adopted to distinguish the American soldier from the enemy. Art. 65. The use of the enemy's national standard, flag, or other emblem of nationality, for the purpose of deceiving the enemy in battle, is an act of perfidy by which they lose all claim to the protection of the laws of war. Art. 66. Quarter having been given to an enemy by American troops, under a misapprehension of his true character, he may, nevertheless, be ordered to suffer death if, within three days after the battle, it be discovered that he belongs to a corps which gives no quarter. Art. 67. The law of nations allows every sovereign government to make war upon another sovereign state, and, therefore, admits of no rules or laws different from those of regular warfare, regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, although they may belong to the army of a government which the captor may consider as a wanton and unjust assailant. Art. 68. Modern wars are not internecine wars, in which the killing of the enemy is the object. The destruction of the enemy in modern war, and, indeed, modern war itself, are means to obtain that object of the belligerent which lies beyond the war. Unnecessary or revengeful destruction of life is not lawful. Art. 69. Outposts, sentinels, or pickets are not to be fired upon, except to drive them in, or when a positive order, special or general, has been issued to that effect. Art. 70. The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison wells, or food, or arms, is wholly excluded from modern warfare. He that uses it puts himself out of the pale of the law and usages of war. Art.71. Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy, or who orders or encourages soldiers to do so, shall suffer death, if duly convicted, whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, or is an enemy captured after having committed his misdeed. Art. 72. Money and other valuables on the person of a prisoner, such as watches or jewelry, as well as extra clothing, are regarded by the American Army as the private property of the prisoner, and the appropriation of such valuables or money is considered dishonorable, and is prohibited. Nevertheless, if large sums are found upon the persons of prisoners, or in their possession, they shall be taken from them, and the surplus, after providing for their own support, appropriated for the use of the army, under the direction of the commander, unless otherwise ordered by the government. Nor can prisoners claim, as private property, large sums found and captured in their train, although they have been placed in the private luggage of the prisoners. Art. 73. All officers, when captured, must surrender their side arms to the captor. They may be restored to the prisoner in marked cases, by the commander, to signalize admiration of his distinguished bravery or approbation of his humane treatment of prisoners before his capture. The captured officer to whom they may be restored can not wear them during captivity. Art. 74. A prisoner of war, being a public enemy, is the prisoner of the government, and not of the captor. No ransom can be paid by a prisoner of war to his individual captor or to any officer in command. The government alone releases captives, according to rules prescribed by itself. Art. 75. Prisoners of war are subject to confinement or imprisonment such as may be deemed necessary on account of safety, but they are to be subjected to no other intentional suffering or indignity. The confinement and mode of treating a prisoner may be varied during his captivity according to the demands of safety. Art. 76. Prisoners of war shall be fed upon plain and wholesome food, whenever practicable, and treated with humanity. They may be required to work for the benefit of the captor's government, according to their rank and condition. Art. 77. A prisoner of war who escapes may be shot or otherwise killed in his flight; but neither death nor any other punishment shall be inflicted unsuccessful attempt at escape.  When responding to me directly, set the priority button to "Highest" and be sure to type "Comments to you" in the subject line! This will asssure that your message is read first. LEARN ABOUT THE WAR EMERGENCY POWERS ACTS ON MY WEBPAGE: http://www.jetlink.net/~mystery/ In HIS service, Alan Russell, suae potestate esse, an Private Christian Acting Chairman, Ojai Jural Society c/o General Delivery, Oakview Post Office Oakview, California Republic - "We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison - 1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and the doctrines of devils. - The Christian way of life, and the Christian philosophy is the best religion I have ever seen! Its a pity that the only ones who don't believe in it are the Christians! -- Gandi - "1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future!" --Adolf Hitler - How ironic, that we must become slaves to the vigilance of protecting freedom in order to be free. -- Me - "We're going to push through health care reform regardless of the views of the American people." -- $enator Jay Rockefeller, 1994 - "Ross Perot should be excluded from this fall's debates between President Clinton and Bob Dole because he does not have a realistic chance of winning the election, the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates decided Tuesday." -- WASHINGTON (AP) A note to those who are still UNITED STATES federal citizens: ((((( Buchannan is out of it, Klinton is evil, Dole is his flunky, ))))) ((((( Harry Browne (libertarian or not) is the only step in the ))))) ((((( right direction left!.... Put him in first, restore the ))))) ((((( Constitution, then deal with the other issues afterward...))))) Kill the Federal "Injustice" system, then the States "Municipal Courts", Disarm the FBI/Highway Patrol, RE-ARM the Lawfull Citizens, Put the Sherrif's back in control under Constitutional Laws, Restore Common Law Jury's (Per Article 7, Bill of Rights (American Constitution)) and the True magistrates (Justices of the peace, Article III, de jure American Constitution), constables (Not "Police State" officers), Institute THE SPOTLIGHT, MEDIA BYPASS, and THE AMERICAN'S BULLETIN as the National Newpapers, Investigate the Bad Apples in the CIA and prosecute them for Treason! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Constitution Party Subject: VICTIM OF GOV'E ABUSE TO SPEAK Date: 02 Oct 1996 15:58:25 -0400 Fellow Americans: If you are in the Philadelphia area Thursday evening, October 3, 1996 at 7:00pm, come on down to Denny's on City Line Avenue (& I-76 (Schkuyll Expressway) near the Adams Mark Hotel. Attendence is free but if you eat, of course you pay your own meals. Steven Ames, latest victim of government abuse will be telling his story. Basically, Ames' children were taken from him for "reading the Bible without proper supervision and teaching his children that the Constitution is still relevant!" Steven has his court documents that state that the State can take your children for political and religeous reasons. Ha also has a tape recording of a government official that will surprise you. Steven Ames is looking into homeschooling but this aura of fear set up by government has him temporarily stymied, at least until he gets his children back. Steven has sought every avenue of assistance in fighting these charges, including a visit to US Senator Arlen Sp[ecter's office where he was told by an aid that "whatever the big money guys want, they get" and that if he did not stop publicizing his story, he would "spend the rest of his life in jail." If you are concerned about an ever-encroaching government, a home-schooling advocate, one who is concerned at the direction this country is taking, then come down and hear Steven Ames. Now is the time to wake up. Sponsored by: The Constitution Party Philadelphia Libertarian Party Delaware County Libertarian Party The Pennsylvania Research Guild Mike Innerarity -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 4.0 Business Edition mQCNAjGsl20AAAEEALoYUvqtbkPkCY/SD8LqBy5k7tUwd3+tljGs/wx2bh/aRtmD 2VvQRhpbgC2vemGYmgtDTInFk55/Z88ITzhlOAPtowtM7xc19Lm3ENjsDDqXmxK5 yuW21g3LhXDJXh1BYW9Eb3XRF3XL8f83MKcsIQuocbYe9ZUrBSXAj+gItmUBAAUR tCRNaWtlIElubmVyYXJpdHkgPHBhdHJpb3RAbmV0YXhzLmNvbT4= =+sS/ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Strange request - coffee mugs Date: 02 Oct 1996 16:10:54 -0400 Gentlefolk, Do any of you have a pointer to anyone selling Militia coffee mugs? I have a handful of interested buyers who desire coffee mugs from a militia group, any militia group. The Michigan Militia, or some other high-profile group would be great. Thanks, Jack Curtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Gee, I hate to spread rumors, but.... (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 16:16:29 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Washington Times October 1, 1996 >From the "Inside the Beltway" section by John McCaslin Perot-Clinton deal? George Carpozi Jr., longtime New York newspaper journalist and controversial author who's spent the past four years sifting through Bill Clinton's past, now claims Mr. Clinton and Ross Perot struck a deal in 1991 that initiated the billionaire's candidacy as a third-party spoiler. "In turn, Clinton agreed that his first act as occupant of the Oval Office would be to reform the nation's health-care system with massive changes," Mr. Carpozi writes in a four-page paper being distributed on Capitol Hill. "Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that Perot played a large hand in first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's efforts to craft the ill-fated health reform bill, which turned Clinton's first year in office into a debacle," Mr. Carpozi claims. "Even more significantly -- if not alarmingly -- not one but two of Perot's companies were earmarked in Mrs. Clinton's 'working papers' to play mammoth roles in the health-care industry," he writes. **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS **************************************************** "As a rule, it is the poor and the weak and the friendless who furnish the victims of the law." -- Clarence Darrow in a debate with Judge Alfred J. Talley, Oct. 27, 1924 **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: kiss_1.html (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 17:10:09 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media [ Yahoo | Write Us | Search | Info ] [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: Republicans Challenge Truthfulness on Bosnia Next Story: Ailing Yeltsin Plans Regular Radio Addresses _________________________________________________________________ Wednesday October 2 5:05 PM EDT Suspension Lifted for Kissing 7-Year-Old NEW YORK (Reuter) - Just 10 days after a 6-year-old North Carolina boy was suspended from school for kissing a girl on the cheek, a 7-year-old New York boy suffered a similar fate but had his suspension lifted Wednesday. Education officials said De'Andre Dearinge, who was suspended for five days this week on a charge of sexual harassment after he kissed a classmate and pulled a button off her skirt at a public school, would be able to return to school Thursday. "The principal made the decision based on the facts that she had at the moment and possibly the use with a 7-year-old of the term 'sexual harassment' was inappropriate but certainly the behavior dictated a closer look at what the child did," the school's deputy superintendant Kenneth Grover told reporters. The New York Daily News reported that the boy admitted to his mother he had kissed the girl "because I like her" and had taken the button because his favorite book is "Corduroy" about a bear with a button missing from his coveralls. The school district follows board guidelines that define sexual harassment as sexually suggestive comments, innuendos or propositions or inappropriate physical contact of a sexual nature, such as touching, patting or pinching. In Lexington, N.C., 6-year-old Jonathan Prevette was suspended for a day from school last month after he kissed a girl on the cheek. The child subsequently appeared on several television and radio talk shows. _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Re: Gun Ban Endorsed By GOP (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 21:06:37 -0400 >Associated Press Writer > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats, >congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic violence gun ban, >abandoning most of their alternative proposal. -snip- With friends like these, who the hell needs enemies? V. Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave_l@Mainstream.net Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 02 Oct 1996 23:28:39 +0000 > Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" is so > simple, everyone's missing it. > > 1. Educate the kids to be against it. > 2. Re-Legalize it. > 3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time they > want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self solving). > > This solution costs much less in time, money, and loss of Freedom, than > anything anyone else has come up with. But that's what the Libertarians keep asking for. After all, we don't want dead druggies cluttering up the streets, do we? They are much better robbing and burglarizing the public, aren't they? Dave 8{) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: (Fwd) Drug trial turns glare of wrongdoing on U.S. border agents (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 02:02:59 -0400 (EDT) One of many things wrong about the War On Drugs. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- AP HARLINGEN, Texas (Oct 2, 1996 7:18 p.m. EDT) -- In portraying Juan Garcia Abrego as a powerful drug lord, the government's own witnesses at Abrego's trial have also turned the spotlight on possible wrongdoing by U.S. law enforcement authorities. A prosecution witness has claimed that Border Patrol agents at one South Texas checkpoint took bribes to keep drugs flowing, prompting a Justice Department investigation. And other witnesses have renewed allegations that U.S. immigration agents and National Guardsmen took part in the drug trade. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: America's New Internal Secuity Forces - SOF 10-96 (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:15:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reprinted from SOLDIER OF FORTUNE OCTOBER 96; Subscriptions: $28/yr, PO Box 693, Mt. Morris, IL 61054; 1-800-877-5207 We Have Met The Enemy -- And He Is Us America's New Internal Security Forces by James L. Pate Drowsy residents are rattled by the rata-tat-tat and BOOM! BOOM! as 50 Army commandos fast-rope down into four separate parts of Pittsburgh from nine unlit, unmarked Black Hawk helicopters. The sudden raid "turned parts of the city into war zones, complete with the sounds of explosions and gunfire that frightened residents and sent one pregnant women into labor..." Frantic radio talk show callers swear to seeing the dreaded black helicopter. No, it isn't a script synopsis for the opening scene of a new John Milius film. It's a real-life story, one that began at 2200 hours Monday, 3 June, and continued into the early morning of Tuesday. The quotes are from a front-page story in The Washington Times on 6 June 1996. Local lawmen claimed not to know much about the decidedly military exer- cise. Small comfort to the more than 100 frightened citizens who phoned the Pittsburgh Police Department during the first 30 minutes. The eventual explanation came from far away, from Lieutenant Colonel Ken McGraw of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Green Beret units must "be able to deploy in any place in the world at a moment's notice," McGraw said. "The only way you can train for urban deployment is to train in that environment.... We canceled Tuesday's operation to... not cause further disruption." McGraw said similar training had been conducted in other cities, rattling off Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami and Detroit. No mishaps have occurred, he assured curious reporters. The official explanation was intriguing enough: Green Beret commandos routinely simulating attacks on civilian property in America's streets. The real explanation is even more mysterious. Citing their concern for the military's expanding role with civilian law enforcement, several military and civilian sources with intelligence and security backgrounds, including a member of the United States Special Operations Command, dispute the official version of the Pittsburgh incident. Public safety also prompted them to step briefly from the shadows. Two of the sources contacted Soldier Of Fortune directly in response to a recent article about the close, routine and expanding relationship between the Federal Bureau of Investigation Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) and the U.S. Army's highly classified Delta regiment (see "Black Suits, Badges and Bradleys," SOF, August '96). The Pittsburgh incident, two similar ones in separate Chicago suburbs on two consecutive nights in June 1995, and other nocturnal operations in other U.S. cities are not urban warfare training exercises for generic Green Beret units, said these sources, who all demanded anonymity. These incidents, which are growing in number, are actually internal security training missions staged by the Army's Delta Force. And the operations routinely include some members of local law enforcement Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. "They do a city each quarter," one Army source said. "The Pittsburgh operation was 'A' Squadron, the current CT [counterterrorism] squadron." Citing public safety concerns, he disputed McGraw's assertion that participants in these exercises only use blank ammunition, and that there had been "no mishaps." "The deal with helicopters flying in and playing soundtracks of gunfire?" the Army source posed. "That was to cover the real gunfire." In downtown Miami, in an assault on an abandoned building at about 0200 hours "one day" last year, a sniper bullet penetrated a window, hit the bullet trap, ricocheted and penetrated an interior wall. On the other side, customers in an all night business were startled as the bullet whizzed harmlessly through and exited through another window. No one was hurt. This was confirmed by a civilian law enforcement source familiar with the incident who also requested anonymity. The same source described a similar mishap involving Delta and an excessively large explosive charge in an industrial area near New Orleans. After a takedown exercise at an abandoned petroleum cracking plant near New Orleans, Delta had to pay the facility's corporate owner an additional $95,000 to repair a three-front section of wall damaged in an explosion. Extra-Legal Law Enforcement? More troubling is that these internal security exercises by Delta, which double as liaison and training missions to local law enforcement, are not bound by restrictions against involvement in civilian law enforcement that apply to most military units. As reported in the referenced article in the August issue of SOF, Delta is exempted from the Posse Comitatus Act by a classified portion of Presidential Decision Directive No. 25 (PDD-25) signed by President Clinton early in his administration. Most disturbing, though, is the allegation that Delta, the Navy's SEAL Team Six and the Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR 160) have been used occasionally to augment--in one alleged incident even replace--civilian lawmen involved in federal-prison barricade situations. These claims were made by four separate sources, three in two branches of the military, and the fourth in civilian law enforcement. Among other allegations, they say PDD-25's classified exemption for the Comitatus Act covers not just Delta, but its higher command, the Joint Special Operations Command. JSOC is headquartered at Fort Bragg and accountable only to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president. McGraw denied that the Pittsburgh operation was anything except what was reported, and routinely declined to speak about Delta. Secreted behind berms and two rows of 10-foot security fences ringing its six-mile perimeter, Delta's $75 million headquarters building is located on the old Range 19 complex at Fort Bragg. "The Pentagon still refuses to publicly acknowledge that Delta Force even exists," veteran Pentagon journalist Douglas C. Waller wrote in his book, The Commandos: The Inside Story of America 's Secret Soldiers. "It's a somewhat silly subterfuge," Waller wrote. "A visitor can walk into offices at the U.S. Special Operations Command at Tampa and find coffee mugs sporting the secret Delta Force logo: a kelly green triangle inlaid with a white dagger and another gold triangle." The anonymous assertions that the Pittsburgh incident, and others, were Delta training missions are lent further credence by Waller's chapter on the unit, in which he recounts "one exercise [in which] Delta commandos... use[d] an abandoned Los Angeles jail...." Abandoned hospitals and office buildings have also been used, said SOF's sources. "Ken McGraw's response to the incident in Pittsburgh was a total cover," said the USSOC source. "Nothing was canceled. They routinely use the Green Beret ruse to mask Delta. But it's not Army Special Forces. A lot of the guys in Delta now have never been in Special Forces." Waller describes in his book how, "twice a year, Delta's administrative staff makes a secret visit to St. Louis, Missouri, to pour over military records at the Army's main personnel center." While Delta recruiters closely evaluate Green Berets and Rangers, they also, "depending on what special skills are needed...at the moment... review the files of soldiers from other branches...." The urban training missions take a lot of time. And a lot of money. "They send an ADVON (advance team) down about a month before," one source said. "The ADVON gets with the local SWAT teams. It's very close-hold until it starts to go down, and then they issue a discreet heads-up." In the Pittsburgh case, McGraw told The Washington Times, the Army notified the police and civilians in the "immediate vicinity," but didn't "put out any broad, sweeping statement that covers everybody. We don't want to unnecessarily alarm people.... And we don't want ... a lot of people wanting to observe the training...." The sources said site selection and timing are crucial. Ryder Trucks Full Of Explosives "The ADVON will link with the SWAT team, drive around the city and conduct site selection for abandoned buildings whose owners agree to rent them out as temporary training facilities," one said. "Typically, it's an abandoned or sparsely populated industrial area." Once a site selection is made, Delta sends up rental trucks packed with ordnance, weapons and other gear, all driven by teams of Delta operatives. Once they arrive, the building is set up for whatever training scenario has been selected, preparation that includes bullet traps in windows, hallways and behind doors. "They try to pick a time when it'll be quiet," he said. "Early in the week is good. The other Delta guys will infiltrate by private vehicle, commercial air. They're filtered in. Stay at hotels, in safe-houses, whatever the ADVON has set up. And they link up with the local SWAT guys... This is where you get some of the black helicopter tales... They only do it once. There is no rehearsal on the actual target site.... They're doing live-fire exercises." There have been "some foul-ups," he said, citing the Miami incident. "One of the key elements deployed with the ADVON and the assault team is the counterintelligence (CI) unit. They have badges and plenty of cash for contingency problems." "If anything untoward happens, they flip the badges and suggest that it would be helpful to God and country to keep your mouth shut. They'll blanket a small area. And, if necessary, they might bribe or threaten someone to keep them quiet. There's accountability for the money, pre- sumably, but it's very secret internal accountability, and no outside oversight." Counter-intelligence? In the Miami incident, "the CI people were there almost immediately" after the errant bullet plunged through the wall of the all-night business and pinged through a street-front window. "They flipped their badges, pleaded national security, made some vague threats and passed around some loot. It's the old force-and-fraud thing. Shut up, and here's some cash for your trouble." Then there are the allegations of JSOC assets, such as Delta, SEAL Team 6 and SOAR 160, being "loaned" to the Department of Justice in isolated incidents to defuse hostage-barricade situations in federal prison. A military source at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, described in some detail a federal prison riot in Talledega, Alabama, in 1988. He said SOAR 160, then known as Task Force 160, provided the tactical insertion for the takedown team. That team, he said, was a Navy SEAL team, probably SEAL Team 6. "HRT was standing aside. There was controversy about Posse Comitatus within the unit, especially among our pilots," the Army aviation source said. "There was a lot of question about whether they should do that or not." That's not the only time military intervention has been considered to quell a disturbance at the federal prison in Talledega, said another military source, this one at Quantico, Virginia, familiar with the close knit relationship between the FBI's HRT and elite military commando teams. Although very good at what they do, and mission-oriented, some within the new internal security establishment have misgivings about their mission since the federal fiascoes at Waco et al. These impromptu leaflets were dropped over Florida by a SOAR 160 pilot, but went unnoticed. The other Talledega incident occurred while the HRT was tied down in the 51 day Waco siege. Use of a SEAL team instead of HRT for a takedown operation "was discussed," said the Quantico source. As it turned out, HRT resolved it peacefully, without military assistance. In a separate, but not as recent, incident at the federal prison in Atlanta, Delta was called in to take down a prisoner-barricade situation, said the USSOC source. Like the second Talledega takedown in 1993, the crisis was resolved without violence. In Atlanta, "there was no resistance. I believe they [inmates] knew these were more than federal agents coming in. Delta did the take-down. HRT took the credit." Debate continues in the ranks, the sources agree. "At first, no one really questioned it," said the Kentucky source. "We were thinking about Islamic terrorists. We'd always thought of the civilian agents as the good guys. After Waco ... it took on a more sin- ister light." So much so that a disgruntled SOAR 160 pilot printed up propaganda leaflets condemning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for thuggish conduct. He dropped thousands over Florida, but was disappointed that there was no public notice. Now, the public is noticing. But officials, civilian and military, say very little. When hundreds of sleeping residents in Des Plaines, Illinois, near Chicago, were awakened by gunfire, explosions and swooping helicopters in June 1995, local police "said they never heard of it," the Chicago Sun-Times reported. An Illinois State Police spokesman finally admitted it was "some sort of SWAT thing; multijurisdictional. We can't talk about it." Call Department of Defense, he said. "Routine exercise," said Mike Sienda, a Pentagon spokesman. "Military police." Next night, in another Chicago suburb, Lemont, an abandoned seminary was "invaded." One neighbor thought a nearby refinery had exploded. "Routine training," Sienda repeated the next day. This time it was "a navigational exercise." Navigational training? With gunfire and explosions? "There was some of that, too," Sienda told reporter Zay N. Smith. No one was notified in advance because "we didn't want to attract attention." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) French Intelligence on TWA 800 (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:30:08 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message: > >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 22:53:23 -0400 (EDT) >From: Brad Dolan >To: snetnews@alterzone.com >Subject: (fwd) French Intelligence on TWA 800 (fwd) >Sender: snetnews-approval@alterzone.com >Reply-To: snetnews@alterzone.com > > >-> SearchNet's snetnews Mailing List > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >INTELLIGENCE ISSN 1245-2122 >N. 44 New Series, 23 September 1996 >Publishing since 1980 > >FRONT PAGE: > >U.S.A. >FRENCH INTELLIGENCE EXPLANATION FOR TWA 800 > >The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the FBI, >which usually comes up quickly with coherent explanations for >aircraft accidents or terrorist attacks against aviation, still >do not have a single credible explanation for the inflight 17 >July explosion that destroyed the TWA Flight 800 Boeing 747 off >Long Island, New York. This lack of explanation has left the >door open to an increasingly wide variety of theories that will >continue to grow, according to one specialist, "until the U.S. >presidential elections are over". Other specialists are >waiting for the "first serious intelligence leak" that may help >eliminate some theories and concentrate attention on one of the >three "major" explanations: a terrorist bomb on board Flight >800; a "missile hit"; a catastrophic malfunction of the >Boeing 747. Currently, the least credible of the three is the >last, but, as we mentioned in our previous issue: "U.S. >authorities continue to downplay suggestions that mechanical >failure might have caused the plane to drop rapidly from 4,800 >meters to 3,000 meters before exploding and falling into the >sea off Long Island, despite the fact that a similar incident >occurred in May 1976 when an Iranian Air Force 747 -- the same >model as TWA Flight 800 -- exploded in mid-air near Madrid >airport, killing 17 crew members. After widespread speculation >that a bomb on board had caused the crash, an inquiry later >concluded that a fuel leak in one of the wings was responsible" >(see "Firing Missiles at Civilian Airliners"; INT, N. 43/9). >The possibility of a terrorist bomb destroying Flight 800 seems >to be the "most reasonable" theory and has been thoroughly >covered by the major media, but it still lacks the "official >seal" of the FBI and the NTSB which, as we mentioned, are >usually quite capable technically of asserting this on rather >short notice. > >Let's turn our attention to the "unacceptable" explanation that >the TWA Boeing was hit by a missile. The strange sighting on >29 August, by an American Airlines pilot, of "a missile off the >right wing" of his aircraft, mentioned in our previous issue, >was confirmed on 11 September by U.S. NASA to have been a >secret rocket-launched experiment by the Pentagon. Although >the five-meter rocket fired from Wallops Island, Virginia, >passed only five kilometers off the wing of American Airlines >Flight 1170, NASA spokesman, Keith Koehler, publicly maintained >that proper safety procedures had been followed and the rocket >posed no threat to the airliner. Nonetheless, his declaration >had the effect of silencing all those who said a "missile hit" >against TWA 800 was "unthinkable". > >One established fact is that a heat-seeking missile did not hit >Flight 800. A 747's four, large engines -- the infrared "hot >spots" that such missiles "chase", often going right up the >exhaust nozzle -- showed no damage from a nearby explosion. >This would tend to exclude theories based on the firing of a >shoulder-launched, head-seeking Stinger missile by terrorists >in a boat off Long Island. But, as a press report stated, >quoting French Defense Ministry sources, larger missiles would >involve heavy infrastructure and therefore directly implicate >U.S. armed forces, which alone have such capabilities in the >area. This has generated the "U.S. Military Goof" theory which >has since been reinforced by an anonymous Internet report, >supposedly by a 747 pilot, stating that "Flight 800 was shot >down by a U.S. Navy Aegis missile fired from a guided missile >ship which was in area W-105 about 30 miles from where the TWA >Flight 800 exploded." To correct the terminology, this means >that an Aegis class guided-missile destroyer fired a Standard >Missile SM-1 or SM-2 (either "medium range" or "extended range" >version). According to the report, a P-3 missile tracking >aircraft was in place for a test firing and flying above TWA >800 when a US Air flight, cleared to descend toward Providence, >Rhode Island, appeared. This supposedly resulted in air >traffic controllers demanding that TWA 800 stop gaining >altitude, leveling off at 4,800 meters and flying perilously >close, or into, area W-105 with its radio transponers emitting >signals. > >According to "Intelligence" sources, an alternate "U.S. >Military Goof" theory, which greatly diminishes U.S. armed >forces' responsibility, is circulating among French >intelligence services. According to our sources, an >unidentified and unmarked aircraft flying south from Canada, >and suspected of being a clandestine drug delivery flight, was >picked up and "painted" by coastal radar. After repeated >summons by radio and no response, the aircraft was "painted" by >missile radar and given a final warning. When no reply >followed, a missile was launched in the direction of the >unidentified aircraft which then "ducked" into the radar shadow >of TWA Flight 800 and the large Boeing 747 "caught the >missile". Intelligence experts already have one such scenario >on their hands; the destruction of an Italian airlines DC-9 in >1980 over the island of Ustica on its flight from Rome to >Sicily (see pages 237-240 of our book, "Intelligences >Secretes", 1988, Hachette, Paris). But one has to be careful, >since this similarity can be used to draw attention away from a >different explanation of the Flight 800 explosion. > >Nonetheless, in the Ustica case, it seems that a Libyan MiG >pilot attempted to defect to Italy and was chased north over >the Mediterranean by at least two other Libyan MiGs, intent on >shooting him down. At the same time, French and American >fighters were in the area, probably "scrambling" to head off >the Libyans. What exactly happened is still the center of a >heated controversy. Supposedly, as with Flight 800, all radar >track recordings have been lost or seized and disappeared. The >most "reasonable" explanation is that one of the fighters fired >at the Libyan defector who flew his MiG into the radar shadow >of the DC-9 which "took the hit". That this case still hasn't >been resolved tends to indicate that the deadly missile wasn't >Libyan. Otherwise someone would probably have leaked >information long ago implicating the Libyan "bogeyman". It >should also be noted that, in this case, French and U.S. >military intelligence certainly know what happened, just like >with TWA 800. One specialist mentioned the possibility that >perhaps Washington has Paris "by the nose" over Ustica, and >that Paris has Washington "by the nose" over Flight 800. Since >Ustica was never "solved", Flight 800 may never be "solved". > >Nonetheless, French intelligence has leaked enough information >to point a finger at the U.S. military. According to French >intelligence, U.S. Navy divers recovered the serial number of >the missile which destroyed Flight 800, but the Pentagon >immediately had the number erased from its inventory. All >radar track recordings have supposedly be seized and the NTSB >has allegedly not been given access to some 3,000 eyewitness >interviews by the FBI. According to one U.S. expert, a >Standard Missile leaves a large plume of smoke that should have >been visible from Long Island. And since the "political >fallout" from such a disaster is extremely volatile and >unpredictable, the Clinton administration apparently has >forbidden the release of any information that would implicate >the U.S. military ... at least until the presidential elections >are over. > * > > >Editor >Olivier Schmidt >email oschmidt@francenet.fr >web http://www.blythe.org/Intelligence/ >tel/fax 33 1 40 51 85 19 >post ADI, 16 rue des Ecoles >75005 Paris, France > > * > > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@alterzone.com >-> Posted by: Brad Dolan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: budget passage HR 4278--good grief--what next? (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:32:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ================================================== MY NOTE: The writer below is president of a large second amendment organization in Eastern Missouri state. I find his writings to be pertinent and on target in most--if not all cases. His research appears well on this piece of legislation in this writing. ================================================== Subj: Passage of HR 4278 - (recently passed by Congress) Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 "No Senator, and I dare say no staff person, has had the time to carefully review the thousands of programs funded in this resolution, or to read and comprehend the many nonappropriations, legislative matters contained in this resolution" "This is the 2,000-plus pages that have been put together and assembled since last Friday. I would suggest there is not one Member of this body who has read this. But we go through that quite often and quite often we vote on things that we have not read in their entirety." These are two of the quotes contained in the Congressional Record covering the final debates prior to passage of HR4278. This is another monster bill with many provisions that Americans would question and/or be upset about if only someone would tell them the truth of the content. I suggest everyone take a look at it. Amongst the many things you will find Clinton's anti-gun-owner agenda is still of the move. On page 11933 on the Senate Journal you will discover that this bill includes Bill Clinton's mandate that congress find "some way around the Constitution" to restore this "law" that was struck down in US v. Lopez. Sen Kohl explained to the body of the Senate that revising the language to say that the government would only have to prove the the gun in question had "moved in or" ... This added clause according to our Senate gives them the jurisdiction under the "commerce clause" to regulate and ban the possession of any firearm -- just as long as it at some time had "moved in" interstate commerce. For those of you following this issue, this indeed was the expected response. However, the long term ramifications of this, if upheld by the courts, are not good. If upheld, this means that congress claims the right to ban any and all firearms -- because we all know, most if not all firearms possessed in this country have at one time moved in "interstate commerce". In addition, I have also read some months ago that the intention is to extend this to component parts and materials as well. On other issues, this bill provides funding for the UN -- because we "owe" it to the other 185 member nations (only in the bill they are called states). How do you like that, for 1 vote out of 185, we pay 30 to 50% of the operating costs --don't sound like a good deal to me. National ID pilot programs and research. This bill is also contains the next step in the national ID card movement. I am still researching it because the whole bill hasn't been assembled yet -- you have to piece it together from all the other bills they were considered -- but if you want to know what this is about, do a net search of HR2202 and read the Senate version -- last before the conference report. This is another bad bill and I thought you would like to know some of the "other stuff" in the bill. Spread the word on Gun Free School Zones. G. Jeffery ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Review: Unlimited Access Part V (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:36:02 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Conservative Consensus Events * Analysis * Commentary * Forecasts * Readers' Opinions http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html BOOK REVIEW * W1X1002 * 10.02.1996 * ISSN 1074-245X (c)1996 by Conservative Consensus. Copying information below. Serialized Book Review (Part V) Reviewed by Craige McMillan ------------------------------------------------------- Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House, by Gary Aldrich. Hardcover, $24.96, 220 pages, Bibliography, Index, 1996. Regnery Publishing, Wash. DC. ------------------------------------------------------- Rose Law North For a President pushing "law and order," author Gary Adrich demonstrates there was little of either in the personal lives of the new Clinton staffers: Clinton staffers would show up at checkpoints without any identification, or with friends who didn't have any ID, or even, on more than one occasion, with friends who were wanted by the law and would become outraged when the Secret Service denied them access.... One Clinton "volunteer" from Texas was caught trying to bring in a pistol. He wasn't intent on harming anyone; he just wanted to protect himself in Washington DC. The character insights into senior Clinton staffers throughout Unlimited Access are worth many times the price of the book. Of particular interest are Mr. Aldrich's initial impressions of Vincent Foster: I sipped my coffee and reviewed the standard forms that Foster had filled out about his life and background. As part of his responsibilities, Foster would need to see many of the nation's most secret secrets. But as yet, he had no basis for a security clearance. Foster had never been investigated by any agency responsible for national security. With Foster, agent Aldrich was certain that he had finally found someone in the new administration who would begin to implement proper security procedures. The other key players -- many now gone -- are also discussed at length: Bernard Nussbaum (I had the distinct impression that he was considering whether he should squash me like a bug), William Held Kennedy III (In hindsight, if anyone appeared to me to be depressed, it was Kennedy, not Foster), and a host of smaller, behind-the-scenes players. But as Mr. Aldrich points out, it wasn't only the people he saw, it was the people he didn't see that worried him. While security procedures were designed to protect the president, separate procedures were intended to protect classified material. It took the Bush administration hundreds of employees with security clearances to handle the same volume of [classified] paperwork. But according to a GAO report made public in October 1995, from 20 January 1993 to March 1994 there were only twenty-four employees in the entire Clinton administration who had been cleared to handle the thousands and thousands of classified documents. There was no way they could have handled the workload. I believe that classified material passed through the hands of Clinton employees without security clearances... Handling classified material without a clearance -- or allowing classified material to pass through uncleared personnel -- is a violation of federal law. Mr. Aldrich consoled himself with the thought that in Vincent Foster, he had found someone who finally appreciated the problems the FBI was having with the new Clinton staff. Next time: The Unraveling of Vince Foster ========================= COPYING: (c)1996 by Conservative Consensus. All rights reserved. Permission granted for PRIVATE, NON-COMMERCIAL USE, provided nothing is changed and our headers and trailers remain intact. FREE SUBSCRIPTION: Get the full story, not just the media spin! Send us an email with SUBSCRIBE as the subject. In the first line of your message, put the words SUBSCRIBE CONSENSUS-L Your Name. Email to: CONSENSUS-L-REQUEST@eskimo.com YOU WILL receive 8-12 news releases monthly (no mail from other subscribers). Our unique analysis gives you the story behind the headlines. We cover events affecting: *** The US Constitution * US & World Security * Political Corruption Individual Liberty * World Financial Markets * Religious Freedom *** VISIT OUR WEBSITE: Get free, downloadable news releases that you can copy and pass on to friends. Frequent updates, back issues, books and videos. All text! Visit us with any browser. http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html __________________________________________________________________ Advertising rates, news tips, syndication and other questions Conservative Consensus * ccnrs@eskimo.com * jinks@u.washington.edu __________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The Great Explosion by L. Neil Smith (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:39:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Subject: The Great Explosion by L. Neil Smith > The Great Explosion* > > by L. Neil Smith > > In spite of millions of man-hours and billions of dollars > spent every year to keep the American productive class voiceless, > deprived of an effective franchise, the era of its exploitation by > corrupt politicians and even more corrupt mass media is coming to > an end. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) that they > stagger under taxes five times greater than those endured by a > medieval European serf. What they do understand is that the harder > they work the less they have left -- and the less they > have to look forward to. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) why their > grandparents enjoyed spacious, comfortable homes and they don't. > What they do understand is that, increasingly, they're forced to > live in tiny suburban cardboard boxes or wheeled tin cans so that > their senator or congressman can have his mistress -- and a limousine. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) why every year > a red-tape noose pulls tighter around their necks. What they do > understand is that life seems bleaker every day -- and > offers fewer options. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) what the media > gain from their collusive partnership with government. What they do > understand is that there's never really any good news, that the > newspapers and TV tell them they're incompetent and their neighbors > are criminally insane -- and that somehow life never seems to get any better. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) how their > rights have been systematically gnawed away by politicians elected > to protect them. What they do understand is that more and more > their rights are treated as trivial -- and everything seems to be against the > law. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) how the > Federal Election Commission and a phantom national reporting > service rig elections as effectively as any banana republic. What > they do understand is that their ballot never seems to count -- and > that if voting could really change things, it, too, would be illegal. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) the ancient > evil inherent in the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. What they do > understand is that the government always wins -- and > that they're always in the wrong. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) how the Bill > of Rights has wound up being a one-sided bargain interpreted and > enforced by a single entity pretending to be divided powers. What > they do understand is that their country is overrun by > lawyers -- and that somehow their rights > never turn out to be quite what they thought they were. > > ***** > Some productive class Americans blame it all on poor minorities, > forgetting that we're a nation of minorities, most of whom arrived > here without a penny. Sooner or later they'll learn not to blame > the welfare mother with her pitiable child support check, but the > $60,000-a-year official whose non-productive ways keep everybody > destitute. > > Some productive class Americans blame it all on immigrants, > forgetting that we're a nation of immigrants -- and > immigrants' children -- many of whom fled > the same tyranny and corruption we face today. Sooner or later they'll > learn not to blame people with funny names, funny clothes, or funny customs, > but to look upon their own "representatives" as the foreign despots they've > really become. > > Some productive class Americans blame it all on labor unions, > forgetting that for every gangster lounging at the top, a million > workers only want an honest day's wages for an honest day's labor. > Sooner or later they'll learn not to blame the worker, but the > crooked leaders and tangled regulations which make productive labor > all but impossible in America today -- and almost always unrewarding. > > Some productive class Americans blame it all on the rich, > forgetting the vital difference between making money and stealing > it, and how the system always lets a few individuals get ahead for > exactly the same reason Las Vegas allows the occasional big winner. > Sooner or later they'll learn not to blame individual achievement, > but a system which more consistently rewards failure and punishes > success -- and loves to rub their noses in what they can never hope to have. > > Some productive class Americans blame it all on the lunatic > fringe, forgetting that the mass media told them everything they > think they know about such people and that everybody is somebody > else's lunatic. Sooner or later they'll learn not to blame the > unconventional individual, but TV's well-groomed talking > heads -- and the officials they themselves elected. > > ***** > A Great Explosion is coming. Productive class Americans are sick of > being menaced by laws their parents naively thought were being > created to protect them. They're sick of being looted by officials > with five and six-digit salaries. Sick of being decimated by one > senseless war after another, arranged, conveniently, for almost > every generation. Sick of being wooed and cast aside in two- and > four- and six-year cycles by public figures they wouldn't trust > alone with their children. Doubtless the American productive class > have made foolish choices in the past. Doubtless they'll make them > again in the future. But in the end, the American productive class > will triumph, precisely because they ARE productive, while their > enemies are not. > > A Great Explosion is coming -- and as usual, the politicians > aren't listening. But by this time in the 21st century, with the > welfare/warfare state all but forgotten, history will want to know > what kind of idiots in the major parties tried to sell out the > American productive class at the very moment they began coming into > their own. > > Then again, history may not care. > > * Title borrowed from the novel by Eric Frank Russell > > L. NEIL SMITH > http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/lneil.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Dissenting Juror Tried for Contempt (UPI) (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:46:18 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- CENTRAL CITY, Colo., Oct. 1 (UPI) -- A woman who failed to reveal her criminal past before serving on a jury hearing a drug case and then argued with fellow jurors over her vote to acquit went on trial Tuesday on contempt charges for ignoring a judge's instructions. Laura Kriho of Nederland, Colo. was cited by a judge in July for ignoring instructions not to discuss possible sentences during jury deliberations in the case of a 19-year-old woman charged with felony possession of amphetamines. Deliberations in the May trial became hostile after Kriho voted to acquit and the 11 other jurors voted to convict. The jury had already convicted the defendant of criminal impersonation and acquitted her on one drug paraphernalia count before becoming deadlocked on a felony drug possession charge. One juror sent Judge Kenneth Barnhill a note saying Kriho had disobeyed his instructions and told other jurors what sentences the defendant would face if found guilty of drug possession. Barnhill declared a mistrial in the drug possession case and eventually cited Kriho for contempt, which could land her in jail for six months if convicted. Barnhill recused himself from the contempt case. Kriho was also cited for not disclosing she was convicted of felony drug charges in 1984. She claims she was not asked specifically about her criminal record and said she believed the deferred sentence she received would wipe her record clean in 1986. The contempt citation has drawn the attention of several groups, including the Constitutional Law Foundation in Denver. ``This is the first time in 300 years this has happened,'' said foundation member Bill Orr. ``The last time was when William Penn was tried for illegal assembly under the Crown. Now we have a jury who got upset with a juror, and they asked the court to prosecute.'' The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) To be removed from this mailing list, send email. Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 pkgrant@ix.netcom.com (303) 841-9649 **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS **************************************************** OLD VERSION OF "NEWSPEAK" "It is true you are not allowed to go out of here, but inside the Bastille you are as free as any man in the world." -- Governor of the Bastille speaking to Jean Francois Marmontel, French author **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Column, Oct. 5 (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:49:25 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 5, 1996 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz c/o "Kangaroo Court, Colorado Highway 46, Gilpin County" The judges and prosecutors of Gilpin County, Colorado, hell-bent on making an example of Laura Kriho, the juror who dared think for herself in the jury room of a recent drug possession case, faced a problem: How were they going to explain to the jurors at Ms. Kriho's trial (without inviting an indignant rebuff) their contention that jurors should be (start ital)jailed(end ital) if they allow themselves to be empaneled on a jury even though they have doubts about the constitutionality of the law or the reasonableness of the decision to prosecute? How were they going to ask those citizen-jurors to confer on them the heretofore undreamed-of power to jail fellow-jurors who -- once in the jury room -- dare to think for themselves, saying things like "I'm not going to send this girl away for years on some minor possession charge," after His Holiness has "instructed" them "not to think about or discuss" such matters as the sentence he might impose? That's right, as this column is written on Oct. 1, 1996, Laura Kriho of Nederland, Colo. has just endured the first day of what is almost certainly America's first two-day (start ital)trial(end ital) of a juror who refused to convict. Needless to say, the judge and prosecutor found a way out of their quandary. First Judicial District Chief Judge Henry Nieto assigned himself to the case. He immediately ruled Ms. Kriho's attorney, Paul Grant, can't bring in any evidence -- or expert witnesses -- dealing with the traditional right of jurors to deliberate without intervention from the government-salaried judge. Then, he ruled Grant and Kriho could not have any additional time to prepare for this first-of-its-kind case, and that prosecutor Jim Stanley -- who blew his original drug case thanks to Kriho -- could go ahead and prosecute Ms. Kriho as well. (No potential for vindictiveness there, surely.) Finally -- get this -- although the prosecution had originally granted Laura Kriho's request for a jury trial at her Aug. 16 arraignment, Judge Nieto allowed prosecutor Stanley to promise that, in the event of the wayward juror being convicted, he would seek jail time of less than six months. Although the Constitution specifically states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury, ..." today's courtesan courts have ruled that the Sixth Amendment doesn't really mean that, at all. What it really means is the government need grant you the "privilege" of a trial by jury only if you face a sentence of more than six months. Laura Kriho doesn't get a jury. The little brotherhood known as the Judges of Gilpin County, determined to asphyxiate our traditional jury rights and replace our citizen juries with government lackeys, sworn in advance (under penalty of imprisonment) to convict as instructed, will now judge and sentence poor Laura Kriho, themselves. (Another of the handful of Gilpin County judges, Frederic Rodgers, wrote an article for the summer issue of the local "Judge's Journal," misrepresenting the facts of the Kriho case and explaining to his fellow Philistines how to prosecute "obstructionist" jurors.) "To deny me a jury trial leaves little doubt about the outcome of the trial," Ms. Kriho told Joe Vigorito of the group Colorado Legal Eagles in late September. "I can't imagine how I can ever get a fair hearing in front of any judge in this district when they have all probably read Judge Rodgers' article. It looks like they intend to make my case a demonstration case, ... so that they will be free to prosecute other jurors who want to acquit based on reasonable doubts." This little coven of black-robed incubi think they're clever. What they fail to realize is that the guarantee of a trial by a randomly -selected panel of our fellow citizens -- not a jury stacked only with those who have sworn in advance, on penalty of imprisonment, to convict if so instructed -- serves the same function in our society as that little weight that jiggles on top of a pressure cooker. It may seem noisy and untidy, but tie it down and soon the whole operation will blow up. To date, the vast majority of citizens who have a problem with the government have been willing to surrender peacefully to the process of justice, confident they'd eventually have a chance to "tell it to the jury," to convince their neighbors they'd been wronged, no matter what the ever-expanding "letter of the law." If the Gilpin County judges -- and others like them all across America -- finally succeed in tying down that safety valve, why wouldn't more and more victims of government taxation and oppression, urged to "surrender and you'll get a fair trial," figure "No chance in that rigged game; I might as well take as many G-men with me as I can"? If the courts continue down this road, it becomes increasingly likely -- however strongly we may advise against the wisdom of such a course -- that bodies will eventually hang, kicking, from the light posts in front of every government building in America. And that some will wear black robes. Attorney Grant says that, in the event of a conviction, there will be an appeal. Donations are welcome at: Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund, c/o Paul Grant, Box 1272, Parker, Colo. 80134, tel. 303-841-9649; e-mail pkgrant@ix.netcom.com. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@intermind.net. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz vin@intermind.net "Next year in Galt's Gulch!" **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS **************************************************** OLD VERSION OF "NEWSPEAK" "It is true you are not allowed to go out of here, but inside the Bastille you are as free as any man in the world." -- Governor of the Bastille speaking to Jean Francois Marmontel, French author **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dick_Stephan@krinfo.com (Dick Stephan) Subject: Re[2]: Gun Ban Endorsed By GOP (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:24:27 -0700 On the other hand, with such lukewarm support (if indeed it is support at all) from the electorate, it is not at all certain that even friends such as these will be returned to the next congress. The Liberal/Media tag-team has jerked our side off balance & they are stumbling. Can you say "Speaker Gephardt"? Heard the names "Bonior" or "Schummer" or "Waxman"? Cheers ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Author: roc@xmission.com at Internet >Associated Press Writer > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats, >congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic violence gun ban, >abandoning most of their alternative proposal. -snip- With friends like these, who the hell needs enemies? V. Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: From Ancient Rome to OKC - Ruthless and Corrupt Politicians (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 15:40:31 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: C-NEWS All ACTION AND REACTION ------------------------ >From Ancient Rome to OKC ------------------------ >From antiquity to modern times, history is replete with examples of ruthless and corrupt politicians who have shamelessly exploited and manipulated tragic events and the criminal acts of a few to advance their own lust for power. In cases too numerous to mention, tyrants and aspiring despots have gone even further, engaging agents provocateurs to carry out assassinations, foment riots and rebellion, precipitate financial panics, attempt palace coups, feign foreign invasion, initiate acts of terrorism, and perform other infamous acts - all for the purpose of establishing a mass psychology of fear, a sense of "crisis," of imminent danger requiring the government to suspend normal liberties and seize vast new powers to deal with the "emergency." History records that far too often these "temporary" assumptions of power have given way to permanent brutal oppression, and to terror and mass murder by the saviors who promised deliverance from the "crisis." Yes, as all would-be dictators know, the action is in the reaction. And as James Madison observed, "the people never give up their freedom except under some delusion." Considering the current gadarene stampede into dictatorship by the American public as a result of the demagogic exploitation of the recent wave of terrorist acts, we would do well to reflect on a few relevant historical precedents. A calm consideration of our present situation in the context of previous human experience may help us avoid delusional flights into bondage and the pessimistic predictions that we "are doomed to repeat" the tragic mistakes of the past. Enemies of Mankind On July 19, AD 64, a terrible fire began near Rome's Circus Maximus, and when the fierce conflagration ended days later, most of the great city lay in ashes. Whether or not the fire was actually started by the Emperor Nero, as many have maintained over the centuries, there is no question that the Christians were unjustly blamed for the disaster. Although holding all members of the new sect responsible for the blaze would have too greatly stretched credulity, the megalomaniacal potentate nonetheless found a pretext for condemning them en masse by claiming that the followers of Christ were "enemies of mankind." Tacitus records that the Christians "were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of hating the human race." Tacitus also records the incredibly cruel tortures and deaths to which these innocent scapegoats were subjected. In England, controversy has raged over the infamous Gunpowder Plot for nearly 400 years. When Guy Fawkes was arrested on November 5, 1605 with barrels of gunpowder in a tunnel under the House of Lords, it seemed apparent that a conspiracy of Catholics against the government had been thwarted. Some historians, however, have argued (some more, some less persuasively) that the evidence points instead to a plot by Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury, against the Catholics. The hand of Salisbury, the most powerful political figure in England under Elizabeth I and James I, is seen also, say some scholars, in the Babington Plot and Squire's Plot, which preceded the Gunpowder Plot and fed the growing anti-Catholic fervor. The recent publication of books by two historians arguing opposite sides of this controversy will not settle this aspect of the dispute, but there is a consensus among many scholars of the period that Salisbury's forces, at the very least, ruthlessly exploited and exaggerated the plots to launch a new wave of brutal persecution and to provide a pretext for confiscation of monastic lands. Staged Provocations Hitler's rise and reign in Germany provide many examples both of the use of agents provocateurs and the opportunistic exploitation of events to further evil objectives. Of these, the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933 is easily the most famous example. Although it has never been definitively settled whether the fire was set by a communist saboteur or by a Nazi agent provocateur, it is beyond debate that the Nazis capitalized on the event with a vengeance. Insisting that the Reichstag fire prefigured a communist onslaught against the German state, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree "for the Protection of the People and the State," suspending constitutional liberties and allowing the state to exercise extraordinary powers in the name of "public safety." The death sentence was expanded to cover a number of crimes. Sound familiar? As a remedy for the supposed "crisis" facing Germany, Hitler proposed a program of Gleichschaltung (coordination) through which the central government would absorb the power and political functions of the German states. On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag, succumbing to the Nazis' conspiratorial maneuvers, passed the "Enabling Act," which made the central government responsible for all law enforcement and conferred on Hitler's cabinet exclusive legislative powers for four years. This one act provided the legal basis for the transformation of Hitler from chancellor to dictator. It did not take long to prove how empty and completely disingenuous were Hitler's promises that "the government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures." Following close on the heels of the Reichstag fire came the "Night of the Long Knives" of June 30, 1934, an assassination blitzkrieg in which Hitler wiped out his old friend Ernst Roehm and the top leadership of the brownshirted SA. Roehm and his Storm Troopers had become troublesome competitors and had to be eliminated, but a plausible pretext for the purge was needed. No problem: A coup "plot" by Roehm was fabricated which served the additional purpose of providing further justification for legalized government terror. Hitler's one-paragraph law read: "The measures taken on June 30 and July 1 and 2 to strike down the treasonous attacks are justifiable acts of self-defense by the state." Many more equally fraudulent "justifiable acts of self-defense" would follow. On November 7, 1938, a Jewish refugee from Germany, Herschel Grynszpan, shot and killed a German diplomat in Paris. This was exactly the incident the Nazi regime needed to fully unleash its attack on the Jews. On the night of November 9, 1938, Nazi- orchestrated mobs "spontaneously" rioted in retaliation, destroying Jewish shops and synagogues, beating and killing Jewish residents. It is remembered as the "Night of Shattered Glass," or Krystallnacht, and thereafter all opponents of the Nazis would be demonized as Jewish sympathizers and related "criminal elements." Stalin's Purge Stalin, who had studied closely Hitler's purge of Roehm, had his own "night of the long knives" - with a twist. His onetime friend and trusted aide, Sergei Kirov, had become a potential rival for Communist Party leadership and had to be eliminated. Stalin, the ultimate "conspirator from above," arranged for Kirov's assassination, with the murder to be blamed on the Zinoviev faction. Under Stalin's direction, following the assassination, writes Robert Tucker in Stalin in Power, "the floodgates of official adulation for Kirov opened wide. He was the 'Soviet people's favorite' and 'our Kirov.'" Tucker records that "the instant Kirov cult was blended into the Stalin cult, which took on added lustre. Kirov became 'Comrade Stalin's best comrade-in-arms and friend.' Stalin was shown in the honor guard, with Kirov in old photos, and as the first mourner at the Red Square funeral." But Kirov's murder in December 1934 served a design much larger than the mere elimination of a single competitor. Tucker writes: "For the conspirator from above, the prime purpose of Kirov's murder was to make possible an official finding that Soviet Russia was beset by a conspiracy that had done away with Kirov as part of a larger plan of terrorist action against the regime." Thus Stalin had his excuse to begin the Great Purge, which, ultimately, would claim millions of victims. Stalin had already arranged to have issued, a month before the murder, a statute empowering the newly created Special Board (headed by Stalin) to pass administrative sentence on "persons deemed socially dangerous." No definition of "socially dangerous" was given, allowing for the widest possible "discretion" in the exercise of this formidable power. Plot Against the Pope When Pope John Paul II was shot and very nearly killed in St. Peter's Square on May 13, 1981, it was instantly hailed worldwide as the work of a lone fanatic, even though Italian authorities revealed iron-clad evidence of a larger conspiracy. When U.S. mediameisters and officials were finally forced to concede the obvious, they insisted that, yes, Mehmet Ali Agca was indeed part of a conspiracy - a right-wing, Turkish, Islamic fundamentalist conspiracy! Even after terrorism expert Claire Sterling's masterfully detailed expose, The Time of the Assassins, unequivocally demonstrated (and was later backed up by the Italian judiciary investigators) that Agca was a paid Soviet assassin, the U.S. State Department, the White House, the CIA, and the Western press largely ignored the indisputable evidence. That evidence showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Soviet KGB, operating through the secret police of its communist proxy regime in Bulgaria and the Turkish Mafia (which was headquartered in Bulgaria), had sprung Agca from a Turkish jail, trained him, provided him with weapons and false travel documents, and fabricated a false "right- wing" identity for him before the assassination attempt. Although the plot to kill the Pope failed, the secondary objective, to provoke a widespread public reaction against "right-wing terrorism" and religious "fundamentalism," worked marvelously - worked because the Soviet agents, dupes, and sympathizers in the West could count on the ruling elites in our government and the media to cover up the Kremlin's role in this heinous act. Throughout the 1950s, '60s, '70s, and '80s, Germany was plagued by recurring rashes of anti-Jewish vandalism and neo-Nazi activities: desecrated Jewish cemeteries, swastikas painted on synagogues, and threatening calls and letters to Jewish leaders. In a number of important cases, when the perpetrators were caught they turned out not to be neo-Nazis after all, but Soviet agents provocateurs. Soviet defectors, likewise, have repeatedly confirmed the importance that the Soviet strategists place on provocations of this sort aimed at manipulating public emotions and eliciting hatred not only for the neo-Nazis, but primarily for the conservatives, Christians, and anti-communists whom they falsely lump together with the Hitlerites under the expedient "right-wing" label. Rabin Assassination The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on November 4, 1995 provided another glorious opportunity for global "right-wing" demonizing. The alleged gunman, Yigal Amir, was said to be a "fanatic Jewish fundamentalist." What's more, we were told repeatedly, he was part of a conspiracy of "religious extremists" - a conspiracy so nefarious and immense, mind you, that it had achieved meteorological significance, creating a "climate of hate" and an "atmosphere of violence." According to Time magazine, Rabin's opponents had created climatologically "the equivalent of the right-wing milieu that led to the Oklahoma City bombing." In fact, said Time, even if Amir had acted alone, "he had many ideational conspirators." (Emphasis added.) Yes, the Insider opinion cartel was only too willing to howl "conspiracy" when it served their transparent purposes. But when it came out that Amir was actually an agent of Israel's General Security Service (also known as Shin Bet), and that he had inexplicably been allowed through the security perimeter, Amir began to look more like a classic agent provacateur. That perception only deepened when a suspected accomplice, the notorious "right-wing" leader, Avishai Raviv, also turned out to be a Shin Bet operative. (For an in-depth look at the Rabin assassination, see "The Price of 'Peace'" in the February 5, 1996 issue of THE NEW AMERICAN.) As Shimon Peres and the Labor government rushed to cover up these and other untidy facts, the evidence pointed more and more toward the likelihood that Rabin had been assassinated by those in his own government (who controlled Shin Bet) in a desperate effort to save the phony CFR-made "Mideast Peace Plan." Oklahoma City Bombing In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, the American people have been subjected to a sustained propaganda barrage that may come as close to approximating the kind of vicious and thoroughly dishonest campaign of lies and distortion worthy of Nero, Hitler, and Stalin as this country has ever witnessed. The Clinton Administration and its political allies, fully aided and abetted by the establishment media cartel, have relentlessly sought to ascribe blame for the deadly Oklahoma bombing to the entire "American right wing." At the same time, the Clinton Justice Department and the FBI have gone to fantastic lengths to obstruct justice by covering up and destroying extremely important evidence in the case. (See the May 13, 1996 special issue of THE NEW AMERICAN, "OKC: The Case for a Cover-up.") In the week following the bombing, President Clinton cleverly structured his attack on "purveyors of hatred and division, the promoters of paranoia," so as to broadly include virtually all of his conservative opponents in the condemnation. "They spread hate," he said. "They leave the impression by their very words, that violence is acceptable." In a subsequent speech he denounced the bombing as an act by "the forces of organized evil" who, he insinuated, are linked to mainstream conservative and constitutionalist forces. This is so, he averred, because "they do practice and they do preach violence against those who are of a different color, a different background, or who worship a different God. They do feed on fear and uncertainty. They do promote paranoia...." Even worse, charged the President, "these people attack our government and the citizens who work for it who actually guarantee the freedoms they abuse.... They can certainly snuff out innocent lives and sow fear in our hearts. They are indifferent to the slaughter of children. They threaten our freedoms and our way of life, and we must stop them." It was an insidious attack clearly calculated to smear principled opponents of socialist government by falsely associating them with the perpetrators of vile terrorist acts. And it was the same base tactic to which he returned on May 1, 1995 in another disgraceful attempt to identify his critics with those responsible for the deadly bombing: " we must also stand up against those who say that somehow this is alright, this is somehow a political act - people who say, I love my country but I hate my government." Mr. Clinton's harangues were so transparently deceitful that even liberal columnist Charles Krauthammer (CFR) was moved to remark that the President had "repeatedly charged dark and unseen forces, a shadowy unnamed 'they,' with spreading paranoia - a classic of the very paranoid style of politics Clinton is ostensibly decrying." Unfortunately, Krauthammer's cogent observation was drowned out by the CFR-dominated media echo chamber which amplified and intensified the Clinton defamation campaign, and, borrowing a page from Nero's handbook, virtually branded all their opposition as guilty of "hating the human race." - WILLIAM F. JASPER The New American * Sept.16, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996, American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated - P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or the above address. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Phyllis Schlafly Column 9/26/96 -- Poll Shows Schools Are Our #1 Worry (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 15:52:05 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Poll Shows Schools Are Our #1 Worry by Phyllis Schlafly September 26, 1996 The Washington Post just conducted a public opinion poll to find out what are the top "worries" of Americans. The results are informative and useful to policymakers, officeholders, candidates, and the media. The results are also surprising when we realize that most public opinion polls are very skewed by media coverage. For example, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole each got a bounce from the favorable news coverage they received at their own party's national convention. Topping the list of worries in the Washington Post survey, identified by a whopping 62 percent of respondents, was this: "The American educational system will get worse instead of better." Although this worry outranked crime, drugs, taxes, health care and welfare, it is seldom if ever addressed by our national political leadership or media elite. Ask yourself how many times you have ever seen this subject featured on the nightly television news programs of the NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or PBS. Many subjects on which television news programs lavish most of their high- priced minutes, such as Saddam Hussein's latest outrage, didn't even rate a mention in the survey as a worry. The American people recognize what the federal government, the education establishment and the media have failed to notice: that public schools are a disaster area and that so-called "reforms" and the influx of more and more taxpayers' money aren't doing any good. If the pollsters would question people further, here are some of the specifics they would find that Americans are worried about. Violent crime against students and teachers inside the public schools has caused an unprecedented level of fear and intimidation. A U.S.A. Today survey found that 43 percent of public school students avoid the school restrooms because of fear. School administrators are afraid to take any disciplinary action against criminal or gun-toting students. Governor George Allen of Virginia reported that the U.S. Department of Education threatened to withhold $50 million in special ed funds if Virginia continues to discipline criminal students. The chief reasons why the educational system is so inferior and is getting worse is the refusal to teach basic skills and knowledge in the elementary grades and the dumbing down of the textbooks and courses of study by about three years below what it was a generation ago. The goal of the schools now is to inculcate self-esteem in schoolchildren instead of to give them the skills necessary for individual achievement. The schools have been pumping up kids with inflated notions of their self-worth and importance, eliminating the discipline of competition, insulating them from failure, and shielding them from the knowledge that poor performance can be remedied by hard work and perseverance. The schools have reduced the time spent on academic subjects to about one- fourth of the school day. The majority of the day is spent on psychological courses, counseling, social services, and other non- academic activities. Even worse, these non-academic courses use a methodology that used to be called values clarification and is now known by its generic name of non-directive. That means that schoolchildren are presented with dilemmas, situations, and various problems of modern living, but given no direction as to the correct or expected behavior. Schools have abandoned their responsibility to correct students' mistakes, all the way from encouraging "inventive spelling" in the elementary grades to "make your own choices about sex and drugs" in high school. A call to respect "family values" is meaningless to a generation that has been systematically taught that everyone can choose his own values, and that one person's values are as good as the next person's. While the American people have accurately identified the problem that public schools aren't doing their job and are getting worse, they haven't figured out whom to blame. It's a fraud when presidential or congressional candidates promise to remedy the problem, because education is a state and local (not a federal) problem and only six percent of public school funding comes from the federal government. The only action that federal officeholders should take is to stop imposing national mandates that override local authorities and parents' rights. Yet, most proposed and pending congressional legislation is still moving toward more federal, rather than local, control. President Clinton's offer to spend $2.75 billion to send volunteers into the schools to teach illiterate third graders how to read is a four-dimensional sham. Teaching kids to read is not a federal responsibility, the teachers union won't allow volunteers into the classroom, the children ought to be taught how to read in the first (not third) grade, and the schools are still refusing to use the only proven method of producing good readers: intensive, systematic phonics. The Washington Post survey is an important contribution to public discussion and policy development. It should be used by politicians and the media to address the American people's number-one worry. EAGLE FORUM -- eagle@eagleforum.org PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 Are you on our E-mail list? Tell a friend about us! http://www.eagleforum.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: They're coming for your gasoline and kitchenware. Date: 03 Oct 1996 23:51:43 -0500 This from AP via Nando Times Re: yet another "Drug /Crime Bill" Courtsy of the Willie and the Republicans. %%%%%%%%%%%%% The methamphetamine legislation lets authorities seize chemicals used to make the drug. It also increases penalties for trafficking in the chemicals and for possessing equipment needed to make the drug. Methamphetamine -- also known as "meth," "crank," "speed" and "ice" -- is a mixture of pseudoephedrine, an over-the-counter cold and sinus remedy, and other chemicals found in gasoline, rubbing alcohol, pool-cleaning supplies or drain cleaners. %%%%%%%%%%% Let's see criminal penalties for possesion of sinus medicine and rubbing alchohol. I'll bet it's a felony that will result in loss of your RKBA. Then there's the new restriction on children's chemistry sets, especially replacment glassware. I understand that in some states, Texas for one, this stuff, chemistry type glassware is already next to impossible to obtain unless you're a chemistry teacher or can order on company purchase orders. Hobbiests need not apply. Good thing they didn't think this way back during that other prohibition. They'd be busting radiator shops and grain silos. Sheesh! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Special GOA Alert (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 08:03:04 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Second Amendment Takes Another Hit -- Domestic confiscation bill, road-block gun ban passes Congress Special GOA Alert (703)321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org (Wednesday, October 2) -- The Congress sent President Clinton several gun control provisions as part of the omnibus spending bill. The President signed the bill late Monday night after both houses had overwhelming passed the bill (House: 370-37; Senate: 84-15). The anti-gunners in Congress succeeded in passing several amendments in the name of defending women and children. Despite the rhetoric, the provisions will not accomplish what was claimed and blow even more holes in our Second Amendment freedoms. Here's the "cliff notes" you will need to hold your legislators accountable. What follows is a brief summary of what passed, the practical problems with those provisions, and a listing of who voted right: Road-block Gun Ban (Sec. 657 of the Treasury-Postal portion of H.R. 3610): a. Sets up thousands of gun ban zones across roads statewide where local police or the BATF can arrest unsuspecting drivers who have a firearm in the car. Victims will face 5 years in prison. b. Also known as the Kohl amendment, this provision reenacts the School Zone Gun Ban law ruled unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court last year (U.S. v. Lopez, 1995). The provision creates gun ban zones nearly one-half mile in diameter around every school in the country. c. Anyone without a pistol carry license driving through a zone with an unloaded firearm, that is not in a locked container or rack, faces 5 years in prison. (This would apply even to off-duty police officers, despite ineptly crafted exceptions in the Kohl language.) Many who were previously able to drive freely with guns, either in plain view or in the glove compartment, can now be victimized by anti-gun local police and/or BATF agents. d. And finally, just a couple of other quirks that result from the law: a) Because of the way "school" is defined in the Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the school zone gun ban could outlaw the possession of firearms by parents who home school their kids; and b) For a person who lives within 1,000 feet of a school, any hunting trip would constitute a legal labyrinth. He or she could not carry the gun to a car parked on the street unless he determined that such action was approved by school officials. Domestic Confiscation (Sec. 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of H.R. 3610 ): a. Frank Lautenberg, who has an "F-" rating from GOA, originally cosponsored the so-called domestic confiscation provision with anti-gun Senators Dianne Feinstein and Edward Kennedy as S. 1632. The largest wholesale firearms confiscation effort in decades, this provision bans thousands upon thousands of Americans from owning firearms for life, and orders their guns seized. For now this gun ban only applies to domestic dispute misdemeanors, but it sets a very bad precedent, since previously only felons have been stripped of their rights. (Note: This provision could strip many law-enforcement officers, previously convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, of their ability to carry firearms.) b. Rep. Bob Barr introduced an NRA-supported amendment as a compromise. But even Barr's language was altered after protests from Clinton and Senate Democrats. The Barr provision -- perhaps best termed as the "Lautenberg Lite" provision -- would have reduced some of the problems with the original version, but it still extended the gun ban into the area of misdemeanors (a bad precedent). c. The Lautenberg-Barr provision which passed the Congress threatens to disarm the very women that it is supposed to help. The provision would impose a lifetime gun ban on anyone who has been convicted of "us[ing] or attempt[ing to] use ... physical force" in a domestic situation. Of course, this "use of force" language can cover anyone (both men and women) who gets involved in a little spat between spouses, roommates, lovers, etc. d. The "use or attempted use of force" language will not only affect women who might throw a lamp at their spouse (like the First Lady), it will also endanger parents who spank their children. (Parents convicted of a domestic misdemeanor for spanking will now have to forfeit their guns or else become felons -- for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.) This provision federalizes a state issue and is clearly unconstitutional (under the 2nd and 10th Amendments for starters). e. What is the answer? If an act of domestic violence is serious enough to lose your civil right to own guns, then it should be a felony, which persons already were prohibited from owning firearms. If it is not serious, it should be treated as a misdemeanor -- a penalty which historically has not forced one to forfeit his or her rights. GOA opposed the Lautenberg-Barr "compromise." Gun Owners of America lobbied against every version of the Lautenberg provision that surfaced. Each time, GOA reminded Congressmen that a vote for expanding a gun ban is a vote for gun control. But rather than take a "no compromise" position, most Congressmen opted to just "limit the damage." It would be like a victim telling a mugger who wants $100 that "if you only take $50 we'll just call it even." Whether it's $50 or $100, the victim has still been robbed. Likewise, gun owners got robbed this past weekend. We were forced to give up ground without getting anything in return. Gun owners should not excuse those Congressmen who voted for this so-called compromise. In reality, there was no compromise since our firearms rights were not advanced in any way. We neither got a revocation of the semi-auto ban, nor did we get a repeal -- or even some exceptions to -- the Brady registration law. (Rather, more people will now be rejected after Brady checks.) We got nothing. So don't let your Congressmen tell you he voted for a compromise. When two people compromise, each side gets something. Ask him what we got in return. If he can't tell you, suggest to him that what he did was abdicate his duty to defend the Bill of Rights. More than 300 Representatives join Schumer in trimming the Second Amendment. Once again, many of the freshmen Republicans led the way in opposing the assault on our liberties. The vote in the House was 370-37; the following Reps. VOTED PRO-GUN by voting AGAINST H.R. 3610: Barcia (MI), Barton (TX), Becerra (CA), Beilenson (CA), Burr (NC), Chabot (OH), Chenoweth (ID), Coble (NC), Coburn (OK), Coleman (TX), Cooley (OR), Cox (CA), DeFazio (OR), Duncan (TN), Hall (TX), Hefley (CO), Hoekstra (MI), Hyde (IL), Istook (OK), Jacobs (IN), Kanjorski (PA), Kaptur (OH), Klink (PA), Klug (WI), Largent (OK), Nadler (NY), Neumann (WI), Rohrabacher (CA), Roybal-Allard (CA ), Salmon (AZ), Sanford (SC), Scarborough (FL), Schroeder (CO), Sensenbrenner (WI), Stearns (FL), Stockman (TX), and Tiahrt (KS). Thank the above Reps. and hold the others accountable. (NOTE: the following is a list of the 26 Reps. that missed the vote: Baker (LA), Berman (CA), Blumenauer (OR), Boucher (VA), Cardin (MD), Collins (MI), Conyers (MI), Dellums (CA), Dornan (CA), Durbin (IL), Filner (CA), Flake (NY ), Fowler (FL), Frank (MA), Green (TX), Hancock (MO), Hayes (LA), Heineman (NC), LaFalce (NY), Lincoln (AR), Lipinski (IL), Menendez (NJ), Myers (IN), Quillen (TN), Taylor (NC), Waters (CA), and Waxman (CA). If your Rep. is not listed in either of the groups above, then he voted for the bill!) Everything, including the kitchen sink, put into H.R. 3610: a. Besides the two gun bans mentioned above, legislators also threw in the study on placing taggants in black and smokeless powders -- a provision which had previously stalled in the Congress. (Source: Sec. 113(2) of the general provisions of the Justice Department Title in H.R. 3610.) b. The bill gives the BATF a PAY INCREASE of almost $100 million dollars for next year --$16 million in the regular budget plus an additional $66 million for anti-terrorism efforts. (Source: Titles I and VII of the Treasury-Postal provisions.) c. H.R. 3610 continues the language included in the previous year's budget prohibiting the BATF from "investigat[ing] or act[ing] upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities." This means that non-violent offenders who lose their gun rights won't be getting them restored any time soon. (Source: Title I of the Treasury-Postal provisions.) d. The so-called digital telephony provision will threaten the privacy of gun owners (Source: Sec. 110 of Commerce-State- Justice provisions). The funding in this provision will be used to force telephone companies to retrofit existing telephone equipment in order to facilitate the ability of government officials to wiretap citizens. This would be similar to requiring home builders to put microphones in walls of every home so that the FBI could more easily eavesdrop on conversations. (Before spending the $60 million for these technological "improvements," the FBI must first submit an "implementation plan.") e. The "best" part of the bill was a provision in the Labor-HHS section containing a prohibition on the CDC's ability to spend any funds "to advocate or promote gun control." Despite this apparent victory, there are still two problems with this and other language in the CDC budget. First, the department which conducts the anti-gun studies did not receive a pay cut. Second, the so-called prohibition in this provision only prevents the CDC from actually lobbying in favor of gun control. As long as the CDC does not call for any gun bans, waiting periods, etc., the "prohibition" will not prevent them from placing the same anti-gun studies in medical journals -- the very same studies which are always used by the media and HCI to impugn our firearms rights. (Source: Title II of the Labor-HHS provisions.) Conclusion: Use this special alert to confront the legislators who voted wrong. Hold them accountable! If they never hear a peep from you, they'll think they can get away with these kinds of votes in the future. Remember: "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Please distribute this alert! ---------------- 1 The Washington Post (11/19/92) reported how a school teacher was arrested in class after a pedestrian reported seeing her handgun sitting in open view on the seat of her car in the parking lot. This lady had no record and was -- except for a school zone gun ban -- complying with Virginia law which allows citizens to carry a firearm in their car without a permit, as long as the gun is left in plain view. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: CIA Coke Affidavit (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 08:13:08 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Today's bombshell, and the first significant confirmation of the original allegations.... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Welcome to Mercury Center Postscript Dark Alliance Frames: [ Enable | Disable ] AFFIDAVIT: COPS KNEW OF DRUG RING Document sheds light on Contra-cocaine link Published: Oct. 3, 1996 BY GARY WEBB AND PAMELA KRAMER Mercury News Staff Writer LOS ANGELES -- During the early 1980s, federal and local narcotics agents knew that a massive drug ring operated by Nicaraguan Contra rebels was selling large amounts of cocaine ''mainly to blacks living in the South-Central Los Angeles area,'' according to a search-warrant affidavit obtained by the Mercury News. The Oct. 23, 1986, affidavit identifies former Nicaraguan government official Danilo Blandon as ''the highest-ranking member of this organization'' and describes a sprawling drug operation involving more than 100 Nicaraguan Contra sympathizers. The affidavit of Thomas Gordon, a former Los Angeles County sheriff's narcotics detective, is the first independent corroboration that the Contra army -- the Nicaraguan Democratic Force -- was dealing cocaine to gangs in Los Angeles' black neighborhoods. Known by its Spanish initials, the FDN was an anti-communist commando group formed and run by the CIA during the 1980s. Gordon's sworn statement says that both the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI had informants inside the Blandon drug ring for several years before sheriff's deputies raided it Oct. 27, 1986. Gordon's affidavit is based on police interviews with those informants and one of the DEA agents who was investigating Blandon. Twice during the past year, Ron Spear, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department spokesman, told the Mercury News that his department had no records of the 1986 raids and specifically denied having a copy of Gordon's search-warrant affidavit -- even after two pages of it surfaced during the March 1996 cocaine trafficking trial of legendary Los Angeles ''crack'' cocaine dealer ''Freeway'' Rick Ross. The Mercury News obtained the entire search warrant affidavit this week. Wednesday, Sheriff Sherman Block's office did not respond to written questions about the raid, the warrant, records of what was found and what happened to those records and evidence. A recent Mercury News series revealed how Blandon's operation, which sold thousands of kilos of cocaine to black Los Angeles drug dealers such as Ross, created the first mass market for cocaine in the United States during the early 1980s and helped fuel a crack explosion that is still reverberating through black communities. Several investigations into U.S. government knowledge of, and possible involvement with, the Nicaraguan drug ring are under way. Both the CIA and the Justice Department have denied government involvement. Call to CIA headquarters Other stories Black leaders call for class-action lawsuit Published: Sept. 30, 1996 Previously published postscript stories Last updated: Oct. 3, 1996 Gary Webb radio and TV appearances Last updated: Oct. 2, 1996 The original series Published: Aug 18-20, 1996 document link Warrant and affidavit to search businesses and residences of Oscar Danilo Blandon Photo link Photo of the search warrant But according to a legal motion filed in a 1990 case involving a deputy who helped execute the search warrants, one of the suspects in the raid identified himself as a CIA agent and asked police to call CIA headquarters in Virginia to confirm his identity. The motion, filed by Los Angeles defense attorney Harland W. Braun on behalf of Deputy Daniel Garner, said the narcotics detectives allowed the man to make the call but then carted away numerous documents purportedly linking the U.S. government to cocaine trafficking and money-laundering efforts on behalf of the Contras. The motion said CIA agents appeared at the sheriff's department within 48 hours of the raid and removed the seized files from the evidence room. But Braun said detectives secretly copied 10 pages before the documents were spirited away. Braun attempted to introduce them in the 1990 criminal trial to force the federal government to back off the case. Braun was hit with a gag order, the documents were put under seal and Garner was convicted of corruption charges. Internal sheriff's department records of the raid ''mysteriously disappeared'' around the same time the seized files were taken, Braun's motion said. That claim was buttressed in an interview this week by an officer involved in the raid, and earlier by an attorney for one of the defendants. Ex-cop fingered The officer, who would not allow himself to be identified, said the alleged CIA agent was Ronald J. Lister, a former Laguna Beach police detective who worked with Blandon in the drug ring. The 1986 search-warrant affidavit identifies Lister's home in Laguna Beach as one of the places searched. It says Lister was involved in transporting drug money to Miami and was Blandon's partner in a security company. The company, according to a former employee, was doing work at a Salvadoran military air base in the early 1980s. Lister pleaded guilty to cocaine trafficking in 1991. document link Motion regarding government's request for restraining order document link Government's motion to exclude evidence relating to the CIA and Contras A 1986 FBI report obtained from the National Archives last year said Lister claimed his security business was ''CIA approved.'' Since at least 1983, Gordon's affidavit said, both Blandon and Lister were under DEA investigation. Other court records say Blandon turned up in DEA investigative files as early as 1981. Blandon now works for the DEA as an undercover informant. At Ross' trial in March, Blandon -- the Nicaraguan government's director of wholesale markets under the U.S.-supported dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza -- testified that he was one of the founders of the Los Angeles branch of the FDN, and that he sold cocaine to raise funds for that army. Detective Gordon's 1986 search-warrant affidavit, which was approved by Los Angeles Municipal Court Judge Glenette Blackwell, mirrors much of Blandon's sworn testimony last March. document link FBI Teletype regarding conversation with Roland Lister's real estate agent ''Informant #2 stated to your affiant that Blandon is a 'Contra' sympathizer and a founder of the ... (FDN), an organization that assists the Contra movement with arms and money,'' Gordon's affidavit states. ''The money and arms generated by the organization come through sales of cocaine. Informant #2 provided some 100 names of persons involved with the distribution of cocaine. All of these persons are either Nicaraguan and/or sympathizers to the Contra movement.'' The affidavit names Lister; Blandon's father, Julio; his wife, Chepita; banker Orlando Murillo; and another man as ''being directly involved with cocaine distribution.'' 'Up to 20 kilos a week' The affidavit also said Blandon was delivering ''up to 20 kilos a week'' to a Nicaraguan cocaine dealer named Ivan Arguellas ''who in turn sells mainly to blacks living in the South-Central Los Angeles area.'' It said Blandon ''uses a beer bar at Central Avenue and Adams Street in Los Angeles to distribute as much as 10 kilos of cocaine per week.'' Arguellas was described as being ''confined to a wheelchair as the result of being shot (in) a drug-related incident.'' During an interview with the Mercury News last year, former Los Angeles crack king Ross said one of his first cocaine sources was ''a guy named Ivan, who was in a wheelchair.'' Gordon, like six of the seven other narcotics detectives who staged the Blandon raids, was later indicted on federal corruption charges in the early 1990s. After two trials, including one in which he defended himself, Gordon was convicted of one count of tax evasion. He could not be reached for comment. _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Davidian being Tortured in Prison (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 08:23:57 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Carol Moore, author of The Davidian Massacre, just shared with me a letter she received from one of the nine surviving Branch Davidians being held unjustly [*] in prison, Livingstone Fagan. Of particular distress to me is the fact that Livingstone reports that he is being physically abused and beaten routinely by prison officials. Recently he was beaten nearly to death and he fears for his life. Just a few hours ago Carol Moore allowed me to transcribe the following crucial details excerpted from Livingston's letter dated 09/28/96: .... the scars and bruises from threats and physical assaults sustained since my arrival June 20th '96, all of which I received at the hands of prison officers. Last Thursday was the worst yet. After continuously slamming my head against a concrete, then metal structure, followed by my body against a concrete floor (the stated purpose being to get me to fear him), this 300 lb officer then verbalized his intent to kill me for my not cowering to his will. Ordinarily the above would be considered attempted murder. In here it seems to be the norm -- The inquisition continues. I had tended not to report these incidents, not wanting to appear as though I'm whining. I am not. This is only for informational purposes. It is not uncommon for people to be killed in these institutions and it be reported as self- inflicted. In the event of my premature death, I think it prudent that there be someone independent who is aware of the preceding.....thus averting such fabrication. There is no question that the letter is form Livingston Fagan, who has been in correspondence with Carol Moore. I am not sure, however, how the contents of this letter slipped past prison oversight. The first part contained nothing about abuse, nor did the final portion. A viewing of the letter, without careful reading, would reveal nothing out of the ordinary, no obvious plea for help. The handwriting was consistent and orderly, so I can only assume that prison official in charge of letter oversight just gave it a quick once over and that was that -- if indeed they even bother with that much oversight. Carol herself will soon be writing about this with important add- itional info. My effort here is to get this info out immediately. If you think the Davidians should be in prison, your living in a fantasy land severed entirely from fact, fabricated by the FBI and relayed to us without question by the mass media. But even if the Davidians should be in prison, no civil society can tolerate such abuse of prisoners reported by Livingstone Fagan. He should have independent medical oversight immediately, and then continuously. ____________________________________________ [*] http://www.erols.com/igoddard/appeal.htm ************************************************************************ IAN GODDARD Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y visit Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 13:47:19 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by jhoward@onramp.net (Jerry W. Howard) >Posted to texas-gun-owners by jwaldron@halcyon.com >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >On 30 September, the President signed into law the following two >sections of the omnibus appropriation bill. There has been a lot of >ranting and screaming, and very little hard information presented, >along with a lot of conjecture. While all legislation is subject to >interpretation (AND to Supreme Court review), the basic text follows >(extracted from the Congressional Record, 28 September 1996). The >next step will be to watch for the BATF's regulatory interpretation of >these sections. \ snip Folks, there is a pattern here. Slick has no agenda that he holds higher than his anti-gun adgenda. Three weeks after he took office the BATF began scanning 4473s into portable GRID computers with optical scanners in direct defiance of federal law. The last week in April the same year (1993 in Wash. Times I think the 25th or 26th) he appointed 4 representatives to the U.N. committee to develop the plans, proposed laws, and proceedures for global disarm- ament of civilians. This is the effort being "credited" to Japan and Canada three years later. The administration was a big player in the "Year of the Gun" during which all media outlets were to (and pretty much did) feature a major anti-gun article as the lead every day. (if no news they were to "editorialize") The cabinet as a group besides looking like the standby cast for the "Space Cafe" scene from Star Wars, was and is the most rabid collection of anti-gun zealots ever assembled in the country. The first four years have been more devoted to anti-gun efforts than any other identifiable goal. The dog-and-pony show at the Dem Convention is a sure signal that if Slick is re-elected he will claim a mandate to "put these gun nuts where they belong." If that thought doesn't make you paranoid...... Despite a relatively successful effort to subvert federal law enforcement and at least the money-for-junk-study addicted political leadership of state and local law enforcement, Slick is stimied by the fact that the bulk of the real cops are also still Americans, and want to stay that way. Even after fair success in replacing leadership of various special forces groups with what in any honest description would be termed "political officers" most of the troops still would be reluctant to murder their fellow americans for the glory of the politicians. [scary as the 30% or "yes" answers to the Twenty Nine Palms/Question 46 seem to us, the 70% "not only no, but HELL NO" must have upset the administration even more. The "tobacco is a drug" proposal of Clinton is likely aimed more at BATF Form 4473, Question 8.d. than at any health issue. The "Spanker Gun Ban" provision tacked onto the Budget bill last week is likely the camel's nose to move toward making any misdemeanor grounds for prohibiting gun ownership for life. If lifetime deprivation of freedom for a misdemeanor is not "cruel and unusual" punishment then what is? But the real nightmare is the following scenario: 1. Slick is re-elected with a Dem Congress. 2. The 105th Congress outlaws all guns except for the elite. 3. We get what the Aussies are getting now. (In other words, after 220 years we get to return to the status of "subject" rather than "free citizen.) 4. Most law enforcement realizes that their families and they themselves are Americans and if they enforce the confiscation their grandchildren will despise their memory. 5. The military does like it did in Russia the last time and sticks flowers in the muzzle and refuses to shoot their fellow country- men. 6. With nowhere else to turn the Liberal Triad - Clinton, (his) Congress and (his court-with another appointment or two) turn to the great hope of the world, the U.N., to bail him out. 7. So the American public decides to ___ ___________________________ . (fill in the blank to see whether we wake up and smell the coffee or if the nightmare last 1000 years) Jerry W. Howard ********************************************************************** "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to to allow the subject races to possess arms.", Adolph Hitler. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.", Thomas Jefferson. ********************************************************************* -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Off topic but useful, Tired of Telemarketers? (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 14:06:08 PST On Oct 4, Reg Pendergraph wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Here's some helpful info from today's Wall Street Journal: "I could write a book about the lengths to which people go to turn away telemarketers! The most practical suggestion: Send your name and number to ... Telephone Preference Service Direct Marketing Association Postal Box 9014 Farmingdale, NY 11735-9014 ... which notifies subscribing companies to screen out your number. (The service is only for households, but you might request the removal of your home-office number, too.)" If you're as tired of telemarketing calls as I am, maybe the above info will help you. Regards, Reg [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 17:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Don't be too certain about #5. See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). -> "Professional military men should not have their heads buried in the sand where threats to the Constitution may be involved." "The capabilities of the U.S. military to actually conduct a war on drugs and terrorism hardly have been tapped. The military has been allowed to stand back under the guise of protecting readiness and abiding by U.S. civil law and provide only only token assistance to law enforcement agencies. To date, U.S. law enforcement agencies have been able to deal with the threat within our borders. But will they continue to be able to in the future?" "[What if] gangs initiate a campaign of urban warfare against both our law enforcement agencies and judicial system? [...] Similar scenarios could be developed for certain religious groups and paramilitary organizations." "[T]here remains a relatively small nucleus of militant [Muslims] that would impose their will through violence ... The same can be said for radical paramilitary and militia groups ..." "[M]ost of us don't see this ... as a call for military force - because of posse comitatus. But, maybe we should. If our Nation is threatened, don't we in the military have a responsibility? As military officers, we take an oath `to defend the Constitution of the United States agains all enemies, foreign _and domestic_.'" "When called upon to act in a national emergency, we must be prepared to do so. That means we must have developed the doctrine, the organization, the tactics, and the equipment to be able to deal with this unconventional threat within the framework of civil law enforcement." "Americans must see these preparations for what they are - in extremis capabilities for military response when law enforcement measures are inadequate - and not as a threat to our freedom and democratic principles." "Within the Marine Corps, we can begin by accomplishing the following: Conduct a throrough and objective assessment of both existing and desirable U.S. military capabilities to assist law enforcement in responding to future domestic threats. [...] Expand professional military education to include greater emphasis on instructing our officers on civil disturbance response and specifically the tactics and unique issues of urban combat. [...] The likely fallout of such an approach will be a military that will have ... an expanded capability to support law enforcement against domestic threats." etc. On Fri, 4 Oct 1996 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:57:31 -0500 (CDT) > From: Jerry W. Howard > To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net > Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION > > Posted to texas-gun-owners by jhoward@onramp.net (Jerry W. Howard) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Posted to texas-gun-owners by jwaldron@halcyon.com > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > But the real nightmare is the following scenario: > > 1. Slick is re-elected with a Dem Congress. > 2. The 105th Congress outlaws all guns except > for the elite. > 3. We get what the Aussies are getting now. > (In other words, after 220 years we get to > return to the status of "subject" rather than > "free citizen.) > 4. Most law enforcement realizes that their > families and they themselves are Americans > and if they enforce the confiscation their > grandchildren will despise their memory. > 5. The military does like it did in Russia the > last time and sticks flowers in the muzzle > and refuses to shoot their fellow country- > men. > 6. With nowhere else to turn the Liberal > Triad - Clinton, (his) Congress and (his > court-with another appointment or two) > turn to the great hope of the world, the > U.N., to bail him out. > 7. So the American public decides to ___ > ___________________________ . > (fill in the blank to see whether we > wake up and smell the coffee or if > the nightmare last 1000 years) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 17:17:37 -0500 (CDT) On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > Don't be too certain about #5. > > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). > > -> > > "Professional military men should not have their heads buried in the sand > where threats to the Constitution may be involved." > This is exactly why I have been trying to explain to the "Patriot movement" that all this worry about UN invasions of foreign troops is just a waste of time. We are the UN and our troops are the UN police force and they will be the ones kicking in our doors if things keep going the same way. The whole Militia movement has become just another "witch hunt" for the masses to attack just like the Witches of Salem or Jews of NAZI Germany. We have got to stop the current "public" Militia and start the "committees of correspondence" and "committees of safety" to petition and change our local governments county by county and state by state into pro-Constitution supporters. I would suggest that in public we never use the Militia word. By all means keep training and arming just in case in private. We need not give the professional military government welfare whores another object to replace the "redscare" as a reason to justify their budgets, offices, power and employment. It is time to think about doing away with the peace time army and replacing it with a national guard and reserves, all modern words for a peace time citizens militia. Just one Trident Sub can be enough to stop another country. The only reason we need the current Army is to Stay in Japan, Europe, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and coming soon to a neighborhood near you confiscation of American citizens arms. Keep the Navy and Airforce but reduce the army to bare bones or we will become the next "Killing Field"... This is not a knock against any of our patriotic Army vets or current troops but when the "Brass" starts talking like this guy it is time to re read those Federalist papers about no standing army! Regards, Paul Watson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 16:41:51 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : > >On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > >> Don't be too certain about #5. >> >> See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats >> Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). >> >> -> >> >> "Professional military men should not have their heads buried in the sand >> where threats to the Constitution may be involved." >> > >This is exactly why I have been trying to explain to the "Patriot >movement" that all this worry about UN invasions of foreign troops is >just a waste of time. We are the UN and our troops are the UN police >force and they will be the ones kicking in our doors if things keep going >the same way. There is that of course. On the other hand Russia is facing invasion in Central Asia from Afghanistan and no troops will be forthcoming there France and Germany are about to suffer unparalled labor unrest and strikes and no troops will be available there Bosnia is just waiting for troops to go away to explode again so one expects it is going to consume lots of troops Israel / Palestine / Syria are apt to have a major set do that is going to consume lots and lots of troops. If / When the US becomes occupied in Syria Iran is apt to cause trouble and absorb more troops If things degenerate in Syria one expects that Lybia and Egypt will have problems. Morocco and Algeria are facing major revolt. China has major problems in its largest Moslem provence which also contains most of China's oil reserves .....assuming that this area actually is part of China and deciding that point is why there is so much trouble. At any rate one expects that very quickly for every five available troops ten will be needed and who will knock on doors is not clear .....but at least those knocking on doors in central cities highly inflamed over CIA caused genocide had best be very well armed This business about gun control is very humorous in Israel. As part of the the Oslo agreements the great Gun Controller: WJC arranged for the PLO police to have 22,500 guns ....mostly hand guns. However, as it turns out instead of having Gun Control Israel ended up with a highly armed *viper in its bosom* in that according to SNS the Palestians have at least 90,000 assault rifles. And where did all this extra fire power come from. SNS said from Israeli criminals. Is not life humorous. I must confess I have no idea how this will work. I do suspect that collecting 90,000 assault rifles in an area the size of the west bank when their owners are all ready to revolt could prove *interesting* .....and will not lead to peace The whole Militia movement has become just another "witch >hunt" for the masses to attack just like the Witches of Salem or Jews of >NAZI Germany. We have got to stop the current "public" Militia and start the >"committees of correspondence" and "committees of safety" to petition and >change our local governments county by county and state by state into >pro-Constitution supporters. I would suggest that in public we never >use the Militia word. By all means keep training and arming just in case >in private. We need not give the professional military government >welfare whores another object to replace the "redscare" as a reason to >justify their budgets, offices, power and employment. It may be time but in the Real World the present peacetime army is going to be stretched beyond belief and enlistments to defend elsewhere instead of US interests are going to be negligible. Much better perhaps to make it plain to all members of Congress that the price of a DRAFT is repeal of all gun control rules. As things degenerate in the Mid-East unless all TV converage one suspects that millions more will see the advantages of GUNS to protect one's home It is time to think >about doing away with the peace time army and replacing it with a >national guard and reserves, all modern words for a peace time citizens >militia. Just one Trident Sub can be enough to stop another country. The >only reason we need the current Army is to Stay in Japan, Europe, Haiti, >Somalia, Bosnia, and coming soon to a neighborhood near you confiscation >of American citizens arms. Keep the Navy and Airforce but reduce the army >to bare bones or we will become the next "Killing Field"... >This is not a knock against any of our patriotic Army vets or current >troops but when the "Brass" starts talking like this guy it is time to >re read those Federalist papers about no standing army! >Regards, >Paul Watson > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Mt. Ear Articles - Juror Rights Trial - (10/4/96) Date: 05 Oct 1996 10:49:40 -0400 >Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 01:14:57 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Mt. Ear Articles - Juror Rights Trial - (10/4/96) > > JUDGE HEARS EVIDENCE IN GILPIN 'JUROR RIGHTS' TRIAL > By Jeffrey V. Smith > >The Mountain-Ear >Friday, October 4, 1996 > >P.O. Box 99 >Nederland, CO 80466 >Phone: (303) 258-7075 >Fax: (303) 258-3547 >Email: mtn-ear@indra.com > >Gilpin County > > After two days of proceedings and several motions to >dismiss the case were denied, the contempt of court trial against >Gilpin County resident Laura Kriho for her actions while on a >jury in the same court last May concluded Wednesday afternoon. > The judge will not render an opinion about the case until >after attorneys on both sides file briefs, he has a chance to >review them, and an agreed upon time is set to reconvene. Both >attorneys have until Oct. 9 to file the briefs. Briefs are >documents that explain to the court each side's view of the facts >of a case and the applicable law. > Kriho sat as a juror on a trial in May charging a young >woman with possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug >paraphernalia and criminal impersonation. No verdict was reached >in that trial, because a mistrial was declared by presiding >District Court Judge Kenneth Barnhill after he decided the jury >had been tainted by Kriho's actions. > During opening statements Tuesday, prosecuting attorney >James Stanley, who also prosecuted the case in which Kriho was a >juror, explained that Kriho was on trial for "three basic >reasons." She was accused by Stanley of lying during the jury >selection process by not disclosing her views about drug laws, >her unwillingness to follow the law, and her involvement in a >prior felony drug conviction. > She also was accused of violating a court order not to >discuss or research the case outside the evidence presented in >the court room. Overnight during the trial in which she served as >a juror, Kriho looked up possible penalties for the drug >possession charge and revealed them to the other jurors against >instructions issued by Judge Barnhill. > The third "reason" for putting Kriho on trial, as >explained by Stanley, was for obstruction of the trial process. >He said that Kriho had an agenda to become a juror on the trial >to challenge drug laws. > Defense attorney Paul Grant said that the evidence would >show Kriho is being punished for simply thinking for herself and >holding her ground when bullied by other jurors. > Stanley began building his case Tuesday by calling >several other jurors from the drug possession trial to the stand. >By asking all of them similar questions, Stanley showed that all >jurors were told several times about the importance of following >the law, to disregard any possible punishment while deciding >guilt, and to speak up about any personal problems or past >experience with the law. They all said that they felt in some way >or another Kriho had been less than honest during the jury >selection process. > Also, the five jurors called to testify for the >prosecution, Russell Carlson, Betty Jane Hammock, Dan Cooper, >James Davis and Ronald Ramsey, explained that Kriho's actions in >the jury room concerned them. The jurors said Kriho's opinion >that drug cases should be decided outside the court system, her >actions in looking up drug penalties on the Internet and a >discussion by Kriho about jury rights issues bothered them and >made them upset. > During cross examination of the jurors by Grant, it was >established that over 350 questions had been asked of potential >jurors prior to Kriho being called as a replacement juror. As >replacement jurors were brought into the jury box, they were >asked simply if they had heard the questions asked and if they >would answer them differently. Everyone except Kriho, who >volunteered information about a previous court experience, said >no. > It was also pointed out through witness testimony that >several jurors, not just Kriho, changed their minds about guilt >at various times throughout deliberations and that although other >jurors were skeptical, Kriho did attempt to show why she had >reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. > During the trial it was shown that an unsigned note >written by a juror asking hypothetical questions concerning juror >conduct caused Judge Barnhill to declare a mistrial. The note, >which asked if a juror could be dismissed for various reasons, >was not investigated by the judge prior to declaring a mistrial. >According to Kriho, some information on the note was false and it >was written by one juror who was upset with her at the time. > Testimony from defense witnesses showed that Kriho did >attempt to persuade jurors that reasonable doubt existed as to >whether the defendant knowingly had drugs in her possession. >They also substantiated Kriho's claim she was not specifically >asked questions she is accused of lying about. > Testimony from Kriho showed she had previous knowledge of >sentencing and that Judge Barnhill and the prosecuting attorney >were visibly angry at how the trial was concluded. It also showed >that she did not meet the qualifications to be dismissed as a >juror. Also, according to Kriho, juror rights were never >explained so she had no idea she might be prosecuted for her >actions. "I felt I was a fair and impartial juror," she said. "I >came in good faith." > Kriho said she did not even want to serve as a juror as >she had to hitchhike to the court house. > She explained that if fingerprints of the defendant were >found on the evidence she would have voted to convict, but >otherwise felt the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable >doubt if the girl knew she was in possession of drugs. She also >said that she stood her ground when all 11 other jurors were >pushing for a guilty verdict. > During the trial, it was pointed out that Kriho gave another >juror a pamphlet after thhe mistrial was declared explaining jury >rights and support for jury nullification issues through the >voting of one's conscience. The information upset the juror who >in turn gave it to the judge. > The information led some jurors to believe Kriho had an >agenda from the start to hang the jury. She said she only >consulted the information to learn what her rights as a juror >were and the she had no contact with the organizaion which >printed it. > Despite several implications from the defense to the >contrary, Judge Nieto said that how Kriho voted in the jury room >will not be part of his consideration in determining whether she >is guilty of contempt. > ### > > > JUROR TRIAL IS CALLED 'MOCKERY OF JUSTICE' > By Jeffrey V. Smith > >The Mountain-Ear >Friday, October 4, 1996 > > In what is being called a mockery of justice, vindictive >and outrageous, Gilpin resident Laura Kriho was brought to trial >Tuesday for allegedly committing perjury and contempt of court >while serving on a jury last May. > According to Kriho's attorney, the case appears to be an >"outgrowth" of a movement among judges nationwide to make sure >jurors feel they do not have a right to judge or question the law >and think for themselves. "That is not true." The attorney said >that since Kriho was a single, hold-out juror she is being >punished. Had she said the defendant was guilty, she would not >have been brought to trial, he said. > Kriho's attorney Paul Grant said Kriho is being accused >of obstruction of justice simply by speaking her mind and holding >her ground. "This is an obnoxious process, we're putting the jury >on trial and that's improper. It can only be done to attack a >juror and not a verdict." > Kriho sat as a juror in a drug possession case earlier >this year which was declared a mistrial. The mistrial, declared >by Judge Kenneth Barnhill, resulted from allegations of Kriho's >actions in the jury room, disregarding instructions of the judge >and lying during the jury selection process. According to >testimony in Kriho's trial, Judge Barnhill did not investigate >the allegations before declaring the mistrial. > Other jurors who served with Kriho during the drug >possession trial said that Kriho discussed the right of a jury to >"nullify" laws by voting their conscience. They said she >explained her opinion that families and communities, not the >court room, were the best place to decide drug cases. Also, it >was disclosed after the trial that Kriho had a prior felony drug >conviction which was not reported during jury selection. > Kriho, who is completely surprised and "shocked" to find >herself on trial, claims she was never specifically asked the >questions she has been accused of answering falsely, and that she >was merely voicing her opinion and speaking her mind in the jury >room. She says that any allegations that she had an agenda and >was out to change drug laws is completely false. > "Basically I feel like I'm being punished for voting >not-guilty," Kriho said. "I could have said whatever I wanted in >the jury room, but if I had come back with a guilty verdict I >would not be here today. I'm absolutely being singled out." > Allegations that she disobeyed the judge are being denied >by Kriho in that instructions to a jury are merely used for >guidance during deliberations and not considered orders. > Kriho has explained that she had reasonable doubt as to >the guilt of the defendant and that the other jurors did not >believe her doubts were reasonable. It has been pointed out that >she was verbally "attacked" by other jurors, who appeared to be >in a hurry to leave, during the deliberation process. > The case, which is highly irregular and the first of its >type in over 300 years, is being followed by many people >interested in its national and civil rights implications. Also, >it has been alleged that the proceedings against Kriho have >poisoned the pool of jurors in Gilpin County. > Because the trial calls for jurors from the drug >possession case to testify about what happened in the jury room, >one of the foundations of the American justice system assuring >confidentiality of deliberations is being threatened. > According to many legal experts, the case threatens to >destroy the entire concept of trial by jury. It has been argued >that there would be no point to a jury if they had to do what the >judge wanted or be faced with prosecution themselves. The right >to a trial by jury, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of >the U.S., is meant to prevent abuses of power by judges and >prosecutors. It is thought that if jurors can be prosecuted for >their deliberations, a fair and impartial jury is impossible. > Prior to the start of the trial, First Judicial District >Chief Judge Henry Nieto assigned himself to the case after the >original judge, Barnhill, excused himself. > Nieto ruled, prior to the trial, that he would judge the >case and not a jury when Deputy District Attorney James Stanley >agreed not to seek a jail term of more than six months. > Although it was suggested by Kriho's attorney Paul Grant >that the trial was complex and a motion was filed to delay the >trial to give the defense more time to prepare, Judge Nieto >denied it. This decision was found to be so egregious by Grant >that he appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Cournt >under an emergency provision. > Nieto ruled, prior to the trial, that he would judge the >case and not a jury when Deputy District Attorney James Stanley >agreed not to seek a jail term more than six months. A jury >trial was originally granted at Kriho's arraignment in August, >but Stanley said he changed his mind about punishment. A jury >would have been necessary for a punishment greater than six >months in jail. > It was argued by Grant that since theories from a recently >published article by Gilpin County Judge Frederic Rodgers on how >to prosecute "obstructionist" jurors appeared in the contempt >citation, the defense had a right to know what communication >occurred between Judge Barnhill, other judges and the >prosecution. Judge Nieto denied the request. > A request to appoint a special prosecutor was denied. >Grant said that since Stanley was the prosecutor in the case in >which Kriho was a juror, he should be available as a witness. >Evidence was presented that although Stanley's actions in the >courtroom are part of the record, he did have contact with the >jurors off the record. > Several motions to dismiss the case, due to its frivolous >nature, have been denied throughout the trial. > Due to the nature of the case, a local legal rights group, >the Colorado Legal Eagles, is warning Gilpin county residents of >"a serious threat to the judicial system in their county." The >group wants Gilpin residents to be aware of their legal rights >and to seek court-ordered counsel before answering quesions >during jruy selelction. The group also warns that no one will be >advised that anything they say can and will be used against them >even though it is possible. > Grant also feels the jury pool has been poisoned "to some >exent" in that jurors will feel intimidated to speak their minds >in the jury room. "Who wants to serve on a jury with a threat of >prosecution hanging over your head?" Grant said it is the intent >to publicize this case nationally by the judges so theat jurors >nationally will be intimidated. > The actions of the court are also meant to eliminate hung >juries in Grant's mind. "This sends a message that you better go >along with the majority or you will be criminally prosecuted." > > ### > >The Mountain-Ear >P.O. Box 99 >Nederland, CO 80466 >Phone: (303) 258-7075 >Fax: (303) 258-3547 >Email: mtn-ear@indra.com > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be removed from this mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: [FWIW] An education agenda...(circa 1932) Date: 05 Oct 1996 10:52:30 -0400 >Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 06:43:40 -0500 (CDT) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] An education agenda...(circa 1932) >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW > > "Among the elementary measures the American Soviet > government will adopt to further the cultural > revolution are...[a] National Department of > Education...the studies will be revolutionized, > being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other > features of the bourgeois ideology. The students > will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical > materialism, internationalism and the general > ethics of the new Socialist society." > > - William Z. Foster, > Toward Soviet America, 1932 > National Chairman of the > American Communist Party > (1933-44, 1945-57) > > =================================================================== > The above text comes from The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070 > (long distance callers require manual upgrade, usually within hours) > =================================================================== > To subscribe to FWIW simply send the following: > To: listserv@execpc.com > Subj: (leave blank) > Message: > subscribe fwiw > > That's it! The welcome letter will tell you more! > =================================================================== > To unsubscribe, simply send the above instructed message, > substituting "unsubscribe" where appropriate. > =================================================================== > Home page: http://www.execpc.com/~jfish > > > > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: UPDATE: Health Net/California Wellness Foundation 1/2 (fwd) Date: 05 Oct 1996 16:41:21 PST On Oct 5, EdgarSuter@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] You may also note, as reported in last Friday's Associated Press release, the current investigation of California Wellness Foundation for the illegal funding of election activities regarding Prop. 209 in California, The California Civil Rights Initiative. Strike now while California Wellness is under scrutiny. For those of you insured by Health Net who wish to make your views known: Mr. James Wilk, President Mr. Mike Gallagher, Chairman of the Board Health Net PO Box 9103 Van Nuys CA 91409-9103 Please remember that it is the profit from your health insurance premiums to Health Net that funds the nefarious activities of California Wellness Foundation. To the degree that Health Net funds California Wellness Foundation your health care insurance premiums could be lowered or services to you improved. Our original report follows: Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR) has focused on how public money -- _your_ money -- has been used to subvert your inherent, irrevocable rights through the use of politicized "science." Virtually every level of government uses your tax money to propagandize restrictive gun laws and other fundamental tenets of authoritarian control, of collectivism, of socialism (sometimes eumphemistically "liberalism"). Increasingly it has become apparent to us that consumers' money -- _your_ money -- has also been used to subvert your inherent, irrevocable rights. Your health care dollars, whether being paid directly by you or indirectly by you through your employer or union, are being funneled into health care insurance companies that are increasingly funding "non-profit educational foundations" that propagandize for the end of our constitutional republic. Currently, with resources approaching $1 BILLION, California Wellness Foundation is the deepest of these "pockets," but increasing numbers of health insurance companies are becoming so involved. [We expect to report on the activities of Kaiser Foundation/Permanente Medical Group in the future]. Ms. Sarah Foster conducted an extensive investigation of California Wellness Foundation and has written the following article. If you read this article and are angered or frightened by the activities of California Wellness Foundation, recall that Health Net fathered this bastard child. If you have Health Net insurance coverage, let your views be known -- to your insurance agent, your employer, your union, _and_ the executives of Health Net and California Wellness Foundation. Do not let your money be used against you and your family for generations to come. Let your legislators know that, despite its pleasing sounding name and mission, California Wellness Foundation is an enemy of our rights and of our constitutional republic. Ms. Foster's report refers to issues other than gun bans in which California Wellness Foundation is active. Please distribute her report to people, organizations, and newsgroups with interest in those other issues. Please support Capital Research Center that has made this and other important reports available. Edgar A. Suter MD National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research ******************************************** Organization Trends New Health Foundation Writes Prescription for Big Government California Group Advances Liberalism in the Name of Wellness The author, Sarah Foster, is a researcher and writer residing in Sacramento, California. Editor Robert V. Pambianco Publisher Terrence Scanlon Copyright 1996 Capital Research Center 727 15th Street NW/Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 (202)393-2600 Permission to distribute granted providing full attribution is given. Liberals no longer call themselves liberals: they prefer to be known as "moderates." Now a recently established California foundation has come Up with a fresh way to market discredited liberal ideas of munificent government. The California Wellness Foundation (CWF) is using the expansive concept of "wellness" to advance a broad-based policy agenda that is hostile to individual liberty and responsibility. Created by the privatization of a major nonprofit Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), the foundation is emerging as a grantmaking behemoth. With a multi-million dollar budget and nearly a billion dollars in assets, it has already become a major player in the nation's largest state CWF has taken on a cornucopia of concerns: gun ownership. smoking, consumption of alcoholic beverages, teenage pregnancy, to name a few. In FY 1994-95 CWF awarded 129 grants totaling nearly $40 million to institutions. organizations and individuals to tackle these and other issues that constitute what CWF has defined as "prevention" and "wellness." Wellness is the latest buzz-phrase among hip grantmakers Sufficiently vague, this all- encompassing term appeals to foundation professionals who believe that specific missions and mandates hinder their creative grantmaking talents. Like the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, wellness provides the imaginative foundation officer with limitless possibilities. CWF's stated goal is "to improve the health of the residents of California" and "foster healthful lifestyles, behaviors, and values.'` To CWF, health or illness is defined not as the absence or presence of disease. "but by a complex web of conditions in [the] physical and social environment," and CWF' has determined its grantmaking must address 'the multiple barriers to healthful living-from personal behavior to social and economic influences such as poverty, unemployment, inadequate schools and racism." In other words, wellness means whatever CWF wants it to mean. Sound familiar? Such a program is simply an updated version of the root-causes rationale used to justify the 1960s War on Poverty. Grants are awarded in five program areas: Community Health: Population Health; Worksite Health Improvement; Violence Prevention: and Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention. Each of these creates a theater of operation for government intervention. CWF's first project, the Violence Prevention Initiative, is fully developed and being expanded. The ominous-sounding Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention Initiative is still in the formative state. Although a grantmaking foundation obligated to foster a public charitable interest, CWF is a recent offspring of a commercial enterprise. CWF's "parent" is Health Net, the second largest health maintenance organization (HMO) in California, with 1.3 million commercial and Medicare HMO members, many of them subscribers with CalPERS (the state Public Employees Retirement System). CWF benefits from the considerable cachet associated with its parent's former status as a nonprofit insurer. In 1990 the previously nonprofit Health Net became a for-profit corporation. Because California law requires nonprofits that privatize to leave their assets in the non- profit sector, Health Net created CWF in 1991, funding it in 1992 to the tune of $300 million ($75 million cash, $225 million in a long term, interest-bearing note), plus 25.7 million shares of Class B nonvoting stock, which convert to Class A voting shares when sold. ILs most recent Annual Report (1995) posts assets of $851.8 million. In January 1994. Health NcL merged with QualMed. a Colorado-based HMO, to form Health Systems International, which has been actively acquiring smaller HMOs. mostly in the Northeast. Health Net-today a subsidiary of HSI-is actively pursuing the Medicare and small-group market, moves that have interesting implications for CWF and its work. As a new foundation, CWF's Board of Directors (then headed by Roger Greaves, founder, president and CEO of Health Net) was free to set priorities "unencumbered by past funding commitments" (as the 1993 annual report put it) or, for that matter, unencumbered by earlier ideological baggage. Unlike such organizations as the Pew Charitable Trusts or the Ford Foundation, which had left-wing agendas thrust upon them, CWF has been "progressive" from the start. Education for Regulation CWF's central organizing concept is "prevention." In today's political lexicon, that means far more than immunization programs for kids, X-ray screening for TB or breast cancer, or providing physical exams and dental work for the poor. The new "prevention" includes these, but also much more: it aims for total elimination of "risk behaviors" and anything "bad" in that "complex web of conditions." A report funded by CWF- for the Washington-based Partnership for Prevention (of which Health Net is a member) puts it this way: "Imagine a new drug that would cure an epidemic... a new surgery that would correct . . . heart disease... a new prenatal therapy that would help over 100,000 low-birth- weight babies survive.... Let's go one step further. Imagine a way to prevent the epidemic; to prevent the heart disease: to prevent the low birth weight" (emphasis in original text). Desirable as that may sound, full realization of such goals would require constant government intervention in people's lives, with every behavior added to the lists of targets for modification. CWF gives few details on how this is to be accomplished. What is clear, however, is that CWF's prevention paradigm is a model for a major expansion of the nanny state. CWF is not a membership organization. and as a nonprofit with an IRS 501(c)(3) status it is not permitted to lobby on specific legislation. But it does engage in "effecting policy change through public education." In practice, this means convincing the public to accept and demand the laws, ordinances, and regulations CWF believes are necessary for public health and "wellness." Like other foundations, CWF is a money machine; it funnels grants to community- based nonprofits and individuals eager to make demands for government action, and sponsors university research to bolster "progressive" policy initiatives. But more importantly, CWF is a modern, high-tech foundation that recognizes the value of getting out the message-especially in California, a big state with expensive media- driven politics and a tradition of creating policy by means of ballot initiative. Thus, CWF recruits experienced consulting firms that develop and implement campaigns even to the point of serious involvement in state ballot measures and national legislation. Examples listed in the 1995 annual report include: * $500,000 to Public Media Center "to support a public education project on health impacts of proposed federal budget cuts on children and families in California." "The campaign joined advocates from a wide range of organizations, bringing a unified voice to the debate." Public Media Center is a nonprofit, public interest advertising firm based in San Francisco, which-as the Wall Street Journal/ puts it "Goes for l the I Jugular to Push Causes." The 20-year-old PMC places more than $1 million in newspaper ads a year in major papers on behalf of clients such as Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, and Handgun Control Inc., according to the Journal. Last year, it placed fear-inducing ads opposing the Contract With America. The Contract "guarantees drastic losses for children," warned one such hyperbolic ad. which delineated a parade of horribles that would plague the nation if the Republican agenda were enacted, e.g., "neglected and brutalized children will not be protected. ' * $363,000 to the Marin Institute, "to build the capacity of live target California cities to effectively address the role of alcohol marketing and availability in the economic development of these communities." This nonprofit research firm in the North San Francisco Bay Area is hostile to both tobacco and alcohol consumption, and explores ways of "empowering" local communities to restrict access to them through ordinances limiting or banning advertising, sales, and consumption. The Institute grew out of the famous Buck Trust controversy and was established with funds from the Trust. * $4 million to Public Media Center "to develop and implement a campaign to increase [public] awareness about... Proposition 188." This was a 1994 California ballot initiative, sponsored by tobacco companies. that sought to curb the ability of local communities to enact anti-smoking ordinances that were more stringent than slate law. PMC "used print, radio and television ads to inform Californians about the threat to the public's health." CWF reports that surveys at the start showed Californians in support of the proposition. After the emotionally charged propaganda blitz by PMC, voters rejected it ( 1995 annual report). Currying Favor with the State? Organization Trends has previously documented how foundations establish a financial relationship with state and local governments as a shortcut to achieving their policy goals, e.g., a new health care plan or education reform. Often these programs have little public support-hence, lawmakers are unlikely to provide funding-so the foundation gives the state money to run a pilot program. The state legislators are often hardly aware that state agencies are relying on outside grantmakers for policy direction. Yet the program becomes entrenched. Eventually the government takes over the funding -and the public gets stuck with something it never wanted. It's an easy way to avoid the sticky problems associated with democratic self government. Like other large philanthropies. CWF gives money to selected government institutions and agencies, local and state, for start-up costs of scholarships, fellowships? and research projects. Some examples: * $775,000 to UC Berkeley in 1995 to support the Schools Wellness Project, "a...model aimed at transforming 11 K-12 Bay Area schools into centers of community health promotion." * $30,000 to the L.A. Unified School District in 1995 "to create a program to identify, track, and assist pregnant teens." * $15,()()(:) to UC Berkeley, School of Public Health, in 1994 "to conduct research on the politics of prevention in health care reform and to assess the influence of the work supported by [CWF]." Commenting on this connection to government, former CWF president and CEO Howard Kahn wrote: "Recognizing the central role of government in the lives of all Californians, we have not shied away from involvement with government and public policy issues. Instead. we have embraced opportunities to affect public policy and leverage public funds." (Leverage is the key word; the foundation provides $100, and soon the government is spending $10 million on a statewide prevention program.) This means, Kahn explained, "evaluation of government-sponsored social and health service programs," and "partnering" with government "to attempt to influence the shape of new or existing public programs" and to ensure that "prevention assumes a central role . . . in . . . efforts [of health care reform| within California." To those who would raise an eyebrow over a possible conflict of interest between a foundation established by a major HMO that is aggressively pursuing Medicare and other government contracts et the same time that it gives money to government agencies and attempts to "influence . . . public health programs": Be advised that such activity is not only condoned, it's applauded as a fine example of "partnering." The Violence Prevention Initiative Although millions of dollars have been awarded for projects in all five program areas (cited above), CWF's top priority has been the Violence Prevention Initiative (VPI). In just four short years CWF has positioned itself in the vanguard of the gun control crusade. IL has committed $30 million to this project, with other foundations kicking in an additional $10 million. Basically this is a gun-control campaign. It has drawn nationwide public attention and has endeared the fledgling foundation to a sympathetic media. Consistent with its organizing principles, CWF claims to have been the first organization to make gun control a public health issue. "The Initiative breaks with tradition by putting the issue . . . in a public health perspective that centers on prevention." says CWF literature. Yes, prevention. What good is it, asks CWF, for a man to receive a clean bill of health at the local clinic, if he is killed by gunshot on his way home'? The solution)' Get rid of firearms. After all, if a public health department can order the capping of a contaminated water source to stem cholera or order restaurants to stop selling tainted hamburgers, it can surely halt an "epidemic" of gun-related in juries and deaths. Not surprisingly, many challenge this view. Edgar Suter, M.D., of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, a nonprofit organization in San Ramon, Calif., has analyzed such allegations. In a report titled Targeting Deceit, Suter observes that "The chief strategists of the gun ban lobby have attempted to reframe the debate as a 'public health' issue rather than a crime issue precisely because they have recognized . . . that two decades of criminological research has shown the bankruptcy of the claim that gun control reduces crime or violence." By using FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Suter points out that drug dealers and drug users are "overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence....[F]ar from being 'innocent children,' an alarming two-thirds of gun homicides are of teens and young adults in the drug trade." Such facts make little if any impression on the anti-gun advocates, and they are confident of ultimate success. "This is the beginning of a long journey," Dr. Michael Rodriguez, Research Director of the CWF-funded Pacific Center for Violence Prevention, told a Sacramento anti-gun group last June. As reported by the Sacramento Bee Rodriguez warned his audience that they would face "i formidable obstacles, much like the pioneers of the anti-smoking crusade." "Twenty years ago, people were able to light up wherever they wanted," Rodriguez is quoted as saying. Indeed. And CWF is determined that just as the public was eventually conditioned to demand local ordinances and state laws to ban smoking in restaurants, work sites, and government buildings, "education" by CWF will provide the changes in public opinion and policy that will cause citizens to surrender their guns. Here's how some of CWF's grant money is being spent on its anti-gun initiatives. * $650,000 every other year to fund two- year fellowships for ten community activists scattered throughout the state. Also three annual $25,000 "Peace Awards" to selected community leaders. * $400,000 each to 17 community organizations "to implement violence prevention projects." * $200,000 to the Center for Investigative Reporting in San Francisco to produce and distribute a national televised documentary on the firearms industry. * $40,000 to the San Francisco-based Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) for a resource manual, Addressing GUn Violence e through Local Ordinances a how-to book for anti-gun activists and attorneys. It explains how to enact municipal ordinances that outlaw "Saturday night specials" and banish dealers from residential and other "sensitive" areas. It offers advice on how activists can build public support for so-called "rational gun regulation," and how to resist legal challenges to already enacted anti-gun ordinances and regulations. In 1992 a major grant of $1.3 million (part of an eventual total of $7.5 million) was allocated to establish Rodriguez's Pacific Center for Violence Prevention. The money went to the Trauma Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group based in San Francisco's General Hospital. The Trauma Foundation has long assaulted gun ownership going so far as to run full-page ads in major newspapers to promote anti-gun legislation. CWF's 1993 Annual Report detailed the work of the new Center: ''[L]inking several leading activist organizations, the Pacific Center is helping train those involved with the [Violence Prevention] Initiative in order to create a statewide network of advocates who can educate the media, public officials and other leaders on the public health perspective for violence prevention." One such "linking" was with LCAV to produce the resource manual on passing local ordinances. Pacific Center provided staff assistance, while Policy Director David Farrar contributed his expertise. The LCAV project also borrowed anti-smoking activist Mark Pertschuk, son of former FTC Chairman Michael Pertschuk, of the California Preemption Education Project (a joint project of Western Consortium for Public Health and Americans for Nonsmokers Rights), which receives funding from CWF. Playing the Child Card Of all CWF activities, the one generating the most publicity has been the Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence Against Kids. Begun in 1993, it uses TV ads, public service announcements and direct mailings "to mobilize citizen action." CWF shamelessly plays the child card. This tried-and-true tactic originated with Marian Wright Edelman and her Children's Defense Fund. It entails a three- step process: First, define an issue (e.g., health care, gun control, poverty) as a children's problem. Second, propose a government solution. Third, attack those who disagree with the specific policy as anti- children. Thus, "There are too many handguns, too many gun dealers and too many kids losing their lives to this epidemic, and it needs to stop," foundation President Gary Yates told the L.A. Times in April. The TV ads, narrated by veteran Hollywood leftist Ed Asner, told Californians the "number one killer of kids . . . is handguns." A second ad shows guns on an assembly line, with a voice-over: "Business is booming, a handgun is produced every 20 seconds and they're put to use on our kids. Ten kids are killed every day. A kid commits suicide with a handgun every X hours. It's an epidemic." Suter notes that a "kid" includes anyone up to age 18-even young thugs involved in drug trafficking. Viewers could call a toll-free number and receive a Citizen involvement Kit, a brochure containing the names of community organizations to contact (most of them funded by CWF), names and addresses of elected officials, and a list of meaningless 'facts" with which to confront officials, e.g., "There are l 8 times more gun dealers than McDonald's in California." The kit also contained three postcards to send to legislators asking: What are you doing to prevent handgun violence against California kids'? Behind the scenes of this endeavor has been the private political consulting firm of Martin & Glantz. Based in Marin County, it lists among its clients The Nature Conservancy, and the Ford Foundation. Partners Angie Martin and Gina Glantz (no relation to anti- tobacco enthusiast Stanton Glantz) have earned a reputation for the skill with which they manage advocacy campaigns. They received over $2 million through 1994, and in 1995 were awarded an additional $6 million over three years "to continue and expand the multimedia public education campaign." A highlight of this campaign to date was a statewide, 90-minute teleconference titled "First Aid for What's Killing Our Kids: A Prescription for Prevention," which "joined the public and policy makers in Washington, D.C. and 18 conference sites in an unprecedented discussion of specific policy options for reducing violence." The teleconference, held in February 1995. featured pru-recorded appearances by Donna Shalala, secret [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: UPDATE: Health Net/California Wellness Foundation 2/2 (fwd) Date: 05 Oct 1996 16:42:17 PST On Oct 5, EdgarSuter@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The obsession with guns explains CWF's mission completely, and it also says a great deal about modern-day liberalism. CWF and politicians like President Clinton focus on issues like gun control and cigarettes because they do not have the answers to the broader problems afflicting society. Thirty years ago, liberals thought they had the answer: massive government spending and regulation. But that didn't work; as the president said in his State of the Union Address earlier this year, 'the era of trig government is over." Intellectually exhausted and unable to win popular support for big new statist schemes, those seeking to score political points have found that guns and tobacco companies provide easy targets. It is no surprise that the president has tried to make so much of his opponent's assertion that cigarettes are not necessarily addictive for everyone. Likewise, CWF and other foundation have no solutions to the social issues confounding America. So they rail against guns and cigarettes. The Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention Initiative While the lion's share of CWF activity to date has focused on the gun "epidemic," it appears that the foundation has even bigger plans for its teenage pregnancy initiative that is if money allocation is any indication of intent. Until this year the Initiative received comparatively little funding but that has suddenly changed. CWF plans to award .860 million over ten years. Only two grants were listed in the 1995 annual report, though they were sizable: * $570,000 to the California Public Health Foundation to support the organizing and implementation of planning and advisory groups meetings. * $3.5 million to the Public Media Center "to design and implement the first phase of a public education campaign." More recently, the April 18 Chronicle of Philanthropy listed nine newly awarded grants totaling $6.14 million for this Initiative. Of that, $5 million is to be paid over four years to the California Family Planning Council based in Los Angeles, "to implement a clinical-services and prevention model I or pregnant teenagers at family planning organizations in high-risk areas." Also listed in the Chronicle as a spectral grant on Reproductive Health and not as part of the Initiative, is $50,000 to the Washington- based National Advisory Board 011 Ethics in Reproduction for "administrative support and . . . ethical review and analysis of reproductive-policy issues." The VPI is a cover for promoting public acceptance of gun-control. Is the teenage pregnancy initiative just camouflage for pushing abortion as a public health measure'? While the word abortion is never mentioned in CWF literature, the original title-"Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention Initiative"- presents unclear euphemisms that make one wonder what the program envisions. The 1994 annual report admits part of the program will include finding out what has been learned about preventing pregnancies and births among teenagers." Sex education and family planning. we're told, "are not enough" (emphasis in original). CWF seems to be planning programs far beyond condom distribution and birth control pills. The rationale for doing something. anything, about teenage pregnancy is presented in terms sure to appeal to overburdened taxpayers. Most teenage girls who have babies are poor and go on welfare, and they and their children are caught in a descending spiral of poverty and welfare dependence which costs tax dollars. Perhaps it's just an oversight, but CWF does not seem at all concerned about illegitimacy and focuses attention on teenage pregnancy per se- which could include young married couples. That is, as CWF presents the issue, the problem is not so much girls having babies out of wedlock, but girls having babies. One can appreciate concern about welfare and other costs to the taxpayer. But is there another, more pressing consideration? A lull- term birth in a hospital runs anywhere from $2,000 to over $5,000-plus prenatal and post-delivery care. However, an elective abortion costs only a couple of hundred dollars. Health Net, CWF's parent, is in stiff competition with other HMOs for MediCal (California's Medicaid program) contracts. Under capitation, the government pays an HMO so much per member. The more MediCal members are assigned to it, is it more cost efficient to "educate" teenagers and their families to agree to abortion when there's an "unplanned" pregnancy, rather than giving birth, keeping the child or placing it for adoption'? A cynical observation'? Perhaps. But Health Net has the reputation among health care professionals as being the most cost-conscious of all the HMOs. And one of the biggest criticisms of managed care in general is that too much attention is paid to costs at the expense of care. A Tragic Allocation of Funds With its vast resources and connection to a major HMO, CWF could do truly wonderful things in the field of biomedical research. In a January 22 article, Time detailed how HMOs are swelling their coffers through increased memberships, only to renege when IL comes to paying for expected medical care. Time reported several cases of women being denied hone-marrow transplant therapy for breast cancer-a last-ditch, though not extraordinary procedure which might have saved their lives, or at least relieved their suffering. Time explained that Health Net won't cover any treatment it deems experimental or investigative, and considers bone marrow transplants such, yet like other HMOs, "it spends nothing on research to hunt for new treatments for disease.. .[I]t feels bound by law and competition to avoid such research." According to Time, Health Net recently rejected a proposal to allocate money to research ovarian cancer, fearing that under the Americans with Disabilities Act the company would be held liable for discrimination against people with other forms of cancer and other diseases. But if an HMO itself can't or won't pay for research, would it not be a true benefit to humanity for its foundation to do so'' Rather than orchestrating propaganda campaigns against unapproved behaviors and attempting to strip us of our right to self-defense, why doesn't CWF underwrite the research necessary to discover the cause and cure of cancer, AIDS, stroke, and other diseases to which humans are prone? The tendency of foundations such as the California Wellness Foundation to support strategies for social and political control on individual behavior in the name of "prevention" is one of the oddities of contemporary liberalism - Once defenders of individual freedom, they have become prim overseers of personal deportment. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Thank you! UN NGO application donations (fwd) Date: 05 Oct 1996 18:54:34 PST On Oct 5, EdgarSuter@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] We have obtained the money (and one 4-leaf clover) necessary to begin the arduous application process for United Nations Non-Government Organization (NGO) status. The process will take at least one year and perhaps two. I would like to thank each donor personally, but, as many suggested, the time spent writing personal "thank you" letters is better spent working on DIPR's projects - after all, I am not Morris Dees, we are not the Southern Poverty Law Center, and fund-raising is only our occasional necessity, not our raison d'etre. Many of you have offered your misgivings about participating in the United Nations. SInce a pre-teen I have understood how the United Nations was designed to subvert our nation, its values, and our rights and sovereignty. Be sure that I, on behalf of DIPR, will make your voice heard in the den of the New World Order as clearly and as effectively as I can. If we do not participate, it will only be one more forum where we are not heard. Thank you to you all. Best regards, Edgar A. Suter MD National Chair, DIPR [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Rights Date: 05 Oct 1996 22:53:12 -0700 To no one in particular, to everyone specically - Of late, in my searches for and through the most important documents we rely upon in our quest to deny the 'Rights grabbers', I find that the Founders were, almost to a fault, lax in their description of a Right to bear arms. True, they were sufficient enough in 'their' day, and I would think probably concise enough, so as not to evoke an arguement concerning what was meant by what was written, but in our's they are pitifully lacking. We do not speak the same exact language, and inasmuch as we speak somewhat the same tongue, their expressions on Rights are different than ours to the extent that we are made to find exactingly perfect 'fits' for our arguments to be accepted as valid in the Courts of Law. Because of their less than precise language, or perhaps because of our evolving preciseness of language, we are made to work twice a hard - or more, to achieve the same result for the same end. This matter is not helped much when the Judiciary of this land invite the law profession to become ever more 'creative' in their enterprise of seeking to dissemble the real meanings of our enumerated Rights. One would think that as a language evolves, that the meaning of a word (or phrase) would either expand or narrow, but not loose its original meaning entirely. Most certainly, one would not expect the meaning of something so precious as a Right, to contract to the point of being 'meaningless'. Since we have access to most of the major works of the Founders of the Government of this land, and we know precisely what their thoughts were concerning the subject at hand, and because we are held to obeying the laws that were formulated by them for other reasons on other subjects, then it must follow that the Courts of Law must also uphold the meanings imparted by those original documents. All of this is to say that 1 equals 1, and not something else. If the Courts of Law in this land are held to uphold the law on any given subject according to the Constitution's of the States and The Federal, then all laws must be upheld to the same standards - with no deviation, except for cause - on an individual basis, and then only to the extent required to assure maximum liberty. A Right in one sense does not become a privelage in another. A Right is a Right - period. There is no compelling interest to diminish Rights for the population at large, unless those interests are to conflict with the purposes of the Rights. In that regard, only despots and tyrants need be interested. The purpose of a Right is to protect Freedom, and the purpose of freedom is to allow self determination. All three branches of the Federal Government have at times conspired to remove or diminish the various Rights, with no subsequent attempts to restore what was diminished, with the corrupt idea of maintaining the thought that 'the citizens do not know better, and cannot be trusted to exercise a certain Right'. There is no place in the Constitution of the United States, that allows the Congress or the Office of the President, or the Federal Judiciary to diminish or remove a Right on a permanent basis. Just _where_ has Congress found that assertion in the U.S. Constitution, and just _where_ has the U.S. Supreme Court found such an assertion to validate its findings? To assert that such a power exists, should be reason enough for the People to believe that the worst is at hand. Two prominent issues come to mind in regards to the above. The first is 'Pornography', and the second is the object of the Second Article of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In either case, neither object is in and of itself a harmful thing. In the first case, no matter what the subject of a 'pornographic' article may be, whether it is merely a writing, or visual expression or representation of an act - be it factual or fancifull, however heinous or objectionable it may be to the viewer - it is not in and of itself an act, but merely a possible representation of one only. In that matter it is not subject to control, since it is merely an object of the mind only. Any law to the contrary seeks to control the thoughts of the citizens. To (however emotionally) assert that to view such an object will forever corrupt the mind of the viewer or provoke an act, is without scientific substance or fact. To maintain that an object or subject, of intellectual significance only, could possibly cause or provoke an act that is depicted within or by the object is to assert that we as people cannot contain our thoughts or acts as responsible citizens. In point of fact, any such restrictions on the viewing of any object amounts to nothing less than the theft of the soverign intellectuality of every American citizen. Any thought to the otherwise is morally and intellectually corrupt, for it presumes that some citizens 'know better' than others. To maintain such a position presumes that the Constitution and the Rights protected by it are violable at will and upon whatever inclinations those in office happen to entertain. That being the case, it is a morally bankrupt for _any_ public official to presume to know at any particular time that a certain thing is without merit, and therefore without protection. It presumes to say the certain classes of citizens at certain times can be denied because "I said so". Further, it is the unlawfull assumption or taking of individual responsibility by government. When a government assumes the responsibility of the individual, then the Rights of citizens become mere token privileges that may be denied capriciously. Indeed, when government moves as such, it is to state that we cannot be trusted at all. When government is made to limit the Rights of the citizens based upon the acts of madmen, then we are all made to suffer as madmen. When the lowest intellectual common denominator of a society is used as the measuring stick of citizen responsibility, then there is no responsibility. The Framers of our Federal Constitution knew just that. It validated the States rights to punish those who violated the Rights of others while exercising a Right, thus maintaining freedom for the rest of the citizenry - and not curtailing it. This is the most basic concept of individual responsibility and the relationship to law, which says in part, that punishment must be meted out to only those who have comitted a crime, and not to everyone else. Rights must not be removed because of the irresponsible acts of a few, or even many. We are left to consider the intellectual gymnastics that the 'Freedom Takers' must resort to, in order for them to validate their acts by whatever convoluted means they may, while we seek out a method by which our Rights must be returned to us. In the second case (that of the Right to arms), to presume that citizens will abuse a Right merely by exercising it is the most presumptious of assuptions. Such a thought asserts that only certain people have enough knowledge and intelligence to exercise the Right unhindered. Such people must obviously be god-like, for only that can explain such a presumption. It also presumes that people have become less intelligent than their elders and forebearers. If that is indeed the case, it speaks volumes about those who have participated in the relative demise of our Rights, for only that could explain the absolute idiocy of the decisions used to deny us our birthrights. In both the above instances, the objects are presumed to be 'too dangerous' for citizens to possess. Notice here, the duplicitous acts of government, where only the 'anointed' are allowed to exercise a 'Right' unhindered by law, whilst the rest of us must seek permission to exercise what otherwise is described as a 'Right'. Only in America is a so-called 'Right' heretofore spelled out in the Bill of Rights, exercised with a license. Please note, that a license is permission to do what is otherwise illegal to do. How is it, I ask, that we are forced to ask for our Rights, and made to apply for a license to do just that? It is ludricrous, beyond belief, than any body of elected officials could possibly presume to believe that they have more knowledge, foresight, and a greater wherewithall of competance than the people who elected them to office as representitives to government. To believe, as they do, that the citizen is but a mere digit to be counted and discounted, is the uttermost form of denigration. When a government presumes to 'know better than the citizen' and assumes the mantle of a benefactor rather than as a coordinator of affairs - as was originally intended, then the Rights of citizens will be subverted to the purposes of government and withdrawn from protection against violation, and no amount of citizen involvement will correct the violations of Rights short of actual or threatened full blown revolution. It remains encumbent upon the citizen then, to develope - and maintain, a perspicacity second to none, in order to know where every lie of government will lead. And lastly, the citizens _must_ threaten and _use_ frequently, the power of election recall, to 'bring home' the idea that an oath is the highest form of allegiance to the citizens, and any act pursued by those who have sworn it will be held to the highest standard. The price of liberty, is eternal vigilence. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, means just that. Failure to comply is unsatisfactory, and punishable under law. The value of any threat is only as good as the willingness to back it up with determined actions. Anything less is milquetoast. Ed In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have more laws against freedom than those that protect it. If this country is so damned free, why are there so many things I can't do without breaking some idiotic law? >>>eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com<<< "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus, Roman Senator and historian (a.d. 56-115) >>>A kind thank you to: David Gonzalez <<< The 2nd Amendment IS THE reset button for the United States Constitution. >>>("Doug McKay" ) <<< A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights -- These are the ORIGINAL Contract with America. Beware of Imitations. Accept No Substitutes. Insist on the Genuine Articles. >>>Thanks in part to: John Gear (catalyst@pacifier.com)<<< "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters >>>A hearty thanks to: foolery@bright.net<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Date: 06 Oct 1996 20:19:18 -0700 The Presidential Debate by Monte Cooley, AP (Associated Potatoes) Tonight, in an historic and moving event televised to the nation on virtually every television channel nationwide (except for the movie and entertainment channels, which had better and more interesting things to televise), the current President of the United States of America, William Jefferson "Billy Bob" Bubba Clinton faced his nemesis, the witty and ever-articulate former Senator Bobdole. It was the opportunity, nay, privilege of this humble writer to observe the debate, and then, humbly, to attempt to post to you, the reader, this humble observation, written humbly, by a humble man. The debate was chaired by Jim Lehrer. Mr. Lehrer mentioned at the outset that the format for the debate had largely been chosen by coin toss, much like the fate of our nation at this point. Bill began by stating that, as President, he signed into law the Brady Bill and the Crime Bill with the Assault Weapons Ban, and put 100,000 cops on the street. Bobdole quickly countered by saying (I'm not making this up) that he worries about the quality and safety of our children. Bill quickly countered by mentioning that as President he signed into law the Brady Bill and the Crime Bill with the Assault Weapons Ban, and put 100,000 cops on the street. Bobdole, in a voice that could only be described as Bobdole's voice, assured us that, unlike Bill, he trusts the American people. Bill said he trusts the American people too, really, he does, honest. Bill then went on to state that America is better off today than we were four years ago; we have better wages, more jobs, less poverty, and, as President, he signed into law the Brady Bill and the Crime Bill with the Assault Weapons Ban, and put 100,000 cops on the street. When Bobdole asked Bill if, in fact, he lies - Bill, in an example of the lightning-fast executive thinking he's known for, replied simply, "Absolutely not. Paula made that up, and so did Gennifer. And Arkansas is *not* a small state." Bobdole questioned how Bill's Presidency had allowed drug use to so greatly increase during the last four years. Bill pointed out that he's appointed a four-star general to take over the war on drugs. Not to be outdone, Bobdole stated that when *he's* President, they'll use the National Guard. Bill said "Oh yeah? Well, *we'll* use special forces and biological warfare." Bob growled "Yeah, show me *your* war injury, paleface!" Bill insisted "I DIDN'T INHALE!!!" At this point, although the studio audience demanded a potty break, Jim Lehrer refused to give over control and kept the debate humming like only a Presidential debate in America can hum. But your humble reporter was snoozing there for a few minutes, and missed a bit of the exciting 1996 Presidential Debate. But I'm pretty humble about it, really. In closing, Bill said that "America is stronger than ever. We need to build a bridge to the 21st century, and remember that as President, I signed into law the Brady Bill and the Crime Bill with the Assault Weapons Ban, and put 100,000 cops on the street." Bobdole, whose eyelids at this point broke down mechanically from overuse, had a heartwarming message, in closing, for the youth of America, who took a collective toke, snorted another line, and were heard to exclaim, "Dude - Nirvana rules, dude..." - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: From Charles Duke Date: 06 Oct 1996 21:38:54 -0700 > October 7, 1996 > SENATOR DUKE > (719) 481-9289 > > By Senator Charles R. Duke > Colorado District 9 > > DON'T SAY YOU WEREN'T WARNED > > If you are one of those feel-good Americans that the media >keep talking about, this column isn't going to be very easy to >read. If you care about the principles that founded this >country, it will make you very, very mad, and it should. > On Monday, September 30, 1996, the "President" signed into >law an omnibus spending bill originally flying under the colors >of a defense appropriation bill, H.R. 3610. Along the >legislative way, a huge number of other appropriations were >added in Christmas-tree fashion. Buried in those other >appropriations were measures so heinous that one can actually >now see the end of America coming. > You may remember that in 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled >in U.S. v. Lopez that Congress had no authority, by the Tenth >Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to enact legislation that >declared a gun-free zone of 1000 feet around a school. Thus, >the Court ruled the legislation that was passed was >unconstitutional, and, therefore, was null and void. This >ruling was celebrated by constitutionists everywhere as a rare >upholding of our Constitution. Even though some may support the >general idea of a school zone gun ban, the Court had ruled that >authority belonged in the states, not the federal government. > Oblivious to the Constitution and the Supreme Court, >Congress added amendments to H.R. 3610 to re-enact those zones, >now encompassing nearly one-half mile in diameter around each >school, according to a press release by the Gun Owners of >America (GOA), an organization found very reliable in the past. >If a citizen passes through such a zone with a weapon that is >loaded but not in a locked container or rack, that citizen faces >a felony conviction followed by five years in prison. By the >way "school" is defined in the amendments, even a home school is >included. The only exception is for those with a pistol carry >license, according to GOA. > GOA also reports the bill, as you might expect, goes >further than that. It imposes a life-time ban on possession of >a gun by anyone convicted of "us[ing] or attempt[ing] to >use...physical force" in a domestic situation. The GOA >asserts this even includes misdemeanors and "will not only >affect women who might throw a lamp at their spouse (like the >First lady), it will also endanger parents who spank their >children." Clearly, anyone who gets involved in any domestic >spat could be included. This is just a license to wholesale >harass citizens and seize their weapons. It is a major >escalation of the government's overall program to ultimately >seize all weapons from citizens. > H.R. 3610 contained many other provisions similar in >nature, among which is almost a $100 million increase for BATF, >including $66 million for additional anti-terrorism efforts, and >a measure to force telephone companies to retrofit their >equipment in order to facilitate wiretaps on all citizens. H.R. >3610 was folded into another bill, H.R. 4278, after voting, and >the complete text of H.R. 4278 may be found in the Congressional >Record for September 28, 1996. The GOA press release includes >the exact section number of all reported provisions. You may >obtain your own copy of this analysis by contacting GOA at 703- >321-8585 or by visiting their web page at http://www.gunowners.org. > Ignorance on the part of those in Congress who voted for >this blatant assault on your Bill of Rights is not acceptable. >If your U.S. Representative or your U.S. Senator did not know >what was in the bill, why did they vote for it? If they did >know, but didn't understand, that, too, is bad. If they knew >and did understand, they are, in this writer's opinion, giving >aid and comfort to our nation's enemies and are unfit for >service in Congress or any other elected body. The GOA press >release contains the names of all those in both houses of >Congress who either voted against H.R. 3610 or were absent. All >others voted for the bill. > In Colorado, the "no" votes were cast by Reps. Joel Hefley >and Pat Schroeder and by Senator Hank Brown. Senator Ben >Campbell was not present and voting. All other Colorado >Representatives voted for this bill, as did a majority of both >houses. In the House, H.R. 3610 passed by a vote of 370-37. In >the Senate, the vote was 84-15. > How proud the leaders of Congress and the President were >for passing these appropriations without "shutting down the >government" (their words). Worse yet, they actually believed >they deserved kudos from us. Time was, gridlock in our national >government was our biggest problem. Now, it is our only hope. > It is too late to stop this from going into law, because >Congress has adjourned for the election season. The lapdog >media did their job by stonewalling, again, the information >concerning this confiscation of your guns and your rights. You >can hold every single candidate for U.S. office accountable for >this willful violation of the oath of office. Do it now, while >you still can, and get their answer in writing. Only those who >will make a firm commitment in writing to repeal this bill >should be returned to office. > End > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Write Warden:Davidian Prisoner Beaten (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 07:48:37 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- behold@teleport.com, c-news@world.std.com, campaign@harrybrowne96.org, Cato Institute , comminc@fortnet.org, cybernews-publish-l@cornell.edu, Hippyma , infoaclu@aclu.org, liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, misc-activism-militia@uunet.uu.net, patriot@aol.com, rkba-dems@netcom.com, snetnews@alterzone.com, texas-gun-owners@zilker.net, tm@nra.org, usafeature@gnn.com Thursday I received the following in a letter dated September 28, 1996 from Davidian prisoner Livingstone Fagan who is serving 40 years and is currently in "solitary" confinement at Leavenworth. He spends 24 hours a day in 4x8 cell with another inmate. My salvation remains precarious at best. I still retain the scars and bruises from threats and physical assaults sustained since my arrival June 20th '96. All of which I received at the hands of prison officers. Last Thursday was the worst yet. After continuously slamming my head against a concrete, then metal structure, followed by my body against a concrete floor (the stated purpose being to get me to fear him), this 300 lb officer then verbalized his intent to kill me for my not cowering to his will. Ordinarily the above would be considered attempted murder. In here it seems to be the norm -- the inquisition continues. I had tended not to report these incidents, not wanting to appear as though I'm whining. I'm not. This is only for informational purposes. It is not uncommon for people to be killed in these institutions and it be reported as self- inflicted. In the event of my premature death, I think it prudent that there be someone independent who is aware of the preceding circumstances leading to this event, thus averting such fabrication. Please Help Livingstone Fagan by complaining to the following: Warden Page True Leavenworth F.C.I. 1300 Metropolitan Leavenworth, KS 66048 Feel free to cc: the letter to (and put this in your letter) Kathleen Hawk, Director of Federal Prisons, 320 First Street,NW, Washington, DC 20534. A cc: to Rep. Bill McCullom, Chair, House Judiciary subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, 207 Cannon Bldge, Washington, DC 20515 might remind them Congressional subcommittees do oversee prison activities. The prison would not release the fax number, however, your phone call complaints will also be helpful. The more the better. Call 913-682-8700 and either a) dial in xt. 447, that of Fagan's case manager Russ Perdue and, should he answer, discuss the matter with him or b) since he may be away from the desk, you can ask for the Warden's office and complain to the secretary or c) at least complain to the individual answering the general number, if he will not put you through. The more calls/letters they get, the less likely this will happen agan. Carol Moore, member, Committee for Waco Justice, author, The Davidian Massacre, 202/635-3937. cmoore@capaccess.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: DON'T SAY YOU WEREN'T WARNED (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 09:09:10 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: tab@hollyent.com October 7, 1996 SENATOR DUKE (719) 481-9289 By Senator Charles R. Duke Colorado District 9 DON'T SAY YOU WEREN'T WARNED If you are one of those feel-good Americans that the media keep talking about, this column isn't going to be very easy to read. If you care about the principles that founded this country, it will make you very, very mad, and it should. On Monday, September 30, 1996, the "President" signed into law an omnibus spending bill originally flying under the colors of a defense appropriation bill, H.R. 3610. Along the legislative way, a huge number of other appropriations were added in Christmas-tree fashion. Buried in those other appropriations were measures so heinous that one can actually now see the end of America coming. You may remember that in 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Lopez that Congress had no authority, by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to enact legislation that declared a gun-free zone of 1000 feet around a school. Thus, the Court ruled the legislation that was passed was unconstitutional, and, therefore, was null and void. This ruling was celebrated by constitutionists everywhere as a rare upholding of our Constitution. Even though some may support the general idea of a school zone gun ban, the Court had ruled that authority belonged in the states, not the federal government. Oblivious to the Constitution and the Supreme Court, Congress added amendments to H.R. 3610 to re-enact those zones, now encompassing nearly one-half mile in diameter around each school, according to a press release by the Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization found very reliable in the past. If a citizen passes through such a zone with a weapon that is loaded but not in a locked container or rack, that citizen faces a felony conviction followed by five years in prison. By the way "school" is defined in the amendments, even a home school is included. The only exception is for those with a pistol carry license, according to GOA. GOA also reports the bill, as you might expect, goes further than that. It imposes a life-time ban on possession of a gun by anyone convicted of "us[ing] or attempt[ing] to use...physical force" in a domestic situation. The GOA asserts this even includes misdemeanors and "will not only affect women who might throw a lamp at their spouse (like the First lady), it will also endanger parents who spank their children." Clearly, anyone who gets involved in any domestic spat could be included. This is just a license to wholesale harass citizens and seize their weapons. It is a major escalation of the government's overall program to ultimately seize all weapons from citizens. H.R. 3610 contained many other provisions similar in nature, among which is almost a $100 million increase for BATF, including $66 million for additional anti-terrorism efforts, and a measure to force telephone companies to retrofit their equipment in order to facilitate wiretaps on all citizens. H.R. 3610 was folded into another bill, H.R. 4278, after voting, and the complete text of H.R. 4278 may be found in the Congressional Record for September 28, 1996. The GOA press release includes the exact section number of all reported provisions. You may obtain your own copy of this analysis by contacting GOA at 703- 321-8585 or by visiting their web page at http://www.gunowners.org. Ignorance on the part of those in Congress who voted for this blatant assault on your Bill of Rights is not acceptable. If your U.S. Representative or your U.S. Senator did not know what was in the bill, why did they vote for it? If they did know, but didn't understand, that, too, is bad. If they knew and did understand, they are, in this writer's opinion, giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies and are unfit for service in Congress or any other elected body. The GOA press release contains the names of all those in both houses of Congress who either voted against H.R. 3610 or were absent. All others voted for the bill. In Colorado, the "no" votes were cast by Reps. Joel Hefley and Pat Schroeder and by Senator Hank Brown. Senator Ben Campbell was not present and voting. All other Colorado Representatives voted for this bill, as did a majority of both houses. In the House, H.R. 3610 passed by a vote of 370-37. In the Senate, the vote was 84-15. How proud the leaders of Congress and the President were for passing these appropriations without "shutting down the government" (their words). Worse yet, they actually believed they deserved kudos from us. Time was, gridlock in our national government was our biggest problem. Now, it is our only hope. It is too late to stop this from going into law, because Congress has adjourned for the election season. The lapdog media did their job by stonewalling, again, the information concerning this confiscation of your guns and your rights. You can hold every single candidate for U.S. office accountable for this willful violation of the oath of office. Do it now, while you still can, and get their answer in writing. Only those who will make a firm commitment in writing to repeal this bill should be returned to office. End ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Judge Bars FREE SPEECH 4 McVeigh (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 10:01:31 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (free 2 forward)-----------------------------(free 2 copy(*) J U D G E B A R S M E D I A A C C E S S F O R M c V E I G H By Ian Williams Goddard The Associated Press (10/05/96) reports: DENVER (AP) - Oklahoma City bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh ... won't be allowed to meet the press. [ U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch ruled. ] [ McVeigh's attorney ] Jones asked Matsch to grant the interviews, saying McVeigh needed to counter his ``demonization'' and let the public know there are two sides to the case. Prosecutors opposed the request, saying the inter- views..[were]..aimed at influencing the jury pool. To keep the jury pool free from improper influence, only the govt's -- i.e., the prosecution's -- case will be promoted continuously by the major media. Not even once have I heard the defense's case in the major media, which, from what I have gleaned, is that more people were involved, McVeigh is a patsy, and the FBI had foreknowledge of the blast. The only case to be heard in the major media is the pro- secution's case, which is: The only suspects are McVeigh & Nicholes. On many occasions the major media has shown bereaved victims and family members saying, "Boy if I could get my hands on that McVeigh, I'd..." "If you put me in a room with McVeigh alone, why I'd..." It seems as if the major media is not merely promoting only the prosecu- tion's case, they're even warming up the electric chair -- the "let's kill him" lynch mob mentality. This free flow of prejudical hatred backed by calls for killing is an effective diversionary tactic that prevents objective review and inquiries about the facts, such as: INQUIRY: What about ATF / FBI foreknowledge of the bombing ? MAJOR MEDIA: Kill kill kill. INQUIRY: What about the primed bombs found inside the building ? MAJOR MEDIA: Kill kill kill. INQUIRY: What about the reports of many demolition and munitions experts who insist that blast damage patterns dictate that supplemental demolition charges must have been used ? MAJOR MEDIA: Kill kill kill. INQUIRY: What about the seismographic recordings from the University of Oklahoma and Omniplex Science Center both measuring TWO blasts ? MAJOR MEDIA: Kill kill kill. You'll never hear these valid fact-based questions raised in the major media. There are no questions in the major media, only the govt-prosecution line is to be found in the major media augmented with the prejudical revenge / rage of victims hopelessly duped by the govt line. But not all the victims are duped: You'll not be hearing any more from Eyde Smith -- who lost her only two children in the blast -- because she believes and has the evidence that the ATF had foreknowledge, and her family plans to sue the govt. Eyde Smith was told by the govt to "Keep your mouth shut, don't talk about it" when she simply asked why she and her children did not have the same forewarning that the ATF had. After she reported this during a CNN interview -- the last to be heard from her in the major media -- Ms. Smith tells us that she was visited the next day by agents from the ATF and the IRS no less. KJRH-TV then reported that after the ATF's house call she decided that the ATF did not have foreknowledge. Yet she told The Jubilee (May/June 1995) that she NEVER had such an intimidation-induced change of mind. Then her govt compensation checks were cut off and her mail began to arrive already opened with checks sent by caring citizens removed, which she reported on Radio Free America (6/19/95). These are gross examples of govt intimidation, theft and fabrication. Why is the govt going to all this trouble to shut her up if they are in the clear? INQUIRY: Major media, what about the reports and intimidation of Eyde Smith, who lost her only two children in the bombing ? MAJOR MEDIA: Kill kill kill. It seems that these things are just a little to complex for the major media to comprehend. The AP (10/05/96) article continues: Prosecutors also complained that McVeigh was hand-picking interviewers. Good grief! You mean the prosecutors where not to arrange the interviews for him, but he was to be free to speak to people of his choosing? I am aghast! Since suspects are to be considered guilty prior to trail, what would give this guilty man the right to such freedom of speech? The AP: Matsch said he was troubled by Jones' attempt to cast McVeigh in a better light and refused to lift his order restricting what can be discussed outside the courtroom. Wow, right there: Judge troubled by attempt to cast McVeigh in a "better light." That clearly reveals that the only light he is to be cast in is a less than better light -- i.e., a bad light, a "he's guilty" light. Any- thing that threatens this bad light must be barred from public sight. It's obvious to see that the judge is controlling the "lighting" in this trial to cast the best possible light on the govt-prosecution's case. While they will not allow anything but a bad light for McVeigh, an FBI investigator has already come forward to cast a bad light on this bad light: the investigator says that crucial evidence used to cast McVeigh in a bad light was fabricated. The AP (4/10/96) reports (emphasis added): Prosecutors agreed to turn over letters from FBI agent Frederic Whitehurts, who tested Mr. McVeigh's cloths for traces of explosives. Mr. Whitehurst has claimed that investigators FAKED evidence in the bombing case. ^^^^^ Well at least the prosecutors turned over some exculpatory evidence, when its existence was no secret. The honest inquirer is forced to question: what is the govt so afraid of that has required intimidation, fabrication and suppression to be necessary features of the govt's "legal" game plan?? ************************************************************************ IAN GODDARD Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y visit Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________________ (c) 1996 Ian Wiliams Goddard - Free to copy nonprofit with attribute ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: FIJA> Another story about Laura Kriho (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 10:02:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cover Story: Witch Hunt. October 3 - 9, 1996 by Greg Campbell After two days of testimony in the case of ex-juror Laura Kriho, it seems that rather than defending charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, she's actually standing trial for the practice of witchcraft. Despite the modern surroundings of the Gilpin County Justice Center, the proceedings more closely resemble some twisted interpretation of Arthur Miller's The Crucible than a legitimate trial. "This case is bizarre. Jurors haven't been prosecuted for their deliberations in the jury room for hundreds of years. These guys want to reverse that. These guys want to go back to the 17th century," says Kriho's attorney, Paul Grant, referring to the attorneys and judges of the First Judicial District. "They want to put her on trial for her political associations; they want to put her on trial for her beliefs, for her philosophy. None of that is any of the court's business and it's certainly not appropriate for the court to punish someone for what they believe in." Kriho's beliefs got her into trouble in May when she was selected to be a juror in the case of the People of the State of Colorado v. Michelle Brannon. To listen to the other jurors describe the case, it was fairly open and shut. In fact, the jury began deliberations on the drug charges in the case only one day after being selected and it only took about two hours before all but one of them was prepared to convict Brannon on the possession charge. The one hold-out was Kriho, who decided she wasn't going to vote to convict because she didn't believe in drug laws. "I've been on juries before and this is the first time something like this has happened to me," says Betty Hammock, one of Kriho's fellow jurors. "She made me feel that we shouldn't prosecute anyone who takes drugs. With this girl here (Brannon), (Kriho) didn't want to see her get a bad punishment. ... She said you could change the laws in the (jury) room." What Kriho was doing, whether she knew it or not, was nullifying the jury. It's a simple but hotly debated technique of deliberation where a juror votes on a verdict based on personal beliefs and emotions rather than on the letter of the law, a method usually in complete contradiction to the instructions from the court. Nullification is a belief that the jury has the final say over whether or not a law is valid, just or applicable. If a juror doesn't believe in a law, or believes that a certain law is too intrusive, too frivolous or just about anything else, then that juror has not only the ability to vote according to her conscience but has a moral duty to do so. Eventually, the argument goes, laws that continually result in hung juries due to nullification will either cease to be prosecuted or will be changed. Just look at the Salem, Mass., witch trials, Kriho argued during deliberations in the Brannon case. Once the true nature of witch trials became known, brave juries refused to follow orders to convict the defendants of witchcraft and eventually the trials ended. But Kriho may as well have been speaking to an empty room. Not only did she fail to convince any of those on the jury who were itching to convict the defendant and get their jury responsibilities over with, the others sent a note to Judge Kenneth Barnhill in frustration over the deadlock, asking if Kriho could be replaced. No such luck, Barnhill replied - alternate jurors had already been dismissed. Kriho's stubbornness resulted in a hung jury, and Barnhill was forced to declare a mistrial. Juror Hammock even apologized to prosecuting attorney Jim Stanley for the outcome of the case. "Is there anything that can be done about that?" she asked him, referring to Kriho's refusal to cooperate with the others on the guilty verdict. Apparently, the court is determined to set a standard that something certainly can be done. Now, nearly six months after the mistrial, Stanley, most of the members of the jury and Kriho are all back in the same courtroom in the cinder-block Justice Center halfway between Rollinsville and Black Hawk but on far different terms: This time Kriho's in the defendant's seat being prosecuted for contempt of court for nullifying the Brannon jury. "I think they want to paint her more or less as a person who is guilty of all kinds of bad attitudes and that's underlying her conduct in the jury room," says Grant. In other words, it's a witch hunt. Invitation to anarchy Depending on who you talk to, jury nullification is either the last great check and balance of the judicial system, or an invitation to "anarchy," as Stanley, the prosecuting attorney, puts it. Few will deny that jurors have the power to decide any way they like regardless of facts or reasonable doubt, but there has never been a definitive ruling on whether or not jurors have the right to do so; moral, legal or otherwise. As it is, jury nullification has remained a loophole in the judicial system by which a jury can check a power-hungry judge by voting on principle rather than the fine points of the law. As Grant puts it: "No court can show any authority to order a person to violate their conscience. ... That's the purpose of a jury; it's an independent check on the power of a judge and of the prosecutor. That's been its historic role. You've got to have independence of the jury in order to protect defendants against overzealous prosecution." Northern juries, for instance, regularly refused to convict slaves of running away from their masters during the Civil War days. But in recent decades, the knowledge of a jury's power to nullify has fallen by the wayside - until recently. A Montana group called the Fully Informed Jury Association has taken it upon itself to remind people that they can and should vote according to their conscience. According to an article in Judge's Journal by Gilpin County Judge Frederic Rodgers, the movement has attracted "a potent, if unusual, mix of tax protestors, advocates of marijuana legalization, abortion protestors, libertarians, militia members and enemies of big government." And members of all these groups are watching the proceedings in Courtroom B very closely. Regardless of the outcome, the decision will set a precedent for future jury nullification cases - the first one of its kind - and there is little doubt about which way the court is leaning. Last Friday, during a motions hearing in which Judge Henry Nieto denied a request by the defense to dismiss the case, the course for the trial seemed to have been set: In turning down the motion, Nieto declared that the "defendant has the power but not the right to disregard the law. That is not the case here in Colorado." And since the judge himself, not a jury, will be deciding the outcome of the trial, the actual trial would seem to be nothing more than a formality in the wake of this comment. Big implications Prosecuting Kriho for jury nullification would be foolhardy since there isn't a precedent for it, so Stanley's strategy is to show that Kriho intentionally poisoned the jury with her protest of drug laws. Specifically, Kriho is charged with perjury for failing to inform the court during voir dire testimony (in which prospective jurors are interviewed and screened) that she held prejudices against the drug laws that would have made her incapable of delivering a fair verdict. She's further charged with disregarding the judge's instructions not to discuss Brannon's potential punishment if she had been found guilty. By pursuing the case in this manner, the court will be able to make a ruling on jury nullification based on other facts and alleged violations, thereby setting the course for other judges faced with similar situations. If the prosecution is successful, says Grant, "It tells the jurors if you get selected on a jury and you're not convinced of the guilt and everybody else is, you'd better watch out. You hang that jury, they're going to turn around and investigate you and see if they can prove that you had some hidden agenda, see if you believed in something that they believe you should have told them about but didn't." Even a cursory glance at the odds reveals that the deck is woefully stacked against Kriho. The first red flag is that the attorney who expected to win what should have been a slam-dunk possession conviction is now prosecuting the person solely responsible for that case being declared a mistrial. But an attempt by Grant to have the court assign a special prosecutor was denied: Apparently Judge Nieto saw no potential conflict of interest in the situation. Furthermore, Nieto denied Kriho a jury trial, presumably to avoid the same sort of nullification that Kriho advocated for the Brannon case. As it turns out, the judge's suspicion was prudent: a Libertarian Party member in the audience during the first day of trial Tuesday muttered darkly about how things would have been different with a jury hearing the case. "They only have about 2,700 registered voters (from which to choose a jury in Gilpin County)," he said. "We could've flooded them with (nullification advocacy) fliers for about 500 bucks." Worse, Grant is loudly alleging that there was collusion between the district attorney's office and the Gilpin County judges to bring charges against his client. Testimony by former juror Dan Cooper seems to support this theory. After Judge Barnhill declared a mistrial in the Brannon case, Kriho apparently went to her car to retrieve a pamphlet advocating jury nullification to give to another juror. That juror promptly handed the pamphlet over to the judge who was still in the courtroom. And Cooper testified that he overheard the judge tell Stanley to "look into this." According to Grant, this is an indication that the judge wanted Kriho prosecuted for nullifying the jury. "It was pretty apparent that the district attorney and the judge both thought that they had a conviction against the defendant in that case, and they were ticked off that it didn't turn out that way," he says. "No judge should put pressure on a prosecutor. No judge should be involved. They should not even indicate an interest in it. It's improper." But apparently Stanley did indeed look into it - allegedly with the help of another Gilpin County judge who has made advising other judges how to handle the threat of jury nullification something of a hobby. Judge Frederic Rodgers wrote an article about what one should do when faced with a jury pool tainted with notions of nullification. After the Brannon mistrial, he re-wrote it to include details about Kriho (which, long before her trial began, described her as an "obstructionist juror" rather than one who wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt) for Judge's Journal, a national judge's magazine. Grant contends that though Rodgers is unaffiliated with Kriho's case, he provided the prosecutor's office with an earlier copy of his article. "When a judge communicates with the district attorney who is investigating a case and shows him what the judge's opinion of the law is and what ought to be done, the judge is putting pressure on the district attorney's office to bring charges," claims Grant. "The judge is implying that he wants to see this person prosecuted. That's what the article is all about: how to snuff out the jury nullification movement. So if he's communicating with the prosecution, that is an improper involvement of the judge and the prosecutor. Those are supposed to be two separate branches of government. Prosecutors are required by law to make their own decisions about whether or not to bring charges." Rodgers denies he pressured Stanley to bring charges or that they had any contact at all regarding Kriho's case, but he does say it's possible that the article "might have been lying around the lunchroom" and someone from the district attorney's office may have gotten a hold of it. Naturally, Stanley scoffs at the notion that Kriho's walking into a situation that is anything less than fair or that her prosecution is some form of revenge against her for causing the mistrial in May. "Absolutely not the case," he says. "It's not uncommon for a jury to return a verdict that we do not necessarily agree with. That's not the issue. Once the jury makes a decision, it's final and we accept it and that's what our system is based on. "The basis (for the contempt citation) is that she was deceptive and she disregarded the instructions of the judge. Furthermore ... this was brought at the request of the judge. It is the judge who the contempt is perpetrated against, not the prosecutor." Flimsy charges In spite of what seems to many to be an overwhelming advantage enjoyed by the prosecution, it was apparent to several of the 70 or so observers that Stanley's charges against Kriho are actually quite flimsy. As testimony wore on Tuesday, Grant's argument that the prosecution was singling out Kriho for punishment because of her strong anti-drug-law stance began to gain some weight, at least among courtroom observers. According to much of the evidence, many, if not all, of the jurors could have been brought up on the same charges as Kriho. For instance, one of the main points of the prosecution is that Kriho committed perjury during voir dire testimony in order to sneak onto the jury with the intent of hanging it. Two pertinent questions asked of the potential jurors were: Is there anything that would keep you from returning a verdict that is based solely on the law? And have you ever had any experiences, good or bad, with the criminal justice system? Kriho didn't mention her aversion to drug laws, the fact that she pled guilty to possession of LSD in 1984 or the fact that she supports the legalization of hemp through her association with the Boulder Hemp Initiative Project. But Grant says she was never asked these questions. Rather than repeat all of the 300-some questions to all potential jurors, it's common for attorneys to simply ask, "Did you hear and understand all the questions I asked the other candidates?" and "Would you answer differently to any of them?" "It's kind of a nonsense question, isn't it?" Grant asked ex-juror Hammock, after pointing out that some of the questions - about occupation or marital status, for example - required they be answered differently. Yet the vast majority of those responding said "no," they wouldn't answer any of the questions differently. Therefore, everyone who answered this way could technically be charged with perjury. "They wanted her to volunteer telling them about her basic beliefs and philosophies so they could have understood her attitude," says Grant. "Most people typically don't volunteer that kind of stuff (during voir dire)." He also argued that it is highly unlikely that the replacement jurors, who sat in the back of the courtroom for upwards of two hours in some cases, could possibly remember all 350 questions that were asked. The second thrust of the prosecution's argument is that, contrary to the judge's instructions, Kriho researched the potential sentence for the drug charge (on the Internet) and considered it while deciding her vote. And, according to testimony by ex-juror Cooper, she encouraged the rest of the jury to do the same by repeating that she was going to hang the jury "because of the sentencing harshness." To the prosecution, this is a clear and intentional violation of the judge's decree that no thought be given to the potential sentence of the defendant when coming to a decision. But Grant points out that the jurors were given conflicting instructions. In another set of rules, the jury is told that when weighing a witness' credibility, they must take into consideration "the manner in which each witness might be affected by the verdict." Since Brannon, the defendant in the case they were deciding, took the stand as a witness in her own defense, "the consequences must be considered," Grant argued. Additionally, juror Hammock admitted on the stand that she too discussed possible sentencing during deliberation in terms of rehabilitation and probation rather than jail time. Therefore, the charge of disregarding the judge's instructions, if they can be applied to Kriho, can also be applied to Hammock. But it's Kriho who's on trial. She turned me into a newt! In spite of all this, the conventional wisdom among the hippies, Libertarians, potheads and Hare Krishnas gathered to support Kriho is that she's going down the tubes. If any of these gallery observers were on a jury asked to rule in the case, it would probably take all of five minutes to deem her not guilty. But the courts already took care of that possibility: as noted, there is no jury. "The jury is the voice of the community in the enforcement of the laws," says Grant. "A cross section of the community in a jury of your peers doesn't mean that these people have sworn to be in full agreement with every law that's on the books. Our society has a cross section of people in it. ... Some people enthusiastically support drug laws and some people think that they're the vilest things that ever occurred and a lot of people are in between. That's a cross section of the community. "It's a case with very serious consequences if Laura gets convicted." A decision on the case is expected some time before the end of October. Kriho faces a maximum sentence of six months in jail if convicted. copyright 1996 Boulder Weekly, Inc. Boulder Weekly 690 South Lashley Lane Boulder, CO 80303 303-494-5511 303-494-2585 fax http://www.boulderweekly.com bweditor@tesser.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Simple recipe Date: 07 Oct 1996 12:56:01 -0400 Gentlefolk, Can any of you summarize (in 50 words or less) what is the best way to construct a buried PVC pipe to store valuble tools? I know that ~42 inches is good, and it wants to be buried vertically. Is standard 6 or 8 inch PVC pipe with standard fittings adequate? What do I need for adhesive? thanks, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Letter to Denver Post re Juror on Trial Date: 07 Oct 1996 10:45:43 -0700 >7 October 1996 > >Denver Post >1560 Broadway >Denver CO 80202 >letters@denverpost.com > >Dear Sirs: > >I have been following the Laura Kriho contempt of court case on the >Internet with great interest. Her case involves much more than prior >drug charges, not volunteering information during voir dire, the >confidentiality of jury deliberations. Her case involves the >government's efforts to emasculate the American jury system. > >After being the lone juror in another case to have reasonable doubt as >to the guilt of the defendant in that case, Kriho found herself faced >with her own trial--this time a trial by a judge, not a jury. The >prosecutor, Jim Stanley, is the same prosecutor as in the Brannon >case, the one declared a mistrial when Kriho refused to convict. > >Kriho was denied a jury trial because her punishment for "contempt of >court" would only be six months in jail. That's six months in jail for >voting her conscience, which is precisely what jurors are supposed to >do. Petit jurors are not there to blindly follow a judge's orders, nor to >rubber stamp a prosecutor's indictment. They are there to state whether >they find a defendant guilty or not guilty on the evidence. They are there, in >fact--historical fact--to judge both the facts and the law. > >Jury nullification--juror's judging both the facts of the case, and >the law to be applied in the case--is an ancient and honorable >function of our American judicial system, and that of England before >it. A few quotes on the matter might help your readers to understand >the history of the principle of jury nullification: > >John Adams said of the juror: "it is not only his right, but his duty >. . . to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, >judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction >of the court." Alexander Hamilton said that jurors should acquit even >against the judge's instruction " . . . if exercising their judgment >with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the >charge of the court is wrong." John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. >Supreme Court, said "The jury has a right to judge both the law as >well as the fact in controversy." > >The problem seems to be that while our founding fathers, >lawyers though many of them were, recognized this essential principle >of a free people, our current judges and prosecutors do not. Perhaps the >people of Gilpin County might wish to help them reconsider. > >For acting on her conscience, Kriho faces six months in jail. I can >only assume if the judge and the prosecutor in Gilpin County can >punish one juror so severely for her behavior in the jury box, they >could certainly punish others. I hope that the citizens of Gilpin >County, Colorado, and indeed the United States, are aware of the >historical significance of Ms. Kriho's case--not at all a "simple case >of contempt of court" as the judge in charge called it. It is the >first case of its kind since William Penn's, in England, in 1670. > >Sincerely, > >Patricia Neill - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: KRIHO CASE: LETTERS NEEDED Date: 07 Oct 1996 12:53:43 -0700 Anybody up for writing a letter? And emailing it to the folks below? - Monte >>Action Alert: Letters to the Editor Needed >> >>Re: A Juror on Trial >>The State of Colorado vs. Laura Kriho >>Case# 96CR91 >>(Please re-distribute this alert freely!) >> >> Many people are outraged by the prosecution of juror Laura >>Kriho for contempt of court for deliberating "improperly" when >>she served on a jury. Her case is starting an important public >>debate about many issues surrounding juries and jury rights. It >>is important that this debate continue, in an intelligent manner, >>in the local press. >> The Jury Rights Project is requesting that people write >>letters to the editors of these local newspapers about Laura's >>case. A few minutes of your time could have a great impact on >>the outcome of her case by helping to educate the public and call >>attention to her case. >> Here is the list of papers that have email addresses. The long list >>(including those without email) is at the end of this post. >> >>letters@denverpost.com Denver Post, Denver >>letters@denver-rmn.com Rocky Mt. News, Denver >>news@dailycamera.com Daily Camera, Boulder ** >>talbot@bcn.boulder.co.us Colorado Daily, Boulder ** >>bweditor@tesser.com Boulder Weekly, Boulder >>news@boulderplanet.com Boulder Planet, Boulder >>mtn-ear@indra.com Mountain Ear, Nederland >>editorial@westword.com Westword, Denver >> >> >> Letters policy: The letters to the editor policies of most >>newspapers are similar. Editors print short letters (200 to 300 >>words). Editors need an address and phone number for >>verification of the letter (these are not published). If you >>photocopy your letter to send to several papers, editors often >>request that you put an original signature on each letter. >> >> OpEd Articles: Editors may print longer articles (500 to >>800 words) in "Guest Opinion" columns. When submitting these >>longer articles, it is important to follow up with a phone call >>to see what the chances are of the newspaper publishing the >>article and when this would be likely to occur. >> >> It would be helpful to mention Laura's legal defense fund at >>the end of your letter, as she still has a lot of money to raise. >>Since newspaper reporters must try to appear unbiased in their >>stories, letters to the editor are often the only (free) way to >>get information about defense funds into the newspaper. >> For writing tips, check out "How to Write Effective Letters" >>on the Media Awareness Project Web site: >>(http://www.drcnet.org/map/mapinfo.htm) >> If possible, send a copy of any letters you write to the >>Jury Rights Project. We can also help you if you want to write a >>letter, but don't know what to say. >> Thanks in advance for all your help! >> >>Colorado Front Range Newspapers >> >>***** Daily Newpapers ****** >>Denver Post >>1560 Broadway >>Denver, CO 80202 >>Phone: (303) 820-1010 >>Fax: (303) 820-1369 >>Email: letters@denverpost.com >> >>Rocky Mt. News >>400 W. Colfax >>Denver, CO 80204 >>Phone: (303) 892-5000 >>Fax: (303) 892-5499 >>Email: letters@denver-rmn.com >> >>Daily Camera >>P.O. Box 591 >>Boulder, CO 80306 >>Phone: (303) 442-1462 >>Fax: (303) 449-9358 >>Email: news@dailycamera.com >> >>Colorado Daily >>P.O. Box 1719 >>Boulder, CO 80306 >>Clint Talbott, Ed. >>Phone: (303) 443-6272 >>Fax: (303) 443-9357 >>Email: talbot@bcn.boulder.co.us >>Online Edition: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/media/colodaily >> >>Longmont Times-Call >>350 Terry Street >>Longmont, CO 80501 >>Phone: (303) 444-3636 >>Fax: (303) 772-8339 >>Email: none >> >>**** Weekly Newspapers ***** >> >>Boulder Weekly >>690 S. Lashley Lane >>Boulder, CO 80303 >>Phone: (303) 494-5511 >>Fax: (303) 494-2585 >>Email: bweditor@tesser.com >> >>Boulder Planet >>2028 14th Street >>Boulder, CO 80302 >>Phone: (303) 444-5761 >>Fax: (303) 415-1210 >>Email: news@boulderplanet.com >> >>Mt. Ear >>P.O. Box 99 >>Nederland, CO 80466 >>Phone: (303) 258-7075 >>Fax: (303) 258-3547 >>Email: mtn-ear@indra.com >> >>Weekly Register-Call >>Box 609 >>Central City, CO 80427 >>Phone: (303) 582-5333 >>Fax: (303) 582-3932 >>Email: none >> >>Westword >>P.O. Box 5970 >>Denver, CO 80217 >>Phone: (303) 296-7744 >>Fax: (303) 296-5416 >>Email: editorial@westword.com >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) >> To be removed from this mailing list, send email. >> Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen >> http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html >> Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: >> Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund >> c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) >> Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 >> pkgrant@ix.netcom.com >> (303) 841-9649 >> >> **************************************************** >> TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS >> **************************************************** >> "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. >> It has been found difficult; and left untried." -- G.K. Chesterton >> **************************************************** >> Harvey Wysong >> National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association >> 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. >> hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 >> **************************************************** >> >> > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: KRIHO CASE: WHAT ARE THE CHARGES? Date: 07 Oct 1996 12:55:00 -0700 More info... - Monte >>Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 19:28:53 -0800 >>From: vin@intermind.net (Vin Suprynowicz) >>Subject: Re: Laura Krih >> >>X-Sender: vin@terminus.intermind.net >>Mime-Version: 1.0 >>Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 18:44:19 -0800 >>To: swaxman@ix.netcom.com (sheldon waxman) >>From: vin@intermind.net (Vin Suprynowicz) >>>Subject: Re: Laura Krih >> >>>Vin: What exactly is the charge that is being made against Laura. >>>(Obstruction of Justice???) Please let me know what happened to her. >>> >>>Shelly Waxman >>> >>>LAST CHAPTER UP, Chapter 3,"Personal Stuff," Entire book now online for >>>free. TWENTY SEVEN Chapters posted. "In the Teeth of the Wind--Memoirs of a >>>Libertarian Lawyer" is a blockbuster online book. >>>http://www.libertarian.com/shelly/ >> >> >> >>Hi Shelly -- >> >>Although there was early discussion of charging her with fraud or perjury, >>I believe they decided to wrap all the charges under the rubric of >>"contempt of court," since that gives the judge the greatest leeway to do >>whatever he pleases. >> >>In essence, they contend that, in order to get on the jury, she lied in >>denying that she had a previous drug conviction. >> >>Her attorney responds that she couldn't have lied in answer to such a >>question, because the voir dire transcript shows she was never asked such a >>question. >> >>The court and the prosecutor respond: That doesn't matter. She knew it was >>the kind of thing she should have told us about. So she lied by failing to >>*volunteer* that she had a previous drug conviction. >> >>Her attorney responds: She didn't have a previous drug conviction. She was >>arrested on some minor drug charge when she was 19 (more than 10 years ago, >>I gather) . She was put into a "diversion," program, and told that if she >>stayed out of trouble for two years, her record would be wiped clean, and >>no conviction would ever be entered against her. That is precisely what >>transpired. Her record was wiped clean; she is not a "convicted drug >>felon," or miscreant of any kind. >> >>Besides, defense attorney Paul Grant argues, under Colorado law she could >>*not* have been kept off the jury even if she *had* once sustained a drug >>conviction. And the D.A. had used up all his "peremptory strikes" at the >>time Kriho -- the 12th juror --was seated. So (Grant contends) Kriho would >>have been seated even if she *had* volunteered that she'd once been >>arrested on a drug charge decades ago ... though obviously it expands the >>definition of "perjury" beyond any reasonable bounds to say it's a "lie" to >>simply not volunteer stuff to the government, which you've never even been >>questioned about. >> >>Finally, the court and the prosecution contend Kriho committed "contempt of >>court" by violating the judge's "orders" not to discuss the possible >>sentence in the jury room. Apparently, when Kriho was the one vote to >>acquit on the possession charge, one of the jurors sent an anonymous note >>to the judge, asking whether a *hypothetical* juror could be replaced for >>violating his/her instructions and mentioning what the possible sentence >>might be if they convcicted. >> >>(Needless to say, one of the points in contention is whether the judge's >>"instructions" to the jury are in fact "court orders" which you can be >>jailed for violating, as you might be jailed for violating an order to stay >>at least 100 yards away from your former spouse, etc. Although this court >>contends that's the case, it's news to most of us. Attorney Grant even >>asked his client, on the stand this week, whether Judge Barnhill had issued >>Juror Kriho a Miranda warning before she took her seat, putting her on >>notice that anything she said in the jury room could be used against her, >>to put her in jail.) >> >>Upon receiving the anonymous note, Judge Barnhill (the judge of the >>original drug case) immediately called the jury in and declared a mistrial, >>apparently without asking whether this had *actually* happened, or whether >>the culprit was Kriho, or whether the jurors thought they could still reach >>a verdict if they kept deliberating. In fact, one of the original jurors >>testified in Laura's trial this week that he believes they still *could* >>have talked Laura into joining them in convicting, if they'd been given >>more time to deliberate. >> >>After a two-day trial this week, the new judge, Nieto, announced he'd be >>withholding his verdict for a week, allowing attorneys for both sides to >>file briefs, helping him figure out what law he should apply. >> >>Although Nieto and the prosecutor had both been contending, right up till >>the start of the Kriho trial, that this was "a simple case" requiring no >>testimony about the history of the traditional rights of jurors, etc., it >>appears the fact that Court TV and other national media showed up to cover >>the case, surprised them. It may be that these Gilpin County munchkins are >>just starting to realize into what deep water they've steppped. >> >>Anyway, verdict expected later in October. Laura's atorney, Paul Grant, is >>at pkgrant@ix.netcom.com. Thanks for caring. >> >>-- V.S. >> >> >> >>Vin Suprynowicz vin@intermind.net >> >>"Next year in Galt's Gulch!" >>Vin Suprynowicz vin@intermind.net >>"Next year in Galt's Gulch!" >> >> **************************************************** >> TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS >> **************************************************** >> "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. >> It has been found difficult; and left untried." -- G.K. Chesterton >> **************************************************** >> Harvey Wysong >> National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association >> 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. >> hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 >> **************************************************** >> >> > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: KRIHO CASE: Good coverage in local paper Date: 07 Oct 1996 12:56:54 -0700 And even some more info...this is important, folks! - Monte >>Subject: Mt. Ear Articles - Juror Rights Trial - (10/4/96) >> >> JUDGE HEARS EVIDENCE IN GILPIN 'JUROR RIGHTS' TRIAL >> By Jeffrey V. Smith >> >>The Mountain-Ear >>Friday, October 4, 1996 >> >>P.O. Box 99 >>Nederland, CO 80466 >>Phone: (303) 258-7075 >>Fax: (303) 258-3547 >>Email: mtn-ear@indra.com >> >>Gilpin County >> >> After two days of proceedings and several motions to >>dismiss the case were denied, the contempt of court trial against >>Gilpin County resident Laura Kriho for her actions while on a >>jury in the same court last May concluded Wednesday afternoon. >> The judge will not render an opinion about the case until >>after attorneys on both sides file briefs, he has a chance to >>review them, and an agreed upon time is set to reconvene. Both >>attorneys have until Oct. 9 to file the briefs. Briefs are >>documents that explain to the court each side's view of the facts >>of a case and the applicable law. >> Kriho sat as a juror on a trial in May charging a young >>woman with possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug >>paraphernalia and criminal impersonation. No verdict was reached >>in that trial, because a mistrial was declared by presiding >>District Court Judge Kenneth Barnhill after he decided the jury >>had been tainted by Kriho's actions. >> During opening statements Tuesday, prosecuting attorney >>James Stanley, who also prosecuted the case in which Kriho was a >>juror, explained that Kriho was on trial for "three basic >>reasons." She was accused by Stanley of lying during the jury >>selection process by not disclosing her views about drug laws, >>her unwillingness to follow the law, and her involvement in a >>prior felony drug conviction. >> She also was accused of violating a court order not to >>discuss or research the case outside the evidence presented in >>the court room. Overnight during the trial in which she served as >>a juror, Kriho looked up possible penalties for the drug >>possession charge and revealed them to the other jurors against >>instructions issued by Judge Barnhill. >> The third "reason" for putting Kriho on trial, as >>explained by Stanley, was for obstruction of the trial process. >>He said that Kriho had an agenda to become a juror on the trial >>to challenge drug laws. >> Defense attorney Paul Grant said that the evidence would >>show Kriho is being punished for simply thinking for herself and >>holding her ground when bullied by other jurors. >> Stanley began building his case Tuesday by calling >>several other jurors from the drug possession trial to the stand. >>By asking all of them similar questions, Stanley showed that all >>jurors were told several times about the importance of following >>the law, to disregard any possible punishment while deciding >>guilt, and to speak up about any personal problems or past >>experience with the law. They all said that they felt in some way >>or another Kriho had been less than honest during the jury >>selection process. >> Also, the five jurors called to testify for the >>prosecution, Russell Carlson, Betty Jane Hammock, Dan Cooper, >>James Davis and Ronald Ramsey, explained that Kriho's actions in >>the jury room concerned them. The jurors said Kriho's opinion >>that drug cases should be decided outside the court system, her >>actions in looking up drug penalties on the Internet and a >>discussion by Kriho about jury rights issues bothered them and >>made them upset. >> During cross examination of the jurors by Grant, it was >>established that over 350 questions had been asked of potential >>jurors prior to Kriho being called as a replacement juror. As >>replacement jurors were brought into the jury box, they were >>asked simply if they had heard the questions asked and if they >>would answer them differently. Everyone except Kriho, who >>volunteered information about a previous court experience, said >>no. >> It was also pointed out through witness testimony that >>several jurors, not just Kriho, changed their minds about guilt >>at various times throughout deliberations and that although other >>jurors were skeptical, Kriho did attempt to show why she had >>reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. >> During the trial it was shown that an unsigned note >>written by a juror asking hypothetical questions concerning juror >>conduct caused Judge Barnhill to declare a mistrial. The note, >>which asked if a juror could be dismissed for various reasons, >>was not investigated by the judge prior to declaring a mistrial. >>According to Kriho, some information on the note was false and it >>was written by one juror who was upset with her at the time. >> Testimony from defense witnesses showed that Kriho did >>attempt to persuade jurors that reasonable doubt existed as to >>whether the defendant knowingly had drugs in her possession. >>They also substantiated Kriho's claim she was not specifically >>asked questions she is accused of lying about. >> Testimony from Kriho showed she had previous knowledge of >>sentencing and that Judge Barnhill and the prosecuting attorney >>were visibly angry at how the trial was concluded. It also showed >>that she did not meet the qualifications to be dismissed as a >>juror. Also, according to Kriho, juror rights were never >>explained so she had no idea she might be prosecuted for her >>actions. "I felt I was a fair and impartial juror," she said. "I >>came in good faith." >> Kriho said she did not even want to serve as a juror as >>she had to hitchhike to the court house. >> She explained that if fingerprints of the defendant were >>found on the evidence she would have voted to convict, but >>otherwise felt the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable >>doubt if the girl knew she was in possession of drugs. She also >>said that she stood her ground when all 11 other jurors were >>pushing for a guilty verdict. >> During the trial, it was pointed out that Kriho gave another >>juror a pamphlet after thhe mistrial was declared explaining jury >>rights and support for jury nullification issues through the >>voting of one's conscience. The information upset the juror who >>in turn gave it to the judge. >> The information led some jurors to believe Kriho had an >>agenda from the start to hang the jury. She said she only >>consulted the information to learn what her rights as a juror >>were and the she had no contact with the organizaion which >>printed it. >> Despite several implications from the defense to the >>contrary, Judge Nieto said that how Kriho voted in the jury room >>will not be part of his consideration in determining whether she >>is guilty of contempt. >> ### >> >> >> JUROR TRIAL IS CALLED 'MOCKERY OF JUSTICE' >> By Jeffrey V. Smith >> >>The Mountain-Ear >>Friday, October 4, 1996 >> >> In what is being called a mockery of justice, vindictive >>and outrageous, Gilpin resident Laura Kriho was brought to trial >>Tuesday for allegedly committing perjury and contempt of court >>while serving on a jury last May. >> According to Kriho's attorney, the case appears to be an >>"outgrowth" of a movement among judges nationwide to make sure >>jurors feel they do not have a right to judge or question the law >>and think for themselves. "That is not true." The attorney said >>that since Kriho was a single, hold-out juror she is being >>punished. Had she said the defendant was guilty, she would not >>have been brought to trial, he said. >> Kriho's attorney Paul Grant said Kriho is being accused >>of obstruction of justice simply by speaking her mind and holding >>her ground. "This is an obnoxious process, we're putting the jury >>on trial and that's improper. It can only be done to attack a >>juror and not a verdict." >> Kriho sat as a juror in a drug possession case earlier >>this year which was declared a mistrial. The mistrial, declared >>by Judge Kenneth Barnhill, resulted from allegations of Kriho's >>actions in the jury room, disregarding instructions of the judge >>and lying during the jury selection process. According to >>testimony in Kriho's trial, Judge Barnhill did not investigate >>the allegations before declaring the mistrial. >> Other jurors who served with Kriho during the drug >>possession trial said that Kriho discussed the right of a jury to >>"nullify" laws by voting their conscience. They said she >>explained her opinion that families and communities, not the >>court room, were the best place to decide drug cases. Also, it >>was disclosed after the trial that Kriho had a prior felony drug >>conviction which was not reported during jury selection. >> Kriho, who is completely surprised and "shocked" to find >>herself on trial, claims she was never specifically asked the >>questions she has been accused of answering falsely, and that she >>was merely voicing her opinion and speaking her mind in the jury >>room. She says that any allegations that she had an agenda and >>was out to change drug laws is completely false. >> "Basically I feel like I'm being punished for voting >>not-guilty," Kriho said. "I could have said whatever I wanted in >>the jury room, but if I had come back with a guilty verdict I >>would not be here today. I'm absolutely being singled out." >> Allegations that she disobeyed the judge are being denied >>by Kriho in that instructions to a jury are merely used for >>guidance during deliberations and not considered orders. >> Kriho has explained that she had reasonable doubt as to >>the guilt of the defendant and that the other jurors did not >>believe her doubts were reasonable. It has been pointed out that >>she was verbally "attacked" by other jurors, who appeared to be >>in a hurry to leave, during the deliberation process. >> The case, which is highly irregular and the first of its >>type in over 300 years, is being followed by many people >>interested in its national and civil rights implications. Also, >>it has been alleged that the proceedings against Kriho have >>poisoned the pool of jurors in Gilpin County. >> Because the trial calls for jurors from the drug >>possession case to testify about what happened in the jury room, >>one of the foundations of the American justice system assuring >>confidentiality of deliberations is being threatened. >> According to many legal experts, the case threatens to >>destroy the entire concept of trial by jury. It has been argued >>that there would be no point to a jury if they had to do what the >>judge wanted or be faced with prosecution themselves. The right >>to a trial by jury, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of >>the U.S., is meant to prevent abuses of power by judges and >>prosecutors. It is thought that if jurors can be prosecuted for >>their deliberations, a fair and impartial jury is impossible. >> Prior to the start of the trial, First Judicial District >>Chief Judge Henry Nieto assigned himself to the case after the >>original judge, Barnhill, excused himself. >> Nieto ruled, prior to the trial, that he would judge the >>case and not a jury when Deputy District Attorney James Stanley >>agreed not to seek a jail term of more than six months. >> Although it was suggested by Kriho's attorney Paul Grant >>that the trial was complex and a motion was filed to delay the >>trial to give the defense more time to prepare, Judge Nieto >>denied it. This decision was found to be so egregious by Grant >>that he appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Cournt >>under an emergency provision. >> Nieto ruled, prior to the trial, that he would judge the >>case and not a jury when Deputy District Attorney James Stanley >>agreed not to seek a jail term more than six months. A jury >>trial was originally granted at Kriho's arraignment in August, >>but Stanley said he changed his mind about punishment. A jury >>would have been necessary for a punishment greater than six >>months in jail. >> It was argued by Grant that since theories from a recently >>published article by Gilpin County Judge Frederic Rodgers on how >>to prosecute "obstructionist" jurors appeared in the contempt >>citation, the defense had a right to know what communication >>occurred between Judge Barnhill, other judges and the >>prosecution. Judge Nieto denied the request. >> A request to appoint a special prosecutor was denied. >>Grant said that since Stanley was the prosecutor in the case in >>which Kriho was a juror, he should be available as a witness. >>Evidence was presented that although Stanley's actions in the >>courtroom are part of the record, he did have contact with the >>jurors off the record. >> Several motions to dismiss the case, due to its frivolous >>nature, have been denied throughout the trial. >> Due to the nature of the case, a local legal rights group, >>the Colorado Legal Eagles, is warning Gilpin county residents of >>"a serious threat to the judicial system in their county." The >>group wants Gilpin residents to be aware of their legal rights >>and to seek court-ordered counsel before answering quesions >>during jruy selelction. The group also warns that no one will be >>advised that anything they say can and will be used against them >>even though it is possible. >> Grant also feels the jury pool has been poisoned "to some >>exent" in that jurors will feel intimidated to speak their minds >>in the jury room. "Who wants to serve on a jury with a threat of >>prosecution hanging over your head?" Grant said it is the intent >>to publicize this case nationally by the judges so theat jurors >>nationally will be intimidated. >> The actions of the court are also meant to eliminate hung >>juries in Grant's mind. "This sends a message that you better go >>along with the majority or you will be criminally prosecuted." >> >> ### >> >>The Mountain-Ear >>P.O. Box 99 >>Nederland, CO 80466 >>Phone: (303) 258-7075 >>Fax: (303) 258-3547 >>Email: mtn-ear@indra.com >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) >> To be removed from this mailing list, send email. >> Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen >> http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html >> Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: >> Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund >> c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) >> Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 >> pkgrant@ix.netcom.com >> (303) 841-9649 >> >> **************************************************** >> TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS >> **************************************************** >> "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. >> It has been found difficult; and left untried." -- G.K. Chesterton >> **************************************************** >> Harvey Wysong >> National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association >> 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. >> hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 >> **************************************************** >> >> > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 16:45:05 -0700 (PDT) On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > Don't be too certain about #5. > > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). > Interesting to be sure, but don't DON'T make the assumption that these two retired USMC Colonels are stating Corps policy. Nobody on earth is more politically naive than career military officers. They have spent their lives being loyal to seniors (military and civilian) who might not deserve their loyalty, but their oath and ethic (not to mention career advancement) dependend on obedience and the appearance of loyal support. Particularly in the USMC the ethic is to obey orders from proper authority without question. Liking the orders, or agreeing them them, is optional. Additionally, the "proper authority" issue often gets murky in peacetime when military missions become more political than combative (the latter are the only thing they're trained for, hence their political naivety). These guys have written an article proposing a new mission (and enhanced budgets) for their favorite institution, the United States Marine Corps. The article has merit, but if they knew more about what we discuss every day, they might be more likely to consider their proposal unthinkable. FWIW, Skip. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Tanya Metaksa on AOL Oct. 9 Date: 07 Oct 1996 18:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Tanya Metaksa, Head of NRA-ILA, will be visiting the Gun Chat Room on AOL this Wednesday, October 9, from 9:30 to 10:00 p.m., ET. Topics: the election, Senate races, and politics! Keyword, EXCHANGE. Then click on INTERESTS & HOBBIES. Then click on CHAT ROOMS. Bring your questions! See you there! PS Gun Chat is a weekly event on AOL, 9 to 10 p.m., every Wednesday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 07 Oct 1996 21:57:53 -0500 (CDT) If I were doing it, (really, ATF, I never would, really) I would use a 4 inch pipe. I would glue on a dome fitting (end cap) on one end and put a threaded fitting and screw in clean out on the other. These fittings will cost you about $20. per pipe. You will have to get them at a supplier that deals with municipal or rural water systems. With some desicant in the pipe this might be ensough. But you might wish to put the "tools" in a plastic bag, with a heat/vacuum seal. Again put some desicant in the bag. Now, mind you, I have never done this and NEVER WILL. There is absolutely no reason because beeg bro Bill feels my pain Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > Gentlefolk, > > Can any of you summarize (in 50 words or less) what is the > best way to construct a buried PVC pipe to store valuble > tools? > > I know that ~42 inches is good, and it wants to be buried > vertically. Is standard 6 or 8 inch PVC pipe with standard > fittings adequate? What do I need for adhesive? > > thanks, > > jcurtis > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 23:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Agreed that these two Colonels don't set Marine policy or doctrine. However, they contribute to it: "Col Gangle is a senior operational advisor with the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory; Col Lasswell serves in the Plans Division at HQMC." What bothers me about this article is not that I expect to see the suggestions implemented tomorrow but that the Cols weren't embarassed to make them. I'd wager that you will never see an article in the *Marine Corps Gazette* advocating racial segregation. Dumping Posse Comitatus should be equally taboo. bd On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Skip Leuschner wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > > > Don't be too certain about #5. > > > > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats > > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). > > > > Interesting to be sure, but don't DON'T make the assumption that these two > retired USMC Colonels are stating Corps policy. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: joesylvester@texoma.net (Joe Sylvester) Subject: "All Loyal Australians" -- A Treatise on Gun Control you should read. (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 23:14:21 CST ----Forwarded---- Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns . . . Organization: my opinions only [ Note: I am not the author of the following. If you read this article then you know just as much as I do about it. -- lk ] A. R. (Tony) Pitt 79 Ferry Street, MARYBOROUGH ... Q. 4650. 7/7/96. Dear Friends, I served in the RAAF for twenty years and retired with the rank of Warrant Officer (Tech.) In 1962 I spent time in Thailand protecting the locals from insurgents. I feel some comment is warranted on the anti-gun issue that has grown from the Port Arthur tragedy. From the mind boggling flow of anti-gun bull dust I can see that most pollies can't grasp the significance of the gun issue. How could one explain to these pollies, who have never been under threat, that private and national defence also warrants consideration. A few hundred miles north, there are a million soldiers who would gang rape a girl, cut off her breasts, and chatter and laugh like monkeys as she ran blindly in terror, pain and shock, past oppressed locals who were too scared to help or even look at her, out of fear that they would suffer similarly if they were to intervene. This is a santisied version of a report on life in West New Guinea, a country subjugated by our most serious potential threat, Indonesia. The writer said that soliders lit a grass skirt under the girl before they released her. Timor and Cambodia are no better. The Iranians marched children and oldies across minefields to clear the way for tanks. What would they do to you? In 1946 the Australian government put into long term storage 500,000 rifles and Brens to be used if we were invaded? Under the ALP/LIB/NATS these were all sold or destroyed (The Australian 31/5/1991). The ALP took 100,000 SLRs (Self Loading Rifle),the L1A1, worth $4,000 each and melted them down at B.H.P. (The Australian 14/12/1994). How can politicians justify the complete destruction of our emergency reserves? This political intervention leaves the military with 37,000 Steyr rifles and 3,100 riflemen. The design of the Steyr uses plastic in heat critical components such as triggers, hammers and sears. A weapons use directive Order No. 7196-94 has been issued to all army and air force units not to fire more than 90 rounds, or more than nine seconds of automatic fire because the plastic components will melt down. We are undefended. The only effective weapons left in Australia to stop the occupation and rape of Australia now lie in private homes. When they are gone we are at the mercy of invaders. What use is there telling pollies that the people who possess these weapons would defend Australia? Howard, Fischer, Beazley, Kernot and the like, are all party to, or supportive of, the betrayal of our defence capability. The Australian Constitution prohibits political control of the armed forces because our forefathers knew the nature of politicians. These people are well aware that a gun register is the greatest asset to any invader. When the Germans went into Poland they did so only after careful preparation. They had their Quislings, under the guise of public safety, register all firearms. When the invasion eventuated a German officer and the Police Chief, with a copy of the "register", visited every home. They asked for the guns by model and serial number. If the guns were not forthcoming, they shot the children first, then the wife. If the guns still did not come out they then shot the man and burnt the house. Howard, Beazley, Fischer, Kernot & Co. know this. We have told them time and time again. Why do they want a register? They would have you believe they want to save lives. This is rubbish. They know full well that any cuckoo, with a 44 gallon drum of petrol can kill more innocents than the Port Arthur clown. A few well meaning gullible people have advocated a Central Gun Repository, where shooters can store their guns and, when they are not upset with the wife and kids, go and draw the gun out for a couple of hours. The Germans pulled this one too. They threw away the key the day before the invasion. The Russians were different. They opened the repositories, took the guns and shot the owners. How would you explain that in the seventies our government replaced key military personnel, who earned their rank and knew by painful experience how to take an enemy occupied hill? They were replaced by academics straight from university armed only with defence diplomas and defence degrees. This is not a game we play. The enemy engages in war. The Japs were smart enough to map and assess Australia's capability to defend itself twenty years before World War II. The Japanese spies reported that, "The people are well armed and know how to use those arms. They would pose a serious threat to any occupying force." They also said that the natives (Aborigines) could not be enlisted or even used to get rid of the Europeans. They said the Aborigines were "...not even fit to be used as salves." Readers should be made aware that the Japs were going to shoot the Aborigines and enslave us. The Japs used 27,000 Korean girls as comfort girls (slave prostitutes) for their troops because they were religious and clean. They weren't clean long. Do readers seriously think the Indonesians are not just as ruthless, and just as territorially ambitions? Why do the Indonesians overfly WA, NT and QLD every day? Why do the Japanese re-arm? Perhaps the hardest nut to chew is the treason of our own government. The Liberals signed an agreement to totally disarm all civilians, police and military in 1981 (I have a copy). The ALP ratified it in 1983. Then they invited the Indonesians in to train at our jungle training centre. They brought Indonesian generals in to umpire our Kangaroo Exercise where the U.S. and N.Z. staged an invasion from the north. We lost the war games. The Indonesians were the real winners because they saw every truck and every tank, and every tactic we used to counter the mock invasion from the north. Back benchers blindly obey ministers who invite a potential enemy in, give them the Bush Tuckerman book and let them travel and spy? This is the truth. These people in government are guilty of treason. If you want to let traitors disarm you then you deserve your fate, but don't take me and my family with you. These are the hard cold facts. Indonesia has close to 1,000,000 men under arms if one counts their regulars, irregulars, police and associate groups. They recently bought 1,000,000 AK56 rifles and 70,000,000 rounds of ammunition. They are not going pig shooting. On Greg Cary's program an Australian soldier in this year's war games reported that an Indonesian Colonel was bragging that they were coming back to take Australia. On their maps Australia is identified as New Irian Jaya or South Irian, WHY? The government, in one hit, gave the Indonesians $150,000,000 in aid. With this Indonesia bought 39 invasion craft from the East German Navy (Media figures, not mine). Now, because of Keating's treaty, the government intends to reduce our armed forces because potential invaders can't use Indonesia as a path to invade. They are the potential invaders and the traitors in government are fully aware of the threat. In the USA, on 4BC, at 5.10 on 10/6/96, to interviewer Connie Lorne, Tim Fischer stated that there would be zero guns in Australia by the year 2000. Why has Tim advertised our vulnerability? In Australia he says it is not the government's intent to totally disarm us. Why two stories? To be the only unarmed nation in Asia is tantamount to suicide. The UN won't save us. They watched genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia and Cambodia. Our elected back benchers have sat and watched these same ALP/LIB/NAT/DEMOCRATS print, issue and create so much currency, from 1966 to 1996, in direct contravention of our Constitution Para. 115 (READ; Commonwealth Year Books, Currency: Notes & Coins), that the value of our dollar was eroded by 97% taking 29/30ths of our savings, life assurance, superannuation etc. These pollies let banks change existing loan contracts (in retrospect and in direct contravention of Contract Law) to push bank interest up to 20% and even 30% knowing the people would be unable to pay. They couldn't. The banks foreclosed. Bank assets went from $87 billion to $382 billion in five years, taking $295 billion ($85,000 per income earning family) from the Australian people. Still the banks cry poor and raise charges. Pollies gave our oilfields worth $250 billion in proven reserves (AUST 7/9/88 AGE 9/9/88) to Indonesia. They were all on our continental shelf and there could have been no claim under international law. That creamed off another $80,000 per income earning family. In the seventies the Liberals took the contents of the Age Pension Trust Account to which my generation paid 7.5% of our income to give us all the Age Pension (and we all still pay it). They now take another 9% to give us "superannuation". They sold at least one super scheme to the French and spent the money. They propose to buy back the farm, pay off the national debt, and still have money to keep us in retirement. The politicians destroyed nearly all Australian industry by removing tariff protection. What was not destroyed was privatised (sold to foreign interests). Our minerals, timber, oil and fishing are foreign owned. They sell our hospitals, roads, bridges, jails, railways, resorts, electricity, public utilities, even some water supplies. Now these same politicians disarm us completely just before they step onto their jet planes to fly off to their villas in Europe, leaving us to the Indonesians. I want to remind readers. This is your country. If the Indonesians come, the girl won't be a dark lass from New Guinea or Korea, she will be your wife, your daughter, your sister, or you. A TV poll showed 97% in favour of the right to kill a dangerous home invader. Do they get a say? Ignore the minority of fools and traitors. On Channel 7 they said the way to get Tasmanian gun laws altered was to have a massacre. Paul Wilson 30/4/96 foreshadowed a copy cat massacre for Queensland. That is a possibility as mentally disturbed people are given mind altering drugs like Prozac and turned loose in society. Disarming sane people won't stop the fruitcakes. My generation carried real guns to keep Australia safe. The pollies leave this generation of soldiers deliberately disadvantaged, armed with toys that melt down after a few rounds are fired. They will be slaughtered leaving us as the front line. I am not afraid to fight an invader but I object to Australian traitors and fools disarming us and leaving us at the mercy of a primitive cruel enemy. We don't have to lose. It takes ten times as many regular soldiers to control and subdue a force of guerrillas. With 600,000 armed Australians we would be safe. No nation can muster 6,000,000 troops. The enemy knows this. That is why they need traitors to disarm us. If we allow these traitorous or well meaning politicians to take the few remaining weapons, that could provide the basis for guerrilla defence, then we deserve our fate. I was fit to own a semi auto for about 50 years. Don't blame me for what some cuckoo did in Tasmania. Blame the Tasmanian bureaucrats and police. They knew he was a dangerous nut and they would not act. Why should any Australian need a semi-auto? Go back to Paragraph One. Read this again. Please pass this letter on to friends to see if they can possibly comprehend the implications. Give it to journalists and badger them until they take action or admit their stupidity. If readers don't react to this information there will be a real massacre to report. The report will be written in Indonesian. Many readers won't be around to read it. A.R. (Tony) Pitt, Warrant Officer/RAAF/Retired. Save Australia. Please photocopy this at least fifty times or reprint it. Post, and fax copies far and wide. Reprinted by THE AUSTRALIANS, a new political party Full Membership $20 Pensioners and Students $10. Authorised by Cec. Clark, State Council Chairman Queensland, PO Box 584, Beenleigh Q. 4207. -- The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 23:19:02 -0500 At 11:03 PM 10/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Agreed that these two Colonels don't set Marine policy or doctrine. >However, they contribute to it: "Col Gangle is a senior operational >advisor with the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory; Col Lasswell serves >in the Plans Division at HQMC." > >What bothers me about this article is not that I expect to see the >suggestions implemented tomorrow but that the Cols weren't embarassed to >make them. I'd wager that you will never see an article in the >*Marine Corps Gazette* advocating racial segregation. Dumping Posse >Comitatus should be equally taboo. > >bd Posse Comitatus *does not* apply to the Marine Corps, or the Navy, of which the Marines are a part. Congress had their chance to include them when it added the Air Force, some time after it became a separate service in the late 40s, they chose not to,for whatever reason. > > >On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Skip Leuschner wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: >> >> > Don't be too certain about #5. >> > >> > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats >> > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). >> > >> >> Interesting to be sure, but don't DON'T make the assumption that these two >> retired USMC Colonels are stating Corps policy. [...] > > > The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 08 Oct 1996 02:02:25 EDT Standard PVC glue works fine. (Purchase at the place where you purchased pipe. Six inch is o.k. Eight inch is better. A little more expensive. Put PVC cap on one end and PVC adapter with threaded plug on other. Hint: Take a child's wadding pool and fill with salt water. High tech radar that penetrates the ground will not penetrate salt water. Hope this helps, G.H. Burkepile On Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:56:01 -0400 John Curtis writes: > > Gentlefolk, > > Can any of you summarize (in 50 words or less) what is the > best way to construct a buried PVC pipe to store valuble > tools? > > I know that ~42 inches is good, and it wants to be buried > vertically. Is standard 6 or 8 inch PVC pipe with standard > fittings adequate? What do I need for adhesive? > > thanks, > > jcurtis > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 05:28:14 -0700 (PDT) On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Skip Leuschner wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > > > Don't be too certain about #5. > > > > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats > > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). > > > > Interesting to be sure, but don't DON'T make the assumption that these two > retired USMC Colonels are stating Corps policy. Nobody on earth is more > politically naive than career military officers. They have spent their > lives being loyal to seniors (military and civilian) who might not deserve > their loyalty, but their oath and ethic (not to mention career > advancement) dependend on obedience and the appearance of loyal support. > Particularly in the USMC the ethic is to obey orders from proper authority > without question. Liking the orders, or agreeing them them, is optional. > Additionally, the "proper authority" issue often gets murky in peacetime > when military missions become more political than combative (the latter > are the only thing they're trained for, hence their political naivety). > > These guys have written an article proposing a new mission (and enhanced > budgets) for their favorite institution, the United States Marine Corps. > The article has merit, but if they knew more about what we discuss every > day, they might be more likely to consider their proposal unthinkable. > > FWIW, Skip. With reference to conversations we had long ago, this clarifies the position you took that a "coup" by the US military was unthinkable. It also shows that we are in agreement about the "blind obedience" threat the ordinary citizen faces if the politicians invoke the might of the US armed forces against its own citizens. Historically, that sort of thing is not a rare event. Since our "Great Experiment" at a republican political system is the first the world has ever seen exactly of its kind, time will tell whether it will also degenerate into the government oppressing its citizens. I sure hope not, but if history, and recent events, are any harbinger of the future, it will happen. These two USMC officers are but the tip of the iceberg, I believe, who would blindlly focus the Corps, and other branches against our own citizenry, not out of malice, but out of ignorance. And if senior officers would advocate this, the hope that the grunt face to face with the citizen with M-16, grenades, and a bayonet would have the moral courage to say, "No, I won't do this," is whistling in the wind. See My Lai, for example. You may hold a differing opinion. I sincerely hope yours is the correct one. However, you seem to be arguing (by implication, re your term limits position) that career military officers could avoid the "power corrupts" syndrome if they were only "shown the light". Why are they more likely than career politicians to recognize the errors of their ways, simply by being disabused of their ignorance? Regards, Harry ----- Harry Barnett "One thinks that an error exposed is dead, but exposure amounts to nothing when people want to believe." --Sir Frederick Pollock in a letter to Oliver Wendell Holmes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 07:32:33 -0400 (EDT) OK. Let me be blunter. Talk of using U.S. military forces against the American people should be taboo. Brad On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Joe Sylvester wrote: > At 11:03 PM 10/7/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Agreed that these two Colonels don't set Marine policy or doctrine. > >However, they contribute to it: "Col Gangle is a senior operational > >advisor with the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory; Col Lasswell serves > >in the Plans Division at HQMC." > > > >What bothers me about this article is not that I expect to see the > >suggestions implemented tomorrow but that the Cols weren't embarassed to > >make them. I'd wager that you will never see an article in the > >*Marine Corps Gazette* advocating racial segregation. Dumping Posse > >Comitatus should be equally taboo. > > > >bd > > Posse Comitatus *does not* apply to the Marine Corps, or the Navy, of which > the Marines are a part. Congress had their chance to include them when it > added the Air Force, some time after it became a separate service in the > late 40s, they chose not to,for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > >On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Skip Leuschner wrote: > > > >> > >> On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > >> > >> > Don't be too certain about #5. > >> > > >> > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats > >> > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). > >> > > >> > >> Interesting to be sure, but don't DON'T make the assumption that these two > >> retired USMC Colonels are stating Corps policy. [...] > > > > > > > > The Second Amendment is the RESET button > of the United States Constitution. > ("Doug McKay" ) > > > Joe Sylvester > Don't Tread On Me ! > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: caps@visigenic.com (Cap Schwartz) Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 07:40:44 -0700 At 05:28 AM 10/8/96 -0700, Harry Barnett wrote: [snippo giganticus] >You may hold a differing opinion. I sincerely hope yours is the >correct one. However, you seem to be arguing (by implication, re your >term limits position) that career military officers could avoid the >"power corrupts" syndrome if they were only "shown the light". Why are >they more likely than career politicians to recognize the errors of >their ways, simply by being disabused of their ignorance? > >Regards, >Harry I really wish you hadn't said that, Harry. It reminds me too much of the Founders who, faced with recent knowledge of certain government abuses, wished to put into place some protection against these very tendencies of human nature. It worked for a while, but every fresh danger requires we respond afresh by reaffirming those protections. cAp_ "... we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly." --John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 11:38:09 EDT Here is a problem then. Do you trust the government? You have to remember that the military is subject to this same government that you don't trust. Plus they pay their checks. Think about it. ghb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 09:54:11 -0700 (PDT) On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Harry Barnett wrote: > You may hold a differing opinion. I sincerely hope yours is the > correct one. However, you seem to be arguing (by implication, re your > term limits position) that career military officers could avoid the > "power corrupts" syndrome if they were only "shown the light". Why are > they more likely than career politicians to recognize the errors of > their ways, simply by being disabused of their ignorance? > > Regards, > Harry > Coming from their squeeky clean (drug wise - supposedly) USMC background, these guys view the drug culture as every bit as threatening an enemy to their country and their corps as the hated commies of yesteryear. Both are monolithic evils, and as long as it stays that clear cut, there would be no hesitation to shoot to kill. But in a real civil disorder situation in an American city, it wouldn't stay that clear cut. Put them in charge of cleaning up drugs in North Dallas or South Central LA, however, or even turning back illegal immigrants at the Tijuana River, these theoretically monolithic evils would suddenly take on a very human form- moms and dads with children in their gunsights, with no way to distinquish them from the hated drug dealers and border "mules." The simplistic monolithic view crumbles at that point and reality sets in, as well as personal judgment, ethics, and memories of oaths to uphold the constitution and who that document was written to protect (not government politicians and bureaucrats). Probably also memories of My Lai and the fate of an overwrought, overchallenged, unthinking Lt Calle. No, I worry a lot more about the civilian forces, US Marshalls, ATF, DEA, etc., than I do about military guys. The civilians have been raised on a bureaucratic ethic (oxymoron?) while military subscribe to a much higher standard, which includes unambiguous accountability for ill advised actions. Regards, Skip. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: At a Loss of Words :( (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 11:59:51 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- And so the pressure is increased another notch. Peaceful redress is further suppressed. "Integrity of the jury system?" What hypocritical crap. > It's a sad day for freedom folks. Next a 300' foot limit because we >won't stop fighting for our rights and freedom. And after that won't work >it will be the compelling interest of the State to just forbid their >subjects from uttering the words or punishable for having the knowledge. >Keep you powder dry folks and talk in whispers to your children of a land >that once was!!! > > > Sadly in Slavery > Bob > > >Associated Press Writer > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Proponents of "jury nullification" -- the idea that >jurors should disregard the law and even evidence to reach a verdict they >deem just -- lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday in their skirmish with San >Diego courts. > Placing the integrity of the jury system above unfettered free >speech, the justices, without comment, refused to let California members >of the Fully Informed Jury Association distribute jury-nullification >literature within 150 feet of any San Diego County courthouse. A county >court barred such distribution. > The justices also let stand a county court's order that removed all >newsracks from a sidewalk in front of a courthouse. The association had >sought to distribute its literature from such a newsbox. > The group's appeal had argued that both orders violated its >free-speech rights. > The orders were issued in late 1993 and early 1994 after Jim >Harnsberger, Dave Cadway and other jury-nullification proponents had >run-ins with county authorities over their efforts to distribute their >group's leaflets. > At the time, the group was not involved in any litigation and its >literature was not aimed at any specific court case. > Harnsberger, Cadway and their group sued the county in federal court, >seeking a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the two >challenged orders. > A federal trial judge ruled for the county, and the 9th U.S. Circuit >Court of Appeals upheld that ruling last year. > The appeals court called the order creating the 150-foot buffer zone >"necessary to serve the state's compelling interest in protecting the >integrity of the jury system." > The appeals court said the ban on newsracks just outside the San >Diego County Courthouse's front doors "is narrowly tailored to further the >significant state interest in securing the area around the courthouse and >leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of the >information." > The case is Fully Informed Jury Association vs. San Diego County, >95-1896. > > > > Rick Tompkins I would prefer freedom over slavery even if freedom was more dangerous than slavery. It isn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: thanks for your suggestions Date: 08 Oct 1996 13:25:11 -0400 Thanks to Larry Ball, Mr. Burkepile and Greg for your suggestions as to burying tools. My idea is that a location not connected with me, to which I can gain access in relative privacy, is the best option. Then it doesn't really matter how good the detection technology is, as it would have to be applied over most of the countryside. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Rachel Stout and Child Protective Services, who owns your child? Date: 08 Oct 1996 14:16:54 -0500 (CDT) Paul Watson, pwatson@utdallas.edu "The difference between Purchasing Department death and taxes is death The University of Texas at Dallas doesn't get worse every time DISCLAIMER: MY THOUGHTS ONLY!!! Congress meets." Will Rogers 10-8-96 Who really owns your children? A local Texas case shows that the state really does. These parents simply wanted to exhaust all non surgical methods for treatment of their "home schooled" child. The Dallas doctors at Children's Medical Hospital decided their treatment of surgery was best. The doctors called in CPS to force the parents to consent with surgery. The father fled with his child to Canada, the CPS child protective services went to court on behalf of the doctors and the judge in a non-jury civil trial awarded the custody of Rachel to the government. Because of a reciprocal treaty with Canada their version of CPS took Rachel and removed her from the families chosen doctor's care and went back to conventional wisdom MD treatment with steroids and of course her condition worsened. Because of the National media attention and the parents lawyers from the Rutherford institute the CPS have backed off a little and allowed 50% custody with the parents who had to plea with the judge for the governments permission to take their daughter to one last doctor for treatment. Only after saying they would consent to surgery if this hospital wanted to would the judge allow her to be moved. These are not your redneck welfare family living in a trailer house with years of squalor in the yard. Mr. Stout has a PHD and is a Republican precinct chairman. They are a middle class family with no past history of problems with the law except they are Christians and home school. Think this is a isolated case, about 3 years ago Ruby Ellis (214) 358-5578 also a religious Christian home school mother took her son back to Children Medical Hospital because of an infection. The same doctors, CPS and Family Court Judge decided to award custody of her toddler son to the state so they could remove his Crones disease colon. Even after doing extensive research in the University of Texas Medical School of Dallas library that showed no viable difference long term for surgery vs non-surgery the judge ignored Ruby's testimony and put her son up for adoption. He is now adopted even thought they never did the surgery! This is just another clear case of BIG GOVERNMENT taking over the life of private citizens. Do not believe the propaganda of the press releases from the doctors. I have a child with Autism and there are lots of non standard conventional wisdom treatments involving food allergies, auditory sensory training, and tactile integration. Little of this information is known or understood by the majority of Medical Doctors because there has been little scientific investigation or grant money and profit for drug companies and medical schools to become involved. All of this has happened because of the relentless pursuit of Parents who want to help their children with Autism and refused to just consent to the conventional wisdom of putting them in mental institutions for the insane starting back in the 1970's. see http://www.flash.net/~amc2/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Updated: Monday, Oct. 7, 1996 at 22:31 CDT Duke doctor examines Rachel Stout's colon By Chris Vaughn Star-Telegram FORT WORTH -- Rachel Stout underwent an initial exam by a North Carolina physician yesterday, but hospital officials expect it to be later in the week before the doctor recommends a course of treatment for her serious colon condition. "He'll be evaluating her over the next couple of days," said Karen Hinson, a spokeswoman for Duke University Medical Center in Durham, where the 10-year-old Fort Worth girl was flown Sunday. "Right now, she is in good condition, and she's not in intensive care." Rachel's parents, Steven and Patricia Stout, are hoping that Dr. William Treem, chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Duke University, can treat her ulcerative colitis without surgery. The Stouts -- who share custody of Rachel with Texas' Child Protective Services -- have fought with doctors in Fort Worth, Dallas and Toronto who all recommended the removal of Rachel's diseased colon, which they say is endangering her life. After a monthlong custody battle over Rachel, the state and the Stouts reached an agreement Friday that orders the family to abide by whatever recommendation Treem makes, including surgery. Rachel, who is normally a thin girl, appeared swollen when she was briefly seen Sunday as she was leaving Children's Medical Center in Dallas for the flight to North Carolina. The condition is caused by ]steroid therapy ]and by her colitis. Child Protective Services also issued a statement yesterday, commending Children's Medical Center of Dallas and two of Rachel's former doctors, Robert Squires and Jeffrey Zwiener, for their care and sensitivity. "Their commitment to this child and to getting her well was evident in all of their work with her," said Rose Benham, lead program director of Child Protective Services. "We are so grateful for all they did for Rachel." The Dallas hospital donated the $20,500 cost of Sunday's medical transport to Durham, a spokesman said. The state paid the $21,600 bill for Rachel's medical transport from Toronto to Dallas early last week, he said. THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit, legal and educational organization that specializes in the defense of religious liberty and human rights. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT I founded The Rutherford Institute in 1982 to respond to the widespread discrimination and persecution I witnessed against religious persons. Although we have fought thousands of cases and responded to hundreds of thousands of calls for help and information for more than a decade, the need for The Rutherford Institute is even greater today. We are living in an age of religious apartheid--religion has been systematically removed from American public life, and we no longer enjoy true religious freedom. The Rutherford Institute, however, remains committed to fighting for the rights of religious persons in both the United States and abroad. I hope that you too will sense the need to protect religious freedom and choose to support The Rutherford Institute today. John W. Whitehead _______________________________________________________________ Important Notice: The Rutherford Institute is a NON-PROFIT organization. We rely solely on the generous financial gifts of individuals like you. Our Internet Homepage, and information is provided to you, for free. Please take a moment and view our "How can I help" section. To continue our work, we do need your financial support. _________________________________________________________________ the RUTHERFORD magazine..now by SUBSCRIPTION Talk to Mr. Whitehead Major Religious Liberty Study Goes Public Over 345 pages detailing historical, legal, and case studies on religious liberty around the world... _________________________________________________________________ The Rutherford Institute, P.O. Box 7482, Charlottesville, VA 22906 Telephone: (804) 978-3888 Fax: (804) 978-1789 rutherford@fni.com _________________________________________________________________ We would especially like to thank Michael Brennen of FishNet for his help, training, and patience with us in getting this homepage constructed and on-line. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 13:43:59 -0700 (PDT) On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Skip Leuschner wrote: > The simplistic monolithic view crumbles at that point and reality sets in, > as well as personal judgment, ethics, and memories of oaths to uphold the > constitution and who that document was written to protect (not government > politicians and bureaucrats). Probably also memories of My Lai and the > fate of an overwrought, overchallenged, unthinking Lt Calle. I hope you're right. The U.S. Army has been involved in a number of situations in our history where that did NOT happen: the Sand Creek Massacre, the Ludlow massacre, MacArthur at Anacostia Flats, Sherman's March to the Sea, then up to burn Columbia, South Carolina, and other incidents too numerous to count, on both sides, in the American Civil War. ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SLFCX@cc.usu.edu Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 08 Oct 1996 17:09:02 -0600 (MDT) I just wanted to say that if you follow this recipe, your tools will be out of reach and therefore useless. I like to have my tools where they can be used at a moments notice. If you don't use your tools, you may misplace or loose them!!! Vincent Jefferies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 08 Oct 1996 17:23:09 -0600 >I just wanted to say that if you follow this recipe, your tools will >be out of reach and therefore useless. > >I like to have my tools where they can be used at a moments notice. If you >don't use your tools, you may misplace or loose them!!! > >Vincent Jefferies I always thought one should have spare tools around. I can never find a wrench when I need it and a spare one makes sense... Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave_l@Mainstream.net Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 08 Oct 1996 22:04:06 +0000 > Can any of you summarize (in 50 words or less) what is the > best way to construct a buried PVC pipe to store valuble > tools? 1). Any good plumbing supply house can provide watertight fittings, primer and solvent welding adhesive. 2). Silica Gel Dessicant and/or dry nitrogen or CO2 should be used to limit corrosion. 3). Digging up lots of rebar reinforced concrete is such a good way to keep searchers employed . When a structure is demolished, using it for landfill is ecologically sound! 4). Septic tanks are less likely to receive careful searches. Leach fields with old iron pipe are also unlikely to be heavily searched. Dave 8{) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: thanks for your suggestions Date: 08 Oct 1996 22:10:14 -0500 (CDT) I too have considered a site not connected with me. But what are you going to do when your site is sold for a real estate subdivision and your tools are dug up in the initial grading, or when you need them there they are in someones newly landscaped front yard? Or, worse yet, what happens if the land you bury your tools on is owned by another suspected tool buryer? Will he be convicted for possession of the tools that you bury? Dificult Yes? And, for that matter, why are you going to bury them? You intend to use them when the right moment arises? What is that moment? Is it when your speech becomes a hate crime? Is it when the right to keep and bear arms is INFRINGED? Hmmm. Are you waiting for the NFA act of 1934 to pass? It seems to me that most (99.9%) of all of us have no intention to use our tools for what they are protected for. It is a defacto reality that are tools are for sport, collecting and hunting. There is no other purpose for them. We have lost our way. And our way is not the libertarian ideal. It is the republican/federalist ideal of our forefathers. But evolution being what it is, they had back bone, nature has shown us that such a structure is dangerous to our health and we have become non vertebrates. Well bury your tools and as you are bent over slipping the PVC into the hole, I know you won't feel the enemies of the American way slip it to you. We ain't minded so far and we won't mind tomorrow neither. Newp, nope, no we won't. We just as well continue our limp wristed ways and receive a little pipe ourselves. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > Thanks to Larry Ball, Mr. Burkepile and Greg for your > suggestions as to burying tools. > > My idea is that a location not connected with me, to which I > can gain access in relative privacy, is the best option. Then it > doesn't really matter how good the detection technology is, as it > would have to be applied over most of the countryside. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Blighting Bozo Bill Date: 09 Oct 1996 07:30:45 -0500 (CDT) Is it possible that all of us Internet Freaks might actually go out into the streets and byways of America and do something constructive about getting Bozo Bill out of office? I have a suggestion--- On one of my discussion groups (maybe this one) someone posted a possible bumper sticker -- NIETHER CLINTON OR O.J. HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING!!!! How about it if we all made up a flyer using large fonts and distributed same to football crowds, in donut and bagel shops, in the alternate news boxes of STop and Rob Stores, in employee cafeteria's, banks, senior centers, recreation centers, libraries, gun shows and flea markets, October fests etc. If we promoted the idea through out the internet how many volunteers do you believe we could motivate? 200? 300? 500? You could put two such messages on an 8/11.5 inch piece of paper, copy 1,000 cut them in half and wind up with 2,000 to distribute. All for about $25.00 at an Office Warehouse Store. Perhaps your office might even contribute the copies. If we had 500 volunteers doing 2,000 apiece that is 1,000,000 copies. This could have an impact. Some of you won't like the message, okay, use your own. Let's not get hung up on discussions about a better message, let's just do something. Let's recruit, motivate, and DO, DO, DO. We need a little "DO DO" that sticks to Teflon Bill. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Macon Court Update, August 8, 1996 (fwd) Date: 09 Oct 1996 08:22:14 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MEMO DATE: October 8, 1996 TO: All Subscribers to Macon Update FROM: Nancy Lord Liberty Defense League ____________________________________ Macon Telegraph, October 8, 1996 ____________________________________ Militia trial set to start in a week by Eric Velasco ____________________________________ After weeks of hearings that have been often tedious and some- times humorous and the unusual pretrial replacement of a defense attorney, the trial of three militia men in a pipe-bombs conspiracy case is scheduled to being next week. On Monday, U.s. District Judge Duross Fitzpatrick officially set the start of jury selection for Oct. 15 in the case of United States of America vs. Bob Starr, James McCranie Jr. and Troy Spain. All three defendants are charged with conspiring to use a pipe bomb in a crime of violence and actually possessing one. Starr and McCranie are charged with threatening a law-enforcement officer, and Starr alone is charged with illegally possessing an assault rifle. The prosecution contends the Georgia Militia was arming for war with the government. The defendants have claimed there were a political group that fell victim to government snitches who lured them to allegedly violate federal law. According to audio tapes secretly made by a government informant, Militia members were nervously eyeing the standoff between federal agents and the Freemen in Montana during the spring. If the government moved against the Freemen, the Georgia Militia would take it as a sign of a federal war on all militia and patriot groups. Federal agents found pipe bomb materials on property owned by Starr. Materials allegedly found on McCranie's property by Nancy Lord, who was Starr's attorney at the time, contained similar explosive residue. ________________________________________ The prosecution contends the Georgia Militia was arming for war with the government. The defendants have claimed there were a political group that fell victim to government snitches. ________________________________________ The bottom-line question for the jury is expected to be: Who is responsible for those alleged explosives? The defendants claim two government informants, Danny and Kevin Barker, led them down the path-- planting the idea for making illegal pipe bombs and suggesting other prosecutable activities. In fact, two of the people who buried the alleged pipe-bomb material on Starr's property were the Barker brothers. The third was a co-defendant. The government, however, contends the informants merely primed the Militia's pump. The Georgia Militia already was planning special operations to challenge and battle government authority, prosecutors have contended. The informants merely recorded their intentions. Odd legal twists At times, the hearing have reflected paranoia on both sides. Before she was excused, Lord contended her cellular telephone had been bugged by federal ________________________________________ Trial for militiamen set to begin in a week. 2B Continued from Page 1B ________________________________________ agents. Her reasoning centered on the fact that an FBI agent telephoned her, even though she hadn't given her private number to him. The agent got if from a deputy marshal with whom Lord had left her number that morning. Based on pre-trial motions and other allegations, Starr's defense was expected to focus more on politics that the law-- which left Starr's co-defendants scrambling for separate trials. Now that Lord has been replaced by Macon lawyer Althea Buafo, the defense is expected to be less political and more focused on how the law applies to the charges against Starr. Lord was replaced because she handled key evidence before federal authorities actually had seized it, making her a potential witness. She was excused as counsel, a rare occurrence. But even the new lawyer line-up hasn't eliminated the trial's oddities. One of McCranie's lawyers, Brian Randall moved Monday for exclusion of a Freddie Krueger-like device called "the copper claw." Based on the weapon in the comic book, "The Wolverine," the sinister- looking weapon fits over the wrist and hand and has two long sharp prongs for hand-to-had fighting. Built by one of the defendants, it allegedly was to be used to threaten a federal agent. After trying it on, Fitzpatrick, said he was inclined to let the jury see and hear about "the copper claw." The trial is expected to take about three weeks, including Saturday sessions. The anonymous jury will be sequestered. Once the trial begins, it is expected to be quite a legal rollercoaster ride. In addition to testimony about pipe bombs, the government is expected to present evidence about a planned armed encounter with a rural state agency over custody of one defendant's children. Fitzpatrick has set limits on the ability of the defense to discuss fatal government-citizen encounters at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho -- which serve as rallying points for the militia movement. The government will have similar limits on discussing the Oklahoma City bombing last year. But the fatal bombing in Centennial Park during the Olympics is expected to come up, according to discussions during Monday's hearing. Despite the potential tangents, the real issue will be simple. Either the Georgia Militia broke federal law by arming itself with pipe bombs for whatever reason, or the defendants are victims of government entrapment. At stake will be potential 20-year prison sentences without parole. ________________________________________ A word from the attorney, fallen from grace: This article is a perfect example of why the patriot movement needs good spokespeople. Eric Velasco is an excellent reporter, who is doing his best (unlike most of his ilk) to give comprehensive and unbiased coverage. But obviously, there was nobody to talk to him at the hearing, so there are a few things that need to be clarified: 1) The "assault rifle". We recently learned that this is the only case in the country where the assault weapons ban has been prosecuted. It was mentioned on the two-party presidential debates (Clinton- Dole, don't they sound like running mates?) We may be getting some help on this from an experienced second amendment attorney. Stay tuned. 2) The snitches. Mr. Starr's defense has never been that he was entrapped, or lured to violate the law. He never violated any law. The snitches placed the "explosives" onto his property without his knowledge or permission, and the BATF Special Agent Gillis admitted this in open court, on May 6, 1996. 3) The phone tap. It was a little weirder than what is described. Yes, I was called on the cell and had given the number to the Marshalls about 15 minutes before. But the FBI guy said he got the number from, not the Marshalls, but the U.S. Attorney's office. I got a letter from them the next day, dated that day (7/30) that stated they could not reach me by phone. At the hearing, the secretary, who trained under Rosemary Woods of Watergate, said that she gave an 800 number to the FBI, then the Marshalls called and mentioned that they had spoken with me. Without knowing that the FBI had not reached me, she heroicly obtained the number, and called the FBI back to give it to them. This all happened between 9:00 am and 9:07 am. Paranoia? Hey, it might have happened that way, but it was sure a coincidence. 4) The defense. I thought that the fact that the Militia was taking steps to defend themselves and their communities did focus on how the law applies to the charges. This isn't why we wanted a severance. You ask for (but rarely get) a severance when the cases against the different people are different and one will prejudice the others. 5) The "copper claw". I hear the whole room was rolling on this one and I'm sure the jury will too. This piece of artwork is supposed to be the device used to "threaten" the "law enforcement officer", Bart McIntyre -- only he was not there at the time. Seriously. Somebody talked about mailing him a picture of it, and a BATF jacket. That is the threat. Anybody scared yet? 6) Centennial Park. While I was on the case, the government filed a motion in limine to preclude any mention of this tragedy. See earlier Macon Update. Now they've withdrawn it. I wonder why. Could it be that they think nobody is here to remind the public of certain individuals connected with this investigation, not Bob Starr and his co- accused or any other militia members, who like pipe-bombs and were still at large on July 27? Isn't it funny that, with all those cameras, witnesses and composites, we still don't have a suspect? Isn't it funny that the FBI never took us up on our offer to listen to the 911 tapes and compare it to the evidence tapes in this case? For further info, see the forwarded message from Gen. Don Beauregard. ____________________________________ Please call Don about coming up for the trial. All our welcome. Nancy Lord Liberty Defense League defense@mindspring.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Blighting Bozo Bill Date: 09 Oct 1996 08:54:37 -0600 larry ball wrote: > > How about it if we all made up a flyer using large fonts and > distributed same to football crowds, in donut and bagel shops, in the > alternate news boxes of STop and Rob Stores, in employee cafeteria's, > banks, senior centers, recreation centers, libraries, gun shows and > flea markets, October fests etc. I've been thinking about a bumper sticker that has pictures of Boorda, forster, Brown and Colby and a slogan that says "WARNING! Associations with the Clinton Administration may be hazardous to your health." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 09 Oct 1996 09:59:46 -0400 >I just wanted to say that if you follow this recipe, your tools will >be out of reach and therefore useless. Its just an insurance bet. Color me paranoid. I think that if Dan Rather were to go on the airwaves and color the broadcast of door-to-door "weapons verifications" as being just another step towards "a safer America", then the American Public would roll over and go back to sleep. Anyone resisting would be a dangerous nutcase. Please note that this is being broadcast "en clair". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Blighting Bozo Bill Date: 09 Oct 1996 09:22:22 -0500 (CDT) Okay Do Do, Do Do on Bill!! Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > larry ball wrote: > > > > How about it if we all made up a flyer using large fonts and > > distributed same to football crowds, in donut and bagel shops, in the > > alternate news boxes of STop and Rob Stores, in employee cafeteria's, > > banks, senior centers, recreation centers, libraries, gun shows and > > flea markets, October fests etc. > > I've been thinking about a bumper sticker that has pictures of Boorda, > forster, Brown and Colby and a slogan that says > > "WARNING! Associations with the Clinton Administration may be hazardous > to your health." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: more on tools Date: 09 Oct 1996 10:33:13 -0400 Larry Ball writes: >Dificult Yes? And, for that matter, why are you going to bury them? >You intend to use them when the right moment arises? What is that >moment? Is it when your speech becomes a hate crime? Is it when the >right to keep and bear arms is INFRINGED? Hmmm. Are you waiting for >the NFA act of 1934 to pass? > >It seems to me that most (99.9%) of all of us have no intention to use >our tools for what they are protected for. It is a defacto reality >that are tools are for sport, collecting and hunting. There is no >other purpose for them. We have lost our way. > >And our way is not the libertarian ideal. It is the >republican/federalist ideal of our forefathers. But evolution being >what it is, they had back bone, nature has shown us that such a >structure is dangerous to our health and we have become non >vertebrates. > >Well bury your tools and as you are bent over slipping the PVC into >the hole, I know you won't feel the enemies of the American way slip >it to you. We ain't minded so far and we won't mind tomorrow neither. >Newp, nope, no we won't. We just as well continue our limp wristed >ways and receive a little pipe ourselves. > > This is the frog in hot water problem and it is very real. I agree with you. You almost make me ashamed to bring the whole PVC thing up, as it is a canard. I think that the problems are as follows: 1. Media creates reality for the vast majority of people. 90% of the reporters are Democrats and think that Bob Dole and Newt are "too radical". 2. The T.L.A.'s and the media can take any political group that is outside the mainstream and paint them as dangerous and kooky. The court system can deny them the ability to expose their views, and effectively deny a jury trial. 3. The internet is open media, and as far as the T.L.A.'s are concerned, we might as well be publishing in the Sunday paper. 4. Access to tools is not the problem. Access to effective political action is. The tools are easy enough to make. Affecting the political process to reverse current trends is difficult. 5. Face it, some of the "gun nuts" are in fact "nuts", there are skinheads in Idaho, mad bombers sprinkled around, etc. This just increases the number of ways to spin stories in an anti-militia, anti-constitutionalist fashion. The Feds burned women and children at Waco on national T.V., the Congress exposed them to any thinking person as mindless assasins at Ruby Ridge (even D. Feinstein was obviously appalled) and nothing has happened. (except a civil suit settlement). 6. As we are all frogs, being slowly simmered, we won't jump until we are in a full blown police state, with no effective civil rights, except for politically correct groups. The assaults are numerous and real: a. the judges and prosecuters want to limit jury nullification and effectively dictate the result of every trial b. the use of cryptography is sharply limited c. the W.O.D. is used to limit safeguards against use of the military against domestic people, along with search and seizure, and "unjust takings". (note the recent seizure by fiat of 1.7 million acres in Utah by billy). d. the media is waging a harsh war against: gun-owners, Christians, home-schoolers, anyone expousing a view to the right of Bill Clinton anyone expousing a view of original intent of the founders anyone expousing a view that the Feds should: a. tax us less b. not discriminate based on race c. stay out of our homes and our families. e. there are major efforts to hobble the Net and bring it under commercial (i.e. politically pliable) control. 7. none of the above are addressable with a "tool", all require shifting mainstream domestic opinion. 8. Even this whole exercise is just preaching to the choir, and, hence, nearly useless. 9. Pro-Constitutionalists are: easily infiltrated, easily monitored, and easily propagandazied against. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Blighting Bozo Bill Date: 09 Oct 1996 10:42:11 -0400 Larry, Do it. I'm doing a couple of things: volunteering for Bob Smith, candidate for senator here in NH (U.S. Senate, not state), making small donations to a couple of candidates here. Smith is decidedly pro-gun rights, his oponent Dick Swett is funded by big California money and a traitor by virtue of his lying about his vote on the AW ban bill. My kids are going to the polls on Election Day to carry their hand crafted signs say: "Bill Clinton - Liar, Liar, Pants of Fire!" Maybe that will swing a couple of votes. this is what I have the time and money for right now. I'm concentrating on local stuff because we have three close races in which tax-raising, gun-banning Democrats are running slightly ahead of R's with proven pro-gun, anti-tax *records*, not rhetoric. This is in New Hampshire, for God's sake! jcurtis P.S. why don't you list all the Clinton associates who have been convicted of Federal felonies? We don't hear much about that, do we? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 09 Oct 1996 08:48:42 -0600 >Larry Ball writes: >>And our way is not the libertarian ideal. It is the >>republican/federalist ideal of our forefathers. Or maybe Larry Ball's concept of the forefathers? Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 09 Oct 1996 10:11:57 -0500 (CDT) John: You got it right. I have to leave town for two days will comment in length when I return Please see my post RE: Blighting Bozo Bill Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > Larry Ball writes: > >Dificult Yes? And, for that matter, why are you going to bury them? > >You intend to use them when the right moment arises? What is that > >moment? Is it when your speech becomes a hate crime? Is it when the > >right to keep and bear arms is INFRINGED? Hmmm. Are you waiting for > >the NFA act of 1934 to pass? > > > >It seems to me that most (99.9%) of all of us have no intention to use > >our tools for what they are protected for. It is a defacto reality > >that are tools are for sport, collecting and hunting. There is no > >other purpose for them. We have lost our way. > > > >And our way is not the libertarian ideal. It is the > >republican/federalist ideal of our forefathers. But evolution being > >what it is, they had back bone, nature has shown us that such a > >structure is dangerous to our health and we have become non > >vertebrates. > > > >Well bury your tools and as you are bent over slipping the PVC into > >the hole, I know you won't feel the enemies of the American way slip > >it to you. We ain't minded so far and we won't mind tomorrow neither. > >Newp, nope, no we won't. We just as well continue our limp wristed > >ways and receive a little pipe ourselves. > > > > > This is the frog in hot water problem and it is very real. I > agree with you. You almost make me ashamed to bring the whole PVC thing > up, as it is a canard. > > I think that the problems are as follows: > > 1. Media creates reality for the vast majority of people. 90% of > the reporters are Democrats and think that Bob Dole and Newt are > "too radical". > > 2. The T.L.A.'s and the media can take any political group that is > outside the mainstream and paint them as dangerous and kooky. The > court system can deny them the ability to expose their views, and > effectively deny a jury trial. > > 3. The internet is open media, and as far as the T.L.A.'s are concerned, > we might as well be publishing in the Sunday paper. > > 4. Access to tools is not the problem. Access to effective political > action is. The tools are easy enough to make. Affecting the political > process to reverse current trends is difficult. > > 5. Face it, some of the "gun nuts" are in fact "nuts", there are > skinheads in Idaho, mad bombers sprinkled around, etc. This just > increases the number of ways to spin stories in an anti-militia, > anti-constitutionalist fashion. The Feds burned women and children > at Waco on national T.V., the Congress exposed them to any thinking > person as mindless assasins at Ruby Ridge (even D. Feinstein was obviously > appalled) and nothing has happened. (except a civil suit settlement). > > 6. As we are all frogs, being slowly simmered, we won't jump until > we are in a full blown police state, with no effective civil rights, > except for politically correct groups. The assaults are numerous and > real: > > a. the judges and prosecuters want to limit jury nullification > and effectively dictate the result of every trial > > b. the use of cryptography is sharply limited > > c. the W.O.D. is used to limit safeguards against > use of the military against domestic people, along with > search and seizure, and "unjust takings". (note the > recent seizure by fiat of 1.7 million acres in Utah by > billy). > > d. the media is waging a harsh war against: > gun-owners, > Christians, > home-schoolers, > anyone expousing a view to the right > of Bill Clinton > anyone expousing a view of original intent > of the founders > anyone expousing a view that the Feds should: > a. tax us less > b. not discriminate based on race > c. stay out of our homes and our > families. > > e. there are major efforts to hobble the Net and > bring it under commercial (i.e. politically > pliable) control. > > > 7. none of the above are addressable with a "tool", all require > shifting mainstream domestic opinion. > > 8. Even this whole exercise is just preaching to the choir, and, hence, > nearly useless. > > 9. Pro-Constitutionalists are: easily infiltrated, easily monitored, > and easily propagandazied against. > > > jcurtis > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 09 Oct 1996 10:23:00 -0500 (CDT) Chad I figured you would zap on that. Now I am waiting for the other shoe, (Silberger ;-). The Federalist/REpublican Ideal is animosity to Libertarianism Citizen Chad. Democracy (Jeffersonian Democracy) is like wise. The French Libertarians of the French revolution taught our early political theorists and politicians the danger of libertarianism. The federalist/republican ideal was for a "civil" people working in concert to protect each others legitimate values. The essential values were expressed in our Dec of Independence. This same document gave the United States Government to the People not to any particular Individual. I see in the libertarian ideal the elevation of the individual above all. This is not possible in any society, culture, or nation. (By the way these three words all have the same root meaning." A society, culture, or nation is a group of individuals united arround a certain body of belief and in concert they agree to protect one another from all comers, foreign or domestic. Our essential liberty is being violated. This includes equality, life, political liberty and the right to make our way in the world. It does no include pot smoking, binge drinking, rolled roast sucking, or baby killing. This is Larry Ball's understanding in a nutshell. :-I Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > >Larry Ball writes: > >>And our way is not the libertarian ideal. It is the > >>republican/federalist ideal of our forefathers. > > Or maybe Larry Ball's concept of the forefathers? > > Chad > > ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- > Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! > Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) > http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com > http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface > Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and > Activism Info > --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SLFCX@cc.usu.edu Subject: Re: thanks for your suggestions Date: 09 Oct 1996 12:20:00 -0600 (MDT) What is the NFA act of 1934? Vincent Jefferies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SLFCX@cc.usu.edu Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 09 Oct 1996 12:26:30 -0600 (MDT) I'd rather be a dangerous nut case than one who would roll over. Vincent Jefferies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 09 Oct 1996 16:47:03 -0700 >>I just wanted to say that if you follow this recipe, your tools will >>be out of reach and therefore useless. >> >>I like to have my tools where they can be used at a moments notice. If you >>don't use your tools, you may misplace or loose them!!! >> >>Vincent Jefferies >I always thought one should have spare tools around. I can never find a >wrench when I need it and a spare one makes sense... > >Chad Now *this* is the only valid reason I know of for keeping some tools elsewhere. If you have some spare ones, it doesn't hurt to have them somewhere else in case you lose your main ones. A duplicate set is a great idea; but if you ain't got duplicates I'd keep what you have handy. - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Column, Oct. 16 (fwd) Date: 10 Oct 1996 07:43:28 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS Dear M R, Do us all a favor. Take a copy of this to your local, very small-town newspaper and tell them you like this guy's writing. They're always looking for writers who can elevate them above the competition and help distinguish them from the Pablum Press. Show them Vin's columns. -- Harvey =================================== FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 16, 1996 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz What Supreme Court ruling? Article I Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states. ..." Part of America's economic success is certainly attributable to the historic interstate "free trade zone" thus created. But in this century, Congress has taken to pretending these few words grant it the power to circumvent virtually any restriction on its power. One of the most onerous examples was the enactment by the 1990 Democratic congress of so-called federal "gun-free school zones," outlawing by federal statute the possession of firearms by otherwise law-abiding Americans within a fixed distance of a schoolhouse or school property. In one of its finest decision of recent years, the United States Supreme Court, ruling in the 1995 case (start ital)U.S. vs. Lopez(end ital), said that is nonsense. The "commerce clause" does not permit Washington to regulate anything that's bought or sold, anywhere in the land, if the main thrust of their action does nothing to promote peaceful, duty-free interstate commerce. Furious at this minor rebuff to his now-almost-limitless power, and demonstrating the scorn in which he holds his own oath to protect and defend the Constitution, President Clinton immediately ordered Attorney General Janet Reno to "find a way around" the Lopez ruling. Now they think they have. Wedged into omnibus spending bill HR 3610, signed into law by the president late on the night of Sept. 30, is a page called Treasury-Postal Section 657. Once again, we read that "Before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce," blah blah blah. Once again, citing the powers of the "interstate commerce clause," this section -- also known as the Kohl amendment -- declares "It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in interstate commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." Exemptions are granted if the owner has a government license for the gun, if the gun is not loaded and is in a locked container or locked rack, or if the owner is "traversing school premises" for the purpose of going hunting, providing the hunter has the prior permission of school authorities. Gun rights groups like Virginia's Gun Owners of America quickly mobilized, warning in an Oct. 3 press release that -- given that authorities in the past have extended "school zones" 1000 feet from school property -- this bill "sets up thousands of gun ban zones across roads statewide where local police or the BATF can arrest unsuspecting drivers who have a firearm in the car. ... Anyone without a pistol carry license driving through a zone with an unloaded firearm, that is not in a locked container or rack, faces five years in prison. ..." Those who defend the bill told me this week that the old bill did indeed establish 1,000-foot "zones" around schools, but that this new "try" bans guns only on school property, not neighboring private property. However, the language of the law as reported in the Sept. 28 Congressional Record still uses the term "zones," without any limiting definition. And even Capitol Hill supporters admit "It isn't clear" whether the law would allow random stops and gun searches of cars driving on city streets (start ital)near(end ital) a school. Anyway, the point of the 1995 Supreme Court (start ital)Lopez(end ital) ruling was that this is not a federal concern. The separate states are perfectly capable of outlawing guns on schools grounds if they want to. Many already have. So, why such a poisonous Halloween present, from a Republican Congress? "All of these things were Clinton administration wants and desires, and I think you had a Clinton administration that was willing to shut down the government and blame us again," explained a high-level Republican congressional staffer who would only speak off the record. "So we just had to swallow hard and accept a lot more spending than we wanted," the staffer told me. "We've just lost the PR battle over these shutdowns." One proposed "fix" is to make the budget resolution -- now non-binding -- into a binding outline which the president would have to sign in April or May, making it harder to shovel so much unexamined manure into spending bills at the last minute. Congressman Chris Cox has proposed such a measure. But in the short run, all that can probably be done is to retain congressfolk who voted against HR 3610 -- representatives like Barton, Coleman, Hall and Stockman of Texas, Barcia of Michigan, Chabot and Kaptur of Ohio, and Burr and Coble of North Carolina. That and, of course, to defeat gun-grabbers who sneak in such "stealth" assaults on the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a loaded firearm for self-defense in the first place -- characters like Schumer, Feinstein, Kohl, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Clinton. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@intermind.net. *** Vin Suprynowicz vin@intermind.net "Next year in Galt's Gulch!" **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL RIGHTS **************************************************** "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -- David Hume **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: : C-NEWS: Interesting Items 10/9 (fwd) Date: 10 Oct 1996 07:52:16 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Wednesday, Oct 9, 1996 Interesting Items 10/9 - Howdy all, a few Interesting Items for your information. Enjoy - 1. Parental Rights. An initiative to amend the Colorado state constitution with language to reaffirm the unalienable right of parents to direct the education of their kids, instruct them in values and religion, and to raise them as the parents see fit is being fought by all the usual suspects - the ACLU, National PTA, Teacher's Unions. They are afraid that this amendment will make it easier for parents to overturn idiotic school board decisions, insert parental control into the teacher hiring and firing and give parents control over lessons and materials. Sounds like the educrats are correct this time. Hope it passes. Limbaugh, Tues. 2. Parental Rights II. A federal judge in Texas has given us the following quote: "Parents give up their rights when they drop their children off at school." This brilliant observation about the rights of The Village to raise our children was made in a case where parents sued a public school when they forced their son to strip in front of a female Child Protection Services officer so she could inspect him for paddling. The parents were neither informed nor asked for permission for this "inspection." Limbaugh, Tues. 3. Immigration. While hearings on the fast track naturalization of illegals were being held in the Senate this week, Matalin reported Tuesday that democrat party activists were registering new, non English speaking citizens to vote democrat this year. They are being told that if they don't vote for democrats, they will not get their welfare checks. Other than Congressional hearings, the actions by Republican activists to counter this are going unreported and are unknown. 4. Supreme Court. The court this week has made two decisions of interest. - First, it has let stand a lower court ruling that federal judges do not have to pay Social Security or Income taxes under a provision of the Constitution that requires their compensation to not be diminished while in office. 7 of the 9 justices excused themselves from reviewing this case. Sounds like the lawyers on the federal bench have finally found a way to tax everyone except themselves. It really IS an Imperial Judiciary. - Second, it has upheld a court challenge to a local school district graduation requirement for 40 hours of community service. While I don't like this decision a lot, this issue is ultimately a local one and ought to be fought at the local level. 5. Polling. Zogby / Reuters released a poll yesterday that showed the race at a 5.3% lead for Bubba. Dole hit 40% for the first time ever in his polling. Up until last Sunday, Dole's problem was his Republican base - getting only 48 - 52% support from them. On Sunday, that support shot up to 75% and appears to be climbing steadily from there. The democrats do not want Dole to consolidate his base, as it means their defeat in the election. The arousal gap in stay at home women is closing. The 18% lead last week Bubba had was due to a great 3 day period. That lead has disappeared. Limbaugh, Tues. 6. Rich Bond. The column that reported St Hilly's promise to a group of democrat big money supporters last Spring that Bill would turn her and algore loose to do what they really wanted to do now has some verification. Apparently there is videotape of the speech now making the rounds in Republican circles. Limbaugh read from a transcript of it Tuesday. Expect to see this film on a campaign ad close to you in the next few weeks or so. 7. Ketchikan Pulp. The greenies in the Cliton administration have managed to shut down another small town in Southeast Alaska. Ketchikan Pulp has been under attack from the greenies for a number of years, yet provides nearly 2,000 high paying jobs in this community of 14,000. The Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 was supposed to ensure enough logs be made available to the mill to operate indefinitely. The US Forest Service, now fully infiltrated at all levels by Sierra Club activists, found a thousand reasons not to make that lumber available. Eventually, the business strangled to death. This is the third major mill closed in Southeast Alaska during the Cliton administration as a payoff to their environmentalist supporters. This is the third town of that size that will have its economy wrecked by the Gaiaists. The War on the West continues. 8. FBI. FBI Agent Dennis Scholenbrini estimates that 25% of the incoming Clinton White House staff had a history of drug use or a problem with drugs. If you use over 50 times, it is defined as a problem by the FBI. No wonder tobacco is now an issue. Limbaugh, Fri. 9. Union Spending. The unions have upped the ante in their attempt to buy this election. The promised $35 million to defeat the 70 targeted freshmen Republicans is now up to $65 - 70. A Wall Street Journal article last Thursday shows exactly why this election is so important to the unions. In 1960, only 6% of union members were public employees. Today that number is over 42%. The largest union is the NEA. Essentially, we have the government employees and their unions fighting the taxpayers for more government. They are fighting for their very lives - which explains their vehemence. Limbaugh, Thurs. 10. Kudlow. Lawrence Kudlow was interviewed on Matalin last Thursday. He said that Clinton's polls seem to track very closely to economic data - when the economy is up, they do well. Over the last 6-7 weeks, however, the consumer numbers have really flattened and turned strongly negative on the consumer side. This will be a problem for Bubba in the very near future. He also reminded the listeners that the nation sustained a growth rate of 5% in the 1960s, over 4% in the 1980s, yet has only done just over 2% in the 1990s. 11. Bonior. Michigan democrat Rep David Bonior is finally in a close race for Congress. His Republican challenger, Suzy Heinz is only down by 8-9%. Bonior ducked out of a debate when the challenger refused to agree to not limit her questions to only education, environment or Medicare cuts. Bonior also has his wife on his Congressional payroll, proving that nepotism is still alive and well in the democrat party. He didn't want to answer questions about her either. Matalin, Thurs. 12. HIV/AIDS. An NY Immigration judge granted asylum to a 30 year old computer engineer from Togo last week, overturning a 1993 law that bars immigration of people carrying communicable diseases. In a year, this gentleman will be eligible for citizenship and eventually health care at taxpayer expense. Apparently the AIDS numbers are not rising fast enough for the Clintonoids, so they are having to import sick people from the rest of the world. Limbaugh, Fri. 13. Data Base. Big Brother, the $1.7 million political database constructed in the White House by our Dynamic Duo, keeps track of (depending who you believe) between 200,000 to nearly 500,000 'contributors' for them. The use of White House money for these political purposes is another example of an illegal diversion of your hard earned tax dollars for their political use. Wow, I feel just like a union guy now. 14. Concert. Greenie rock stars Bonnie Rait and Jackson Browne are scheduled to give a concert in Jackson (Hole) sometime soon. A caller to Limbaugh Monday promised to give them a warm welcome during their concert with a massed chorus of local chainsaw musicians. The Rait concert is supposed to be held out of doors in an open air location. Apparently the town knows about the planned protest and is threatening to stop cars and keep the chainsaws from coming in. However, there is a lot of private land near the concert site that should be available for this musical extravaganza. More later - - AG Note: Interesting Items can be found at Julie Kelleher's K-Group home page - http://world.std.com/~julikell/ ------- To unsubscribe from c-news, send the message UNSUBSCRIBE c-news to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact owner-c-news@world.std.com with questions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Scholary Debate, More Federal Law Enforcement, Unions vote (fwd) Date: 10 Oct 1996 09:35:52 -0500 (CDT) Reuters New Media Thursday October 10 6:24 AM EDT Gore, Kemp Conduct Scholarly Debate ST PETERSBURG, Fla (Reuter) - Spitting out facts and figures like two computers, Vice President Al Gore and Republican Jack Kemp sparred Wednesday over race, abortion, foreign affairs, economic theory, morals and even baseball in the only vice presidential debate of the 1996 campaign. Clubbing each other, and a national television audience, over the head with bundles of statistics, Gore and Kemp produced an intellectually demanding but often dry confrontation, packed with details but spiced with only the occasional flashes of rhetorical excitement. After promising a civilized, respectful debate, Kemp went to the offensive, accusing Clinton and Gore of trying to impose a quasi-socialist, anti-capitalist economic system on the nation. _________________________________________________________________ Earlier Related Stories * Gore, Kemp Waltz in Scholarly Campaign Debate - Wed Oct 9 11:34 pm * Gore, Kemp Foresee Civil Debate in Only Clash - Wed Oct 9 5:50 pm * Gore, Kemp Expect Civilized Debate of Issues - Wed Oct 9 2:31 pm _________________________________________________________________ Thursday October 10 6:25 AM EDT Clinton Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill into Law WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Surrounded by people who have lost loved ones in airline crashes, several of them crying, President Clinton on Wednesday signed into law a bill that tightens airport security against terrorism. It also calls for hiring dozens of new Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to fight terrorism and seeks to improve assistance to the families of victims after air disasters. "Because of these improvements, Americans will not only feel safer, they will be safer," Clinton said at a signing ceremony held in the Old Executive Office Building next door to the White House. "We are ... stepping up our law enforcement efforts with more agents and prosecutors and we're sending a message to terrorists that they will pay the full price for their deeds," Clinton added. (end) 9. Union Spending. The unions have upped the ante in their attempt to buy this election. The promised $35 million to defeat the 70 targeted freshmen Republicans is now up to $65 - 70. A Wall Street Journal article last Thursday shows exactly why this election is so important to the unions. In 1960, only 6% of union members were public employees. Today that number is over 42%. The largest union is the NEA. Essentially, we have the government employees and their unions fighting the taxpayers for more government. They are fighting for their very lives - which explains their vehemence. Limbaugh, Thurs. Comments: While America is on the edge of a Police state with gun confiscation and possible civil war the Republicans Waltz. I heard a great line last night before the debates: If the Democrats decided to burn all the books in the Library of Congress the Republicans would argue about phasing it in over 3 years. The Democrats have now done it with the support of the Media they have defined any criticism of them as "Harsh Words", "Mean Spirited". So our Republicans leaders have a "Scholarly, Civil debate" about empowerment zones and Clinton gets new Federal money for the BATF and FBI and Justice Department to conduct a national witch hunt for all right wing opposition to the new Socialist Agenda. Complete with crying women. I have never seen a more masterful propaganda in my life. The vote will be all the school, local, state, and federal employees and all the groups getting government money against all of us concerned citizens. They are up to 50% or more of the population. While the media tells all the Republicans the race is over do not bother to vote the Democrats are giving citizenship to 10,000 foreigners in Texas Stadium. We are now just like the Jews in NAZI Germany who were blamed for every thing wrong in life. You can not win a civil, scholarly debate with an opponent willing to use every thing in the Government, Media and Union arsenal to win. Gore told more lies last night than Joseph Goebbels and got away with it. Paul Watson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Date: 10 Oct 1996 08:24:01 -0700 (MST) [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] Dear Friends, I am home near the telephone for most of today, Thursday, Oct. 10. I have a few errands to do, like get my mail (and a haircut). If you would like to talk about the Supreme Law Seminar in Tucson this weekend, keep trying until I answer. Later this evening will be best. /s/ Paul Mitchell (520) 320-1514 or Bernie, Executive Secretary (520) 795-3994 voice (520) 795-5895 fax For Immediate Release August 25, 1996 Supreme Law Seminars Announces A Weekend Series on Freedom Law and Internet Technology: The Full Faith and Credit Clause Saturday, October 12, 1996 (full day) Sunday, October 13, 1996 (full day) Friday October 11, 1996 (dress rehearsal) Payson, Arizona. Supreme Law Seminars today announced their plans to conduct a two-day weekend seminar at the magnificent Holiday Inn Palo Verde in Tucson, Arizona Republic. The focus of the seminar will be the constitutional law of freedom, and available Internet technologies for teaching and learning this law, and making freedom a reality. Founder Paul Mitchell, an advanced systems development consultant for over 25 years, has spent the past seven years doing a detailed investigation of the United States Constitution, federal statute laws, and the important court cases. Writing under several pen names, Mitchell's work has reached all the way into the U.S. Supreme Court, which adopted "the federal zone" as a household word in their sweeping 1995 decision in U.S. v. Lopez. His massive book entitled The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue was first published in 1992, and became an instant underground success for its lucid language and indisputable legal authority. Mitchell has litigated important cases in state and federal courts, including the case of People v. Boxer, which established that the so-called Sixteenth Amendment was a massive fraud upon the American People. U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of Mitchell's pleadings in that case. He has recently worked as Counsel to an Arizona Trust in a major confrontation with the federal government over tax administration policy, and as Counsel to a trespass and piracy victim whose legal strategy is now attracting nationwide attention on the Internet. Richard McDonald of Canoga Park, California Republic, will be the featured guest speaker at this meeting of the Supreme Law Seminars focus on Freedom Law and Internet Technology: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. McDonald has, almost single-handedly, launched a nationwide movement of State Citizens who have divorced themselves from all attachments to the United States federal government. Many People are motivated to become State Citizens because they are now convinced that the federal government has become a criminal enterprise, and they have the evidence to prove it. McDonald was recently featured in a photo essay by Worth magazine, September 1996 edition, page 110. Supreme Law Seminars will demonstrate multimedia computer technology at their Tucson seminar, in order to explain the immense power and ease of use which are now available for modest prices. A local, veritable genius in personal computer workstations will present the latest developments in retail technology sales, service, and support, with a demonstration of the Hewlett Packard Pavilion series and IOmega ZIP and JAZ drive removable storage media. A high-power screen projection system will be available to demonstrate the massive personal potential of Internet email, Web page access, and free program resources. The Holiday Inn Tucson/Palo Verde, one of the John Q. Hammons Hotels, is a magnificent, recently remodeled atrium hotel and convention center, located within 4 miles of Tucson International Airport. Frequent free shuttles run to and from the airport. The hotel's interior courtyard is a spacious Spanish-style masterpiece with a large irrigating waterfall under colored skylights and two large restaurants. The exterior plaza features a swimming pool, sauna, and hot tub. This Supreme Law Seminar will be held in the Marabella Executive Conference Theater, with tiered, cushioned seating in a theater-style room with 150 seats. Reservations are expected to fill up quickly, and fire codes prohibit standing room only. Advanced tickets are available by sending $100 in cash or blank U.S. Postal Money order to Paul Andrew Mitchell, Supreme Law Seminars, c/o 2509 North Campbell, Apartment 1776, Tucson, Arizona Republic. Space permitting, tickets will be sold at the door for $125. Attendees are asked to bring one ream of laser printer paper, and the technology experts at the Supreme Law Seminar will orchestrate electrons and ink into compelling printed communications. Meals and accommodations will be the responsibility of seminar attendees. Special room rates will be available to those who mention the "Full Faith and Credit Conference" when they call for reservations. The seminar is scheduled to run all day Saturday and Sunday, October 12 and 13, 1996, ending at approximately 5:00 p.m on Sunday evening. A dress rehearsal of Internet access and large- screen SVGA color graphics projections will begin at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 11, 1996, when the computer specialists will begin to assemble and test the electronic components for this multimedia extravaganza. The real show begins at 8:00 o'clock sharp on Saturday morning, October 12. Please be punctual. The Holiday Inn Tucson/Palo Verde can be reached 24-hours per day by telephone at (520) 746-1161 and fax at (520) 741-1170. The hotel is located at 4550 South Palo Verde Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona state, Postal Zone 85714. For help with hotel facilities and services, contact Curt Moroney, Sales Manager. The Supreme Law Seminars will look forward to meeting you and seeing you attend their weekend special focus on Freedom Law and Internet Technology: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. # # # =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ChuckS@bangate.compaq.com Subject: NFA 34, was Re: thanks for your suggestions Date: 10 Oct 1996 14:42:01 CDT SLFCX@cc.usu.edu, on 10/9/96 12:20 PM wrote: >What is the NFA act of 1934? And I responded but it didn't make it to the list because my email address had changed: NFA '34 is the National Firearms Act of 1934. It made the transfer of a machine gun, short rifle or shotgun, silencer (suppressors), or a destructive device (explosive, grenade) subject to a federal tax. If you owned such a thing at that time then you were legally obligated to register it and pay the tax. The Miller case, oft cited here and elsewhere, was the first case heard by the Supremes as a result of NFA '34. The interesting thing here was that the tax not paid by Mr. Miller was $200. On a shotgun maybe worth $25 at the time. And NFA '34 was written/approved as a revenue enhancement regulation. This act represented the first step taken by the Feds to control and regulate firearms. It also serves as the legal(?) foundation for the Gun Control Act of '68, the 'forgot what it's called act' of 86, and the 94 crime bill/brady bill. It's NFA '34 that got the Feds into the gun control business. If we could get NFA '34 dumped (fat chance but I'm working towards that goal) we could probably put BATF (and a lot of Class 2/3 guys) out of business. Understand that BATF are basically 'revenuers' - aka tax collectors. I'm sure someone will correct any errors, but I believe the preceding to be generally correct. Chuck Scanland Spring, TX ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Book of the Month -- October 1996 Education Reporter (fwd) Date: 10 Oct 1996 17:01:41 -0500 (CDT) ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From eagle@eagleforum.org Thu Oct 10 12:35:14 1996 X-Sender: eagle@accessus.net BOOK OF THE MONTH . . . Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can't Read, Write, or Add by Charles J. Sykes, 1995, St. Martin's Press, 326 pps., $23.95 cloth, $14.95 paperback. Despite good intentions and wishful thinking, the reality of the failure of schools is easily and readily documented. Charles J. Sykes, author of Dumbing Down Our Kids, looks beyond the usual favorite scapegoats of the education establishment-parents, society, and money-to reveal how the schools themselves can no longer evade blame for America's educational decline. The education reforms of the 1990s are not new. Such ideas, the latest being Outcome-Based Education, "have been tested and retested for decades in thousands of schools. And they have failed." Even 40 years ago, progressive educational philosophy revealed its fundamental denial of absolutes, objective standards, a priori knowledge, and eternal truths. The present, according to educationists, is the only reality worth knowing. A natural outgrowth of this Postmodern philosophy is the dominant assumption among educationists that children are "frail and easily damaged psychological growths" that need to be liberated from "oppressive" influences such as family, traditional morality, and even conventional spelling and grammar. Literature and history are no longer important guideposts; moral courage, arduous choices, and virtue are useless. Feelings, say the educationists of today, are the only necessary compass. This emphasis on feelings inevitably means that schools often infringe on the privacy of families, such as courses encouraging children to report on family problems. "America's schools," charges Sykes, "have become backwaters of amateur psychologizing." The school becomes a "village," where children are taught they should turn to the schools' "experts," instead of parents. Ironically, Americans routinely dismiss mounting evidence, insisting that their own children and local schools are immune to the so-called crisis. All Americans should set aside their doubts and read this penetrating and comprehensive critique of the nation's schools. The education of America's children involves issues that affect every American. "I am convinced," says Sykes, "that the defining cultural and political debates of the decade will center around the so-called school wars, which will be fought out in the elementary, middle, junior high, and high schools." An excellent way to find out how well any child or adult can read is to take the First Reading Test. You can order the First Reading Test by e-mailing us with your name and mailing address. The First Reading Test is FREE ! EAGLE FORUM -- eagle@eagleforum.org PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 http://www.eagleforum.org ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 10 Oct 1996 13:45:56 -0700 Larry >>>>>>> Our essential liberty is being violated. This includes equality, life, political liberty and the right to make our way in the world. It does no include pot smoking, binge drinking, rolled roast sucking, or baby killing. <<<<<<< With reference to the "pot smoking, binge drinking, rolled roast sucking", I can see that you subscribe to the idea that you can regulate behavior which affects you not, merely because you find it repugnant. I hasten to to remind you that some of this century's worst nightmares for government (and America is rapidly becoming one of them) advocated the same thoughts as you. According to the Amercan Heritage Dictionary (V4.0), Libertarian is defined as: One who believes in freedom of action and thought. 2. One who believes in free will. [ From liberty ] From that, then, you obviously have a problem with letting others exercise their Rights without sticking your nose in their affairs - no offense intended, that is just how it sounds. >>>>>>> Democracy (Jeffersonian Democracy) is like wise. <<<<<<< Better catch up on your history, Larry. Jefferson absolutely *despised* your so-called 'democracy'. Why do you think it is that, our Constitution guarantees us - in each of the States, a "Republican form of government". I cannot recall seeing the word 'Democracy' anywhere in the Constitution, can you? And by the way, there is no such thing as "Jeffersonian Democracy". There is such a thing as being a 'Jeffersonian Liberal', and the deffinition for that fits Libertarian to a 'tee'. Ed In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have more laws against freedom than those that protect it. If this country is so damned free, why are there so many things I can't do without breaking some idiotic law? >>>eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com<<< "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus, Roman Senator and historian (a.d. 56-115) >>>A kind thank you to: David Gonzalez <<< The 2nd Amendment IS THE reset button for the United States Constitution. >>>("Doug McKay" ) <<< A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights -- These are the ORIGINAL Contract with America. Beware of Imitations. Accept No Substitutes. Insist on the Genuine Articles. >>>Thanks in part to: John Gear (catalyst@pacifier.com)<<< "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters >>>A hearty thanks to: foolery@bright.net<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: From another list (fwd) Date: 10 Oct 1996 15:59:39 PST On Oct 10, Robert Kershaw wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Bill of No Rights by Lewis W. Napper We, the sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights. You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything. You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be. You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all of your relatives independently wealthy. You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care. You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you. You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure. You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat. You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights. Copyright #169; Lewis W. Napper. All Rights Reserved. http://oscar.teclink.net/~napper napper@felix.TECLink.Net [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 10 Oct 1996 17:22:49 -0700 > >>>>>>> > Democracy (Jeffersonian Democracy) is like wise. > <<<<<<< > > Better catch up on your history, Larry. > Jefferson absolutely *despised* your so-called 'democracy'. > Why do you think it is that, our Constitution guarantees us - in >each of the States, a "Republican form of government". > I cannot recall seeing the word 'Democracy' anywhere in the >Constitution, can you? > And by the way, there is no such thing as "Jeffersonian Democracy". > There is such a thing as being a 'Jeffersonian Liberal', and the >deffinition for that fits Libertarian to a 'tee'. > >Ed Prezactly; well put, Ed. I hate the "D" word more every day, and I'm sick to death of seeing and hearing it endlessly on the television night after night. I'm also appreciating more and more the bumperstickers that say "Kill Your Television." - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 10 Oct 1996 21:05:38 -0500 (CDT) Ed, I think that I understand history rather well. Jefferson was a Democrat and an anti federalist. He had great stress with the likes of James Madison. Madison, by the way, was won to Jefferson's side in later years. My objections were not to his form of democracy, but to the libertarian/libertine spin some of you folks like to put on it. I am, though willing to return to the Republican form that Madison/Hamilton/Jay and others extolled. I am willing to return the Constitution to all of its original form, except its justification of slavery. With that said, I will remind you that Jefferson and most of the others understood that there was a law higher than that of man to which all society's and men are accountable to. No, I do not believe that these men were Born Again Christians. Most were rationalists, but as rationalists that believed that there was a God ordained Natural Social Law. This Natural Social Law functions just like Natural Physical law. One of the fundamental tenets of this law is that the God derived values, equality of man, life for all, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be maintained by a society (government) or that society would crumble under the weight of its depravity. Jefferson attempted to institute the practical efficacy of these values for all Americans by attempting to write into the Dec of Ind the abolition of slavery. South Carolina and Georgia would have none of it. Jefferson sold out this ideal for political unity of the States in their rebellion against King George. Later (about 1797-87) Jefferson lamented that God would surely visit judgment upon American for her condoning of slavery. He was right, God did. We had a civil War in which this issue was at the heart of. Oh, I know, others will say that the cause was economic, or some other reason. But you read the writings from about 1815 on about the Slave issue and you must conclude that these other reasons just do not wash. America deviated from protecting the inalienable values of all men and paid the price of a blood atonement. The most bloody war in all of our history. But what has this to do with the Republican/Federal/Libertarian agrument? Libertarianism is in its essence anarchy. It concentrates upon the rights of self and not society Our Constitution, in its preamble, stresses the fact that its purpose is to form a society that will protect and provide the blessings of liberty for all, those of the time and all of their progeny. It was a promise to those then breathing air and those yet to be born, regardless of whether they were then sustained in their mothers womb or yet to be a gleem in some fathers eye. The blessings were to be guaranteed to all and the ALL were to look out for each other and make sure that this happened. Our emphasis, today, should not be on our individual rights, but on insuring justice for all. We are not doing this and we are suffering for it. We are not doing this because we are lazy, confused, and just a little crooked. We have to be be cause if we weren't there is no way we would allow such a digression in society away from the things that are producing depraved condition and depraved politicians. Libertarianism/Libertinism in France produced a Robespierre and to correct this France was led to knuckle under to Bonaparte. Is this what you want? Not me, not now, not ever. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > >>>>>>> > > Democracy (Jeffersonian Democracy) is like wise. > > <<<<<<< > > > > Better catch up on your history, Larry. > > Jefferson absolutely *despised* your so-called 'democracy'. > > Why do you think it is that, our Constitution guarantees us - in > >each of the States, a "Republican form of government". > > I cannot recall seeing the word 'Democracy' anywhere in the > >Constitution, can you? > > And by the way, there is no such thing as "Jeffersonian Democracy". > > There is such a thing as being a 'Jeffersonian Liberal', and the > >deffinition for that fits Libertarian to a 'tee'. > > > >Ed > > Prezactly; well put, Ed. > > I hate the "D" word more every day, and I'm sick to death of seeing and > hearing it endlessly on the television night after night. > > I'm also appreciating more and more the bumperstickers that say "Kill Your > Television." > > > - Monte > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * Psalm 33 * > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude > greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. > We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand > that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity > forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > O- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: [Fwd: The Perot/Clinton Connection] (fwd) Date: 11 Oct 1996 07:51:35 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Clinton and Perot struck deal to oust Bush in '92 by George Carpozi Jr. posted 10/4/96 ------------------------------------------------------------ President Bill Clinton and Ross Perot struck a deal in 1991that initiated the billionaire industrialist's candidacy as a third party spoiler to help the then-Arkansas governor unseat incumbent President George Bush. In turn, Clinton agreed that his first act as occupant of the Oval Office would be to reform the nation's health care system with massive changes to provide health insurance for all Americans furnished by government controlled "health alliances." That quid pro quo was orchestrated by Clinton and Perot to open the floodgates to a multi-billion-dollar bonanza payoff for the third party candidate's already lucrative Dallas-based International Health Delivery System. Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that Perot played a large hand in First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's efforts to craft the ill-fated health reform bill, which turned Clinton's first year in office into a debacle. Perot's name appears prominently on the advisory board for Hillary's now defunct task force, according to a group of doctors who procured the papers through the FOIA. Even more significantly - if not alarmingly - not one but two of Perot's companies were earmarked in Mrs. Clinton's "working papers" to play mammoth roles in the health-care industry. Besides his International Health Delivery System, a second firm, Electronic Data System, operating under the umbrella of the parent company, The Perot Group, also stood to make out like a bandit with a lion's share of the nationwide computerized medical billing-data business. The doctors who obtained Mrs. Clinton's records shaped a large body of dissidents in the medical field protesting the secrecy Mrs. Clinton imposed on her task force of 500 anonymous persons, while they went about drafting health-care reform behind closed doors for nearly all of 1993. In the unearthing that caused Perot's name to pop up in the first lady's papers, curiosity was aroused as to why the Texas billionaire would serve in an advisory capacity for a president whom he opposed at the polls. Neither Perot nor Clinton ever publicly acknowledged that they knew each other, or had ever spoken prior to their joint appearances on the stages of the debates with President George Bush during the '92 campaign. The link establishing Perot's connection to the president's wife led this reporter to Little Rock for an encounter with Larry Nichols, a former marketing manager of the Arkansas Development Finance Authority. Nichols was fired by Clinton in 1989, after the aide wondered aloud about what was happening to a slush fund set up with $200 million of taxpayer dollars that the governor controlled. Nichols claimed Clinton was glomming money to finance his sexual escapades. A gadfly to Clinton long before he occupied the Oval Office, Nichols, 47, established the president's connection with Perot by citing conversations he had with Larry G. Patterson, a former Arkansas State Police trooper who served as Clinton's personal bodyguard when Clinton was governor. "Until I had just recently spoken with Patterson," Nichols said, "I only suspected that Clinton and Perot were cozy with each other. I had heard some talk about a relationship they had, but there was nothing I could prove. "Patterson put everything in perspective and it made great sense to me. He told me that Clinton and Perot met or talked to each other on the phone or face to face at least 50 times from late September of '91 until just before the November election the following year. "Clinton met Perot in Dallas, in Little Rock, and other locales. Their get-togethers were clandestine. So far as Patterson could say, they were in each other's company by themselves, so that's why he believed the story never got out." Patterson, according to Nichols, said that Clinton dropped by to see Perot "whenever he went to Dallas for some love-making with Gennifer Flowers," his longtime paramour. "Patterson can also vouch for the fact that most times Clinton spoke on the phone from his office in the governor's mansion to Perot in Dallas," Nichols continued, "But after the '92 Democratic convention in New York, which made Clinton the party's nominee, they met and spoke much more frequently. "Even after Perot dropped out of the race, Clinton continued to talk to him just about as often as before. But when he returned to the race, Clinton was talking to him three and four times a day, right up until the election." Nichols said Patterson believes that all communication between Clinton and Perot apparently ceased after the election. Patterson's duties as Clinton's bodyguard diminished appreciably after the election. At that time the Secret Service took full charge of protecting the president-elect, although he continued to occupy the governor's mansion in Little Rock until the inaugural. How much of Perot's ear Clinton has today is open to speculation, following the recommendation by the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates to exclude Perot from the talkfests because he has no chance of winning the election. While Republican candidate Bob Dole applauded the commission's verdict, Clinton expressed regret, saying, "I enjoyed having him in there in 1992." Three other sources, all former activists in '92's United We Stand Party (now the Reform Party) said essentially what Patterson was quoted as having told Nichols - that should Perot succeed in his "spoiler's" role, Clinton would make health-reform his top priority, and put the first lady in charge of shaping the plan. Mrs. Carol Baker, of Hot Springs, Ark.; Lawrence Way, of Middletown, Md.; and Mrs. Pat Owens of E. Troy, Wis.; said they were aware of Perot's doings with Clinton. Way and Mrs. Owens have suits pending against Perot in their respective states for "wrongs" and violation of their privacy they say he and his aides committed. It is a familiar plaint - that Perot "spied" on them while they worked in his '92 campaign, and pried into their finances and credit reports. Patterson did not respond to this reporter's request for an interview. He is reportedly keeping a low public profile -- some say he fears for his life - since going public in January 1994 with details of Clinton's sexual encounters with at least a half-dozen identified women while he was governor. NYPOST-------------------------------------------------------------------- George Carpozi Jr. is an award-winning journalist who has written for The New York Post, The Los Angeles Times Syndicate, King Features Syndicate, The London Sun, among many others. He has written over 2000 magazine features, and is the author of Clinton Confidential. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Perforated septum Date: 11 Oct 1996 10:44:38 -0400 ROC: Just heard this morning on Imus, a parody in which Clinton's health records show repair of a perforated septum in the early 80's. This was in the context of a parody, so I don't know the story. Has someone broken the Clinton health record story? Is Nasalgate upon us? thanks, Jack Curtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: Perforated septum Date: 11 Oct 1996 09:38:57 -0700 (MST) At 10:44 AM 10/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > > ROC: Just heard this morning on Imus, a parody in which > Clinton's health records show repair of a perforated septum in > the early 80's. > > This was in the context of a parody, so I don't know the story. > > Has someone broken the Clinton health record story? Is Nasalgate > upon us? In re: Left Nostril v. Nostril, ______ S.Ct._______ (1997). You can fill in the blanks. > > thanks, > > Jack Curtis > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 11 Oct 1996 08:47:09 -0700 Larry, You make a few comments that I must answer. In the first, >>>>>>> Our Constitution, in its preamble, stresses the fact that its purpose is to form a society that will protect and provide the blessings of liberty for all, those of the time and all of their progeny. [...] <<<<<<< Then followed by, >>>>>>> Our emphasis, today, should not be on our individual rights, but on insuring justice for all. We are not doing this and we are suffering for it. [...] <<<<<<< And lastly, >>>>>>> Libertarianism/Libertinism in France produced a Robespierre and to correct this France was led to knuckle under to Bonaparte. Is this what you want? Not me, not now, not ever. <<<<<<< First and foremost, this is a land of 'individuals', who have come together in the common cause of liberty. Obviously, we could not exist as a free people (which I seriously doubt we are currently) if we did not assemble to form a government that had as its core principle the 'sovereignty of the individual' protected by the non-subjugation clauses on individual Rights (Articles of Amendment) and liberties, or in other words: The common interests. For what other reason would a Constitution guarantee the Rights of the individual (versus say, the collective) if the founding of the country were not _for and by_ the individual? The very reason for this was to protect the Right of the individual to either participate in group acts or not to, as pleased or demured the individual was to the act or acts. Additionally, it most certainly protects the individual to allow a singular course of action, otherwise known as: self determination. Individual Rights are the core of the Constitution, and any statement to the contrary seeks to move towards collectivism - our current situation. The "Common welfare" spoken of in the preamble, most certainly does _not_ mean 'welfare' in the current sense. If it had, then Social Security would have been at the fore front of the first acts conducted by the =46ounders. Since it was not, and since 'democracy' was to be avoided like the plague, one can safely presume that 'socialism' or its analog of the times was understood as not being a desirable thing. The term 'common welfare' as applied to the time was then, that which served the community as a whole and no one in particular. Examples are, roadways, water systems, navigation systems, and the like which 'facilitated' commerce, trade, and benefited everyone. Justice is facilitated when the laws of the land are upheld in an honest fashion, and applied equally across all segments of society. Justice is facilitated, when laws are just and not demeaning, favor no one, are removed when no longer needed, suit the _absolute need_ of society, and are not made to satisfy a spurious desire of any group over another. Justice is served, when the Rights of the individual are upheld over any 'perceived Rights' of a group, because groups as a rule do not have Rights - only individuals do. If this were not the case, then every one of our Rights would be null and void when groups acted against any individual for whatever cause. In reality then, we are suffering because our individual Rights are under attack. In conclusion here, I must say that you appear to have a very skewed vision of Libertarians, because according to the American Heritage Dictionary (V4.0): Robespierre - Maximilien Fran=E7ois Marie Isidore de. 1758-1794 1. =46rench revolutionary. Leader of the Jacobins and architect of the Reign of Terror, he was known as an austere and incorruptible man. His laws permitting the confiscation of property and arrest of suspected traitors, many of whom were guillotined, led to his own arrest and execution without trial. Jacobins - 1. A radical or extreme leftist. 2. A radical republican during the French Revolution. 3. A Dominican friar. [ French after the Jacobin friars, in whose convent the Jacobins first met] After reading the above, I cannot remember hearing _any_ Libertarian _ever_ espousing such a policy. If there is one, that person obviously does not even come close to representing a mainstream Libertarian. But then, there are extremists in every group. Ed In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have more laws against freedom than those that protect it. If this country is so damned free, why are there so many things I can't do without breaking some idiotic law? >>>eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com<<< "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus, Roman Senator and historian (a.d. 56-115) >>>A kind thank you to: David Gonzalez <<< The 2nd Amendment IS THE reset button for the United States Constitution. >>>("Doug McKay" ) <<< A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights -- These are the ORIGINAL Contract with America. Beware of Imitations. Accept No Substitutes. Insist on the Genuine Articles. >>>Thanks in part to: John Gear (catalyst@pacifier.com)<<< "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters >>>A hearty thanks to: foolery@bright.net<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: letter to FBI re: judicial misconduct Date: 11 Oct 1996 10:28:03 -0700 (MST) Dear America, Considering the response I recently received from the FBI in Phoenix, Arizona, I have decided to go public with my letter to them. Their answer will be posted later. /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell all rights reserved without prejudice [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC September 13, 1996 Mr. Thomas H. Basham Supervisory Senior Resident Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice 201 East Indianola Phoenix, Arizona 85012/tdc United States District Court, Tucson Dear Mr. Basham: Thank you very much for your letter to Me, dated September 9, 1996, concerning alleged criminal misconduct by a Federal District Court Judge in Tucson, Arizona. In your letter, you stated that My letter to the FBI does not contain sufficient detail to determine whether a criminal investigation is warranted. You also requested that I submit, to the Tucson office of the FBI, further documentation of the alleged misconduct, to include names, dates, and any other facts that may be pertinent. To this end, enclosed please find all the pertinent materials currently in My possession and control. The thread of evidence you should follow concerns the events which occurred immediately after a federal grand jury subpoena was first served on New Life Health Center Company in Tucson, Arizona state ("New Life"). Pay particular attention to the fate of all the U.S. Mail which We transmitted directly to the grand jury Foreperson in response to their subpoena. I was retained by New Life at that time to answer the subpoena (see enclosed PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, dated March 20, 1996) and to assist New Life with their civil defense. This PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION was mailed to the Grand Jury Foreperson via Registered U.S. Mail, return receipt and restricted delivery both requested. The enclosed evidence will show that this PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION was illegally intercepted by John M. Roll, who handed it to Robert L. Miskell in the office of the United States Attorney in Tucson. After investigating on Our own, and with the able assistance of the Postmaster, We decided to prepare and mail a FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to the same federal grand jury. This request was mailed to the Foreperson on April 28, 1996 (see enclosed). This FORMAL REQUEST was also intercepted by John M. Roll, who also handed it to Robert L. Miskell. We have reason to believe that the federal grand jury never saw this FORMAL REQUEST either. At a subsequent hearing on the matter, John M. Roll admitted, on the official court record, that he had intercepted this FORMAL REQUEST. He also said that he had not opened it, but that he had given it to Robert L. Miskell. At that same hearing, Robert L. Miskell admitted, on record, that he had received this FORMAL REQUEST from John M. Roll, and that the mail in question simply contained a formal request that the federal grand jury investigate possible violations of federal law by Robert L. Miskell. We inferred from Miskell's comments that he had, indeed, opened this mail, because he was correct about its contents. At this point, We felt it was necessary to place the Foreperson of the federal grand jury on the Proof of Service list for all subsequent pleadings which We planned to file in that case. All together, some twenty-five (25) different pleadings were then filed under My signature, or under signatures of Mine and Dr. Eugene A. Burns. Some of these pleadings are affidavits. All pleadings currently in My possession and control are enclosed, for your review. Counting all 25 pleadings, the PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION (26), and the FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION (27), none of which were ever delivered to the federal grand jury Foreperson to whom they were mailed, We count 27 counts of mail fraud, 27 counts of jury tampering, 27 counts of obstruction of justice, and 27 counts of conspiracy to commit all of the above, committed by a conspiracy of persons including, but not limited to, John M. Roll, Janet Napolitano, Robert L. Miskell, and Evangelina Cardenas. Other likely accessories to these crimes include Robert A. Johnson, Robert H. Weare, and William M. McCool. At another hearing on the matter, John M. Roll complained that he had some 14 inches of pleadings to read in this case. But then, he immediately called a recess, and huddled for quite some time with his staff, both inside and outside the courtroom. When he came back into session, John M. Roll qualified his earlier statement by saying that he really had only 6 or 7 inches of pleadings in this case, but that he guaranteed, if We had filed them, he had read them. This statement was witnessed by Me and by My assistant Counsel, Neil Thomas Nordbrock, who is also a federal witness to perjury of oath by Robert L. Miskell in another case. Neil Nordbrock and I took his qualification to mean that John M. Roll had, in fact, intercepted all 25 pleadings which We had mailed to the grand jury Foreperson. You can measure their thickness yourself. I hope this response to your letter is satisfactory. If you should need any additional information, permit Me to recommend that you first contact Dr. Eugene A. Burns, Managing Director of New Life Health Center Company, 4500 East Speedway, Suite 27, Tucson, Arizona state. As of the moment I vacated the premises at New Life, Dr. Burns was in possession and control of all the documentary exhibits which were attached to the enclosed pleadings. These documentary exhibits include, for example, the Postmaster's response to our FOIA request for a certified copy of the Standing Delivery Order (USPS Form 3801) signed by the federal grand jury Foreperson in the New Life case. This response stated that there was no such document in existence, proving that the Foreperson had never authorized anyone else to accept or sign for U.S. Mail addressed to him/her. Thank you very much for your consideration. VERIFICATION I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States," that the above statements of fact are true, correct, complete, and not misleading, to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). Further Affiant sayeth naught. Respectfully submitted, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness attachments: to FBI, Tucson copy: Bruce J. Gebhardt Special Agent in Charge copy: Thomas H. Basham Supervisory Senior Resident Agent c/o Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 South Church Avenue, Suite 600 Tucson, Arizona state 85701/tdc copy: Postmaster U.S. Post Office Downtown Station Tucson, Arizona # # # =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: A Shoe Drops Date: 11 Oct 1996 14:28:39 -0600 FBI arrests seven in alleged bomb plot Copyright © 1996 Nando.net Copyright © 1996 The Associated Press CLARKSBURG, W.Va. (Oct 11, 1996 3:01 p.m. EDT) -- The FBI arrested seven people with connections to a West Virginia militia group on charges they plotted to blow up the FBI's national fingerprint records complex. The seven were arrested on various charges, including conspiring to make bombs, transporting explosives across state lines and plotting to place explosives near the fingerprint center in Clarksburg. Most of the seven, who were in FBI custody in Huntington and Clarksburg, were members of the West Virginia Mountaineer Militia, authorities said. One is a member of the Clarksburg Fire Department, who is charged with providing photos of construction blueprints of the center the FBI has used for more than a year to house fingerprint records gathered from police departments nationwide for criminal identification. The FBI said those arrested were Floyd Raymond Looker, 56, of Stonewood, commander of the Mountain Militia; Jack Arland Phillips, 57, of Fairmont; Edward F. Moore, 52, of Lavalette; and fire Lt. James Rogers, 40, of Jane Lew. Also, James M. Johnson, 48, of Maple Heights, Ohio; Terrell P. Coon, 46, of Waynesburg, Pa.; and Imam A. Lewis, 26, of Cleveland. The government said the arrests were part of a 16-month investigation. An undercover agent posing as a broker for terrorists gave Looker $50,000 today in exchange for a package including the blueprints, said John P. O'Connor, FBI special agent in charge. "There was a plot. It was ended before it could be consummated," O'Connor said. All seven suspects were arrested today without incident but Looker and Coon had guns, he said. Looker, a real estate developer, has claimed his group has members in all of West Virginia's 55 counties, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Looker never said how many are in the group, which bars outside observers from its drills. "You don't divulge your strength or weakness to the enemy. Currently, it's Bill Clinton and the press," Looker has been quoted as saying. Looker and Coon are charged with transporting explosive materials across state lines. Looker last year denounced the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City and alleged it was done by federal agents to create an excuse for cracking down on the militia movement. An unsuccessful candidate for the state legislature in 1994, Looker contends the federal government is trying to take guns away from the American people. In a pamphlet Looker wrote and distributes, he also asserts that 1 million troops of the United Nations are stationed at U.S. military bases and that the government has set up 130 concentration camps at abandoned military bases to house "law-abiding citizens." Located 120 miles south of Pittsburgh, the $200 million Criminal Justice Information Services Division complex eventually will employ 2,600 people. It also will house the National Criminal Information Center and the Uniform Crime Reporting Center, FBI units now located in Washington. The fingerprint identification facility will use computer programs to enable fingerprints to be converted into electronic images. This will enable the FBI to perform fingerprint identification in a matter of hours instead of weeks or months. Automated criminal record-keeping will also be available for background checks whether it is a person seeking a job at a day-care center or someone trying to buy a handgun. Surrounding hills naturally hide the facility from public view and federal officers stop all cars at two main entrances. The National Crime Information Center receives more than a million inquiries, and the fingerprint center receives 50,000 pieces of mail. Most of the workers at the center are West Virginians. Most employees in Washington decided against transferring to the facility. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., was instrumental in attaching language to legislation that forced the FBI to move the facility to his home state. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: New Poll Date: 11 Oct 1996 16:12:25 -0600 A Fields Poll released, today, shows Clinton leads Dole by ten points in California. Last night, one of the few high-caste R's who will still speak to me said that a study will be released shortly showing that since 1952 Republican candidates average polling 9 points higher than the media polls indicate. If that's true, Dole/Clinton are a toss-up in California. This race is "pick-em" and momentum is with Dole. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: Perforated septum Date: 11 Oct 1996 09:38:57 -0700 (MST) At 10:44 AM 10/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > > ROC: Just heard this morning on Imus, a parody in which > Clinton's health records show repair of a perforated septum in > the early 80's. > > This was in the context of a parody, so I don't know the story. > > Has someone broken the Clinton health record story? Is Nasalgate > upon us? In re: Left Nostril v. Nostril, ______ S.Ct._______ (1997). You can fill in the blanks. > > thanks, > > Jack Curtis > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Jury Nullification Talk (10/21) - Boulder Date: 12 Oct 1996 11:33:32 -0400 >Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 21:29:45 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Jury Nullification Talk (10/21) - Boulder > > >Please re-distribute. > > "The History of Jury Nullification: > From William Penn to Laura Kriho" > > Monday, October 21, 1996 > 7:00 pm > Chemistry Building Room 142 > CU Campus, Boulder > >Speakers: >- Larry Dodge, co-founder of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) >- Paul Grant, defense attorney for Laura Kriho > > Larry Dodge will discuss jury nullification, the historical >power of juries to veto laws which go against their conscience. >In 1989, Larry Dodge co-founded FIJA, a national organization >formed to educate the public about the veto power of juries. > Paul Grant will discuss the case of his client, Laura Kriho, >who was charged with contempt of court for deliberating "improperly" >on a jury. > > This talk is free and open to the public. > > Directions: The Chemistry Building is located next to the >University Memorial Center (UMC), southeast of the Dalton Trumbo >Memorial Fountain. The UMC is at the corner of Broadway and >Euclid. Closest parking is the Euclid Parking Garage on Euclid >Avenue just east of Broadway. > >Sponsored by the: >Boulder Hemp Initiative Project >P.O. Box 729 >Nederland, CO 80466 >Hotline: (303) 784-5632 >Email: bhip@welcomehome.org >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be added to or removed from this mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Rocky Mt. News Column (10/9/96) Date: 12 Oct 1996 11:33:34 -0400 >Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 21:54:39 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Rocky Mt. News Column (10/9/96) > > >Rocky Mountain News >Wednesday, October 9, 1996 >Commentary Section (p. 43A) > > Hold-out jurors face court's wrath > by Peter Blake > [Columnist, Colorado politics] > > A group of 30 Colorado judges, lawyers, clerks and former >jurors are about to issue a report on how the court system can >treat jurors better and waste less of their time. > But all their good work could be undone by an ongoing >contempt-of-court trial in Gilpin County. Juror Laura Kriho of >Nederland faces up to six months in prison for, at bottom, >holding out and producing a mistrial in a drug-possession case > If hold-out jurors are to be prosecuted, no amount of minor >reforms to speed up the process are going to help the system. > Holding out, of course, isn't the technical charge against >Kriho. Specifically, she's accused of failing to disclose a 12- >year-old drug prosecution (she had pleaded guilty to possession >and was given a deferred judgment) when she was called as juror >last May in another drug possession case. > But had Kriho gone along with the other 11 jurors and voted >to convict, the contempt proceeding would never have been brought >- no matter what she might have failed to say. The judge >wouldn't have cared. > "The court is trying to intimidate anybody with an >independent mind" complains Paul Grant, Kriho's defense attorney. > The prosecution of Kriho "sends a message to all jurors that >their deliberations are not secret, that they are not entitled to >vote their conscience," wrote Grant in his brief. "Any juror who >holds out can be brought before the judge and criminally >prosecuted for disobeying instructions." > Kriho is not, it is important to note, being charged with >perjury. That's a felony and would have entitled her to a jury >trial of her own, which the prosecution wanted to avoid. >Contempt is more certain, since it's a trial before a judge only, >with maximum punishment of six months in jail. > There's little doubt that Kriho also violated a warning from >the prosecutor that "it is outside the jury's dominion to >question the law." > It is? Doesn't it depend on the law? Thank goodness jurors >ignored that dictum during the first half of the 19th century >when faced with trials brought under the infamous Fugitive Slave >Acts. And in 1670, some courageous London jurors refused to >convict William Penn of inciting to riot, thereby getting jail >time from an angry trial judge. The reversal of their >convictions on appeal established the now endangered principle of >jury independence. > Acc