Conference back40::soapbox

    
    
    dunkin' donuts and sugared coffee...they must be stopped!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    

...the rampant proliferation of leech fields...

...too many eggs unequally yoked...

| <<< Note 399.3 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>

| ...the rampant proliferation of leech fields...


	Steve isn't allowed to own property?

 Jamming grocery carts together so they can't be pulled apart without
 explosives..somebody's behind this..



 Jim

    Secret cult leaders state that massive hordes of UN troops will soon be
    arriving in black helicopters which utilize UFO technology, in order
    to subdue the populace by means of subliminal messages carried in
    magnetic pulses imbedded in radio and TV signals, in order to
    facilitate the Trilateral Commission's and the Council on Foreign
    Relations's sinister secret treaties with extraterrestrial grey aliens 
    who are currently carrying out genetic manipulations, cattle 
    mutilations and huuman abductions, in order to prepare the earth for 
    impending ecological disaster. Those who protesst will be placed in secret 
    camps where the political prisoners of the New World Order will have 
    microchips implanted into their backsides by the military.
                                                     

    I think that about covers it.  

    
    Has anyone else heard that those orange barrels on the highways
    are actually secret monitoring devices placed there by the government?
    
    

    re: .3
    
    Hey!  I didn't start this topic.  8^)

    re: .7
    
    A minor nit to an otherwise fine display of paranoia;
    the microchip goes in the hand or forhead. 
    
    Hope this helps. 
    
    -steve

Novato, Calif. -- The Novato City Council mandated microchip implants
yesterday for cats.  The new ordinance aims to use the same bar code
technology that prices groceries to track lost cats.  The 3-1 vote means
residents face $45 fines if they fail to sterilize and register their
outdoor cats and pay annual licensing fees.  Registration means injecting
grain-sized microchips between cats' shoulders. (AP)

re .12 is real; I was _just_about_ to post it in News Briefs.

/john

So, if you have a cat, and don't pay the fees OR register it and get
the chip implanted, how do they come after you, since your cat is
write-only?

...the evyl feminist conspiracy to take over the gov't
and workplace...by first introducing the evyl "take our
daughters to work day"...this practice must be stopped
at all costs by every constitution-loving American patriot
in the land.

Why is the press interviewing only the inarticulate
militia people?  There must be dozens of articulate
militia people to interview.  At least dozens.  Maybe
a dozen.  Two or three at least!!!

    or at least one that doesn't refer to the 5th grade as his senior year!
    
    yup, i stole that.
    
    Chip

    sounds like the making of an 'X-Files' script...
    
    Luv that sho!

    >-< "Scully, where are you?" >-
    	 ^^^^^^
    
    not your typical babe, but there's something about her ....
    
    ric

     Watch it Chip, my senior year was the best five years of my life. 

    My dog has an ID chip. I think it's a great idea.

    Now he can buy and sell, which is a big relief.

    Praps because those who are articulate are also sufficiently paranoid
    not to have their names on anything which can be traced to a militia.  
    
    meg

NASA and US Gov't are in cahoots to cover up an ancient Martian civilization.
The martians left gigantic artifacts, obvious only from orbital heights, to
annouce their former existence and to teach us a new cosmic mathematics that
will solve all our energy problems. Most of this information was gathered
using image processing techniques developed specifically for the purpose of
finding such information (scientific controls? duh, what's dat?).

See "Monuments of Mars" and other works by Richard Hoagland.

    -1 good pernt... prolly rite...
    
       Chip

    -1 ooops - too slow...

The Cellphone Companies, aware that no one would buy cellular technology
without guaranteed privacy, and unwilling to spend a little extra to encrypt
their high-power broadcasts, lobbied, begged, whined, and pleaded with
Congress to pass a law declaring it illegal to listen in on cellphone
frequencies on the millions of police scanners that existed. So they did. The
scanners STILL exist, and the frequencies used were until recently occupied
by UHF TV channels. Yes, your old TV with channel numbers into the 80s will
pick up cellphones. You are commiting a crime if you do so. People have been
arrested. Cellphone salesdroids will tell you cellphone conversations are
private.

Unlike the Martians, I'm not making any of this up.

    
    	My scanner picks up some calls, if they happen to correspond
    	to the channel spacing on the scanner.
    
    	Pretty boring, actually.
    

    Your cable teevee converter box has a secret little microphone
    in it that sends all of your living room conversations to a
    secret government listener.  The newer ones have secret little
    teevee cameras, too, like the ones they attach to football players'
    helmets, so don't do anything naughty in front of your teevee.
    
    
    re: cellphone listeners arrested
    
    How do they know that you're listening?
    
    Chris

    
    Bumper sticker seen this AM :
    
      "Humpty Dumpty was PUSHED !!!"
    
      bb

>    <<< Note 399.28 by DECWIN::RALTO "It's a small third world after all" >>>
>    re: cellphone listeners arrested
>    How do they know that you're listening?

Bingo. The Congress-critters strike again.

The arrest that I know of occured when someone reported an overheard
drug-related cellphone call.

    
    re: Note 399.28 
    
    >    How do they know that you're listening?
    
    you can easily tell what frequency a radio or TV or scanner is tuned
    to.  The local oscillator can usually be picked up by a sensitive
    reciever.  It'show ARM (anti radiation missle work), you don't even 
    need the transmitter turned on, just have the oscillator warming up.
    
    If someone knows what they are doing, they can drive down the street
    and tell who's watching what channel on TV, by listening to the 
    signals generated by the local osciallators.
    
    
     
    
    

    So, we should make lots of little oscillators powered from solar cells
    and leave them all over the countryside.
    
    One way that police band monitors were caught was to broadcast a
    message that an ATM was giving out twenty pound notes when ten pound
    notes were requested, then arrest everyone that turned up.
    
    R. Michael.

>             <<< Note 399.32 by BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM "Born to grep" >>>

>    So, we should make lots of little oscillators powered from solar cells
>    and leave them all over the countryside.

That would make it pretty hard for the cops to hear the radio too, you know.
    
>    One way that police band monitors were caught was to broadcast a
>    message that an ATM was giving out twenty pound notes when ten pound
>    notes were requested, then arrest everyone that turned up.

A fine thing over there where it's illegal to listen, and television
RECEIVERS are licensed.  It's not, and they're not, here. Up until the
infamous cellphone law, any communications broadcast into the ether was free
for the taking, if you had the electronic means to take it, so long as you
kept what you heard to yourself. If you wanted privacy, don't broadcast it or
else encrypt it.

Now, for the first time in US communications history, it is illegal merely to
LISTEN to some radio frequencies. Already the law has been expanded to
include common cordless phone sets. Manufacturers WERE listening to
complaints of no privacy, and developed spread-spectrum phones. Now that it's
illegal to listen, the government has made us safe, and there's no need to
put all that effort into truely private phones.

Think about it... A wealthy, powerful person regularly shouts all his private
conversations across a busy square, fully aware that folks in the square are
listening. In order to insure his private business remains private, he
convinces Congress to pass a law declaring listening in the square illegal.
People still come and go, and still hear him. He begins to press charges
under the new law. His neighbor, who shouts her business across the square
one block down, wants in on this and gets her square added into the law...
and so it goes...

A classic example of the wisdom of our Congress.

    If these little oscillators were mimicking the local oscillators in
    Superhet sets I think it would work.  The local osc. in a real set
    would just blat over such a low power signal but a reciever designed to
    pick up the local osc. in other peoples sets would get hoplessly
    confused.  Most half descent sets have a filter somewhere in the
    recievers input circuit to filter out the local osc. frequency(ies)?
    
                                                                        
    R. Michael G6BMZ (a license from the home office to not listen to the
    waves.)

    
    re: 399.34
    
    With a good directional antenna, and a reasonably sensitive reciever it
    actually works very well.  Traces can also be found in your ac lines, 
    if you have a sensitive enough reciever. 
    
    

    
    Did anyone mention the secret Jewish tax on food?
    

Interestingly, when food products start printing those symbols on the labels,
their sales often go up quite substantially, more than offsetting the cost
of kosher supervision.  The numbers indicate that a lot of non-Jews believe
that kosher food in superior to non-kosher food.

	NATIONAL IDENTITY `SMART' CARD DISCUSSED BY CLINTON ADMINISTRATION
    	By Martin Anderson
        Hoover Institution
	Reprinted from the Justice Times, July 1993

	The smart card does not look dangerous.The same size and thickness as an
ordinary credit card, it is designed to fit snugly into your wallet or
purse, to be carried with you at all times.  But while it may look like an
ordinary credit card, it is, in fact, a tiny computer.
	
	Embedded unseen in the plastic is a powerful computer complete with a
memory chip and microprocessor.  The computer lies dormant with its secrets
until someone slips it into the readingslot of a special device that feeds
it power, bringing it to life, reading the information in its memory banks
or writing new data records.  At first it sounds like a great idea, a
wonderful new way to organize our lives.  President Clinton thought so
during the 1992 campaign when he said such a card would be part of his plan
to crack down on billing fraud in the health care industry, promising that
"everyone will carry `smart cards' coded with his or her personal medical
information.

	But now the smart card idea may have taken an ugly turn.  Recently, Ira
Magaziner, a Uriah Heepish beaurocrat in charge of coordinating the
development of health care policy for the Clinton administration, asserted
they want "to create an integrated system with a card that everyone will get
at birth."

	At birth?  Wait a minute.  Does this mean that all of our medical records
from birth are to be recorded in a computer's memory?  Will there be a
national data bank to store all this information?  If you contract a
venereal disease or have an abortion, will you be electronically branded for
life?  If you suffer from hemorrhoids or have had psychiatric care, will
that information, too, be available to anyone with the right to demand your
smart card?  And what if you test positive for HIV virus?

    The smart cards do contain security elements to prevent unauthorized use if
lost.  But that is not the problem.  The problem would be the widespread
authorized use of the smart card -- by doctors, pharmacists, hospital
administrators, insurance company employees and local, state and federal
government officials.

	Perhaps we shouldn't worry too much.  How much information can they
actually put on a little card-sized computer?  Quite a bit.  One of the
latest versions is an optical card made by the Drexler Technology Corp. in
California.  This smart card, which costs only $2.75 when purchased in
quantities of a million or more, has the capacity to holdd a computerized
face photo and 1,600 pages of text.  Sixteen hundred pages is probably
sufficient for a complete dossier on the lives of most of us.  The smart
card is an open, engraved invitation to a national identity card.

       In the early 1980's, when I worked in the West Wing of the White House as
President reagan's domestic policy advisor, I was surprised by the ardent
desire of government bureaucrats, many of them Regan's appointees, for a
national identity card.  Brushing aside any concerns about personal privacy
, a powerful array of government agencies -- the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the State Department, the FBI, the Internal Revenue
Service, the CIA -- each with its own special reasons, lusted after a law to
force every American to carry a national identity card.  Such a law was
within a whisjker of being endorsed by Reagan's cabinet in July 1981 and was
stopped only when President reagan personally vetoed the idea on the grounds
that it was a massive invasion of privacy.

    The idea of a national identity card, with a new name, has risen once again
from the graveyard of bad policy ideas, more powerful and virulent than
ever.  Unless it is stopped quickly, we may live to see the end of privacy
in the United States, all of us tagged like so many fish.  Of course, the
argument goes, if we had nothing to hide we would not be concerned.  And,
hey, you don't have anything to hide--do you?

	President Clinton has asked us to call the White House with our
suggestions, but lately the swuitchboard has been jammed.  But why bother
the President?  Perhaps instead we should pass our suggestions on to Ira
Magaziner, the person working for him on the smart card.

	* * * * * *

Subj:	Smart Card 2

	SMART CARD COMING:  TOO SMART FOR OUR OWN GOOD?
	By Clark Matthews
	Reprinted from The Spotlight, August 23, 1993

	Like it or not, smart cards--those technological wonders that carry
megabytes of personal information in a microchip on a credit card
look-alike--have arrived!  They're spreading fast, thanks to experimental
programs started during the Bush administration.  Those test programs forced
Americans in certain regions to accept smart cards--and become dependent on
them--in order to receive public assistance or government paychecks.  Now,
with a big push from the Clinton administration, the cards are quickly
marching out of today's experimental welfare offices and food stamp
centers--and directly into your life.

      You say you don't want a smart card?  Then you'd better study some of Bill
Clinton's pet legislation--like the "childhood immunization" bills described
in this article.  The real reason for these proposed laws may have nothing
to do with helping children: These laws call for all newborn children (and
at least one parent) to be "smart carded" at birth with a device that can
monitor them "across geographical areas."

	TRACEABLE E-CASH

      Technically speaking, today's smart cards aren't very "smart." They simply
"remember" lots of things about the person who owns the card.  They can keep
track of dollar amounts, food stamp allotments, Social Security numbers,
personal security codes, addresses, phone numbers or even your cable TV
descrambler code.  They must rely on computers--like Automatic Teller
machines (ATMs), supermarket checkouts or hospital admitting desks--to
update their "memory" with correct information.
     In countries around the world today, smart cards usually work like bank ATM
cards:  They replace cash electronically--creating traceable "e-cash."  In
many cases, the "cash" on the card can be electronically "switched off," so
smart card "money" or "food stamps" can be electronically confiscated on
command by cash dispensing machines, retail stores, welfare offices or other
places where the card is used.  Indirectly, the cards can be quite
intrusive, too.  Even though they're not "smart" enough to keep track of
your transactions, they permit every purchase to be stored and tracked by
computer.

	Surprisingly, some governments protect the privacy of citizens with the
cards--for example, people in Denmark can get advanced cards that contain a
personalized "public key" security code to protect the user's transactions.
(Compare this with the United States, where the National Security Agency
goes to great lengths to suppress "uncrackable" public key encryption
software and to punish the geniuses who create it.)  But the Australian
experience is more typical.  Aussies can get similar "cash cards"--but
people are troubled by revelations that all cashless transactions are
monitored and permanently stored in a huge national computer database.  Any
"cashless" transaction in Australia can be instantly matched to the person
who made it.

	INSTANT PUBLIC DEBT?

	In Japan, government and business decided to "go slow" in issuing smart
cards.  The reason is a 1988 study by Japanese economists that uncovered a
major problem with smart card money:
       When a bank (or the government or the phone company) issues a smart card,
it instantly creates money.  And since all bank-issued money becomes public
debt under a fractional reserve, debt based central banking system, smart
cards create corresponding debts for the taxpayers at the same time.

      In ominous contrast to more or less voluntary foreign smart card programs,
more than one million Americans with experimental smart cards were forced to
accept them in order to receive government benefits or paychecks.  As a
result, these citizens are now completely dependent on the cards to receive
welfare, food stamps, medical services, or--in the case of the Marines at
Parris Island, South Carolina--their paychecks.  The dependent circumstances
of the people chosen for these programs make it highly unlikely they will
challenge the program.

	`STEALTH' SMART CARDING

	Forced participation in a universal American smart card program is a
cornerstone of the Clinton agenda.  It has been endorsed enthusiastically by
Clinton administration social engineers, notably longtime Clinton associate,
Ira Magaziner, who sees the cards as a linchpin of Hillary Clinton's health
care plan--and for governing "the kind of world we want to produce."

	Without waiting for the health care plan, Clinton';s allies in Congress
have already proposed laws with "stealth" provisions to compel parents to
submit their families to "smart carding"--or risk losing their children.
The "childhood immunization" bill, introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy
(D-Mass.) S. 732, calls for a national computerized registry of all children
under six years of age, together with at least one parent.  There is no
doubt of the priorities of the Clinton plan--Kennedy's legislation calls for
children to be "smart carded" at birth, and inoculated earlier.
Vaccinations will be tracked by smart cards issued to the children and
parents.  According to Kennedy's legislative aid., Keith Powell, this card
system "will create a [national] registry with the capacity to do tracking
and surveillance of all U.S. children.

      The companion House bill, introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), H.R.
1640, states:
	"The purpose of the system is to provide for national surveillance of
childhood immunization status through age six [and] develop a registry to
cover the entire nation with the capacity to link and process all birth
certificate records through a central registry [and for] tracking children
in mobile populations across geographical areas."

	If Clinton succeeds, he and his successors may soon have the power to
simply "switch off" the lives and property of opponents like a light bulb.
Future articles will describe some of the frightening new technologies in
future smart cards.

Reprinted in its entirety from The Daily Southtown,
Southwest edition, June 14, 1995

Lemont survives `attack'
by Joe Robertson-Staff Writer

     For those who thought Lemont was under military attack
Monday night, the Department of Defense assures us that the
low-flying helicopters and window-rattling bombs were just
part of a routine Army training mission.
     At ease.  As you were.  That was NOT the Battle of
Lemont.  Armageddon was not at hand.  It was merely the
Battle of the Abandoned St. Vincent DePaul Seminary.
     The vacant seminary on 127th Street west of Archer
Avenue was the prime target of the training assault between
10 PM and midnight for Special Operations forces from Fort
Bragg, N.C.
     If the Army's mission was to blow out windows in the old
buildings and scare the living daylights out of some of the
neighbors, well then, it was mission accomplished.
     "There were some small demolitions," said Department of
Defense spokesman Mike Sienda.
     Small?  Maybe by Army standards.
     In a subdivision just north of the training area, the
Kasperski children were in tears.  "They scared the dickens
out of the kids," said Jeanie Kasperski, whose boys, 4 and 6,
were jolted out of bed as were many residents in the area.
     "I thought our furnace had blown up," she said.  "It
sounded like dynamite going off."
     Helicopters racing over the Beechen home were so close
that Kendra Beechen claims she saw the green lights of their
instrument panels.
     "The whole house was shaking," she said.  "They were
flying around at treetop level.  They could've landed in my
back yard."
     Southwest Central Dispatch, which handles 911 calls for
the Lemont area, reported about 30 calls from confused
residents, Director Bill Shanley said.  The dispatchers had
been apprised of the mock invasion so people who called 911
were assured they were not under attack.
     Some residents in the homes closest to the old seminary
were notified by state police who went door-to-door about a
half-hour before the assault began.
     The Army has been training in the Chicago area for two
weeks, Sienda said.  Special Operations Command in Fort Bragg
is constantly seeking out training sites around the country
to hone the skills of its helicopter teams.
     "Pilots need training in urban environments," he said.
     "There are obstacles and lights that are a lot different
than a rural area."
     The five buildings of the old seminary had been vacant
for several years and had been used in the past for training
exercises by the Illinois State Police and Lemont police,
Sienda said.
     Developer Pat Cronin, who owns the property, said the
buildings were due to be demolished within a few weeks to
make way for the growing Abbey Oaks subdivision.
     The Army negotiated with Cronin to use the property for
its practice.  In return, Cronin got to ride in one of the
helicopters.
     "They're flying through the night, and it's pitch
black," he said.  "They were wearing those night-vision
goggles and they landed right on top of the buildings.  It
was amazing."
     The Special Operations forces were blasting their way
through doors and windows, and running from room to room,
Cronin said.  If there had been any American hostages inside,
he figures the troops would have gotten them out.
     Not all the nearby residents were happy to see the old
seminary attacked.  Grecca Vanlue, one of the residents who
received the warning at her front door from the state police,
went to look at the scene the morning after and was upset at
the glass-littered debris the Army left behind.
     "I'd hate to see kids coming around and getting inside,"
she said.  "It's unsafe."
     Lt. Col. Ken McGraw in Fort Bragg said the Army would
return to clean up its mess.  Safety before, during and after
the training exercise is the Army's top priority, he said.
     "We train all over the United States, and we always
coordinate an exercise with local police forces," McGraw
said.  The sites are surveyed beforehand and the low-flying
helicopters follow all Federal Aviation Administration rules.
     As for the poor battered seminary, Cronin pointed out
that vandalism and broken glass had been a problem at the
abandoned buildings long before the Army stormed in.
     What the Army doesn't clean up will be taken care of
once demolition starts, he said.
     The Army tries to keep advance notice of its training
exercises to a minimum because it doesn't want to raise the
curiosity of civilians who might try to get a front-row seat
too close to the action, Sienda said.
     "If we announce these things ahead of time, we could
have a safety problem," he said.
     Once the assault is under way, anyone who hasn't heard
about it finds out soon enough, neighbor John Beechen said.
     "Everyone was out watching," he said.  "No one could
sleep because of the explosions.  It sure seemed a little
strange."

    
    Is it normally considered suspicious for Special Ops forces to train
    in urban-area combat tactics?  If such a force *was* required to
    pull off a mission like the failed rescue attempt of American hostages 
    in Iran, wouldn't it stand to reason that experience in urban combat
    would be of more use than experience in jungle combat?
    
    The exercise may have been annoying...but sinister?
    

    
    
    	Hey now, I never said I considered the training "sinister", but it
    would've scared the bejeesus out of me if I wasn't aware what it was
    for.
    
    
    jim

    
    Oh, I know you didn't say that, Jim.  But...well...look at the title
    of the topic.
    

    It is sinister because the shadow government as controlled the
    tri-lateral commission is behind the training.  We all know this, it 
    is fact.  The urban combat training is for when they come to round us
    up.  

    Sure, it's pretty sinister to you all when it's out of state, but
    Lemont is just a drive across Chicago for Mark Battis and I.

    So, you live here too?
    
    Ya know, I debated about that me/I wording for a bit and flipped a
    coin.  I/me was wrong.

Mark Battis and Deb Lauer are conspiring?

    
    I wondered whether my pedantic correction would be misconstrued 8^).

    Reagan contemplated "smart cards" at one time as well.

    
    	RE: Mike
    
    	Yeah, one of the replies mentioned that.  But I think it also
    	mentioned that he was the one who vetoed them.
    

    .39:
    
>       In the early 1980's, when I worked in the West Wing of the White House as
>President reagan's domestic policy advisor, I was surprised by the ardent
>desire of government bureaucrats, many of them Regan's appointees, for a
>national identity card.  Brushing aside any concerns about personal privacy
>, a powerful array of government agencies -- the Immigration and
>Naturalization Service, the State Department, the FBI, the Internal Revenue
>Service, the CIA -- each with its own special reasons, lusted after a law to
>force every American to carry a national identity card.  Such a law was
>within a whisjker of being endorsed by Reagan's cabinet in July 1981 and was
>stopped only when President reagan personally vetoed the idea on the grounds
>that it was a massive invasion of privacy.

Subj:	Lithium Battery used in the Bio-chip


From the NEXUS Magazine:


Dr. Carl W. Sanders is an electronics engineer, inventor, author and
consultant to various government organizations as well as IBM, General
Electric, Honeywell and Teledyne.  He is also a winner of the Presidents
and Governors Award for Design Excellence.
   "Thirty two years of my life was spent in design engineering and
electronics designing microchips in the Bio-Med field.
   In 1968 I became involved, almost by accident, in a research and
development project in regard to a spinal bypass for a young lady who
had severed her spine.  They were looking at possibly being able to
connect motor nerves etc.
   It was a project we were all excited about. There were 100 people
involved and I was senior engineer in charge of the project.  This
project culminated in the microchip that we talk about now a - microchip
that I believe is going to be the positive identification and mark of
the beast.
   This microchip is recharged by body temperature changes.  Obviously
you can't go in and have your battery changed every so often, so the
microchip has a recharging circuit that charges based upon the body
temperature changes.  Over one and a half million dollars was spent
finding out that the two places in the body that the temperature changes
the most rapidly are in the forehead (primary position), right below the
hairline, and the back of the hand (alternative position).
   Working on the microchip, we had no idea about it ever being an
identification chip.  We looked at it as being a very humanitarian thing
to do.  We were all excited about what we were doing.
   We were doing high-level integration for the very first time.  This
team was made up of people out of San Jose, people from Motorola,
General Electric, Boston Medical Center - it was quite a group of people.
My responsibility had to do with the design of the chip itself, not the
medical side of if.
    As the chip came to evolve, there came a time in the project when
they said that the financial return on bypassing severed spines is not a
very lucrative thing for us to be into, so we really need to look at
some other areas.  We noticed that the frequency of the chip had a great
effect upon behavior and so we began to branch off and look possibly at
behavior modification.
    The project almost turned into electronic acupuncture because what
they ended up with was embedding the microchip to put out a signal which
effected certain areas.  They were able to determine that you could cause
behavioral change.
    One of the projects was called the Phoenix project which had to do
with Vietnam veterans.  We had a chip that was called the Rambo chip.
This chip would actually cause extra adrenaline flow.
    I wonder how many of you know that if you can stop the output of the
 pituitary gland (the signal from the pituitary gland that causes
estrogen flow), you can put a person into instant menopause and there
is no conception.  This was tested in India and other different parts of
the world. So here you have got a birth control tool, based on a
microchip.
    Microchips can also be used for migraine headaches, behavior
modification, upper/downer, sexual stimulant and sexual depressant.
This is nothing more that electronic acupuncture, folks.
    There are 250,000 components in the microchip, including a tiny
lithium battery.  I fought them over using lithium as a battery source
but NASA was doing alot with lithium at that time and it was the going
thing.  I had talked to a doctor at the Boston Medical Center about what
that concentration of lithium in the body could do if the chip broke
down. He said that you would get a boil or grievous sore.
    As the development moved along, I left the project and came back as
a consultant several times.  I was used in many meetings as an expert
witness in regard to the uses of the microchip.
    I was in one meeting where it was discussed.  How can you control a
people if you can`t identify them ?"  All of a sudden the idea came:
"Lets make them aware of lost children, etc."
   This was discussed in meetings almost like people were cattle.  The
CIA came up with an idea of putting pictures of lost children on milk
cartons.  Since the chip is now accepted, you don`t see the pictures
anymore, do you.  It's served it's purpose.
   As we developed this microchip, as the identification chip became
the focal point, there were several things that were wanted.  They
wanted a name, an image (picture of your face), Social security number
with the international digits on it, finger print identification,
physical description, family history, address, occupation, income
tax information and criminal record.
    I've been in 17 "one world" meetings where this has been discussed,
meetings in Brussels, Luxembourg, tying together the finances of
the world.
    Just recently in the newspapers they`ve talked about the Health Care
Program, the "Womb to Tomb" identification!  A positive identification.
There are bills before congress right now that will allow them to inject
a microchip in your child at the time of birth for identification
purposes.
    The president of the United States of America, under the
"Emigration of Control Act of 1986", Section 100 , has the authority
to deem whatever type of identification is necessary - whether it be
an invisible tattoo or electronic media under the skin.  So I think you
have to look at the facts, folks:  this is not coming as some big shock.
The paving has been done ahead of time.


* Steve Wingate / CITIZEN'S INTELLIGENCE ACCESS BBS / 415.927.2435 / MindNet

    REPENTIUM! THE END IS NEAR!

    
    <---- I wish I had said that!
    
    :^)
    

    You will John, you will.

>> There are bills before congress right now that will allow them to inject
>> a microchip in your child at the time of birth for identification
>> purposes.
    
    I'd imagine that you'd see a large jump in the number of home
    births, at the very least.  Beyond that, the births would be
    unreported.  It brings up some interesting questions regarding
    "official existence", and what lengths couples may go to in the
    future to ensure the privacy of their children.
    
    When my first kid was born, the government knew about it almost
    before we did.  As a test of sorts, we didn't list him on our
    town census form that year.  After all, no one knew of his
    existence, other than the city in which he was born, right?
    We got a phone call.
    
    I know, it's the Boys from Trilatera!  :-)
    
    As I've said before, I pay a substantial tax penalty every year
    to keep my kids Social-Security-Number-free.  Drives some people
    apechit, too, but there's nothing they can do about it, yet.
    
    Chris

                                                      
|   I'd imagine that you'd see a large jump in the number of home
|   births, at the very least.
    
    Already has - among the nutters who believe this crap.
    
    
    There's already microchips in your money, *they* are scanning it to
    find out how much you have stashed under your bed, and *they* know
    where you spend every dollar.  Those folks stringing "fiber" outside
    your house, yeah right, it's a monitoring network!  Notice the
    trucks don't say anything about being from the cable company.  One
    guy lied to me when I asked what they were up to, but Phillip
    Krackentoutz told me he worked for Dennis Blofeld, and we all know
    that Mr. Blofeld works for the new world order.  And *they*
    put microchips in your drivers license and your license plates too.
    (I personally talked to James Montgomery, who is in MCI Concord
    and is directly responsible for this.  He put me in touch with
    a gentleman named Harry Phillmore who has the same job in New
    Hampshire!)  *They* can follow you where ever you go.  And that
    direct broadcast TV pizza dish?  DON'T BUY IT!  IT'S TWO WAY, AND
    THEY ARE UPLOADING SCANNED INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY
    TO *THEM*!  (Take a close look at the MPEG specs.  Section 12,
    Subsection 32, Paragraph 8, it's just two words, but it's
    bidirectional!)  Cell phones never turn off, they are always
    uploading info to *THEM*!  And ethernet?  EVILNET!  ATM?  *They*
    tell you it stands for asyncronos transit method.  Well, they
    are wrong.  Harry Chipspun was responsible for the early drafts
    of ATM, and it stands for "Always Totalitarians Monitoring"  And
    Sally Samstrut of EAS, inc told me later drafts refered to
    "Attack Tennesee Militia"!  Don't let them near your *PETS*.
    Don't let them put any so-called vaccines in them!
    And we are in a state of emergency, based on the Air
    Transport Technical Correct act of 1935, which gave the new
    world order unlimited powers.  DID YOU KNOW THAT IN THE 1980's
    THE PRESIDENT WAS AN ACTOR?  WHY!  BECAUSE HE WAS MOST QUALIFIED
    FOR THE NON-JOB!  Besides.  Ohio wasn't admitted to the Union until
    1956, so every law on the books since 1832 is invalid!  WHEN YOU
    UNZIP IN FRONT OF ONE OF THOSE AUTOMATIC TOILETS, THEY ARE WATCHING
    YOU, it's true, I opened up one of the red windows and found a
    camera with a gigahertz broadcast antenna inside.  PACEMAKERS
    ARE CODED SO THEY CAN KILL YOU WHENEVER THEY WANT, why do you
    think so many people have heart attacks who wear these things!
    HAVE YOU NOTICED THE FLASHING LIGHTS MOUNTED ON THE HORIZONTAL
    POLES THAT SUSPEND TRAFIC LIGHTS THAT NEVER EVER EVER FLASH!
    They are phasers, when the new world order takes over, everyone
    within six blocks of them will be dematerialized!  Flouride is
    a new world order plot.
    
    POE!  POE!  POE!
    
    								-mr. bill

    >> Already has - among the nutters who believe this crap.
    
    Really?  That's interesting, I wonder where... up in the mountains
    with the survivalists and militias?
    
    This is why I mentioned the question of how far people will go in
    this area.  At some point, if you're to be part of the above-ground
    society, you have to become an "official person".  Are these people
    going to establish and maintain some kind of "underground communities",
    where everything is barter and no one knows who you are?
    
    There's probably a fair degree of weirdness at both extremes of
    the spectrum in this matter.  I think there's some reason for concern
    over privacy in general in this society, but I'm not ready to become
    a hill person quite yet.
    
    The rest of your write-up was pretty funny... you left out the one
    about the little TV camera and microphone in your cable TV box, which
    is one of my personal favorites.
    
    Chris

re .59:

Pretty good.

    
    	Ah Mr. Bill, so nice to hear from you again. I see the medication
    isn't working quite as well as we had hoped. Better double up on it.
    
    
    forever yours,
    
    jim

    If'n you're going to parody conspiracy theories Mr. Bilge,
    you should at least make what you say technically correct.
    MPEG is an ISO/IEC standard. ISO produces "Standards",
    not "specs". There are no "sections" in ISO standards...
    they are referred to as "clauses", and paragraphs are
    not numbered; they are put under "sub-clauses". ISO
    standards are referred to by number. I don't know what
    the MPEG standard's number is, so I'll give you another
    example that I know of:

    "ISO/IEC 10744:1992 - The Hypermedia Time-based Structuring
    Lanquage (HyTime)"

    You really need to take lessons from Mz. Deb to fix this
    continuous lack of attention to detail...

    -b

    After re-reading my replies here, I should elaborate my position
    on this kind of stuff.
    
    As in most areas, I believe the truth lies somewhere between
    "null" and the stories and rumors that get spread around.  So,
    while I'm concerned about the potential abuses involved in a
    national ID card, I'm not particularly trembling over getting
    a secret chip implant next time I go to the dentist.
    
    Also, I try not to make it easy for the record-keepers to have
    our whole life stories at their fingertips (e.g., the kids' SSN
    thing), but I don't do that much either.  I still use my SSN
    as my license number, and all that.
    
    SSN abuse is a whole field unto itself, and there are others here
    who know much more about it than I do.  Last week I took a course
    provided by an external training company, and on the back of the
    evaluation and certificate-request form, there was a place for
    your signature and Social Security number.  They said that your
    SSN was required for the Continuing Education Mumblyfratz Clerk
    Organization to give you CE credits or some such nonsense.
    
    More likely, they want to put me on yet-another mailing list, and
    sell the signature and SSN to whoever wants to buy it.  Signatures
    are worthless these days with today's technology, and everyone but
    the dog catcher has my SSN.
    
    Chris

Speaking of chip implants, didn't there used to be a 'boxer named Chip
who was in Security?  Hmmmm.

    This is an interesting string if you consider the rise in the number
    of home births taking place recently .....

    Also you do not need to have a social security unless you work for
    someone.  If you run your own business (doing business in cash) or farm 
    on a subsistence level, you really don't need one.  You will never
    become fabulously wealthy, but you will be able to live.

    Dan

>    Also you do not need to have a social security unless you work for
>    someone.  If you run your own business (doing business in cash) or farm 
>    on a subsistence level, you really don't need one.

This is assuming you evade income taxes.

    
    You didn't realize that MPEG started out as an informal draft, did
    you?  Rather late in the process it was ISOd.  (And getting ISOd
    is a fate few want to participate in.  They actually force people
    to spend a few months re-editing perfectly good documents so that
    it says "standard" force you to mispell words and all the other
    nonsensical rules they have.)
    
    Besides, can you tell the 'boxing community what ISO stands for?
    What was wrong with ANSI, and why have they been coopted by
    ISO.  (Can you say "new world order?"  I knew you could.)
    Their primary purpose in life is to work hard to make any document
    unreadable so that nobody but the few can understand what the
    "standard" really says.  Then throw in oodles of nwo bureacrats
    who do nothing more than "track" a "review" process to make sure
    it's "fair" (otherwise known as complies with NWO and is anti-American).
    
    Bottom line, in the informal drafts, it was rather plain that it's a
    monitoring tool, not a mechanism for transmitting video images.
    It's still in the standard, but not as easy to point out.
    
    BTW, PHIGS-PLUS is an ISO standard.  Before that, it was just a spec
    put together by a few people with the vast majority of the important
    work completed on an airplane.  (Bonus points for the first person
    who can correctly tell me the reverse engineered meaning to the
    acronymn "PLUS".)  By the time it was turned into a standard, it was
    dead.
    
    								-mr. bill

    > Besides, can you tell the 'boxing community what ISO stands for?
    
    Officially, it doesn't stand for ANYTHING. It is the Trademark
    (pronounced EYE-so in the US and EYE-zo in Europe) under which
    the International Organization for Standardization does
    business... IOS just doesn't have the same ring to it.
    
    > What was wrong with ANSI, and why have they been coopted by
    > ISO.  (Can you say "new world order?"  I knew you could.)
    
    As for ANSI, they produce their own standards; our 3 prong
    outlets are a good example, as are the colors produced by
    our film. But for most purposes, ANSI is an organization which
    acredits US National Body members for participation in ISO
    SCs and WGs. In Germany, the body which performs this function
    is known as DIN, in France they're known as AFNOR, and in
    the UK they're known as the BSI.
    
    -b

    In the absence of Steve Leech
    
    DOOM!

    
    DOOM 2!
    

    This is truly enlightening.  I always wondered why the cats preferred
    to sleep near the (turned off) cellular phone.  Clearly it's because
    they can pick up the radiation given off by the monitoring device.
    
    Just a couple of question; where is all this data stored and who watches it? 
    Do I have a personal watcher whose working day is spent watching me, or
    is it done by categories - like someone specialises in watching
    toe-nail clipping, or a department on doing the laundry?
    
    Where can I apply for such a job, and who is our account manager on
    this - we should be able to sell heaps of Turbolasers to store and
    process all this.
    
    Axel 

>Just a couple of question; where is all this data stored and who watches it? 

You know those alien abductions?  The NWO rulers have a deal with the aliens:
they provide earthlings for medical experiments and the aliens provide watchers.

    This is overseen by the Trilateral Commission.

    Now that's a relief.  Glad to see they are on the job.

    You know all those poor slobs that appear on those trashy TV
    daytime talk shows and dump their wretched secrets onto the
    airwaves?
    
    They're the Listeners.
    
    Chris

    >ATM?  *They* tell you it stands for asyncronos transit method
    
    asynchronous transfer mode

    
    Or Automatic Teller Machine, for those of us who use our home computers
    only as a heated bed for our cats 8^).

    this is eerie, I saw a license plate this am.  It was 666 ATM.  It must
    be a devil worshipping conspiracy.  

    re; former boxer... Chip Bach?
    
        and i ain't bein' implanted anyone or anything!

    I'm not sure I buy all of this conspiracy stuff. But, I know that I
    will draw the line at surgery for identification purposes.
    
    ...Tom

    
    `ISO certification' is the Mark Of The Beast!!
    

    
    
    hey, bri, i see that license plate all the time... :> :>
    
    

    really?  know who it is?

    
    
    nope...
    
    
    next time. i'll stop and ask... :>
    
    

CITE       12 USC Sec. 95a                                              01/03/95
EXPCITE    TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING
           CHAPTER 2 - NATIONAL BANKS
           SUBCHAPTER IV - REGULATION OF THE BANKING BUSINESS; POWERS AND
                DUTIES OF NATIONAL BANKS
HEAD       Sec. 95a. Regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold
               and silver; property transfers; vested interests, enforcement
               and penalties
STATUTE      (1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency
           that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he
           may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise -
               (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in
             foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by,
             through, or to any banking institution, and the importing,
             exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver
             coin or bullion, currency or securities, and
               (B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void,
             prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use,
             transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation
             of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege
             with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which
             any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,
           by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the
           jurisdiction of the United States; and any property or interest of
           any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as, and
           upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person
           as may be designated from time to time by the President, and upon
           such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe such
           interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated,
           sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the
           benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person
           may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or
           furtherance of these purposes; and the President shall, in the
           manner hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a full
           record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or
           otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction
           referred to in this subdivision either before, during, or after the
           completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign
           property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country
           or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be
           otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of this subdivision,
           and in any case in which a report could be required, the President
           may, in the manner hereinabove provided, require the production, or
           if necessary to the national security or defense, the seizure, of
           any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or
           other papers, in the custody or control of such person.
             (2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of
           property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the
           United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section
           or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder
           shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for
           all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and
           no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to
           anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the
           administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this
           section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued
           hereunder.
             (3) As used in this subdivision the term ''United States'' means
           the United States and any place subject to the jurisdiction
           thereof; Provided, however, That the foregoing shall not be
           construed as a limitation upon the power of the President, which is
           hereby conferred, to prescribe from time to time, definitions, not
           inconsistent with the purposes of this subdivision, for any or all
           of the terms used in this subdivision.  As used in this subdivision
           the term ''person'' means an individual, partnership, association,
           or corporation.
             (4) The authority granted to the President by this section does
           not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or
           indirectly, the importation from any country, or the exportation to
           any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format
           or medium of transmission, of any information or informational
           materials, including but not limited to, publications, films,
           posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche,
           tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.  The
           exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph
           do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export
           under section 2404 of title 50, Appendix, or under section 2405 of
           title 50, Appendix to the extent that such controls promote the
           nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or
           with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title
           18.
SOURCE     (Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 106, Sec. 5(b), 40 Stat. 415; Sept. 24, 1918,
           ch. 176, Sec. 5, 40 Stat. 966; Mar. 9, 1933, ch. 1, title I, Sec.
           2, 48 Stat. 1; May 7, 1940, ch. 185, Sec. 1, 54 Stat. 179; Dec. 18,
           1941, ch. 593, title III, Sec. 301, 55 Stat. 839; Proc. No. 2695,
           eff.  July 4, 1946, 11 F.R. 7517, 69 Stat. 1352; Dec. 28, 1977,
           Pub. L. 95-223, title I, Sec. 101(a), 102, 103(b), 91 Stat. 1625,
           1626; Aug. 23, 1988, Pub. L. 100-418, title II, Sec. 2502(a)(1),
           102 Stat. 1371; Apr. 30, 1994, Pub. L. 103-236, title V, Sec.
           525(b)(1), 108 Stat. 474.)
COD                                    CODIFICATION
             Section 5(b) of act Oct. 6, 1917, is part of the Trading with the
           Enemy Act and is also classified to section 5(b) of the Appendix to
           Title 50, War and National Defense.
             Words '', including the Philippine Islands, and the several
           courts of first instance of the Commonwealth of the Philippine
           Islands shall have jurisdiction in all cases, civil or criminal,
           arising under this section in the Philippine Islands and concurrent
           jurisdiction with the district courts of the United States of all
           cases, civil or criminal, arising upon the high seas'' following
           ''to the jurisdiction thereof:'' in subsec. (3) were omitted on
           authority of 1946 Proc. No. 2695, which granted the Philippine
           Islands independence, and which was issued pursuant to section 1394
           of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse. Proc. No. 2695 is
           set out as a note under section 1394 of Title 22.
MISC3                                   AMENDMENTS
             1994 - Par. (4). Pub. L. 103-236 amended par. (4) generally.
           Prior to amendment, par. (4) read as follows: ''The authority
           granted to the President in this section does not include the
           authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, the
           importation from any country, or the exportation to any country,
           whether commercial or otherwise, of publications, films, posters,
           phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, or
           other informational materials, which are not otherwise controlled
           for export under section 2404 of title 50, Appendix, or with
           respect to which no acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title
           18.''
             1988 - Par. (4). Pub. L. 100-418 added par. (4).
             1977 - Par. (1). Pub. L. 95-223, Sec. 101(a), 102, substituted
           ''During the time of war, the President may, through any agency
           that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations'' for
           ''During the time of war or during any other period of national
           emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any
           agency, that he may designate, or otherwise, and under such rules
           and regulations'' in the provisions preceding subpar. (A), and, in
           the provisions following subpar. (B), struck out ''; and the
           President may, in the manner hereinabove provided, take other and
           further measures not inconsistent herewith for the enforcement of
           the subdivision'' after ''control of such person''.
             Par. (3). Pub. L. 95-223, Sec. 103(b), struck out provisions that
           whoever willfully violated any of the provisions of this
           subdivision or of any license, order, rule, or regulation issued
           thereunder, could be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural
           person, could be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both;
           and that any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who
           knowingly participated in that violation could be punished by a
           like fine, imprisonment, or both.
             1941 - Act Dec. 18, 1941, broadened the powers of the President
           to take, administer, control, use and liquidate foreign-owned
           property and added a flexibility of control which enabled the
           President and the agencies designated by him to cope with the
           problems surrounding alien property, its ownership or control, on
           the basis of the particular facts in each case.
             1940 - Act May 7, 1940, included dealings in evidences of
           indebtedness or ownership of property in which foreign states,
           nationals or political subdivisions thereof have an interest.
             1933 - Act Mar. 9, 1933, amended section generally by, among
           other things, extending the President's power to any time of war or
           national emergency, by permitting regulations to be issued by any
           agency designated by the President, by providing for the furnishing
           under oath of complete information relative to transactions under
           this section and by placing sanctions on violations to the extent
           of a $10,000 fine or ten years imprisonment.
             1918 - Act Sept. 24, 1918, inserted provisions relating to the
           hoarding or melting of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency
           and to the regulation of transactions in bonds or certificates of
           indebtedness.
TRANS                              DELEGATION OF POWERS
             Delegation of President's powers under this section to Secretary
           of the Treasury and Alien Property Custodian; and transfer of Alien
           Property Custodian's powers to Attorney General, see Ex. Ord. Nos.
           9095 and 9788, set out as notes under section 6 of the Appendix to
           Title 50, War and National Defense.
             All powers conferred upon President by this section delegated to
           Secretary of the Treasury by Memorandum of the President dated Feb.
           12, 1942, 7 F.R. 1409.
MISC5                  ADMINISTRATION OF EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT
             For provisions relating to the administration of the Export
           Administration Act, see Executive Orders set out as notes under
           section 2403 of Title 50, Appendix, War and National Defense.
                     LIMITATION ON EXERCISE OF EMERGENCY AUTHORITIES
             Section 525(b)(2) of Pub. L. 103-236 provided that: ''The
           authorities conferred upon the President by section 5(b) of the
           Trading With the Enemy Act (this section), which were being
           exercised with respect to a country on July 1, 1977, as a result of
           a national emergency declared by the President before such date,
           and are being exercised on the date of the enactment of this Act
           (Apr. 30, 1994), do not include the authority to regulate or
           prohibit, directly or indirectly, any activity which, under section
           5(b)(4) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended by paragraph
           (1) of this subsection, may not be regulated or prohibited.''
             Section 2502(a)(2) of Pub. L. 100-418 provided that: ''The
           authorities conferred upon the President by section 5(b) of the
           Trading With the Enemy Act (this section), which were being
           exercised with respect to a country on July 1, 1977, as a result of
           a national emergency declared by the President before such date,
           and are being exercised on the date of the enactment of this Act
           (Aug. 23, 1988), do not include the authority to regulate or
           prohibit, directly or indirectly, any activity which, under section
           5(b)(4) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, as added by paragraph
           (1) of this subsection, may not be regulated or prohibited.''
             EXTENSION AND TERMINATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY POWERS UNDER THE
                                TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT
             Section 101(b), (c) of Pub. L. 95-223 provided that:
             ''(b) Notwithstanding the amendment made by subsection (a)
           (amending par. (1) of this section), the authorities conferred upon
           the President by section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act
           (this section), which were being exercised with respect to a
           country on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency
           declared by the President before such date, may continue to be
           exercised with respect to such country, except that, unless
           extended, the exercise of such authorities shall terminate (subject
           to the savings provisions of the second sentence of section 101(a)
           of the National Emergencies Act (section 1601(a) of Title 50, War
           and National Defense)) at the end of the two-year period beginning
           on the date of enactment of the National Emergencies Act (Sept 14,
           1976). The President may extend the exercise of such authorities
           for one-year periods upon a determination for each such extension
           that the exercise of such authorities with respect to such country
           for another year is in the national interest of the United States.
             ''(c) The termination and extension provisions of subsection (b)
           of this section supersede the provisions of section 101(a) (section
           1601(a) of Title 50, War and National Defense) and of title II
           (section 1621 et seq. of Title 50) of the National Emergencies Act
           to the extent that the provisions of subsection (b) of this section
           are inconsistent with those provisions.''
                REMOVAL OF LIMITATIONS AND RESTRAINTS IN FINANCING EXPORTS
             Pub. L. 92-126, Sec. 2, Aug. 17, 1971, 85 Stat. 346, provided
           that: ''In connection with section 2 of Executive Order Number
           11387, dated January 1, 1968 (formerly set out below) and any rule,
           regulation, or guideline established by the Board of Governors of
           the Federal Reserve System in connection with a voluntary foreign
           credit restraint program, there shall be no limitation or
           restraint, or suggestion that there be a limitation or restraint,
           on the part of any bank or financial institution in connection with
           the extension of credit for the purpose of financing exports of the
           United States.''
                          WORLD WAR II ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN
             Reestablishment and termination of Office of Alien Property
           Custodian during World War II, see notes under section 6 of the
           Appendix to Title 50, War and National Defense.
                         DIPLOMATIC PROPERTY OF GERMANY AND JAPAN
             Ex. Ord. No. 9760, July 24, 1946, 11 F.R. 7999, set out in notes
           to section 6 of Title 50, Appendix, War and National Defense,
           supersedes conflicting provisions of Ex. Ord. No. 8389, set out
           below.
EXEC                             EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6260
             Ex. Ord. No. 6260, Aug. 28, 1933, as amended by Ex. Ord. No.
           6359, Oct. 25, 1933; Ex. Ord. No. 6556, Jan. 12, 1934; Ex. Ord. No.
           6560, Jan. 15, 1934; Ex. Ord. No. 10896, Nov. 29, 1960, 25 F.R.
           12281; Ex. Ord. No. 10905, Jan. 14, 1961, 26 F.R. 321; Ex. Ord. No.
           11037, July 20, 1962, 27 F.R. 6967, formerly set out as a note
           under this section, which related to the hoarding, export, and
           earmarking of gold coin, bullion, or currency, and transactions in
           foreign exchange, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 11825, Dec. 31, 1974,
           40 F.R. 1003, set out below.
                                 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6560
             Ex. Ord. No. 6560, Jan. 15, 1934, as amended by Ex. Ord. No.
           8389. April 10, 1940, 6 p.m.  E. S. T., 5 F.R. 1400; Ex. Ord. No.
           8405, May 10, 1940, 7:55 a.m.  E. S. T., 5 F.R. 1677; Ex. Ord. No.
           8493, July 25, 1940, 5 F.R. 2667, formerly set out as a note under
           this section, which declared the existence of a national emergency
           and prescribed regulations for the investigation, regulation, and
           prohibition of transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of
           credit between or payments by banking institutions, and export of
           currency or silver coin by persons within the United States or
           subject to its jurisdiction, was based on authority of section 95a
           of this title (act Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 106, Sec. 5(b), 40 Stat. 415,
           comprising part of the Trading With the Enemy Act) which was
           amended in 1977 to remove the powers of the President to regulate
           transactions during a period of national emergency other than a
           war.
            EX. ORD. NO. 8389. REGULATING TRANSACTIONS IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND
                FOREIGN-OWNED PROPERTY, PROVIDING FOR THE REPORTING OF ALL
                                  FOREIGN-OWNED PROPERTY
             Ex. Ord. No. 8389, Apr. 10, 1940, 5 F.R. 1400, as amended by Ex.
           Ord. No. 8405, May 10, 1940, 5 F.R. 1677; Ex. Ord. No. 8446, June
           17, 1940, 5 F.R. 2279; Ex. Ord. No. 8484, July 15, 1940, 5 F.R.
           2586; Ex. Ord. No. 8493, July 25, 1940, 5 F.R. 2667; Ex. Ord. No.
           8565, Oct. 10, 1940, 5 F.R. 4062; Ex. Ord. No. 8701, Mar. 4, 1941,
           6 F.R. 1285; Ex. Ord. No. 8711, Mar. 13, 1941, 6 F.R. 1443; Ex.
           Ord. No. 8721, Mar. 24, 1941, 6 F.R. 1622; Ex. Ord. No. 8746, Apr.
           28, 1941, 6 F.R. 2187; Ex. Ord. No. 8785, June 14, 1941, 6 F.R.
           2897; Ex. Ord. No. 8832, July 26, 1941, 6 F.R. 3715; Ex. Ord. No.
           8963, Dec. 9, 1941, 6 F.R. 6348; Ex. Ord. No. 8998, Dec. 26, 1941,
           6 F.R. 6787, provided:
                SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOREIGN BANKING TRANSACTIONS PROHIBITED
             All of the following transactions are prohibited, except as
           specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury by means
           of regulations, rulings, instructions, licenses, or otherwise, if
           (i) such transactions are by, or on behalf of, or pursuant to the
           direction of any foreign country designated in this Order, or any
           national thereof, or (ii) such transactions involve property in
           which any foreign country designated in this Order, or any national
           thereof, has at any time on or since the effective date of this
           Order had any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or
           indirect:
             A. All transfers of credit between any banking institutions
           within the United States; and all transfers of credit between any
           banking institution within the United States and any banking
           institution outside the United States (including any principal,
           agent, home office, branch, or correspondent outside the United
           States, of a banking institution within the United States);
             B. All payments by or to any banking institution within the
           United States;
             C. All transactions in foreign exchange by any person within the
           United States;
             D. The export or withdrawal from the United States, or the
           earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any
           person within the United States;
             E. All transfers, withdrawals or exportations of, or dealings in,
           any evidences of indebtedness or evidences of ownership of property
           by any person within the United States; and
             F. Any transaction for the purpose or which has the effect of
           evading or avoiding the foregoing prohibitions.
                  SECTION 2. DEALINGS IN FOREIGN SECURITIES; REGULATIONS
             A. All of the following transactions are prohibited, except as
           specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury by means
           of regulations, rulings, instructions, licenses, or otherwise:
             (1) The acquisition, disposition or transfer of, or other dealing
           in, or with respect to, any security or evidence thereof on which
           there is stamped or imprinted, or to which there is affixed or
           otherwise attached, a tax stamp or other stamp of a foreign country
           designated in this Order or a notarial or similar seal which by its
           contents indicates that it was stamped, imprinted, affixed or
           attached within such foreign country, or where the attendant
           circumstances disclose or indicate that such stamp or seal may, at
           any time, have been stamped, imprinted, affixed or attached
           thereto; and
             (2) The acquisition by, or transfer to, any person within the
           United States of any interest in any security or evidence thereof
           if the attendant circumstances disclose or indicate that the
           security or evidence thereof is not physically situated within the
           United States.
             B. The Secretary of the Treasury may investigate, regulate, or
           prohibit under such regulations, rulings, or instructions as he may
           prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, the sending, mailing,
           importing or otherwise bringing, directly or indirectly, into the
           United States, from any foreign country, of any securities or
           evidences thereof or the receiving or holding in the United States
           of any securities or evidences thereof so brought into the United
           States.
                 SECTION 3. FOREIGN COUNTRIES AFFECTED; EFFECTIVE DATE OF
                                       PROHIBITIONS
             The term ''foreign country designated in this Order'' means a
           foreign country included in the following schedule, and the term
           ''effective date of this Order'' means with respect to any such
           foreign country, or any national thereof, the date specified in the
           following schedule:
             (a) April 8, 1940 -
                   Norway and
                   Denmark;
             (b) May 10, 1940 -
                   The Netherlands,
                   Belgium and
                   Luxembourg;
             (c) June 17, 1940 -
                   France (including Monaco);
             (d) July 10, 1940 -
                   Latvia, Estonia and
                   Lithuania;
             (e) October 9, 1940 -
                   Rumania;
             (f) March 4, 1941 -
                   Bulgaria;
             (g) March 13, 1941 -
                   Hungary;
             (h) March 24, 1941 -
                   Yugoslavia;
             (i) April 28, 1941 -
                   Greece; and
             (j) June 14, 1941 -
                   Albania,
                   Andorra,
                   Austria,
                   Czechoslovakia,
                   Danzig,
                   Finland,
                   Germany,
                   Italy,
                   Liechtenstein,
                   Poland,
                   Portugal,
                   San Marino,
                   Spain,
                   Sweden,
                   Switzerland, and
                   Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
             (k) June 14, 1941 -
                   China and
                   Japan;
             (l) June 14, 1941 -
                   Thailand;
             (m) June 14, 1941 -
                   Hong Kong.
             The ''effective date of this Order'' with respect to any foreign
           country not designated in this Order shall be deemed to be June 14,
           1941.
             SECTION 4. RECORDS OF FOREIGN BANKING AND SECURITY TRANSACTIONS;
                                      INVESTIGATIONS
             A. The Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney General may
           require, by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, or
           otherwise, any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish
           under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, from time to time
           and at any time or times, complete information relative to, any
           transaction referred to in section 5(b) of the Act of October 6,
           1917 (40 Stat. 415) (this section), as amended, or relative to any
           property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has
           any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect,
           including the production of any books of account, contracts,
           letters, or other papers, in connection therewith, in the custody
           or control of such person, either before or after such transaction
           is completed; and the Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney
           General may, through any agency, investigate any such transaction
           or act, or any violation of the provisions of this Order.
             B. Every person engaging in any of the transactions referred to
           in sections 1 and 2 of this Order shall keep a full record of each
           such transaction engaged in by him, regardless of whether such
           transaction is effected pursuant to license or otherwise, and such
           record shall be available for examination for at least one year
           after the date of such transaction.
                                  SECTION 5. DEFINITIONS
             A. As used in the first paragraph of section 1 of this Order
           ''transactions (which) involve property in which any foreign
           country designated in this Order, or any national thereof, has * *
           * any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect,''
           shall include but not by way of limitation (i) any payment or
           transfer to any such foreign country or national thereof, (ii) any
           export or withdrawal from the United States to such foreign
           country, and (iii) any transfer of credit, or payment of an
           obligation, expressed in terms of the currency of such foreign
           country.
             B. The term ''United States'' means the United States and any
           place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and the term
           ''continental United States'' means the States of the United
           States, the District of Columbia, and the Territory of Alaska:
           Provided, however, That for the purposes of this Order the term
           ''United States'' shall not be deemed to include any territory
           included within the term ''foreign country'' as defined in
           paragraph D of this section.
             C. The term ''person'' means an individual, partnership,
           association, corporation, or other organization.
             D. The term ''foreign country'' shall include, but not by way of
           limitation,
             (i) The state and the government thereof on the effective date of
           this Order as well as any political subdivision, agency, or
           instrumentality thereof or any territory, dependency, colony,
           protectorate, mandate, dominion, possession or place subject to the
           jurisdiction thereof.
             (ii) Any other government (including any political subdivision,
           agency, or instrumentality thereof) to the extent and only to the
           extent that such government exercises or claims to exercise de jure
           or de facto sovereignty over the area which on such effective date
           constituted such foreign country, and
             (iii) Any territory which on or since the effective date of this
           Order is controlled or occupied by the military, naval or police
           forces or other authority of such foreign country;
             (iv) Any person to the extent that such person is, or has been,
           or to the extent that there is reasonable cause to believe that
           such person is, or has been, since such effective date, acting or
           purporting to act directly or indirectly for the benefit or on
           behalf of any of the foregoing.  Hong Kong shall be deemed to be a
           foreign country within the meaning of this subdivision.
             E. The term ''national'' shall include,
             (i) Any person who has been domiciled in, or a subject, citizen
           or resident of a foreign country at any time on or since the
           effective date of this Order,
             (ii) Any partnership, association, corporation or other
           organization, organized under the laws of, or which on or since the
           effective date of this Order had or has had its principal place of
           business in such foreign country, or which on or since such
           effective date was or has been controlled by, or a substantial part
           of the stock, shares, bonds, debentures, notes, drafts, or other
           securities or obligations of which, was or has been owned or
           controlled by, directly or indirectly, such foreign country and/or
           one or more nationals thereof as herein defined.
             (iii) Any person to the extent that such person is, or has been,
           since such effective date, acting or purporting to act directly or
           indirectly for the benefit or on behalf of any national of such
           foreign country, and
             (iv) Any other person who there is reasonable cause to believe is
           a ''national'' as herein defined.
           In any case in which by virtue of the foregoing definition a person
           is a national of more than one foreign country, such person shall
           be deemed to be a national of each such foreign country.  In any
           case in which the combined interests of two or more foreign
           countries designated in this Order and/or nationals thereof are
           sufficient in the aggregate to constitute, within the meaning of
           the foregoing, control of 25 per centum or more of the stock,
           shares, bonds, debentures, notes, drafts, or other securities or
           obligations of a partnership, association, corporation or other
           organization, but such control or a substantial part of such stock,
           shares, bonds, debentures, notes, drafts, or other securities or
           obligations is not held by any one such foreign country and/or
           national thereof, such partnership, association, corporation or
           other organization shall be deemed to be a national of each of such
           foreign countries.  The Secretary of the Treasury shall have full
           power to determine that any person is or shall be deemed to be a
           ''national'' within the meaning of this definition, and the foreign
           country of which such person is or shall be deemed to be a
           national.  Without limitation of the foregoing, the term
           ''national'' shall also include any other person who is determined
           by the Secretary of the Treasury to be, or to have been, since such
           effective date, acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly
           for the benefit or under the direction of a foreign country
           designated in this Order or national thereof, as herein defined.
             F. The term ''banking institution'' as used in this Order shall
           include any person engaged primarily or incidentally in the
           business of banking, of granting or transferring credits, or of
           purchasing or selling foreign exchange or procuring purchasers and
           sellers thereof, as principal or agent, or any person holding
           credits for others as a direct or incidental part of his business,
           or brokers, and each principal, agent, home office, branch or
           correspondent of any person so engaged shall be regarded as a
           separate ''banking institution''.
             G. The term ''this Order'', as used herein, shall mean Executive
           Order No. 8389 of April 10, 1940, as amended.
              SECTION 6. CONSTRUCTION WITH EX. ORD. NO. 6560; SAVING CLAUSE
             Executive Order No. 8389 of April 10, 1940, as amended, shall no
           longer be deemed to be an amendment to or a part of Executive Order
           No. 6560 of January 15, 1934. Executive Order No. 6560 of January
           15, 1934, and the Regulations of November 12, 1934, are hereby
           modified in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of
           this Order, and except as so modified, continue in full force and
           effect.  Nothing herein shall be deemed to revoke any license,
           ruling, or instruction now in effect and issued pursuant to
           Executive Order No. 6560 of January 15, 1934, as amended, or
           pursuant to this Order; provided, however, that all such licenses,
           rulings, or instructions shall be subject to the provisions
           hereof.  Any amendment, modification or revocation by or pursuant
           to the provisions of this Order of any orders, regulations,
           rulings, instructions or licenses shall not affect any act done, or
           any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal
           case prior to such amendment, modification or revocation, and all
           penalties, forfeitures and liabilities under any such orders,
           regulations, rulings, instructions or licenses shall continue and
           may be enforced as if such amendment, modification or revocation
           had not been made.
                   SECTION 7. REGULATIONS BY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
             Without limitation as to any other powers or authority of the
           Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General under any other
           provision of this Order, the Secretary of the Treasury is
           authorized and empowered to prescribe from time to time
           regulations, rulings, and instructions to carry out the purposes of
           this Order and to provide therein or otherwise the conditions under
           which licenses may be granted by or through such officers or
           agencies as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate, and the
           decision of the Secretary with respect to the granting, denial or
           other disposition of an application or license shall be final.
                 SECTION 8. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES UNDER ACT OCT. 6, 1917
             Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, provides
           in part:
             ''* * * Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of this
           subdivision or of any license, order, rule or regulation issued
           thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000,
           or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten
           years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any
           corporation who knowingly participates in such violation may be
           punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both.''
                SECTION 9. AMENDMENTS OF ORDER AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED
                                        THEREUNDER
             This Order and any regulations, rulings, licenses or instructions
           issued hereunder may be amended, modified or revoked at any time.
             (Ex. Ord. No. 8389 and the regulations and general rulings issued
           thereunder by the Secretary of the Treasury were approved and
           confirmed by Res. May 7, 1940, ch. 185, Sec. 2, 54 Stat. 179.)
             (Ex. Ord. No. 9760, July 24, 1946, 11 F.R. 7999, 50 U.S.C. App.,
           Sec. 6 note, relating to diplomatic property of Germany and Japan
           in the United States, supersedes conflicting provisions of Ex. Ord.
           No. 8389, set out above.)
              EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOS. 8446, 8484, 8565, 8701, 8711, 8721, 8746
             The application of Ex. Ord. No. 6560, Sec. 9 to 14, to French
           property by Ex. Ord. No. 8446, 5 F.R. 2279; to Latvian, Estonian
           and Lithuanian property by Ex. Ord. No. 8484, 5 F.R. 2586; to
           Rumanian property by Ex. Ord. No. 8565, 5 F.R. 4062; to Bulgarian
           property by Ex. Ord. No. 8701, 6 F.R. 1285; to Hungarian property
           by Ex. Ord. No. 8711, 6 F.R. 1443; to Yugoslav property by Ex. Ord.
           No. 8721, 6 F.R. 1622; to Greek property by Ex. Ord. No. 8746, 6
           F.R. 2187, was incorporated in the provisions of Ex. Ord. No. 8389
           as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 8785, set out above.
               EX. ORD. NO. 9747. FUNCTIONS OF ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN AND
                       TREASURY DEPARTMENT CONTINUED IN PHILIPPINES
             Ex. Ord. No. 9747, July 3, 1946, 11 F.R. 7518, provided:
             The terms and provisions of Executive Order 9095 of March 11,
           1942, as amended (formerly set out as a note under section 6 of the
           Appendix to Title 50, War and National Defense), and Executive
           Order No. 8389 of April 10, 1940, as amended (set out above), shall
           continue in force in the Philippines after July 4, 1946, and all
           powers and authority delegated by the said Executive Orders to the
           Alien Property Custodian and to the Secretary of the Treasury,
           respectively, shall after July 4, 1946, continue to be exercised in
           the Philippines by the said officers, respectively, as therein
           provided.
                                EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10348
             Ex. Ord. No. 10348, Apr. 26, 1952, 17 F.R. 3769, which provided
           that Ex. Ord. No. 8389, Apr. 10, 1940, 5 F.R. 1400, as amended, set
           out above, and all delegations, designations, regulations, rulings,
           instructions, and licenses issued under such order, should be
           continued in force according to their terms for the duration of the
           period of the national emergency proclaimed by Proclamation No.
           2914 of December 16, 1950, set out as a note preceding section 1 of
           the Appendix to Title 50, War and National Defense, was superseded
           by Ex. Ord. No. 11281, May 13, 1966, 31 F.R. 7215, set out as a
           note under section 6 of the Appendix to Title 50.
                                EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11387
             Ex. Ord. No. 11387, Jan. 1, 1968, 33 F.R. 47, which prohibited
           transfers of capital to or within a foreign country or to any
           national thereof outside the United States by a person subject to
           the jurisdiction of the United States who owns a 10 percent
           interest in a foreign business venture, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No.
           12553, Feb. 25, 1986, 51 F.R. 7237.
             EX. ORD. NO. 11825. REVOCATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS PERTAINING TO
            REGULATION OF ACQUISITION OF, HOLDING OF, OR OTHER TRANSACTIONS IN
                                           GOLD
             Ex. Ord. No. 11825, Dec. 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003, provided:
             By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 1 of the Act
           of August 8, 1950, 64 Stat. 419, and section 5(b) of the Act of
           October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a) (this section), and as
           President of the United States, and in view of the provisions of
           section 3 of Public Law 93-110, 87 Stat. 352, as amended by section
           2 of Public Law 93-373, 88 Stat. 445, (set out as notes under
           section 442 of former Title 31, Money and Finance), it is ordered
           as follows:
             Section 1. Executive Order No. 6260 of August 28, 1933, as
           amended by Executive Order No. 6359 of October 25, 1933, Executive
           Order No. 6556 of January 12, 1934, Executive Order No. 6560 of
           January 15, 1934, Executive Order No. 10896 of November 29, 1960,
           Executive Order No. 10905 of January 14, 1961, and Executive Order
           No. 11037 of July 20, 1962; the fifth and sixth paragraphs of
           Executive Order No. 6073, March 10, 1933 (formerly set out as a
           note under section 95 of this title); sections 3 and 4 of Executive
           Order No. 6359 of October 25, 1933 (formerly set out as a note
           under section 248 of this title); and paragraph 2(d) of Executive
           Order No. 10289 of September 17, 1951 (set out as a note under
           section 301 of Title 3, The President), are hereby revoked.
             Section 2. The revocation, in whole or in part, of such prior
           Executive orders relating to regulation on the acquisition of,
           holding of, or other transactions in gold shall not affect any act
           completed, or any right accruing or accrued, or any suit or
           proceeding finished or started in any civil or criminal cause prior
           to the revocation, but all such liabilities, penalties, and
           forfeitures under the Executive orders shall continue and may be
           enforced in the same manner as if the revocation had not been made.
             This order shall become effective on December 31, 1974.
                                                                Gerald R. Ford.
CROSS                                CROSS REFERENCES
             Jurisdiction of courts of Philippine Islands terminated, see
           section 1382 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.
             Provisions governing checks and warrants withheld pursuant to Ex.
           Ord. No. 8389, adding sections 9 to 12 to Ex. Ord. No. 6560, which
           was formerly set out under this section, see section 3329 of Title
           31, Money and Finance.
             Right to amend, separability of provisions, see section 212 of
           this title.
SECREF                    SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
             This section is referred to in sections 95b, 212, 3409, 3413 of
           this title; title 22 sections 6004, 6005; title 31 section 5315.
  

.

    so how are we going to get the rest of the 50 states to adopt this
    restoration of the Constitution?
    
    Mike

CITE       12 USC Sec. 95b                                              01/03/95
EXPCITE    TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING
           CHAPTER 2 - NATIONAL BANKS
           SUBCHAPTER IV - REGULATION OF THE BANKING BUSINESS; POWERS AND
                DUTIES OF NATIONAL BANKS
HEAD       Sec. 95b. Ratification of acts of President and Secretary of
               Treasury under section 95a
STATUTE      The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and
           proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or
           issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of
           the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority
           conferred by section 95a of this title, are approved and confirmed.
SOURCE     (Mar. 9, 1933, ch. 1, title I, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1.)
COD                                    CODIFICATION
             This section is also set out as a note under section 5 of Title
           50, Appendix, War and National Defense.
CROSS                                CROSS REFERENCES
             Right to amend, separability of provisions, see section 212 of
           this title.
SECREF                    SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
             This section is referred to in section 212 of this title.
  

.

                          
    The nutters haven't gotten *ONE* state to adopt this "restoration
    of the Constitution."
    
    All they've gotten is a few more nutters to *BELIEVE*.
    
    ------
    

MILITIA NEW'S

Senate Report 93-549, 1973 Info Request


> "Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of
> declared national emergency.....A majority of the people of the United
> States have lived all their lives under emergency rule."  Senate Report
> 93-549, 1973.  We are still in a state of declared emergency.  To find
> out more, send email.

Here it is:

War and Emergency Powers: A Special Report on the national Emergency in 
the Untied States of America

	"Since march the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of of 
declared national emergency."  ---Senate Report 93-549

	That was the opening sentence of the Senate Report above.  This 
book explains in great detail how the national emergency came into 
being.  Using government documents, laws and code, the authors explain 
the origins of the "Trading with the Enemy Act", the Act of October 
6th, 1917.  The ramifications are staggering.  The authors shows that 
under a state of declared emergency, only certain parts of the 
Constitution function.

	The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in 
Cases of rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it:, 
Article I Section 9 of the Constitution.  A national emergency such as 
the one declared seems to be meet the requirements of this clause.  
This national emergency is used as justification for federal 
jurisdiction within the states, and the web of agencies that come with it.

	The authors also explain the relationship between the national 
emergency and our system of currency.  The Emergency Banking Act of 1933 
made it illegal for anyone to retain their gold, and were subject to 
harsh penalties if they did not comply.  The act was used to effectively 
cut the people off from their gold deposited in their banks.

	But the most interesting part of it comes here.  The book shows how 
the original Trading with the Enemy Act did not include "citizens of the 
United States" within the meaning of the term "enemy".  Then it goes on 
to show that amendments made to that act through the Banking Act caused 
those "citizens of the United States" to be included within the term "enemy".

	This book is very well documented, drawing from presidential 
speeches, executive orders, the Congressional Record and the text of the 
Statute itself.  Copies of all the referenced items are included as a 
part of the book.  
	
	This book explains everything in layman's terms to be easy to 
understand on top of it all.  I would highly recommend this to anyone 
wanting to learn more about the abuse of power in this country.

	I have seen many people attempt to bring the common law into the 
courtrooms to no avail. This might be why.  From the common law to the U.C.C. 
to Admiralty, the war powers impacts every aspect of our laws.

	To place an order, send $20, plus 2.50 for s/h to:

    [solicitation deleted]

    
    
    ".... wherever we go.... everyone knows it's me and my Arrow...."
    

    > The nutters haven't gotten *ONE* state to adopt this "restoration
    > of the Constitution."
    > 
    > All they've gotten is a few more nutters to *BELIEVE*.
    
    You know, I'd almost be willing to bet that some member of the British
    Government said this, probably around......1776 ?

    :-)
    Dan

    
    
    	re -1
    
    	that's great! :)
    
    
    

    I'm sorry, I forgot just how stupid you all can be.
    
    You all think the "Republican Party of Texas State Executive Committee"
    is "Texas" and you all think the the "California Republican Assembly"
    is "California."
    
    So go ahead.  Find out just how big the "Republican Party of Texas
    State Executive Committee" is.  Find out what their ties are, if
    any, to Phil Gramm, Young Bush and the other real republicans in
    Texas.  Find out how many real republicans were even at the
    June 17, 1995 meeting where they "unanimously" voted in this
    resolution.
    
    
    It used to be the LaRouchies had "democrat" sounding names.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	>    I'm sorry, I forgot just how stupid you all can be.
    
    
    	ah yes, your superior intellect is staggering. In fact, it's so
    huge that it's making your head expand. 
    
    	It's comments like the one above that cause people to hit next
    unseen when they see your name. Of course, I just can't do that. I have
    this strange attraction towards you......:)
    
    
    jim

    
|   ah yes, your superior intellect is staggering. In fact, it's so huge
|   that it's making your head expand. 
    
    
    Translating.  No, Jim Sadin does not have even the vaguest idea who
    these people where that voted on these "resolutions".
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    >    Translating.  No, Jim Sadin does not have even the vaguest idea who
>    these people where that voted on these "resolutions".
    
    	Nope, don't care either. I posted it because I thought others might
    find it interesting. If you really want to know who they are and who
    they represent, GO LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. I am not your babysitter and do
    not need to spoonfeed you your information. If you happen to know who
    these groups are actually comprised of THEN ENTER THE INFORMATION HERE
    OR SHUT UP.
    
    with warm regards and loving affection,
    
    	jim

    
    NO JIM.
    
    YOU FIND OUT WHERE YOUR DISINFORMATION IS COMING FROM.
    
    THAT'S YOUR JOB.
    
    I'M NOT THE ONE SPREADING PROPAGANDA.
    
    YOU ARE.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    .99
    
    >with warm regards and loving affection,
    
    I'm skeptical about this part.
    
    ;^)
    

>    I posted it because I thought others might find it interesting.

And we do.

    
    
    "... and in the morning when I wake up, you may be gone.... I dunno.."
    

    
    	You're the one accusing me of spreading propaganda. Prove it. Until
    then...well...have a nice day. :)
    
    
    	love and affection,
    
    	jim

    It's a sad thing to see... 
    
    mr bill STILL hasn't figured out that calling people liars, generalizing, 
    insulting people, and shouting, is not going to convince anyone that his 
    points are valid.

    Please mr bill, post some facts, and act rationally.  I assure you that
    your current behavior is only hurting your cause.
    
    On the lighter side.....
    
    Do you think mr bill could be a republican plant.... to try and make
    all democrats look as silly as this ..... hhhhmmmmm... I wonder...
    :-)
    
    Lighten up mr bill, or you'll give yourself a stroke..

    :-)
    Dan

    > Lighten up mr bill, or you'll give yourself a stroke..
    
    I suspect Mr. Bilge has been giving himself lots of strokes...
    
    -b

    Thank Jim, and keep up the good work.
    
    Mr. Bill being a Republican plant (and a great one too) is one
    conspiracy even I have a hard time buying.  He's just so incompetent it
    looks that way.
    
    Mike

Jim, please keep posting "interesting" stuff.

Mr. Bill, your point is noted. I never take Internet stuff at face value, nor
should anyone. Some of it is quite interesting, though, and occasionally
raises some valid points. Screeching "LIES, LIES!" is a little much, though.

I know Mr. Bill, and he's definitely not a plant.  Well, maybe a triffid.

Perhaps Bill Clinton is a Republican plant too?

Hey it could happen Tri-Lateral commission and all that.

Mikey

    <-----
    
    hhhmmmmm..... Just about everything he does helps the Republican
    party..... hhhmmmmm... That may have some merit !
    
    :-)
    Dan
    

>> Perhaps Bill Clinton is a Republican plant too?
    
    I'll bet Bill Clinton has smoked a Republican plant...
    
    Chris

Now, now.  We know Republicans have never touched the stuff.

    
    
    No we're adult enough to admit it, though.  I even inhaled......

    
      Both Gingrich and Gore smoked marajuana, and both inhaled.
    
      Both stopped long ago, and admit their mistake today.  No big
     deal.
    
      I doubt Bob Dole ever had the opportunity, or would if he had.
    
      As for Sliq, well...
    
      bb

Some would say that Gingrich and Gore still inhale.

    
    .115
    
      >Both Gingrich and Gore smoked marajuana, and both inhaled.
      >Both stopped long ago, and admit their mistake today.
    
    So, if they admitted that stopping long ago was a mistake, did they
    start smoking again?
    

| <<< Note 399.116 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| Some would say that Gingrich and Gore still inhale.

	Gerald, I know many who sometimes which Gingrich would stop inhaling.:-)
And I never see Gore move, so if he is inhaling anything, it's beyond me how he
is doing it. :-)

    Actually, if I had been a republican plant, I would have pointed out
    that the crap in .88 really did come from the official 100% pure
    Republican Party of the Great State of Texas.
    
    
    Which has nothing at all to do with the veracity of the facts
    presented.  They are rehashes of loonie conspiracy theories that
    have been most recently popularized by LaRouche (minus the QoE
    does dope of course) before he was convicted, oh, I'm sorry, held
    as a political prisoner....
    
    
    So, confronted with .88, there can be only one conclusion.
    
    
    The 62 members of the Republican Party of Texas State Executive
    Committee are absolutely 100% stark raving nutters.
    
    
    Californians of any party, or for that matter no party at all, are
    by definition nuts.
    
    								-mr. bill

Unless they are fruits or flakes,  of course.

    
>    The 62 members of the Republican Party of Texas State Executive
>    Committee are absolutely 100% stark raving nutters.
>    
>    
>    Californians of any party, or for that matter no party at all, are
>    by definition nuts.
    
    	Good answer. Better than I expected actually. :)
    
    
    jim

    Now Jim, did you check the source?
    
    DougO$California_dreamer

    
    	Egad! I've done messed up agin'....golly gee willickers.....
    
    
    

    re: Note 399.68 by NOTIME::SACKS
    
    > This is assuming you evade income taxes.
    
    You assume all people have "taxable income".
    
    FWIW: You don't need a ssn to "work for someone" either.  

    
    I am not a nut.

           "Black Helicopters And Flights Of Fantasy"

BLACK HELICOPTERS

     Those two words have become shorthand for talk of conspiracy
theorists, short-wave radio ramblers and all others who profit from
promoting rumors of America being sold out and taken over by foreign
troops, troops whose first mission is to confiscate firearms.

     Law-abiding gun owners - as all NRA members know full well - face
real threats to the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights. They can
not afford to waste their resources worrying about flights of fantasy
such as these:

WICKENBURG, ARIZONA

     Last summer rumors flew around this community of 5,000 just a few
miles northwest of Phoenix. U.N. troops were invading the old
gold-boom town. Richard Sherrow, an investigator and veteran of 21
years of active Army service, went to check out the scene and filed a
report in the February 1995 issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine.

     Sherrow writes, "On the way out, I tuned in a talk radio station
in time to catch a caller from Wickenburg. Yes, itUs true, he claimed:
cammie-clad invaders, hundreds of black helicopters. . . . They got a
tank and everything."

     Sherrow infiltrated the not-so-secret U.N. headquarters by using
a phone book and road signs that directed him to the 3rd German Air
Force Training Squadron. An interview with commanding officer Lt. Col.
Hubert Prinz disclosed that the unit "had been there since 1989,
evaluating potential pilots for the German military, as well as for
Lufthansa."

     The unit's fliers and civilian psychologists had been conducting
survival exercises in the desert - they had been checked out by local
law enforcement heeding citizen concerns - when confronted by "armed
patriots" who sent them packing. While The Spotlight tabloid blared
the headline: "Armed Patriots Confront U.N. Unit," Sherrow captured
the truth, labelling the armed confrontation "a scenario with
potential as a near-tragic incident."

CATRON CO., NEW MEXICO

     When invasion rumors began flying, Gene Ballinger, editor of the
Courier, a weekly newspaper in the town of Hatch, became a voice of
reason, writing an article titled, "There Is No Invasion of Catron
County."

     He wrote: "Rumors are the most dangerous things that anyone can
transmit. And rumors are rife throughout New Mexico, and across the
United States at this time, about Catron County being invaded by a
federal-state task force. IT IS NOT TRUE!"

     How did the rumors begin? Ballinger pieced it together as
follows: "According to Danny Fryar, Catron County Manager, a prison
inmate told FBI agents that he knew where a body was buried. The
location happened to be in Catron County.

     "Agents brought the inmate to Catron County last month and he
took them to the place the body was supposedly buried. Fryar
understands that there was evidence that a body has been buried at the
location, but had been moved apparently without the knowledge of the
inmate.

     "Then other agencies, including the Department of Justice, and
the ATF, came in with sniffer dogs in an attempt to locate the
remains. Apparently that failed, and then New Mexico National Guard
troops were brought in to assist the FBI, and other agencies, in a
shoulder-to-shoulder search of the suspected area.  . . .

     "The bottom line is very simple and that is: the various agencies
are doing their respective jobs, as they are supposed to do. Nothing
they are doing has anything whatsoever to do with anything nefarious.

     "Rumors that a Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force had moved into
Catron County to seize firearms and arrest citizens are totally
unfounded and untrue, and we felt it best to quash those rumors once
and for all."

     And rumors of the Catron County invasion were by no means
confined to that sparsely populated area of southwest New Mexico.  The
Courier reported that "at least 15 citizen militia units in 15
different states" contacted County Manager Fryar for verification of
the federal government's invasion force. Fryar explained to each
caller that the rumors "had been started by two or three people" and
that "all was well in Catron County."

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

     Rumors come in all sizes; not all feature ebony copters and U.N.
invaders. This one concerns the old Mather Air Base just east of the
state capital. Doug Fales is an auto mechanic in nearby Roseville. He
is also a member of the Placer Country "militia." Early this year
Fales was interviewed by the Sacramento Bee's Sam Stanton. "Right
now," Fales told the reporter, "we are dispelling a lot of myths.
There was a myth that when Mather air field was an air field the
barbed wire was facing outward and now its facing inward to suggest
that there is some sort of concentration camp in there. We drove by
and checked it out, and it's not true."

PEEBLES, OHIO

     "New World Order" troops in Ohio. William F. Jasper, senior
editor of The New American magazine, read one too many items on the
Internet and several computer bulletin boards concerning invasion of
the Buckeye State. He couldn't resist investigating after reading the
following last summer about the town of Peebles:

     The following report is not rumor, I am relaying it from
     three eyewitnesses. Last weekend, July 22-24, over 200
     troops suited in black uniforms patrolled a small town in
     southern Ohio known as Peebles, about 80 miles west of
     Cincinnati. Witnesses said that the troops carried around
     M16s, and that half of them did not speak English. As well,
     the infamous "black helicopters" were all over the place,
     landing in fields and pastures in full view for everyone to
     see. They were practicing house to house searches and stops.
     . . . The townspeople are very quiet this week, and everyone
     is scared to death.

     The New American editors picked up their phones and did some
checking. They talked about the raid with Peebles police dispatcher
Barbara Stephenson who said, "I didn't see or hear anything about it.
I think I would have known if it had happened and so would all the
rest of the people here, but I don't know of anybody who's even heard
of these rumors."

     The NWO troops patrolling Peebles were also totally invisible to
staff of the local weekly paper, which wondered how it has "missed the
home-town scoop of the century."

     Gun owners could miss more than a scoop if they allow themselves
to be diverted by threats that are as false as they are dramatic.
There are all too many real menaces out there in the form of anti-gun
members of the media, politicians and lobbyists.

     Editor & Publisher columnist Thomas Winship wrote in the April
24, 1993, issue: "It is time to square off against guns. We are
talking a sustained newspaper crusade. . . . Investigate the NRA with
renewed vigor. . . . Support all forms of gun licensing; in fact, all
the causes NRA opposes. . . ."

     Congressmen like Charles Schumer, of course, need no
encouragement to denigrate NRA and its members. It was Schumer who
charged that House Speaker Newt Gingrich's assurance to NRA that no
new gun laws would pass constitutes "a deal with the devil."

     And then there is Sarah Brady, who in a fundraising letter
besmirches NRA "as the major obstacle to public safety in America."

     Yes, it is time to stop worrying, if you ever did, about black
helicopters and U.N. invaders and focus attention on voting out of
office those would deny your individual right to own a firearm, deny
your right to protect yourself and your family against criminal
attack.

     Forget black helicopters and remember politicians like Charles
Schumer, lobbyists like Sarah Brady and media personalities like
Thomas Winship. As Oscar Wilde reminds us, "A man can not be too
careful in the choice of his enemies."
=+=+=
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Some useful URLs:  http://WWW.NRA.Org, 
gopher://GOPHER.NRA.Org, wais://WAIS.NRA.Org, ftp://FTP.NRA.Org,
mailto:LISTPROC@NRA.Org (Send the word help as the body of a message)

Information can also be obtained by connecting directly to the NRA-ILA 
GUN-TALK BBS at (703) 934-2121.

NRA.org is maintained by Mainstream.net  mailto:info@mainstream.net

-------------------------------
GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS NETWORK
-------------------------------

Topic    : #166, Recently Published from the U.S. Government
Subject  : U.S. Code, 1988:  Supp 5, Vol 2 (June 6, 1994)

__United States Code, 1988:  Supplement 5, Volume 2:  Titles 10-
12__
Published by the House of Representatives

The __United States Code__ is a consolidation of the general and
permanent laws of the United States.  It is published in its
entirety every six years and updated by supplements for each
session of Congress.  This supplement specifically looks at
Titles 10 through 12.   

--------------------
Ordering Information
--------------------
1994, Cloth, 1500pp
Order No. 59905
Standing Order No. 9191
$59.00


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

     *** TO ORDER OR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 1-800-274-4888 ***.

>    > This is assuming you evade income taxes.
>    
>    You assume all people have "taxable income".

The original note said "If you run your own business (doing business in cash)
... you really don't need [a Social Security Number]."

Please explain how it's possible to run you own business, make enough money
to live on, and not have taxable income.

    
    re: .109
    
    >Well, maybe a triffid.
    
    Wow!!! You rememeber that movie?? It was great!!!
    
    Talk about conspiracy (and paranoia :) :)...!! Everytime I go to a mall
    and see those tall, white flower plants in the garden areas, I think of
    the Triffids....  When my son was younger, and we'd see those plants,
    he'd make that crackling noise they made in the movie... it sounded so
    real.. we'd get a real laugh out if it!!

    The Day of the Triffids?
    
    giant man-eating plants...

    -1 P.S. i think ed wood might have made that movie if he were in
       England at the time... :-)

    re: Note 399.128 by NOTIME::SACKS
    
    There's a difference between a "business" and a corporation.
    Engaging in business is a right.  Deemed so via the 5th amendment,
    life liberty and property.   
    
    Incorparating a business, or to engage in commerce, or using public 
    property for private gain (i.e. ship products, etc..) is not a right, 
    it is privilege.  Taxable, regulatable, etc...  Of course,
    "government" wants you to be in "this" catagory, not in the 1st
    catagory.  First thing they do is ask (require) you to obtain a
    "business license".  Next thing they do is try and criminalize,
    or try to illegitimize non-licensed businesses.  
    
    Research the requirement or need to obtain a "business license".
    And not just using state info either; of course they'd like you
    to be licensed so they can put thier meathooks on you anytime they
    want.
    
    MadMike

MadMike, you haven't answered my question.  How is it possible to run your
own business, make enough money to live on, and not have taxable income.
That's taxable income according to the Feds, not according to MadMike.

    Gerald.
    I can't answer your question in this forum.  All I can do is point
    you to a path of information if your interested in figuring this
    deal out.  Using the letter of the LAW, you can set up business and
    earn a living.  How much $$$ or the quality of life, I can't say,
    but everything you earn would be classified as "non-taxable".
    
    Of course, "according to the Feds" they'd tell you that this is
    wrong and your supposed to pay tax.  But, USING the LAW you can
    rebutt their claim against you.  Obviously this isn't a simple process,
    i.e. you need to think about it, and set it up properly (legally) 
    in the first place.  All I can do is tell you this is possible to
    do if your so inclined.  I can tell you where to start looking
    to verify this is true.
    
    Or, you can not believe me and think I'm out too lunch.  Whatever.
    
    MadMike
    

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT ON INTERNAL
REVIEW REGARDING THE RUBY RIDGE HOSTAGE
SITUATION AND SHOOTINGS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
PERSONNEL

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Overview

In February 1993, the Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR")
of the U.S. Department of Justice (the "Department") was informed
of allegations made by defense counsel for Randall ("Randy")
Weaver and Kevin Harris in the criminal case of United States v.
Weaver which was pending in the federal district court in Idaho.
Defense counsel alleged that employees of several components of
the Department had engaged in criminal and professional misconduct
during the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of Randy
Weaver and Kevin Harris. The Department decided to defer action on
this matter until the criminal trial was completed.

In July 1993, a jury acquitted Weaver and Harris of charges stemming
from the murder of a federal officer. Following the acquittal,
numerous additional allegations wereraised by defense counsel an
other sources against the Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
("BATF"), the U.S. Marshals Service ("Marshals Service") , the
Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI" or "Bureau") and the U.S>
Attorney's Office for the District of Idaho ("USAO"). Included
among these allegations were claims that Department employees had
unlawfully caused the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver, had taken
actions that had obstructed justice, had committed perjury and had
engaged in other criminal and ethical misconduct. In late July 1993,
attorneys from OPR and the Criminal Division of the Department,
assisted by inspectors form the FBI, began an investigation of these
allegations.

This report details the results of this investigation and traces
chronologically the events that occurred in the Weaver matter. The
early sections of the report focus on Weaver's sale of illegal firearms
to a BATF informant, BATF's unsuccessful attempt to enlist Weaver
as an informant, the subsequent governmental delay in seeking an
indictment on the firearms violations, and Weaver's arrest on
weapons charges followed by his subsequent failure to appear for
trial on those charges. Another area of investigative inquiry focuses
on the efforts of the Marshals Service to apprehend Weaver. These
efforts culminated in the August 21, 1992 gun battle at Ruby Ridge
which took the lives of Deputy Marshal William Degan and Weaver's
son, Sammy Weaver. Next, the report contains a discussion of the
involvement of the FBI in the Weaver matter, including its initial
intervention in the crisis, its responsibility for the death of Vicki
Weaver and wounding of Kevin Harris on August 22, 1992, its
handling of the crisis including its attempts to end the week-long
standoff, its handling of the crime scene searches and its subsequent
activities in assisting the USAO in preparing the Weaver case for
trial. Finally, the last section of the report addresses the handling by
the USAO and the investigative agencies of the prosecution of
Weaver and Harris including representation made by the U.S.
Attorney to the court prior to the beginning of Harris' preliminary
hearing, the conduct of the Assistant U.S. Attorney before the grand
jury and the untimely disclosure of critical information to the defense.

We found that many of the allegations of misconduct were not
supported by the evidence. However, we did find merit in some of the
more serious charges. As a result, we have asked that the
appropriate component of the Department examine for prosecutive
merit the conduct of the FBI sniper/observer who fired the shots on
August 22, 1992. In addition, because our investigation indicated that
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Howen took certain questionable
actions during the investigation and prosecution of the Weaver case,
we have recommended that the Executive Office for United States
Attorneys examine our analysis of his conduct and take whatever
administrative action it deems appropriate. Finally, we have
formulated a series of recommendations that address the problems
that we reviewed or uncovered during our investigation.

B. Significant Findings

In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to a BATF
informant. When BATF agents later attempted to enlist Weaver as
an informant in their investigation of the Aryan Nations, Weaver
refused to cooperate. Seven months later, the government indicted
Weaver for the illegal weapons sales. We have found no evidence to
support the claim that BATF targeted Weaver because of his
religious or political beliefs. Similarly, we found insufficient evidence
to sustain the charge that Weaver was illegally entrapped into selling
the weapons.

When Weaver was arraigned on the weapons charges in January
1991, he was told that his trial would commence on February 19,
1991. Two weeks later, the court clerk notified the parties that the
trial date had been changed to February 20, 1991. Shortly thereafter,
the U.S. Probation Office sent Weaver a letter which incorrectly
referenced his trial date as March 20, 1991. After Weaver failed to
appear for trial on February 20, the court issued a bench warrant for
his arrest. Three weeks later, on March 14, a federal grand jury
indicted Weaver for his failure to appear for trial. We found that: the
government, especially the USAO, was unnecessarily rigid in its
approach to the issues created by the erroneous letter; that the
USAO improvidently sought an indictment before March 20, 1991;

[G.J.]

From February 1991 through August 1992, the Marshals Service was
involved in efforts to apprehend Weaver to stand trial for the
weapons charges and for his failure to appear fortrial. These efforts
included gathering information about Weaver and developing a plan to
arrest him. Base on information that it collected, the Marshals
Service learned that for many years Weaver had made statements
about his intent to violently confront federal law enforcement
officials. As a result, the Marshals Service concluded that Weaver
intended to resist violently governmental attempts to arrest him.
Thereafter, the Marshals Service investigated and carefully
considered alternatives that would enable it to arrest Weaver without
endangering his family or law enforcement personnel. It concluded
that an undercover operation would be the most prudent way to
proceed.

In August 1992, six marshals travelled to an area in northern Idaho
known as Ruby Ridge to conduct surveillance of the Weaver
residence in preparation for the undercover operation. During the
surveillance mission, the Weaver dog discovered the marshals and
began to bark. The marshals retreated with the dog, Harris, Randy
Weaver and his son, Sammy Weaver, and other family members in
pursuit. At an area known as the "Y," a gun battle occurred in which
Deputy Marshal Degan and Sammy Weaver were killed.

We conclude that the marshals took a measured approach in
developing a plan to apprehend Weaver. Throughout the 18 month
period that the marshals were responsible for apprehending Weaver,
they carefully devised a plan intended to pose the least amount of
risk to Weaver, his family, and the marshals. At no time did we find
that it was the intent of the marshals to force a confrontation with
Weaver or his family. Although some may question the expenditures
of manpower and resources by the Marshals Service during this 18
month period, we believe that institutional pressure created by the
existence of a bench warrant and an indictment, left the Marshals
Service with little choice but to proceed as it did. Moreover, the
USAO did little to assist the Marshals Service in this matter. Indeed,
during the first part of this process the USAO thwarted the efforts of
the Director of the Marshals Service to focus the court on the danger
involved in making the arrest and incorrectly terminated efforts by the
Marshals Service to negotiate with Weaver through intermediaries.

With regard to the responsibility for the deaths that occurred at the
Y, the marshals assert that Harris initiated the fire fight when he
shot Deputy Marsha Degan while Weaver and Harris claim that the
marshals fired the first shots. After a thorough review of all of the
evidence made available to us, we have been unable to determine
conclusively who fired the first shot during the exchange of gunfire.
Although there is evidence that one of the marshals shot Sammy
Weaver during the exchange of gunfire, we found no proof that the
shooting of the boy was anything other than an accident. In fact, the
evidence indicates that the marshals did not know that Sammy
Weaver had been killed or wounded until his body was discovered by
the FBI in a shed outside the Weaver cabin two days later. Nor did
wediscover any evidence indicating that the marshals attempted to
cover up their roles in the incident or that they exaggerated the
events to cause a more drastic FBI response than was appropriate.

Soon after learning of the August 21 incident at Ruby Ridge, the FBI
officials in Washington, D.C. evaluated the information made
available to them and decided to deploy its Hostage Rescue Team
("HRT") to Idaho to deal with the crisis. HRT members assumed
their position around the Weaver compound late in the afternoon of
August 22, 1992 but before doing so they were instructed that their
conduct was to be governed by specially formulated Rules of
Engagement ("Rules"). These Rules instructed the HRT snipers that
before a surrender announcement was made they could and should
shoot all armed adult males appearing outside the cabin. Operating
under these Rules on August 22, an FBI sniper/observer fired two
shots in quick succession. The first shot was at an armed adult male
whom he believed was bout to fire at a HRT helicopter on an
observation mission. The first shot wounded Randy Weaver while in
front of a building at the Weaver compound known as the birthing
shed. The second shot was fired at Harris while Harris was
retreating into the Weaver cabin. The second shot seriously wounded
Harris and killed Vicki Weaver who was behind the cabin door.

Following this shooting incident FBI officials spent the next eight
days attempting to convince Weaver and Harris to surrender to
federal authorities. Finally, due largely to the efforts of
nongovernmental negotiators, Harris and Weaver surrendered on
August 30 and August 31 respectively. Thereafter, the FBI completed
its searches of the cabin and surrounding areas. During the following
month, the FBI also conducted an internal review of the shooting
incident to determine if the sniper had responded appropriately.

Our review found numerous problems with the conduct of the FBI at
Ruby Ridge. Although we concluded that the decision to deploy the
HRT to Ruby Ridge was appropriate and consistent with Department
policy, we do not believe that the FBI's initial attempts at intelligence
gathering at the scene were sufficiently thorough. We also found
serious problems with the terms of the Rules of Engagement in force
at Ruby Ridge. Certain portions of these Rules not only departed from
the FBI's standard deadly force policy but also contravened the
Constitution of the United States. In addition, we found these Rules
to be imprecise and believe that they may have created an
atmosphere that encouraged the use of deadly force thereby having
the effect of contributing to an unintentional death.

With regard to the two shots fired on August 22, we concluded that
the first shot met the standard of "objective reasonableness" the
Constitution requires for the legal use of deadly force but that the
second shot did not satisfy that standard. It is our conclusion that the
sniper/observer who took the second shot intended to shoot Kevin
Harris but accidentally killed Vicki Weaver whom he did not see
behind the curtained door. We also found the internal FBI review of
the shooting incident has not been sufficiently thorough and reached
incorrect conclusions about the second shot.

Our examination of the command and control of the crisis by the FBI,
found numerous shortcomings. These shortcomings included initial
inadequacies in utilizing negotiating personnel, communicating with
FBI Headquarters, documenting decisions and securing the site.

During and after the crisis, the crime scenes were searched by many
law enforcement officials under the direct supervision of the FBI. We
found the FBI's handling of the crime scene searches to be
inadequate including its failure to use basic crime scene techniques
in collecting evidence. Furthermore, the general disorganization and
inexperience of some of the participants coupled with inaccuracies in
the searches adversely affected the prosecution and contributed to
the negative impression of the government generated during the trial.
We found no evidence that these deficiencies were intentional or that
the FBI staged evidence for the prosecution's benefit.

Shortly after their arrest, separate preliminary hearings were held for
Weaver and Harris. While arguing the government's motion
requesting a continuance of the Harris preliminary hearing, U.S.
Attorney Ellsworth made statements indicating that the government
would allow Harris to have a complete preliminary hearing in return or
consenting to the continuance. Thereafter, Harris consented to the
continuance with the understanding that he would have a full
preliminary hearing. An indictment was returned against Harris while
his preliminary hearing was in progress. We have found that the U.S.
Attorney did not intentionally misrepresent the government's position
but that he failed to appreciate the impact of his statements and that
he neglected to pay sufficient attention to the information that the
received concerning the probably length of the preliminary hearing.

After the first indictments were returned against Weaver and Harris,
the Assistant U.S. Attorney continued to present evidence to the
grand jury which led to the return of two superseding indictments,
each containing a conspiracy count. We found these conspiracy
counts to be overly broad and to contain some overt acts for which
there was insufficient evidence.

[G.J.]

Later the USAO decided to seek the death penalty against Weaver
and Harris even though the applicable federal appellate court had held
that the offense charged could not constitutionally support the
imposition of a death sentence. We have concluded that the decision
to seek the death penalty, although made in good faith, gave the
appearance that the government was overreaching.

From the moment that the USAO began to prepare the case for trial,
it met with resistance from the FBI. This resistance took many forms,
all of which served to make preparation of the case more difficult.
The FBI continuously opposed actions of the prosecutors requested
to prepare the case for trial, ranging from having the case agents
conduct out-of state interviews to enlisting agents from other
agencies to help prepare the case. The FBI, which wanted to be the
only agency or, at a minimum, the lead agency on the case, resisted
working as a coequal member of the prosecution team. Furthermore,
when the USAO sought advice and assistance from the FBI
Laboratory they met with unjustified delays and resistance that
created discord within the team and disrupted trial preparation. These
problems contributed to the USAO's decision to retain private
forensic experts.

In addition, the FBI unjustifiably delayed producing materials to the
USAO that were needed for trial preparation and that were clearly
discoverable under federal law and the discovery stipulation signed
by the parties. This action unreasonably delayed the availability of
these materials for trial preparation and for discovery. Particularly at
the headquarters level, we found that the FBI's efforts to locate and
produce discoverable documents to be disorganized and incomplete.
The late production during trial of materials associated with the FBI
Shooting Incident Report negatively affected the court's and the
jury's perception of the government and the government's case. In
addition, the delays in discovery caused by the disorganization of and
mistakes committed by the FBI Laboratory contributed to the delay of
the trial and to the perception that the government was uncooperative
and not being totally forthcoming.

However, the FBI was not alone in failing to make timely disclosure
of critical information to the defense. The USAO was also
responsible for not promptly revealing certain important information
to the defense. Although in some instances we found these tardy
disclosures to be unjustified or negligent, we do not believe that they
were improperly motivated or taken intentionally to obstruct the
Weaver trial.

C. Significant Recommendations

As the result of our investigation, we have made seven broad
recommendations. First, we recommend that all federal law
enforcement officers be governed by a standard deadly force policy
and that the Department of Justice be responsible for developing
such a policy. in addition to specifying clearly the circumstances in
which deadly force may be used, the policy should define the
occasions in which special Rules of Engagement may be
implemented and the process by which such rules should be
approved.

Second, we recommend that a crisis response team, including
specially trained crisis managers, be available to respond to crises. In
addition, we endorse the proposal to include specially trained
prosecutors to provide legal support to tactical teams when needed.
We also propose periodic joint training exercises by the various
federal and local law enforcement agencies which are responsible for
responding to crisis situation.

Third, we recommend that a panel comprised of representatives from
federal law enforcement agencies, including an attorney form the
Department of Justice, be created to examine the internal reviews
that law enforcement agencies conduct after shooting incidents
occur. This examination would focus on the thoroughness and
prosecutive merit of the internal review.

Fourth, we recommend that FBI field offices that do not have a team
in place to recover evidence after major hostage/barricade crises like
Ruby Ridge request the assistance of the Evidence Response Team
at FBI Headquarters. We further recommend that procedures be
adopted to improve the coordination between the FBI Laboratory and
the federal prosecutors and that and examination be done of the FBI
procedures regarding the memorializing of interviews.

Sixth, we recommend that all U.S. Attorneys' Offices institute a
review process for indictments, at least for significant cases.

Finally, we recommend that our findings concerning the events
surrounding the shooting of Vicki Weaver on August 22, 1992 be
referred to the appropriate component of the Department of Justice to
assess prosecutive merit. In addition, we recommend that our
analysis of the conduct of Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Howen be
referred to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys for
whatever administrative action it deems appropriate.



Released through

LEXIS COUNSEL CONNECT

LEXIS COUNSEL CONNECT is a communications and information
servicefor attorneys. LCC is managed by American Lawyer Media,
L.P.

Table of Contents 

	I've taken the liberty of copying the entire Weaver/Ruby Ridge DOJ
    report to my account. There are 21 separate files to copy. You can grab 
    them (and other neat stuff) from:
    
    
    
SUBPAC::DISK$SUB_USER9:[SADIN.TOOLS.FIREARMS]

FILE NAME              FILE SIZE
----------             ---------
WEAVER0.;2                43    outline of what's included in the report!
WEAVER1.;1                39
WEAVER10.;1              124
WEAVER11.;1               82
WEAVER12.;1               70
WEAVER13.;1              102
WEAVER14.;1              102
WEAVER15.;1              166
WEAVER16.;1              174
WEAVER17.;1              227
WEAVER18.;1               19
WEAVER19.;1               60
WEAVER2.;1                23
WEAVER20.;1               43
WEAVER3.;1                41
WEAVER4.;1                70
WEAVER5.;1               112
WEAVER6.;1               144
WEAVER7.;1               144
WEAVER8.;1               114
WEAVER9.;1               317
    
    
    please restrict copying to off hours if possible. Thanks.
    
    jim

   The Wall Street Journal, June 30, 1995, p. A14.

   Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report

   By James Bovard

   The 1992 confrontation between federal agents and the Randy
   Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has become one of the
   most controversial and widely discussed examples of the
   abuse of federal power. The Justice Department completed a
   542-page investigation on the case last year but has not
   yet made the report public. However, the report was
   acquired by Legal Times newspaper, which this week placed
   the text on the Internet. The report reveals that federal
   officials may have acted worse than even some of their
   harshest critics imagined.

   This case began after Randy Weaver was entrapped, as an
   Idaho jury concluded, by an undercover Bureau of Alcohol
   Tobacco and Firearms agent to sell him sawed-off shotguns.

   While federal officials have claimed that the violent
   confrontation between the Weavers and the government began
   when the Weavers ambushed federal marshals, the report
   tells a very different story. A team of six U.S. marshals,
   split into two groups, trespassed onto Mr. Weaver's land on
   Aug. 21, 1992. One of the marshals threw rocks at the
   Weaver's cabin to see how much noise was required to
   agitate the Weaver's dogs. A few minutes later, Randy
   Weaver, Kevin Harris, and 13-year-old Sammy Weaver came out
   of the cabin and began following their dogs. Three U.S.
   marshals were soon tearing through the woods.

   At one point, U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper "told the others
   that it was ['expletive deleted'] for them to continue
   running and that he did not want to 'run down the trail and
   get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up defensive
   positions. The others agreed.... William Degan ... took a
   position behind a stump...."

   As Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris came upon the marshals,
   gunfire erupted. Sammy was shot in the back and killed
   while running away from the scene (probably by Marshal
   Cooper, according to the report), and Marshal Degan was
   killed by Mr. Harris. The jury concluded that Mr. Harris's
   action was legitimate self-defense; the Justice report
   concluded it was impossible to know who shot first.

   Several places in the report deal with the possibility of
   a government coverup. After the firefight between the
   marshals and the Weavers and Mr. Harris, the surviving
   marshals were taken away to rest and recuperate. The report
   observed, "We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals
   together at the condominium for several hours, while
   awaiting interviews with the FBI. Isolating them in that
   manner created the appearance and generated allegations
   that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover
   up the true circumstances of the shootings."

   After the death of the U.S. marshal, the FBI was called in.
   A source of continuing fierce debate across America is: Did
   the FBI set out to apprehend and arrest Randy Weaver and
   Kevin Harris -- or simply to kill them? Unfortunately, the
   evidence from the Justice Department report is damning in
   the extreme on this count.

   The report noted, "We have been told by observers on the
   scene that law enforcement personnel made statements that
   the matter would be handled quickly and that the situation
   would be 'taken down hard and fast.' " The FBI issued Rules
   of Engagement that declared that its snipers "can and
   should" use deadly force against armed males outside the
   cabin.

   The report noted that a member of an FBI SWAT team from
   Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you see
   'em, shoot 'em.' " The task force report noted, "since
   those Rules which contained 'should' remained in force at
   the crisis scene for days after the August 22 shooting, it
   is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained
   ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement
   during that entire period."

   The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at
   Ruby Ridge flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The
   Constitution allows no person to become 'fair game' for
   deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the threat
   that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the
   evaluation must be made in a split second." The report
   portrays the rules of engagement as practically a license
   to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on whether
   to use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules
   attempted to usurp this responsibility."

   FBI headquarters rejected an initial operation plan because
   there was no provision to even attempt to negotiate the
   surrender of the suspects. The plan was revised to include
   a negotiation provision -- but subsequent FBI action made
   that provision a nullity. FBI snipers took their positions
   around the Weaver cabin a few minutes after 5 p.m. on Aug.
   22. Within an hour, every adult in the cabin was either
   dead or severely wounded -- even though they had not fired
   a shot at any FBI agent.

   Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and 16-year-old Sara Weaver
   stepped out of the cabin a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go
   to the shed where Sammy's body lay. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi
   shot Randy Weaver in the back. As Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris,
   and Sara Weaver struggled to get back into the cabin, Vicki
   Weaver stood in the cabin doorway holding a baby. Agent
   Horiuchi fired again; his bullet passed through a window in
   the door, hit Vicki Weaver in the head, killing her
   instantly, and then hit Mr. Harris in the chest.

   At the subsequent trial, the government claimed that
   Messrs. Weaver and Harris were shot because they had
   threatened to shoot at a helicopter containing FBI
   officials. Because of insufficient evidence, the federal
   judge threw out the charge that Messrs. Weaver and Harris
   threatened the helicopter. The Justice report noted, "The
   SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations Center at FBI
   headquarters] Log indicates that shots were fired during
   the events of August 22.... We have found no evidence
   during this inquiry that shots fired at any helicopter
   during the Ruby Ridge crisis. The erroneous entry was never
   corrected." (The Idaho jury found Messrs. Weaver and Harris
   innocent on almost all charges.)

   The Justice Department task force expressed grave doubts
   about the wisdom of the FBI strategy: "From information
   received at the Marshals Service, FBI management had reason
   to believe that the Weaver/Harris group would respond to a
   helicopter in the vicinity of the cabin by coming outside
   with firearms. Notwithstanding this knowledge, they placed
   sniper/observers on the adjacent mountainside with
   instructions that they could and should shoot armed members
   of the group, if they came out of the cabin. Their use of
   the helicopter near the cabin invited an accusation that
   the helicopter was intentionally used to draw the Weaver
   group out of the cabin."

   The task force was extremely critical of Agent Horiuchi's
   second shot: "Since the exchange of gunfire [the previous
   day], no one at the cabin had fired a shot. Indeed, they
   had not even returned fire in response to Horiuchi's first
   shot. Furthermore, at the time of the second shot, Harris
   and others outside the cabin were retreating, not
   attacking. They were not retreating to an area where they
   would present a danger to the public at large...."

   Regarding Agent Horiuchi's killing of Vicki Weaver, the
   task force concluded, "[B]y fixing his cross hairs on the
   door when he believed someone was behind it, he placed the
   children and Vicki Weaver at risk, in violation of even the
   special Rules of Engagement.... In our opinion he
   needlessly and unjustifiably endangered the persons whom he
   thought might be behind the door."

   The Justice Department task force was especially appalled
   that the adults were gunned down before receiving any
   warning or demand to surrender: "While the operational plan
   included a provision for a surrender demand, that demand
   was not made until after the shootings.... The lack of a
   planned 'call out' as the sniper/observers deployed is
   significant because the Weavers were known to leave the
   cabin armed when vehicles or airplanes approached. The
   absence of such a plan subjected the Government to charges
   that it was setting Weaver up for attack."

   
   Mr. Bovard writes often on public policy.

    Somehow Bill will find a way to justify it all, anyway...

    
    Somehow, none of you will take the time to read the material.
    
    								-mr. bill

    mr bill, if anyone refuses to read, on this topic, it is you.  Your
    defense is based mostly on calling others liars, and shouting.

    Dan

    No, actually, Mr. Bill is merely pointing out, correctly and
    continually, that his adversaries have an agenda, i.e., to prove that
    incidents like that on Ruby Ridge, are material for conspiracists to
    trumpet.
    
    When one wants badly enough to prove something, one will bring to bear
    whatever weapons one can, and among the many available weapons are
    innuendo, distortion, shouting, and outright falsehood.  Such a person
    simply will not hear anything that contradicts the agenda, such as
    evidence pointing to mistakes instead of plots.

    
    So, how many times did *you* find the following in the report:
    
    	"Defense counsel alledged...
    
    	...We found no evidence to support this allegation."
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    So what will hearings hurt?  There have been quite a few abuses of 
    power by the feds on several occaisions (Waco and Ruby Ridge being 
    but two).  Conspiracy?  I doubt it.  Power and the feeling of power 
    run riot?  That's what I think.  I see it all the time at the state 
    and local level as well and usually at a much smaller scale (police 
    using their power to make people squirm for routine traffic stops). 
    SOME of the law enforcement people get their kicks this way.  
    
    If these incidents aren't investigated and action taken where the 
    abuses are proven, then the cases will become more and more common.  
    
    
    Mike

    
|   So what will hearings hurt?
    
    The hearings will be hurt by the nutters.  Their wild conspiracy
    "facts" will correctly be found to be completely false.
    
    This of course will be "evidence" that Senator Arlen Specter (he who
    of course is already suspect as originator of the "magic bullet theory")
    is part of the conspiracy.
    
    So the damn the truth, there's conspiracy theories to weave crowd will
    keep right on producing their lies....
    
    
    This will obscure the importance of the true errors at Ruby Ridge.  The
    hearings will find that "mistakes were made" and nothing will change. 
    NOTHING.
    
|   Power and the feeling of power run riot?  That's what I think.
    
    I think you are an idiot.  Ruby Ridge had *nothing* *NOTHING* to do
    with power run riot.  It had everything to do with the very bad things
    that can happen when people shoot guns at people.  (Including people
    die when people shoot guns at people.)
    
    
    Outside of Dick Binder, no other noter has shown the slightest
    understanding of what went wrong at Ruby Ridge.
    
    Outside of Dick Binder, I find no other noter with an open mind on this
    matter.
    
    								-mr. bill

    mr bill,
    
    Yes, I can read as well as write.  However, I had the guts 
    (and open-mindedness) to read the whole thing.  

    This seems to be more than you are capable of.

    Hoping for you complete recovery...
    Dan

    re: 144
    
    HEY EVERYBODY, let's watch bill froth !
    
    :-)
    Dan
    

    
    "We found that many of the allegations of misconduct were not supported
    by the evidence."
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    "We have found no evidence to support the claim that BATF targeted
    Weaver because of his religious or political beliefs."
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    "Similary, we found insufficient evidence to sustain the charge that
     Weaver was illegally entrapped into selling the weapons."
    
    								-mr. bill

    "We conclude that the marshals took a measured approach in developing a
    plan to apprehend Weaver. Throughout the 18 month period that the
    marshals were responsible for apprehending Weaver, they carefully
    devised a plan intended to pose the least amount of risk to Weaver, his
    family, and the marshals. At no time did we find that it was the intent
    of the marshals to force a confrontation with Weaver or his family."
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    "After a thorough review of all the evidence made avaliable to us, we
     have been unable to determine conclusively who fired the first shot
     during the exchange of gunfire."
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    "Although there is evidence that one of the marshals shot Sammy Weaver
    during the exchange of gunfire, we found no proof that the shooting of
    the boy was anything other than an accident."
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    "We also found serious problems with the terms of the Rules of
    Engagement in force at Ruby Ridge."
    
    								-mr. bill

    Bottom line:
    	Mr. Next Unseen '95 has put the anal retention overdrive
    	on Warp Factor 10... it's those lithium crystals, doncha
    	know...

    	Requisition an existence!

    -b

    
    "We found the FBI's handling of the crime scene searches to be
    inadequate....  We found no evidence that these deficiencies were
    intentional or that hte FBI staged evidence for the prosecution's
    benefit."
    
    								-mr. bill

    "The allegation accuses the FBI of covering up its knowledge of Vicki
    Weaver's death in order to conceal that it intentionally shot and
    killed her. We find no factual support for that position and find that
    the allegation is totally without merit."
    
    								-mr. bill

I'm curious, Bill. On what basis do you place your faith in the investigators
making these statements?

This is a serious question.

 .158  yes, that would seem to be the question of the hour.

    
    "Weaver came to the attention of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
    and Firearms ("BATF") in July 1986, when a BATF informant
    was introduced to him at a World Aryan Congress. The informant
    met Weaver several times over the next three years. In July
    1989, Weaver invited the informant to his home to discuss
    forming a group to fight the "Zionist Organized Government,"
    referring to the U.S. Government. Three months later, Weaver
    sold the informant two "sawed-off" shotguns."
    
    "In June 1990, BATF agents approached Weaver to persuade him
    to become an informant. Weaver refused to become a "snitch,"
    and he was indicted for manufacturing and possessing an
    unregistered firearm." 
    
    I'd like to know why they waited to arrest weaver. Shouldn't he have
    been arrested immediately after he sold the two sawed off shotguns? Why
    wait until after he refused to be a snitch? Leverage?
    
    jim

    "We also find no evidence that Vicki Weaver was the intended target of
    the second shot as has been alleged. Horiuchi testified that he did not
    intend to shoot her. [FN745] Our review of the evidence has produce
    nothing to discredit those statements."
    
    								-mr. bill
                                           

    
    
    "BATF
    concluded that it would be too dangerous for the arresting agents
    and the Weaver children to arrest Weaver at his mountaintop
    residence."
    
    
    	One wonders why others didn't take the same approach.
    
    
    jim 

Bill's apparently struggling with that one himself, di.

    "The
    marshals exchanged messages with Weaver through
    intermediaries, until the U.S. Attorney directed that all
    communications go through Weaver's appointed counsel (with
    whom Weaver would not speak)."
    
    
    Why did the U.S. Attorney give such an order when it was plain that
    communication would cease?
    
    
    jim
    

    
    On what basis do you question the investigators making these statments?
    
    This is a serious question.
    
    								-mr. bill

    "At 3:30 p.m. on August 22, HRT sniper/observers, along with
    members of the Marshals Service SOG, began their ascent to the
    cabin. Before their departure, they were briefed on the Rules of
    Engagement, which provided that:
    
    1. If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the
    announcement, deadly force can and should be employed, if the
    shot can be taken without endangering any children."
    
    can and should eh?
    
    jim
    
    
    

Pretty much on the basis that Dick mentioned in .151 (I think - it's no
longer there now). A certain amount of skepticism is normally in order
when considering anything said by the those paid by the government.

    "After ten or twenty seconds Horiuchi saw the target of his first
    shot following the other two people as they ran to the cabin. The
    first two entered the cabin through an open door. Horiuchi fired,
    aiming slightly in front of the last running man. The bullet went
    through the curtained window of the open door, fatally wounding
    Vicki Weaver and seriously injuring Kevin Harris. The sniper
    testified that he did not know that Vicki Weaver was standing
    behind the door."
    
    	they were running back into the cabin....why did he shoot?
    
    jim
    
    

|   I'd like to know why they waited to arrest weaver. Shouldn't he have
|   been arrested immediately after he sold the two sawed off shotguns? Why
|   wait until after he refused to be a snitch? Leverage?
    
    Presumably because they correctly believe that people who illegally
    purchase short barelled shotguns might be more dangerous than people
    who illegally manufacture and sell them.
    
    								-mr. bill

|    	One wonders why others didn't take the same approach.
    
    They did.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	re: .169
    
    	he broke the law Mr. Bill, therefore he should have been arrested.
    
    
    jim

    
    
    re: .170
    
    	from my readings of the report, they (the marshalls) were on
    Weavers property. Shouldn't they have waited for him to leave?
    
    
    jim

================================================================================
Note 399.144                      Conspiracies                        144 of 168
PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left"  33 lines   5-JUL-1995 12:05
       -< The hearings will not slow down the nutters for a second.... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
||   Power and the feeling of power run riot?  That's what I think.
    
|    I think you are an idiot.  Ruby Ridge had *nothing* *NOTHING* to do
    ------------------------
    
    There you go with your wonderful debating skills again....
    
    |with power run riot.  It had everything to do with the very bad things
    |that can happen when people shoot guns at people.  (Including people
    |die when people shoot guns at people.)
    
    Especially when federal agents go in armed to the hilt ready to shoot
    on sight.
    
|    Outside of Dick Binder, no other noter has shown the slightest
|    understanding of what went wrong at Ruby Ridge.
    
|    Outside of Dick Binder, I find no other noter with an open mind on this
|    matter.
    
    
    At least we can agree that Dick is a reasonable man.
    
    								-mr. bill

    "No one from the cabin picked up the telephone, which was on an
    armed robot outside the cabin. Although the weapon on the robot
    was not loaded, Weaver reported that he was afraid that anyone
    who went outside would be shot."
    
    	I've seen these robots. They have a 12guage shotgun attached to the
    front of them. It's no wonder Weaver was afraid to go near the damn
    thing....
    
    
    jim 

    "After deliberation for 20 days, on July 8,
    1993, the jury acquitted Weaver and Harris of the murder of
    Deputy Marshal Degan, the conspiracy charge, and the
    significant remaining charges. Weaver was convicted on charges
    of failure to appear for trial and committing an offense while on
    release. On October 26, 1993, Weaver was sentenced to 18
    months incarceration, three years probation and a $10,000 fine.
    The court issued an Order fining the FBI and criticizing it for its
    failure to produce discovery materials, its failure to obey orders
    and admonitions of the court, and its indifference to the rights of
    the defendant and to the administration of justice."
    
    	

    >"Similary, we found insufficient evidence to sustain the charge that
    >Weaver was illegally entrapped into selling the weapons."
    
     Which, of course, does not exonerate the government. It means that
    nobody could prove the assertion, a far cry from saying the assertion
    was false.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

|   Why did the U.S. Attorney give such an order when it was plain that
|   communication would cease?

    It was the constitutionally correct for the US Attorney to give such
    an answer.  (And it was moot, communication already ceased.)
    
    								-mr. bill

|   can and should eh?
    
    DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING.
    
    The single most important fact from the fiasco on Ruby Ridge was the
    criminal rules of engagement.  But the nutters insist that it is better
    to bury it in a field of lies.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: .60's (and probably into the .70's- haven't read that far through
    this topic)
    
    Let's not mix the "Mark of the Beast" with an implant given to children
    at birth.  The two don't parse on the Biblical plane (which, of course,
    is where we find the words "mark of the beast", originally).
    
    Everyone will have a choice, according to the Bible, as to whether or
    not they will take this "mark".  If an implant or tattoo or whatever is
    administered at birth, that child has no choice, thus it is not THE
    mark.  Doesn't make the current trends uninteresting, though.  The
    technology is here.  Everything mentioned in Revelation about not being
    able to buy or sell without the "mark" is now feasable.
    
    
    -steve

    
|    	from my readings of the report, they (the marshalls) were on
|   Weavers property. Shouldn't they have waited for him to leave?
    
    Weaver's property.  They did.  He didn't.  Next stupid question?
    
    								-mr. bill

    >We found that: the government, especially the USAO, was unnecessarily 
    >rigid in its approach to the issues created by the erroneous letter; that 
    >the USAO improvidently sought an indictment before March 20, 1991;
    
    >Later the USAO decided to seek the death penalty against Weaver and
    >Harris even though the applicable federal appellate court had held that 
    >the offense charged could not constitutionally support the imposition 
    >of a death sentence.
    
    >However, the FBI was not alone in failing to make timely disclosure of
    >critical information to the defense. The USAO was also responsible for 
    >not promptly revealing certain important information to the defense. 
    
     A combination of incompetance, arrogance and boorishness. Gotta love
    it.

    mr bill,

    You so very carefully parsed out only the pieces you wanted to read.  I
    might suggest a reading comprehension class, you obviously need it. 
    Also, if I were you I would not bring up the "harboring" issue, you can
    only embarrass yourself further.

    Dan

    BTW - how does one "harbor" someone in that person's own home ?
    You never did answer the question, you ran and hid.

    >The single most important fact from the fiasco on Ruby Ridge was the
    >criminal rules of engagement. 
    
     Agreed. 

   <<< Note 399.165 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
                                 -< re: .158 >-

    
>    On what basis do you question the investigators making these statments?
 
	There is a rather lengthy and well documented history that the 
	government does not do a good job of investigating itself.

	This is why God created special prosecutors.

Jim

Bill's still struggling with his answer to the original question, I see.

.186  he prolly figures he turned the tables on you and we'd all be
      awe-struck by the cleverness of the tactic. ;>

    No, just dumbfounded that you all find sources such as "Stormfront" a
    credible source which are not to be questioned, but *anything* tainted
    by the government is to be disbelieved.  (I guess that makes the
    actual trial transcripts not credible.  Glad I didn't fork out good
    money for bad sources.)
    
    
    This government is amazing.  They even managed to plant a mole in
    the Idaho Survivalist so that he could post updates to usenet
    newsgroups during the trial!  That these updates agree with the
    facts presented in this investigation is just evidence that the
    conspiracy is wider than anybody could possibly imagine!
    
    
    I haven't decided which has a longer history.  Government not doing a
    good job of investigating itself.  Or the conspiraratti.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Thinking it should be investigated (by an outside, unbiased body) is not
    and unreasonable request to anyone but the unreasonable.
    
    
    Mike
    

    .189
    
    > investigated (by an outside, unbiased body)
    
    There is no such thing.

    
    
    Okay, how about less biased than an organization investigating
    itself.......

>    No, just dumbfounded that you all find sources such as "Stormfront" a
>    credible source which are not to be questioned,

"We all" don't, necessarily. Skepticism abounds.

> but *anything* tainted by the government is to be disbelieved.

Much of it should be.

You still haven't told us why you fail to disbelieve any of what the
government is telling you, though I'll admit that you appear to have
expressed the possibility that they aren't entirely to be trusted.

|   .189                  
|    
|   > investigated (by an outside, unbiased body)
|    
|   There is no such thing.
    
    WRONG.  I just checked the conspiraratti dictionary, and it says:
    
    	Unbiased investigation - A study that reaches preordained
    	conclusions that a massive conspiracy:
    		has taken place;
    	or	is taking place;
    	or	will take place.
    
    	See also "outside investigation."
    
    For "outside investigation" I find:
    
    	Outside investigation - A study that reaches preordained
    	conclusions that a massive conspiracy:
    
    		has taken place;
    	or	is taking place;
    	or	will take place.
    
    	See also "unbiased investigation."
    
    								-mr. bill

    To all attentive 'boxers:

    You will notice that mr bill is following his usual line of discussion,
    to wit, pile derision on those who disagree with you, bicker about
    smallest details that aren't truly being questioned, name calling,
    shouting, and basically avoiding discussion of the questioned matters. 
    This approach is one in which he has specialized, and may rank as a new
    award ala "MEOWSKI".  If you intend to engage mr bill in discussion, be
    prepared to be ridiculed and belittled on essentially frivolous points.

    The preceding was a public service announcement.

    :-)
    Dan

    Not to get involved in this wonderfully deep discussion on Ruby
    Ridge, but the term "nutters" reminded me of an recent newspaper
    article that mentioned a Boston attorney and legal consultant for
    the NRA...
    
    Her name?  Karen McNutt.
    
    What are the odds? ;-)

    Hey, watch it, .... you're on thin ice.  I know Karen, and she is a
    wonderful lady.  I assume that you are not going to say anything nasty
    about a true lady.

    Dan

From this side of the pond it seems that whatever your government does it loses.

You want it to crack down on criminals until its someone whose broad political
aims you agree with and then its part of a conspiracy to restrict freedom.

The conspiracy claims are investigated and find no evidence of any conspiracy
only errors and incompetence a bit like every other organisation (even Digital).
Unfortunately, this is not want the conspiracy advocates want to hear so
this becomes part of the conspiracy.

This then continues ad infinitum.

    
    
    J,
    
    No, we just want to make sure that the "criminals", as you call them
    are really criminals and that the actions of the fed (and calling the 
    BATF law enforcement personel is a misnomer, they are a tax agency)
    were reasonable and justified.  The Davidians had been around for years
    and years and hadn't been a bother to the community.  They worked, paid
    their taxes and existed without much trouble just as you or I would. 
    
    Mike

    
    
    Anyone hear about the 4 page letter sent out by Treasury Secretary,
    Robert Rubin?  Anyone care to explain what this means?
    
    In his letter, the Treasury Secretary argued that the federal
    activities that will be investigated (Waco) in the joint hearings
    "cannot be understood properly outside the context of Oklahoma City".
    
    He also refers to Gun laws in this letter and how the hearings will be
    used to undermine Federal gun laws such as the Brady Bill and The
    Assault weapon ban.
    
    Talk about politicizing things.  
    
    

    I've conspired to get this SNARF.

>                      <<< Note 399.195 by PCBUOA::KRATZ >>>

>    article that mentioned a Boston attorney and legal consultant for
>    the NRA...
   NO!
    
>    Her name?  Karen McNutt.
    
Karen is a consultant for Gun Owners Action League(GOAL) not the NRA.
Karen is a highly respected lawyer who works very often with victims of crime
and specifically women who have been denied their Second Amendment rights.

Amos

    Thanks Amos,
        Last time I saw her she was a consultant for GOAL, I thought maybe
    she was also working for the NRA (it's been a while since I saw her
    last), otherwise I would have jumped on that too.
    
    Dan

    
    
>    It was the constitutionally correct for the US Attorney to give such
>    an answer.  (And it was moot, communication already ceased.)
    
    	communication had not already ceased. There was communication
    through 2nd parties.
    
    
    jim

    
    
    
>    The single most important fact from the fiasco on Ruby Ridge was the
>    criminal rules of engagement.  But the nutters insist that it is better
>    to bury it in a field of lies.
    
    	Whatever the "criminal rules of engagement" were, the govt had no
    right to kill anyone that was not trying to kill them. I guess if some
    hunter wandered into the midst of that fiasco carrying his hunting
    rifle they would've just blasted him.
    
    
    jim

    A (male) hunter would have fit the description as specified.  He would
    have been toast.
    
    Dan

    
    
>|    	from my readings of the report, they (the marshalls) were on
>|   Weavers property. Shouldn't they have waited for him to leave?
    
>    Weaver's property.  They did.  He didn't.  Next stupid question?
    
    	Must you always be so insulting? I don't remember calling you
    stupid. My point is that the Marshalls were on Weavers property BEFORE
    any shooting had started. They knew this guy was on edge and would
    probably shoot at them if he saw them. Why invade the property with
    only the few marshalls they had? Bad judgement? 
    
    jim

    
|   	Whatever the "criminal rules of engagement" were, the govt had no
|   right to kill anyone that was not trying to kill them. I guess if some
|   hunter wandered into the midst of that fiasco carrying his hunting
|   rifle they would've just blasted him.
    
    The "government" did not try to kill anyone who was not trying to kill
    them.  Lon Horiuchi did *not* fire when he saw armed men outside the
    cabin.  Neither did any other sharpshooter.  He did *NOT* shoot until
    a helicopter was threatened.
    
    Question the wisdom of the second shot on several grounds.
    
    But to *still* insist after reading *ALL* the material that is available
    to you that "if some hunter wandered into the fiasco... they would have
    blasted him" can only be called one thing.  A baldfaced *LIE*!
    
    								-mr. bill

                                                                     
|   Must you always be so insulting? I don't remember calling you stupid. 
    
    I called your question stupid.  It is a stupid question.
    
    Weaver did not leave his property from the time his wife declared he
    was a fugitive until the day he finally walked off the mountain with
    Bo Gritz.  Asking why the marshalls did not wait for him to leave
    is a stupid question because you should have already known the answer.
    THEY DID WAIT FOR HIM TO LEAVE.  HE DID NOT LEAVE!
    
    
|   My point is that the Marshalls were on Weavers property BEFORE any
|   shooting had started.
    
    No kidding.
    
|   They knew this guy was on edge and would probably shoot at them if he
|   saw them.
    
    No kidding.
    
|   Why invade the property with only the few marshalls they had?
    
    They didn't "invade," they went on a recon mission with six marshals.
    They did so because it was their *JOB*!
    
|   Bad judgement? 
    
    Good judgement.  They went out of their way not to provoke Weaver and
    his clan.
    
    Of course, the judgement of Weaver and company is not to be questioned.
    No no no no no.  That would not do.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
|   	communication had not already ceased. There was communication
|   through 2nd parties.
    
    Oct 16, 1991  Intermediaries deliver a letter written by Vicki Weaver
    that says basically hell no, we won't discuss anything further.
    (Search for "slander" if you must.)
    
    Oct 17, 1991  U.S. Attorney directs all contacts through Weaver's
    attorney.
    
    
    This isn't rocket science.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    "The marshals formulate formal surrender terms.October
    12, 1991 Hunt and Evans propose offering formal surrender terms to
    Weaver and request authorization from the U.S. Attorney's
    Office.October 17, 1991 Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Howen
    sends letter to Hunt and Evans directing that all contact with Weaver
    must be through Weavers' appointed counsel, Everett Hoffmeister.
    In addition, Howen does not authorize further negotiations with
    Weaver as proposed by the Marshals Service."
    
    	Yep, cut off negotiations, that's the way to go.
    
    
    jim

"On October 16, 1991, Evans and Hunt gave Jeppeson a letter to give
to Randy Weaver that responded to the questions Vicki Weaver had
raised. Later that same day, Jeppeson gave Hunt a brief response
signed by Vicki Weaver, which declared "[t]here is nothing to
discuss. [Randy] doesn't have to prove he is innocent. Nor refute
your slander."[FN216]


        Hmmmm....so this is a good reason to stop negotiations? One letter
ends it all eh? 

jim
                

    mr bill, your reading comprehension is horrible.

    > HRT members assumed
    > their position around the Weaver compound late in the afternoon of
    > August 22, 1992 but before doing so they were instructed that their
    > conduct was to be governed by specially formulated Rules of
    > Engagement ("Rules"). These Rules instructed the HRT snipers that
    > before a surrender announcement was made they could and should
    > shoot all armed adult males appearing outside the cabin. 

    As I said before, by these rules a (male) hunter wandering into the
    area would fall under these rules.  Judging by the way the HRT members
    enforced the rules of engagement, he would have been toast.

    Hoping for you eventual recovery,
    Dan

    New Conspiracy....
    
    
    
    
    I think Mr. Killoran is really Mailman returned!

    >[t]here is nothing to discuss. [Randy] doesn't have to prove he is 
    >innocent. Nor refute your slander."
    
    This is so true. If it ever stops being true, and there is evidence
    that it has, the country and our freedom are in deep cow manure.
    
    
    ...Tom

    Who is this Mailman guy?
    Should I be insulted?

    :-/
    Dan <confused look>

>    Should I be insulted?

If you only knew . . . 

    re: .214
    
     He does, however, have to appear in court while the charges are laid
    out against him. After the prosecution presents its case, he can elect
    not to mount a defense. Dems da roolz.

> >    Should I be insulted?
> 
> If you only knew . . . 
    
    That's why I'm asking......
    
    Dan

    His name is Mailroom and yes you should be insulted!

                                                                    
|        Hmmmm....so this is a good reason to stop negotiations? One letter
|ends it all eh? 
    
    No.  The Weavers had already used their vocal chords to tell
    intermediaries that there were uninterested in negotiating.  They
    did this over several contacts.  The written letter was just the
    final confirmation of what *everyone* (the Weavers, the intermediaries,
    and the government) knew as a fact.
    
    The Weavers had broken off surrender negotiations.
    
    
    I'm not at all sure what color the sky is in your world, and that's not
    important anyway.
    
    But in your world, did October 17, 1991 come before or after
    October 16, 1991?  (I'm making a huge assumption that October 17, 1991
    is in the past in your world.  For all I know it will happen in the
    future for you.  Maybe they are the same day?  Maybe it's today?)
    
    ----
    
    The "full" letter was:
    
              My husband was set up for a fall because of his
              religious and political beliefs.  There is nothing
              to discuss.  He doesn't have to prove his
              innocence, nor refute your slander.
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 399.207 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

    
>    Question the wisdom of the second shot on several grounds.
 
	Most importatnt of which is how someone running through a door
	could be "threatening" a helicopter.

Jim

    
>       -< October 16, 1991 came before October 17, 1991 in my world.... >-
    
    	Where did I ever say it didn't? You're drifting on me Mr. Bill...
    
    
    jim

    
|   As I said before, by these rules a (male) hunter wandering into the
|   area would fall under these rules.
    
    Correct.  I suppose a space alien landing on the site also would have
    been covered.  As likely an occurance.  But let's try this, more likely
    occurance.
    
    Final Jeopardy, the category "Nutters", remember to phrase your
    response in the form of a question.  And the answer is....
    
    	SHOOT ON SIGHT.
    
    	[Run theme song from final Jeopardy....]
    
    	And your answer please.
    	What did Lon Horiuchi do on Ruby Ridge?
    
    	I'm sorry, but that is wrong.  The correct answer is "What
    	were the Weaver's rules of engagement if any armed individual
    	visited Ruby Ridge?"
    
|   Judging by the way the HRT members enforced the rules of engagement, he
|   would have been toast.
    
    This is where you simply and totally WRONG.  The actions of the HRT
    members were quite clear.  They did *NOT* follow the rules
    of engagment.  Thank god, because those rules were criminal.
    
    If you believe that the rules were followed, answer this question:
    
	HOW CAN THE RULES HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IF MEMBERS OF THE HRT
    	WITNESSED ARMED MEN COME OUT OF THE CABIN, HAD CLEAR SHOTS
    	AT THESE MEN, BUT DID *NOT* FIRE AT THESE MEN UNTIL *AFTER*
    	THESE MEN HAD THREATENED TO SHOOT A HELICOPTER?????
    
    								-mr. bill

re:208		
>>   Bad judgement? 
    
>    Good judgement.  They went out of their way not to provoke Weaver and
    his clan.
 	Of all the ignorant statements made in the 'box this rates in the top
10.  Yes indeed showing up armed for war, shooting his dog, kid, and flying
helicopters over his property is definitly going out of their way to avoid
provocation.  Failing to identify themselves before opening fire is certainly
indicative of an agent representing the guvmint searching for a peaceful
solution to a volatile situation. 

	You know one would almost think our dear liberal friend believes firmly
the Fed guys did absolutely nothing wrong.  Randly Weaver had it coming cuz he
was pretty good with a hacksaw, and did not trust Uncle Sam to deal with him
fairly.  After all he was given plenty of advance notice to surrender to
authorities.  He chose to hide behind his wife's skirt.  He is a sensitive type
guy who believed in equality.  Otherwise the noble thing to do would have been
to march right in and put himself in the hands of those who convinced him to saw
off a couple of shotguns, and then had an arrest warrant issued on him for
selling them.

	Do you also support the death penalty?  Surely a guvmint with the
ability to kill women and children would never mistakenly execute someone who
wasn't guilty.


Mikey

    Geee Wizz,
    Even when mr bill admits he is wrong, he IMMEDIATELY piles derision on
    you in an attempt to hide his admission!  Please mr bill, you are
    acting like a child, (or the current president of the US), and it is
    getting embarrassing!

    > HOW CAN THE RULES HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IF MEMBERS OF THE HRT
    > WITNESSED ARMED MEN COME OUT OF THE CABIN, HAD CLEAR SHOTS
    > AT THESE MEN, BUT DID *NOT* FIRE AT THESE MEN UNTIL *AFTER*
    > THESE MEN HAD THREATENED TO SHOOT A HELICOPTER?????

    As far as I can tell, this is unfounded supposition on your part.  You
    do not know that the HRT member had a clear shot.  Nice try, but it
    doesn't hold water.  Oh by the way, I DO CONSIDER shooting a man, who
    is running away, in the back as exercising the previously listed rules
    of engagement.  Again, as always, your arguments hold no water, try
    again.

    
|   Of all the ignorant statements made in the 'box this rates in the top
|   10.
    
    Thank you.  But have you noticed that my ignorant statement is based on
    facts, and your ignorant statements are based on a mountain of lies?
    
    Nah, you haven't noticed.
    
    Amazing, Weaver wasn't armed for war, but the Marshall's were.
    Shooting a dog in self-defense is never justified, shooting a
    human in "self-defense" is.  A nipper gets caught in the crossfire
    between daddy and the Marshalls, and the Marshalls are to blame.
    FBI team is just supposed to blindly walk up the ridge, not use
    helicopters for survailance.  Furthermore, the fact that five
    flights already took place that day without incident, just is
    evidence that the sixth flight was intended to provoke Weaver
    and Harris into coming out with arms to shoot at the helicopter.
    
    But the best for last, when one witness (*ONE*, Kevin Haris, who
    has a bit of incentive to *LIE* says the Marshalls did not identify
    themselves) and *EVERY* *OTHER* *WITNESS*, INCLUDING RANDY WEAVER,
    says they did indentify themselves, that's evidence that they did
    not identify themselves.
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 399.226 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    But the best for last, when one witness (*ONE*, Kevin Haris, who
>    has a bit of incentive to *LIE* says the Marshalls did not identify
>    themselves) and *EVERY* *OTHER* *WITNESS*, INCLUDING RANDY WEAVER,
>    says they did indentify themselves, that's evidence that they did
>    not identify themselves.
 
Bill,	I don't believe that Weaver testified that they identified themselves.
	His testiminy indicates that he assumed that they were Federal
	Agents.

	Not the same thing at all.

Jim

    > A nipper gets caught in the crossfire
    > between daddy and the Marshal's, and the Marshal's are to blame.

    And YOU have the B**** to call others liars!  
    BTW - "daddy" wasn't there !  Try again !

    > .... and *EVERY* *OTHER* *WITNESS*, INCLUDING RANDY WEAVER,
    > says they did identify themselves ...

    More mis-information, let me remind you mr bill, "daddy" wasn't there. 
    The only people who say that the marshals identified themselves were
    the marshals in question.  They obviously wouldn't lie either.  Please
    remember mr bill, you are not dealing with mindless children here, we
    can and do read.  So to prevent our having to correct you constantly,
    please try using some facts.

    Dan

    
    
    
    Bill has shown himself with his last tirade to be what he is calling
    everyone else, a liar.  Bill, you are without reason on this issue as
    with many others.  That's okay, have it your way, the feds are saints
    and everyone who doesn't trust the government are from the loins of
    satan.  
    
    
    Mike

	I take it from your comments bill then the feds were completely
justified in their actions.  The inadvertant collateral damage to non combatants
ie: Mrs W, is obviously acceptable death.  After all she wrote those terrible
letters to the courts, and was harboring a criminal.  Never mind that RW had not
at this point been convicted of any crime.  

	Secondly, how long did the feds wait on Weaver to come out?  Should we
then also set an arbitrary length of time to wait for a suspect to surrender
then attempt to provoke  him/her into firing so as to justify shooting them and
saving the guvmint money on a trial?  Oh I forgot the feds went out of their way
to aviod provocation.  

	What facts?  You have stated again and again the feds did nothing til
Weaver asked for it by his actions.  Smells strongly of opinion to me.  Perhaps
you could take the time to point out just  a couple of my notes included in my
"mountain of lies".  

	Then again perhaps we are being too harsh on the guvmint.  After all
they provided concentration camps for the Japanese in WWII, invaded a foreign
land in 1861, and provide such excellent health care for our veterans.  Why
shouldn't we trust them to be honest with us?

Mikey 

    re: Jim Percival and Mikey Shepard
    
    Let's look at the statement presented as fact one more time:
    
    "Failing to identify themselves before opening fire is certainly
     indicative of an agent representing the guvmint searching for a
     peaceful solution to a volatile situation."
    
    Randy Weaver said the Marshall shouted "Freeze RANDY!" which he answered
    with an expletive deleted, knowing immediately he ran into a "ZOG/NWO"
    ambush.  I'd say Randy Weaver correctly took what he thinks he heard as
    identification.  (Jim Percival's standing on nits here.)
    
    Kevin Harris says they identified themselves as Marshalls *after* the
    shooting.
    
    The Marshalls say the identified themselves and/or heard other
    Marshalls identify themselves.  (You all can grep or search to
    your heart's content to find this in the "DOJ report.")
    
    The Marshalls testified under oath.
    Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris have not, and have refused to provide
    sworn statements.
    
    
    You all, who keep repeating the lie that the Marshalls did not
    identify themselves have to:
    
    	Accept as gospel truth the non-sworn words of Kevin Harris and
    	Randy Weaver.
    
    	Accept as complete lies the sworn words of US Marshalls on the
    	scene, and titter about Randy didn't hear "STOP!  US Marshall"
    	but instead remembers hearing "Freeze RANDY!"
    
    
    The proof that the US Marshalls lie?  Japanese internment camps during
    WWII?????  An invasion in 1861?  Health care for veterans?
    
    Pardon me while I scoff at your "proof" the US Marshalls committed
    purjury on the witness stand.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: Dan
    
|   More mis-information, let me remind you mr bill, "daddy" wasn't there. 
    
    Check again about where Daddy was that morning.  (Hint, up the road,
    between the "Y" and the cabin.  He says he fired shots that morning.
    I guess he was mistaken, because *you* know he wasn't there.)
    
    So go for it Dan.  Go for it.  Enter the fact the shows where he was
    that morning.
    
    								-mr. bill

re:231 

Oh never mind ....

    re: Mikey Shepard again....
    
| I take it from your comments bill then the feds were completely
| justified in their actions.
    
    Perhaps I could get Levesque to answer that question for me.  I can't
    tell if you just can't read or you just can't read what I write.
    
|  Secondly, how long did the feds wait on Weaver to come out?
    
    Do you want to know?  If so, see some notes over in the "Waco" note.
    Or over here.  Or ask Jim Sadin this time.
    
|   You have stated again and again the feds did nothing til Weaver asked
|   for it by his actions. 
    
    No I have not.  I have corrected myths (at best) and lies (at worst)
    about what happened on Ruby Ridge.  I have stated that what you believe
    happened on Ruby Ridge is probably wrong.  I have shown why it is
    wrong.  Yet you continue to repeat the myths (at best) and lies (at
    worst).
    
    I take it from your comments that you don't give a damn about the
    truth....
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    re: Dan
    
> |   More mis-information, let me remind you mr bill, "daddy" wasn't there. 
>     
>     Check again about where Daddy was that morning.  (Hint, up the road,
>     between the "Y" and the cabin.  He says he fired shots that morning.
>     I guess he was mistaken, because *you* know he wasn't there.)
>     
>     So go for it Dan.  Go for it.  Enter the fact the shows where he was
>     that morning.
    
    mr bill, you are getting forgetful,.....
    you are NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS, BUT YOU DID ASK FOR IT !
    
           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 362.529                     Waco compounded                      529 of 577
PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" 213 lines  15-JUN-1995 15:38
                                  -< re: edp >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .                .                     .              .           .
    .                .                     .              .           .
    .                .                     .              .           .
    
        Old yeller, and Striker,(My dogs) were at the pump
        house, barking into the woods.

        Kevin,Sam and I went down to investigate. They Heard
        something running west, so Sam and Kevin followed
        Striker, I dropped down onto the logging road heading
        west.  "I didn't have any idea what we were chasing and
        we were hoping it was a deer.  When I reached the first
        fork in the logging road, a very well camouflaged person
        yelled, "Freeze, Randy."  I yelled, "Fuck you" and
        immediately retreated the 80 to 100 feet towards my
        home.  I realized immediately that we had run smack in
        into a ZOG/NWO (Zionist Occupational Government/New
        World Order) ambush."

        I stopped to see if I was being followed.  About that
        time I heard a gunshot and Striker yelped.  Then I heard
        two more shots and Striker stopped yelping.

        I started yelling for Sam and Kevin to return home and
        that the Feds had shot striker.  I also fired my shotgun
        once into the air to draw attention to myself and
        praying that would help.  I replaced the empty shell
        with a new one, shoving it past the extractor, jamming
        my shotgun.  I drew my 9 mm handgun and fired 3 or 4
        rounds up into the air and I was yelling again for Sam
        to return home.  Sam said, "I'm coming, Dad."  I then
        walked backwards up the hill toward home, yelling to Sam
        and Kevin to come home.

        All the while I heard many shots ringing out from the
        direction of the ambush.  By the time I reached home, I
        still hadn't seen Sam or Kevin coming home and they
        didn't respond anymore when I called to them.  A few
        minutes later, Kevin came walking home.  We asked him if
        he had seen Sam and Kevin said, "Yes, Sam's dead."
    .                .                     .              .           .
    .                .                     .              .           .
    .                .                     .              .           .
        
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Sure sounds to me like "daddy" was NOT at the locations YOU claimed.
    
    Kinda hurts getting shot by YOUR OWN WORDS doesn't it ? ! ? !
    
    Dan

   <<< Note 399.231 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Randy Weaver said the Marshall shouted "Freeze RANDY!" which he answered
>    with an expletive deleted, knowing immediately he ran into a "ZOG/NWO"
>    ambush.  I'd say Randy Weaver correctly took what he thinks he heard as
>    identification.  (Jim Percival's standing on nits here.)
 
	The law is full of such nits. But more importantly, according to
	Randy Weavers statement, the Marshall's DID NOT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES
	as Federal Agents. Your claim that Randy Weaver testified that the
	Marshalls identified themselves is a blatant lie.

>    The Marshalls testified under oath.
>    Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris have not, and have refused to provide
>    sworn statements.
 
	In your previous lie about what Randy Weaver said, you said that he
	"testified". This wording carries greater weight than "statement".
	I guess though, this is not a blatant lie, it is just a garden
	variety lie. 
Jim

    > .... I have corrected myths (at best) and lies (at worst)
    > about what happened on Ruby Ridge.  ...
    
    That's an interesting outlook, misinformed, but interesting
    none the less.
    
    Dan

    re: Dan
    
    The 59 lines you entered indeed confirms that Randy Weaver was up the
    road, between the "Y" and the cabin.  It confirms that he fired shots
    that morning.
    
    So, what point are you trying to make?
    
    								-mr. bill

    >Notwithstanding the need to apprehend Weaver, it appears at initial
    >glance that the resources the marshals committed to the case were 
    >disproportionate to the relatively insignificant underlying charge.
    
     This is something I've felt from the beginning. If you back up to
    the beginning, you realize that the underlying charge is not very
    significant. Due to Weaver's lack of a prior convictions, they were
    looking at a minimum sentence in the best of scenarios. Why were they
    willing to expend so many resources to effect the capture of someone
    whose crimes against society were really quite minimal? Why were they
    ready to use lethal force to effect his capture, given the nature of
    the crime? He had not committed a violent crime; there was no rape, no
    brutality, no battery, no homicide. He'd sold some "bad" guns. Sorry,
    but I think that the USMS's resources could be better spent.
    
    >Common to each strategy the Service considered was a concern for the
    >safety of the Weaver children and the arresting marshals. For this reason, 
    >a tactical approach, that is, an armed raid on the residence,
    >was considered unrealistic by Idaho marshals as early as March 1991.
    >The Special Operations Group reached the same conclusion in June 1991 and 
    >again in September 1991 after reviewing a psychological profile of Weaver 
    >and conducting its own investigation in Northern Idaho.
    
     So why the change of heart?
    
    >Both the Special Operations Group and Director Hudson asked U.S.
    >Attorney Ellsworth to dismiss the indictment against Weaver and to 
    >re-issue it under seal to reduce the pressure to arrest Weaver
    >and to trick him into leaving his property so that he could be arrested
    >without risk to the children. Ellsworth and Howen refused Hudson's 
    >request.[FN274]
    
     Seems like a far wiser approach, IMO.
    
    
    

    
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHRRRG!
    

    
    
    Well put, Mark.
    

|	In your previous lie about what Randy Weaver said, you said that he
|	"testified". 
    
    No, I said he was a witness.  You said he testified.  Now quibble that
    you thought I meant witness as in witness on a witness stand, rather
    than witness to the events.
    
    (We do not know what two witnesses would say about the events that
    morning, since they died that morning.  But let's just say that we
    ought to assume that Samuel Weaver would have said nobody identified
    themselves.  And let's further assume that William Degan would have
    testified he did not actually say anything at all, that he was indeed
    shot in self-defense, and would like to give Kevin Harris a big hug for
    freeing him from ZOG/NWO stormtrooper Marshalls he worked for at the
    time of his death.  Frankly, the last assumption is more likely that
    the hundreds you all have already made.)
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 399.242 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    No, I said he was a witness.  You said he testified.  Now quibble that
>    you thought I meant witness as in witness on a witness stand, rather
>    than witness to the events.
 
	You are correct. I went back an re-read your posting in light
	of this meaning of the term, and you are only guilty of the
	blatant lie, not the garden variety one.

	My apologies.

Jim

    
    Now billy, I'll try to do this slowly.
    
    a) in 399.226 you IMPLIED that Randy Weaver was a witness to the
       shooting that occurred at the Y. Let me quote it to you:
    
    > But the best for last, when one witness (*ONE*, Kevin Haris, who
    > has a bit of incentive to *LIE* says the Marshalls did not identify
    > themselves) and *EVERY* *OTHER* *WITNESS*, INCLUDING RANDY WEAVER,
    > says they did identify themselves, that's evidence that they did
    > not identify themselves.

    b) I pointed out to you that Randy Weaver could not have been a
       witness.  You basically called me a liar, and then challenged me to 
       prove otherwise.

    c) I went back to the Waco note and dug out the proof you requested, to
       wit note "362.529 - Waco compound".

    What part did you not understand?  Let me reiterate.  We are not
    mindless children, if you tell two different stories regarding the same
    incident, you will get caught here.  If you can not use the truth, I
    suggest that at least you remain consistent in your misinformation.

    Hoping for your speedy recovery,
    Dan

     Dan-
    
     I don't see how you can claim that Randy Weaver wasn't at the shootout
    when his own words indicate he was. The words you yourself quoted
    indicate that he was confronted by a federal agent, in particular, one
    of the agents involved in the shootout. He retreated 80-100 feet. Does
    this mean to you that he was no longer there? That's an irrational
    interpretation of the facts, IMO.

    Mark, I think you missed a line:
    
    >     ... so Sam and Kevin followed
    >     Striker, I dropped down onto the logging road heading
    >     west....
    
    They separated into two groups, Sam and Kevin in one and Randy Weaver
    in the other.
    
    Dan
    

     They apparently rejoined, for just after that citation comes the
    following quote:
    
    "Randy, Kevin and Sam go down past the pump house to see what's
    bothering the dog."
    
     Now, does that sound like they are "separated into two groups" to you?

Lessee what happened here.  

Federal agents go up to RW's place in Idaho.
They approach the residence
They shoot one of the two family pets.

Question:  Why did they shoot the dog?

Mikey

    > Question:  Why did they shoot the dog?
    
    "Concerned that the dog would attack or lead Weaver, Harris, and the 
    others toward the marshals if they kept running, Roderick fired once at
    the dog with his M16 rifle, striking the dog near the base of the
    spine."
    
     Seems like a reasonable enough approach. By all accounts it was a very
    aggressive dog.

    Mark,
    What are you reading?  I can't find that quote in what I reproduced.
    
    Dan
    

    http://www.counsel.com/ruby/ruby4.4.htm

So the dog could have led Weaver to the federal agents.  

Isn't that their objective in the first place?
Please correct me if I'm wrong(I know you will bill).

If they were justified in shooting the family dog, what was their justification
for shooting Weaver's child?

Mikey

Conspiracy theories force scuttling of Conference of the
States


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

Mild-mannered engineer fans fires of a movement 

COLORADO SPRINGS (Jul 6, 1995 - 00:12 EDT) -- It was billed as a
sort of town meeting for leaders of state governments. Whatever its
potential merits or shortcomings, the Conference of the States, as it was
to be called, scarcely seemed a threat to the future of the Republic.

But some right-wing extremists saw the conference as nothing less than
a clandestine constitutional convention that could nullify basic American
rights, perhaps as part of a sinister plot to impose a totalitarian, "One
World Government."

As far-fetched as such a plot may seem to most Americans, enough
suspicion was generated, through an aggressive telephone and fax
campaign, that one legislature after another backed away from the
conference. Finally, its astonished organizers, who included the National
Governors Association, gave up and declared it dead.

Conspiracy theories, the ancient art of the suspicious, have been
especially widespread since the April 19 bombing of the federal building in
Oklahoma City. But even before that, whispers about evil plots were
growing so loud around the country that they have started to penetrate
mainstream politics and government, and in some cases, influence their
actions.

Coupled with this rising paranoia is a deep suspicion of the federal
government and a surge in the states-rights movement. In the past year,
at least 15 states have passed resolutions asserting their sovereignty and
rejecting all but the most narrow role for the federal government.

Formally, the resolutions merely affirm the 10th Amendment of the
Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people." But the accompanying text of the
resolutions characteristically take a belligerent tone. The measure passed
by the Colorado legislature last year states that it is "a Notice and
Demand to the Federal Government, as our agent, to cease and desist,
effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its
constitutionally delegated powers."

Paradoxically, the scuttled Conference of the States, which was to have
taken place this October in Philadelphia, was organized with the intent of
finding ways of gaining more power for the states.

"We've been hearing some of these theories about global conspiracies and
international bankers for over 20 years," said Gov. Mike Leavitt of Utah, a
Republican, who was chairman of the proposed conference. After about a
dozen states voted to participate in the conference, he said, the claims by
far-right extremists that this was part of an international plot managed to
halt its progress. The plan for the conference ran into a stone wall and in
the end only 14 states, including Utah, voted for such a conference.

"I really believe these people are just a speck in the national picture.
What's changed is the technology," Leavitt said. "Now they can get on
the Internet and give out the names of representatives who are going to
vote on something. Then they crank up their fax machines. And suddenly,
you've got a legislator who says, 'I can't vote for this. I'm getting 50
faxes from people saying its terrible.' It's the technological equivalent of
packing the bus for a public hearing."

One of the most prevalent of the conspiracy theories -- the impending
takeover of America by foreign forces loyal to the United Nations -- has
actually forced the Indiana transportation department to change its road
signs.

Self-styled defenders of the American way complained that maintenance
codes on the backs of the signs were actually secret messages for
invading troops, said Maria Kalnbach, a spokeswoman for the Indiana
transportation department.

"People were calling, saying that we were part of the U.N. takeover plan,"
Ms. Kalnbach said. "And then they were painting over the signs. It got so
we couldn't ignore it."

The road signs are now being changed, a move that Ms. Kalnbach said she
hopes will "reassure those in the motoring public who had these
suspicions."

Members of the Oklahoma legislature gave enough credence to the idea of
a global conspiracy to pass a resolution last year demanding a halt to it.
The resolution read, in part: "The United States Congress is hereby
memorialized to cease any support for the establishment of a 'new world
order' or to any form of global government."

The power of communication through the computer networks has helped
rumors spread instantly. And anyone who is plugged in to the American
Patriot fax network, headquartered in Las Vegas, Nev., is familiar with the
signs of conspiracy.

Among them: black helicopters are spying on American citizens; dozens of
people with ties to President Clinton are dying mysteriously; the federal
government had a hand in blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma
City.

Increasingly, those receptive to conspiracy theories are finding their way
into state government. A leader in the effort to scuttle the Conference of
States was State Sen. Charles Duke of Colorado, who is also a prime
force in the so-called 10th Amendment movement.

Duke, a former engineer who represents the affluent Colorado Springs
area as a Republican, makes frequent references to the "New World
Order" and "the tyrants" who exercise control over "the puppets in
Washington."

He is among a handful of state representatives who have implied that the
government had a hand in the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma
City.

"When you're looking for suspects in the Oklahoma case," he said in a
recent interview, "you have to ask: 'Who had the motive? Who had the
means? Who had the opportunity?' It's self-evident that the government
had all three of those."

Another champion of the far right is State Sen. Don Rogers of California, a
Republican. Rogers recently participated in a rally in Wichita, in which a
"citizens jury" claiming that the government has "operated outside the
clear bounds of the Constitution," drew up a "citizens indictment" of the
government.

Rogers, who represents the district east of Bakersfield, also claims that
the government has hushed up evidence in the Oklahoma City case.

Charles Key, a Republican state representative in Oklahoma, has been
holding news conferences at the State Capitol in Oklahoma City, charging
that the facts of the bombing are being covered up.

It has become an article of faith among the right-wing extremists that
there was no fertilizer bomb, as the government says. Instead, the
conspiracy-minded say the bomb exploded inside the building.

The government's motive for the brutality, Duke says, was to create a
sentiment in the country for stronger powers for the FBI and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich, described by Duke as a "counterfeit
Republican" is one of the "globalists" who are surrendering American
sovereignty to a world trade organization.

One of the few politicians on the national level admired in the state
sovereignty movement is Patrick J. Buchanan, who has opposed the
international pact reached under the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade and speaks the language of sovereignty.

One of the most influential leaders of the far-right wing is Linda
Thompson, a former lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union in
Indianapolis who now leads a paramilitary group and heads the American
Justice Federation, which sells antigovernment books, videotapes and
radio programs. For a time, she called for an armed march on Washington,
which never occurred.

Ms. Thompson produces videotapes accusing the government of a wide
range of abuses against its citizens, including murder.

"Everything that happened in Nazi Germany is happening here," said Ms.
Thompson, who once had a radio show in Indianapolis.

In the case of the Conference of the States, it was noted by the extremists
that Leavitt in speeches had used suspicious language, like "global
marketplace."

This year is the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, the demon
organization to conspiracy groups. And some extremists claimed it was
more than a coincidence that the Conference of the States would come
during the 50th birthday of the U.N.

"In the beginning, we didn't anticipate any opposition to the conference,"
said Dan Sprague, executive director of the Council of State Governments,
one of the groups sponsoring the meeting. "We had the support of
Democrats and Republicans all over the country."

But it was that very unity, it seems, that provoked suspicions among
groups on the lookout for conspiracies. At a hearing in California, about 80
foes of the meeting turned out to protest.

"There is an American Patriot Fax network out of Las Vegas that reaches
hundreds of thousands of people," said Michael Reynolds, a spokesman
for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremist groups.
"These are basically your suburban neighbors, middle- and upper-middle
class people."

Advances in desktop publishing, he said, have helped such groups achieve
a much more polished look in their journals and magazines.

"The old mimeographed newsletters are gone," Reynolds said. "Now they
can put out a publication with a sophisticated look that seems to give it
credibility."

Mild-mannered engineer fans fires of a movement


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

New York Times

LAS VEGAS, Nev. -- The darling of the burgeoning state sovereignty
movement is an engineer whose oratory is as pugnacious as his demeanor
is mild-mannered.

The federal government, the Colorado Springs Republican says, is using
the Oklahoma City bombing to broaden its police powers and impose
"Gestapo tactics" on the American people.

"The tyranny of King George is alive and well and living in America
today," he proclaimed in a recent speech to 200 cheering members of the
Nevada Sovereignty Committee in Las Vegas.

The 53-year-old Charles Duke is the leader of a states' rights movement
that has made the 10th Amendment its rallying cry. More than two dozen
states have passed resolutions pronouncing their "sovereignty."

Since taking up the states' rights cause a year ago, Duke has given
frequent speeches around the country and has been interviewed on 150
radio programs. As more state legislatures climb aboard Duke's campaign,
he hints at a Constitutional Convention that would amount to a revolution.

"We get 38 states with us, and it's a brand new ball game," he said. "We
created this government, and we can uncreate it -- this corporate entity
that calls itself the United States."

Duke, a former engineer for Hewlett-Packard who says his mother was a
"raging liberal," lives alone in a town house north of Colorado Springs,
where he communicates through his fax machine with a network of far
right-wing groups around the country. He said the town house has been
bugged by spies for the federal government.

Elected last year to the state Senate, he has been criticized for his
extreme views by state party leaders.

Duke says he does not belong to a militia, and opposes violence, yet he
adds, "I worry that the problems are so massive that peaceful solutions
are non-existent."

"There are a lot of people out there who think just like I do," said Duke,
adding that he has been urged to run for the U.S. Senate next year. "I'm
just the point man," he said.



      <<< Note 399.252 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "It's the Republicans' fault" >>>

>If they were justified in shooting the family dog, what was their justification
>for shooting Weaver's child?

	Bill has told us on a number of occasions that Sam Weaver was
	shot (in the back) by "accident".

	One man's "accident" is another man's negligent homocide.

Jim

|   seems the "nutters" have a loud voice.
    
    Doesn't that belong in the understatement note?
    
    The strategy is simple.  Lie loud.  Lie often.
    
    
    This was front page of today's NYTs, above the fold even.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    > The strategy is simple.  Lie loud.  Lie often.

    Is this our little billy? ? ?

    By the way, you made no comment on my last post to you mr bill.  I'm
    afraid since you will not admit defeat, I must take you silence as
    admission.

    Hoping for your continued recovery,
    Dan

How do you accidently shoot a 14 year child in the back?  Did the agents not
have firearm training?  

    The road sign conspiracy is a new one on me.  I got a good chuckle out
    of it.  (this is a bit far fetched even for me  8^) )

      <<< Note 399.258 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "It's the Republicans' fault" >>>

>How do you accidently shoot a 14 year child in the back?  Did the agents not
>have firearm training?  

	Don't know what training the Marshalls receive. Not that it seems
	to make a lot of difference. The FBI Agent that shot Vicki Weaver
	in the head actually testified, under oath, that he could shoot
	a quarter at 200 yds.

Jim

    
    I believe that anyone who has had the displeasure of trying to
    find their way north through Massachusetts, particularly the
    portion of road that's labeled "95 North 128 South" would
    agree with me that there is most definitely a "road sign"
    conspiracy.
    
    -b

Ok so we have expert marksman on the team.  These same experts accidently
discharged a firearm that just happened to be pointing at a 14 year old's back.  

Did this happen before or after the agent shouted "Freeze Randy"?

      <<< Note 399.262 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "It's the Republicans' fault" >>>

>Ok so we have expert marksman on the team.  These same experts accidently
>discharged a firearm that just happened to be pointing at a 14 year old's back.  

	Different guys, different teams. SAm Weaver was killed by a member
	of the US Marshalls. Vicki Weaver was killed by the "marksman" from
	the FBI's HRT.

	Although I didn't see it listed, my guess is that Sam was killed
	by a 9mm round fired from a HK MP5 (SD?) submachinegun. Vicki
	was almost certainly killed with a .308 round fired from a 
	bolt-action hunting rifle.

>Did this happen before or after the agent shouted "Freeze Randy"?

	According to the reports, Sam was killed after the "freeze Randy"
	non identification.

Jim

|   	Although I didn't see it listed, my guess is that Sam was killed
|	by a 9mm round fired from a HK MP5 (SD?) submachinegun.
    
    "'Suppressed' .9mm Nato Colt Carbine."
    
    On the basis of that "guess" Jim Percival wants to charge Cooper with
    negligent homicide.  Firing three rounds for cover = negligent homicide,
    in Jim Percival's world.
    
    
    One can only wonder what a Spencer-type defense attorney would do
    defending Cooper.  Do you think he would stoop so low as to notice
    there were *two* weapons which fired 9mm rounds that morning?  We
    know Cooper fired six 9mm rounds (out of 25 rounds).  We know
    Roderick fired one .223 round from his M16.  We know that Degan's
    M16 discharged seven .223 rounds (like Roderick's M16, it started
    with 27 rounds).
    
    (Spencer would have you believe that William Degan shot all seven
    rounds before he was shot by Kevin Harris.  I would have thought that
    might have been a tough sell in Idaho where there would have been at
    least one member of the jury who had gone looking for an animal with
    a very big hole in it.  But maybe Spencer managed to exclude hunters.)
    
    Who else admitted to firing 3-4 rounds from a 9mm hangun, dear Jim?
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    >So the dog could have led Weaver to the federal agents.
    
    >Isn't that their objective in the first place?
    
     The objective was to capture Weaver while avoiding a firefight and
    avoiding a situation which would endanger Weaver's wife, children and
    the federal officers. Surely this is not entirely too difficult to
    understand.
    
    >If they were justified in shooting the family dog, what was their
    >justification for shooting Weaver's child?
    
     RTFR. If you are to believe the agent's testimony, the boy was
    probably struck by bullets that were intended to provide cover fire for
    one of the agents whose position left him exposed during the firefight.
    In other words, he was struck accidently. Let's not lose sight of the
    fact that this "child" shot at least twice at federal agents. Sorry,
    but when armed people say "Stop! US Marshalls!" the correct response is
    not to turn and fire upon them. One may legitimately expect such a
    response to result in one's demise. Particularly after a federal
    officer has already been shot and mortally wounded by another in your 
    party.
    
     There are lots of problems with Ruby Ridge, many of which are the
    responsibility of the government. But one should become aware of the
    responsibility of Randall Weaver and his accomplices in making the
    situation what it was. His behavior is the equivalent of leading police
    on a high speed chase and running pursuing authorities off the road to
    avoid having to pay a speeding ticket. One can question the
    advisability of the authorities for chasing him over a speeding
    violation, but one must also recognize that he's the one that turned it
    into a high speed chase. He's the one that elevated things to a lethal
    level. And for that escalation, he bears some of the responsibility for
    what happened.
    
     Frankly, with the report available, there is no excuse for debating
    this issue from a position of ignorance. RTFR.

    Bill-
    
     Are you suggesting that Randy shot his own son, or that his actions
    lead to his son's death?

    
|	According to the reports, Sam was killed after the "freeze Randy"
|	non identification.
    
    According to "reports"??????  NO!  "Report!"
    
    According to a single non-sworn entry in an after the fact
    diary, Randy Weaver says he heard someone shout "freeze Randy".
    
    (Tell me, dear Jim.  What are U.S. Marshal's trained to do when
    confronted in a dangerous fugitive situation?  Shout a "non
    identification" or shout U.S. Marshal?????
    
    Is it just *possible* dear Jim that Randy Weaver mis-heard?
    Is it just *possible* dear Jim that Randy Weaver might have
    mis-remembered what was said when he dictated the diary entry
    to Sara 6 days later?  Is it just *possible* that Randy Weaver
    lied later in telling his story for the diary?
    
    Is this *possible* dear Jim?
    
    Of course not.  Randy Weaver heard with absolute accuracy, Randy Weaver
    remembered with absolute accuracy, Sara Weave wrote with
    absolute accuracy, and all the U.S. Marshals *lied*.)
    
    
    ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY, Cooper shouted "Back off, U.S. Marshals"
    at Randy Weaver.
    
    ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY, Roderick heard Randy Weaver say something
    unintelligble (I guess an expletive) and Roderick shouted
    "Stop!  U.S. Marshal!" at Randy Weaver.
    
    ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY, Degan shouted "Stop!  U.S. Marshal!" at
    Kevin Harris and Sammy Weaver.
    
    ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY, Cooper shouted "Stop!  U.S. Marshal!" at
    Kevin Harris and Sammy Weaver.
    
    Before the dog was shot.  Before Sammy Weaver was shot.
    
    
    You are unbelievable.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Hello ! ! ! !  Is there anybody in there !

    Near as I can tell from the reports that I have read, Randy Weaver WAS
    NOT AT THE SIGHT WHERE HIS SON WAS KILLED !  They had separated and
    encountered TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS of US MARSHALS.  If ANYONE can direct
    me to something else, that says otherwise I'd be glad to read it. 
    Given that this is the case, Sam having been killed before or after
    someone said "freeze Randy" is completely irrelevant, Randy was not
    with Sam.  At this point there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that the
    marshals identified themselves to Sam and Kevin Harris.  Marshal Degan
    claims he did, Kevin Harris claims Degan didn't, result inconclusive.

    Dan

    
|   Are you suggesting that Randy shot his own son
    
    No.  I think such a suggestion is as obscene as saying that Cooper
    should be charged with negligent homicide.  I am suggesting it is
    as obscene as saying that Lon Horiuchi intentionally shot Vicki Weaver.
    I am suggesting it is as obscene as many many of the claims made by
    Spense in his vigourous defense of his clients.
    
|   or that his actions lead to his son's death?
    
    Chain of events:
    
    	Randy Weaver sells short barelled shotguns.
    	Randy Weaver resists arrest.
    	Randy Weaver fails to show for trial.
    	Randy Weaver becomes fugitive fortified in his cabin.
    	Randy Weaver breaks off negotiations for peaceful surrender.
    	Randy Weaver harrasses a neighbor.
    	Arthur Roderick throws a rock.
    	Randy Weaver willfully ignores a verbal command from a Marshal.
    	Randy Weaver shoots his gun.
    	Sammy Weaver dies in crossfire.
    
    I'd say it's safe to say I believe Randy Weaver is responsible for his
    son's death.  Obviously other's disagree.  Perhaps it is because they
    find it so unbelievable that a father and mother would willfully put
    their children so at risk that they have to come up with an enormous
    conspiracy to place the blame wrongfully on others.
    
    I believe parents hurt their children all the time, so I find it easy
    to believe that Randy Weaver is the one responsible.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
>     Randy Weaver sells short barreled shotguns.
>     Randy Weaver resists arrest.
>     Randy Weaver fails to show for trial.
>     Randy Weaver becomes fugitive fortified in his cabin.
>     Randy Weaver breaks off negotiations for peaceful surrender.
>     Randy Weaver harasses a neighbor.
>     Arthur Roderick throws a rock.
>     Randy Weaver willfully ignores a verbal command from a Marshal.
>     Randy Weaver shoots his gun.
>     Sammy Weaver dies in crossfire.

    Nice try billy, but

    Randy Weaver sells short barreled shotguns. - Entrapment throw out of
    						  court.
    Randy Weaver resists arrest.
    Randy Weaver fails to show for trial.
    Randy Weaver becomes fugitive fortified in his cabin.
    Randy Weaver breaks off negotiations for peaceful surrender. - Wrong,
    	Government broke off negotiations by requiring all negotiations go
        through individuals that the government knew Weaver would not speak
        with.
    Randy Weaver harasses a neighbor. - New info, but irrelevant.
    Arthur Roderick throws a rock.
    Randy Weaver willfully ignores a verbal command from a Marshal.

    Randy Weaver shoots his gun.     } Nice touch, but billy, from your own
    Sammy Weaver dies in crossfire.  } posting you indicate that Randy was
                                       not with Sam when Sam was killed.

    Try Again.
    
    > I'd say it's safe to say I believe Randy Weaver is responsible for his
    > son's death.  Obviously other's disagree.  Perhaps it is because they

    Billy, isn't the LATE Mrs Weaver equally responsible, after all she did
    give birth to him, and if she hadn't done that he never would have been
    killed.

    Wake up and smell the coffee billy, this is the real world, and many of
    us here probably know a fair bit more about it than the knowledge you
    seem to demonstrate.

    Hoping for a speedy recovery,
    Dan

|   Near as I can tell from the reports that I have read, Randy Weaver WAS
|   NOT AT THE SIGHT WHERE HIS SON WAS KILLED!  They had separated and
|   encountered TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS of US MARSHALS.
    
    I see your confusion.  Randy Weaver went a different route chasing
    the dog and the ruckus down the mountain.  They all ended in the same
    clearing (near the "Y").  They were not together, but they were
    close.  Randy Weaver was separated from Kevin Harris and Samuel Weaver,
    but he was within hearing and shouting distance.  It's absolutely clear
    Randy Weaver did *NOT* shoot William Degan (Kevin Harris and Samuel
    Weaver were in between).  Kevin Harris shot the deputy.
    
    The marshal(s) that Randy Weaver encountered were part of the very
    same three marshals involved in the shootout - Larry Cooper, Arthur
    Roderick, William Degan.
    
    Hope this helps.  Next time, read more carefully, will yah?
    
    								-mr. bill

    >Near as I can tell from the reports that I have read, Randy Weaver WAS
    >NOT AT THE SIGHT WHERE HIS SON WAS KILLED !
    
     Please. RTFR. It's no mystery. They were together. They encountered
    the same group of marshalls (Degan, Cooper, and Roderick). Try to
    follow along.

    >I don't believe the U.S. Marshals did wrong...
    
     Which is not to say they didn't make mistakes. Their first mistake was
    being so close to the house in daylight. The biggest mistake was
    listening to Cooper's advice to take up defensive positions during the
    flight from Weaver, his son, and Harris, although this was a "heat of
    the moment" decision and it's not clear they would have fared any
    better if they kept running.
    
     I tend to agree with you. The Marshals really didn't have many
    choices. They had to effect the capture of Weaver. Weaver was
    completely uncooperative, and escalated the situation into lethal
    territory. They were just doing their job.

|    Randy Weaver sells short barreled shotguns. - Entrapment throw out of
|    						  court.
    
    Excuse me, but it was not thrown out of court.
    He was tried on the charge, his lawyer screamed entrapment (and other
    things, such as the informant was lieing, the marshals were lieing,
    the attorneys were lieing, everybody but people who never took the
    stand were lieing) during the trial, and the jury returned not guilty
    on the weapons charge.
    
|   Randy Weaver shoots his gun.     } Nice touch, but billy, from your own
|   Sammy Weaver dies in crossfire.  } posting you indicate that Randy was
|                                      not with Sam when Sam was killed.
    
    Maybe I need to do it real slow and simple like for you, this is at
    best a crude approximation, ***NOT*** to be taken as gospel at all
    but hopefully something that will open your eyes if not your mind,
    and maybe just a small click will go off.:
    
              (KH)    [WD]
    (RW)   <--(SW)    [LC]
    		      [AR]
    		        (dog)
    
    Larry Cooper wanted to assist William Degan who had been shot by
    Kevin Harris.  Randy Weaver says he was hoping that shooting his
    gun would somehow help the matter.  Larry Cooper, in order to get
    over to William Degan, fired three rounds in the direction of the
    gun fire (from Randy Weaver) for cover.  Sammy Weaver was caught
    in the crossfire.
    
    Again, they took separate paths to a small clearing.  Randy Weaver
    did *not* shoot William Degan, he was not in position to even if he
    wanted to.  Kevin Harris shot William Degan.
    
|   Billy, isn't the LATE Mrs Weaver equally responsible, after all she did
|   give birth to him, and if she hadn't done that he never would have been
|   killed.
    
    Vicki Weaver was responsible.  But not for the reasons you cited.
    
    Have you even bothered to read this report?  Have you discovered that
    she was repeatedly named as a principal in the indictments of Randy
    Weaver and Kevin Harris, but she was not charged because she was
    *DEAD*!  Now I'm sure Jim Percival and others will claim she was
    named in a CYA move.  But the facts support she was indeed a principal.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Does anyone else have a problem with the huge outlay of funds  (18
    months (!) of serveilence, along with the manpower finally brought in
    to deal with Weaver) for someone who sold a couple of illegal shotguns?
    
    Does anyone else question the reasoning behind the feds waiting until
    Weaver turned them down (to be a "snitch") to produce a warrent for his
    arrest, rather than doing so right after he sold the shotguns?
    
    Was Weaver such a menace to society that we needed marshals combing his
    land and spying on him for so long?  
    
    If they watched him for 18  months, why not wait until he left his
    cabin to arrest him?  He had to leave sooner or later. 
    
    I guess selling a couple of illegal weapons is such a hideous crime
    that the culprit must be subdued at any cost.
    
    
    This whole thing stinks.  The "crime" (entrapement, according to the
    court) simply does not warrent such actions on the part of the feds. 
    There simply was NO reason for the incident to happen in the first
    place.
    
    -steve

    
> |   Randy Weaver shoots his gun.     } Nice touch, but billy, from your own
> |   Sammy Weaver dies in crossfire.  } posting you indicate that Randy was
> |                                      not with Sam when Sam was killed.
>     
>     Maybe I need to do it real slow and simple like for you, this is at
>     best a crude approximation, ***NOT*** to be taken as gospel at all
>     but hopefully something that will open your eyes if not your mind,
>     and maybe just a small click will go off.

    Billy, insulting people will get you nowhere.  What I said was correct. 
    Randy was NOT PRESENT when Sam was killed.  He was informed of his
    son's death by Kevin Harris.  THEREFORE SAM WAS NOT KILLED IN THE
    CROSSFIRE AS YOU HAVE CLAIMED.  As far as I know, not even the Fed.
    agents claim this, ONLY YOU HAVE.

    Oh BTW Mark I DID READ THE FORKING REPORT, and I read it carefully.  It
    is NOT APPARENT from the report that things happened the way you have
    claimed.  They may have, but from the reports that I have read, what
    you have stated is NOT apparent, so knock off the attitude. It's
    unbecoming.

    Dan

|   He was informed of his son's death by Kevin Harris.  THEREFORE SAM WAS
|   NOT KILLED IN THE CROSSFIRE AS YOU HAVE CLAIMED.              
    
    A free clue.
    
    The marshals did not know that Sammy Weaver was killed.
    Therefore, they weren't there and they didn't shoot Sammy Weaver.
    
    (Wrong.)
    
|   As far as I know, not even the Fed. agents claim this, ONLY YOU HAVE.
    
    No, the federal agents indeed made the claim.
    
    Cooper fired three rounds in the direction of fire for cover.
    He says he heard the fire came from the direction of the cabin.
    Randy Weaver was in a position between Cooper and the cabin.
    Randy Weaver admitted fired rounds at that position.
    
    So I won't insult you.  You are bright.  Add it up.
    
    Cooper shot three rounds in the direction of Weaver.
    Samuel was running toward Weaver.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
> |   He was informed of his son's death by Kevin Harris.  THEREFORE SAM WAS
> |   NOT KILLED IN THE CROSSFIRE AS YOU HAVE CLAIMED.              
>     
>     A free clue.
>     
>     The marshals did not know that Sammy Weaver was killed.
>     Therefore, they weren't there and they didn't shoot Sammy Weaver.
>     
>     (Wrong.)

    The two are unrelated, I was referring to your incorrect assertion that
    he was killed in a crossfire.

    ---

    Let me point out, to have a "crossfire" you must have projectiles
    flowing in opposite directions.  This is not the case between Randy
    Weaver and the Marshals.  Reread your posting.  It is true that
    projectiles were flowing between Sam Weaver and the marshals location,
    but this is NOT what you were asserting.  There is no DIRECT connection
    between the actions of Randy Weaver and the death of his son.  It is a
    case of the actions of Sam Weaver, Kevin Harris, and the marshals.
    
    Dan

    .277
    
    Give it up, Mr Bill.  There is none so blind as he who will not see,
    and you are arguing against a whole raft of people who fit that
    description to a T.

   <<< Note 399.264 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>     -< You can't accept that Daddy was responsible for Sammy's death... >-

	No, I can not and will not accept that.

>    "'Suppressed' .9mm Nato Colt Carbine."

	Interesting. I didn't know that Colt made a 9mm Assault Weapon.
    
>    On the basis of that "guess" Jim Percival wants to charge Cooper with
>    negligent homicide.  Firing three rounds for cover = negligent homicide,
>    in Jim Percival's world.
 
	The guess concerned the weapon, not the actions of the Marshall.
	Firing blindly, without regard for target OR backstop, with
	reckless disregard for human life equates to negligent homocide
	in my book.

	Apparently the jury also believed that the Marshall's actions were
	not justified and in fact, pretty much made a determination that
	their shooting constituted a criminal assault.

>    Who else admitted to firing 3-4 rounds from a 9mm hangun, dear Jim?
 
	Randy Weaver. Is it your assertion that he shot his son? Even the
	government hasn't made that claim.

Jim

    .278
    
    Another free clue.  To have a crossfire you must have projectiles
    traveling in two directions.  I don't see any requirement that such
    projectiles be in the air simultaneously.  Randy admits firing at the
    marshals, and Cooper admits firing back.  That is a crossfire.

    > Randy admits firing at the
    > marshals, and Cooper admits firing back.
    
    At the time of this incident..... This is news to me, where can I find
    this document?
    
    :-)
    Dan
    

    You can't give it up either I see.
    
    As for Jim's delusions that Cooper is guilty of negligent homicide,
    thankfully I doubt there's a DA or US Attorney would would agree with
    his misreading of law, thankfully there's not a grand jury in the
    country who would apply his misleading reading and indict, and I'm
    certain that no jury in the country would convict.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >Randy was NOT PRESENT when Sam was killed. 
    
     Define present. Could they hold hands? No. Could they talk to each
    other? Yes.
    
     "I started yelling for Sam and Kevin to return home [...] Sam
    responded 'I'm coming DAD!'" Statement of Randy Weaver, dictated to his
    daughter Sara on August 26, 1992.
    
     Riddle me this- were agents Roderick, Cooper and Degan "present" at
    the shooting site?
    
     You seem to be operating from a strangely restrictive definition of
    "present." None of the participants could see all of the others all of
    the time. To me, that doesn't mean they weren't present. But that seems
    to be your position. Perhaps you can elucidate on your definition of
    present.
    
    >THEREFORE SAM WAS NOT KILLED IN THE CROSSFIRE AS YOU HAVE CLAIMED.
    
     The report does require you to connect the dots, but the dots are
    pretty close together anbd there aren't many. 
    
     Sammy was not targeted directly. "Cooper then wheeled his weapon toward 
    Sammy. He could not see whether Sammy had a gun because a tree
    blocked his view of Sammy's hands. He did not shoot at Sammy because
    Sammy had not fired at Degan and he did not see Sammy's weapon."
    
    "After he shot the dog, Roderick saw Sammy Weaver enter the Y and run up
    the trail, away from Roderick and toward where Randy Weaver had
    disappeared."
    
    "Cooper rose and fired a second, three-round burst in the direction from 
    which he had last received fire in order to provide cover fire
    for himself as he tried to get to Degan.[FN380] Following these last
    shots, Cooper saw Sammy run out of view up the trail to the cabin. 
    Cooper did not think that his shots had hit Sammy Weaver."
    
     Couple this with Weaver's account: "I also fired my shotgun once into
    the air to draw attention to myself praying that would help. I replaced 
    the empty shell with a new one....jamming the shotgun. I drew my .9mm 
    handgun and fired 3-4 rounds up into the air and I yelled again for Sam 
    to return home. Sam responded 'I'm coming DAD!' I then walked backwards 
    up the hill toward home yelling to Sam and Kevin to come home. All the 
    while I heard many shots ringing out from the direction of the ambush."
    
     So we have a situation where one of the agents sees Sammy moving up
    the trail towards his father, who around this time happens to pop off a
    few rounds into the air. One of the other agents hears these shots,
    interprets them as being hostile fire (ie aimed in his direction) and
    fires a few rounds of "cover fire" in that general direction so he can
    get over to the third, wounded agent. It is generally believed that the
    fatal shot came during Cooper's "cover fire" three round burst, which
    was purportedly not aimed at a specific target, but rather was sent in
    the general direction of the last gunfire he'd experienced. So, to me,
    saying Sammy was killed in the crossfire accurately depicts the
    situation. You disagree?

   <<< Note 399.283 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    As for Jim's delusions that Cooper is guilty of negligent homicide,
>    thankfully I doubt there's a DA or US Attorney would would agree with
>    his misreading of law, thankfully there's not a grand jury in the
>    country who would apply his misleading reading and indict, and I'm
>    certain that no jury in the country would convict.
 
	Yet you seem to believe that Randy Weaver should have been convicted
	on the murder charge.

	How is what Weaver did (firing blindly, at no specific target) any
	different than what Deputy Cooper did?

Jim

    
    	After much reading of the report and listening to this debate, here
    is my conclusion:
    
    
    	The feds put WAY too much time and effort into a guy who's crime
    was a non-violent one (selling two sawed off shotguns and missing a
    trial date). The constant trespassing onto Weaver's property for
    "observation" was irresponsible considering Weaver's known "rules for
    engagement". He would eventually leave his property SOMETIME. There was
    no reason to go after him initially (i.e. - before the marshall/weaver
    confrontation). The FBI's "shoot anyone outside the cabin who is armed"
    rule was a clear violation of Weaver's rights. The fact that the FBI
    waited until 7 months AFTER Weaver's refusal to become a snitch to
    charge him with weapons charges is highly suspicious.
    
    	BUT, Weaver escalated this thing WAY beyond what could be
    considered reasonable limits. He could have ended this thing long
    before his wife was killed (maybe not before his son was killed..that's
    still up in the air IMHO). He chose not to and therefore bears some of
    the responsibility for his wife's demise. 
    
    	All IMHO of course. YMMV....
    
    
    jim
       

    > So, to me,
    > saying Sammy was killed in the crossfire accurately depicts the
    > situation. You disagree?

    Obviously, other wise we would not be arguing about this.  Sam was not
    killer in a crossfire, he was killed by the negligent actions of a
    federal agent.  Shooting in the general direction of a possible
    assailant in my estimation falls into this category.  To call THIS a
    crossfire is a weak attempt at subterfuge.  Try again.
    Oh and by the way, I don't know who said that there was not a jury who
    would convict on this charge, but I can guarantee that you are wrong.  I
    would definitely convict the federal agent of the charge given the
    facts that I have seen.

    Dan

    .287
    
    > I don't know who said that there was not a jury who
    > would convict on this charge, but I can guarantee that you are wrong.  I
    > would definitely convict...
    
    You made a mistake in signing your note.  Should be:
    
    > "Dan the One-Man Jury" Killoran

     However you view the actions by Cooper, it seems hard to argue against
    the fact that Sammy was killed in the crossfire. Sammy was not the
    target of the gunfire, yet he was mortally wounded by it. Whether you
    claim that the shooter was justified or not, the death was not
    intentional.
    
    >I would definitely convict the federal agent of the charge given the
    >facts that I have seen.
    
     So in your view, federal agents who are taking fire may not fire back?
    Or are they only allowed to shoot at specific targets?

          <<< Note 399.289 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "the countdown is on" >>>

>     So in your view, federal agents who are taking fire may not fire back?

	Depends on how you define "taking fire". According to Weaver, he
	fired into the air. It appears that the Deputy fired at the
	SOUND of that gunfire. My understanding is that this was a heavily
	wooded area. The sound of bullets cutting through leaves is pretty
	distinctive, yet the Deputy made no mention that he heard this
	indication that he was actually being fired at.

>    Or are they only allowed to shoot at specific targets?

	No one should fire at anything EXCEPT a specific target. Firing
	blindly, without a target, into a wooded area is truly a stupid
	act. Deputy Cooper apparently knew the location of two other
	Deputies, where were the OTHER three? Who would shoulder the
	blame if Cooper had shot and killed one of his own men?

Jim

    Thanks Jim,
    You saved me the trouble of pointing this out.
    
    
    :-)
    Dan

|    Yet you seem to believe that Randy Weaver should have been convicted
|    on the murder charge.
    
    Yeah, I can see how you would mis-read (from Note 362.440)

|   Government had to prove that Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris assaulted
|   federal operatives.  Randy Weaver was never charged with the murder
|   of anyone, only Kevin Harris was.  Between prosecution misconduct,
|   sloppy sloppy evidence collection, tainted physical evidence (most
|   damning of all staged photos), and given the admission by
|   prosecution expert that it was *possible* (not likely at all,
|   but *possible) that Degan fired seven shots before he was hit,
|   the jury legitimately found more than enough reasonable doubt
|   to find Kevin Harris not guilty.  The assault charge against
|   Randy Weaver fell away after that.
|    
|   Contrary to implications over and over and over again, the jury
|   would not have to find that federal agents lied on the witness
|   stand.  They just had to have reasonable doubt about the sequence of
|   events.
    
    Have you ever voted to acquit a man charged with assault with a
    deadly weapon (a firearm)?  I have.
    
    Not because I thought his victim was the one who did the assault.  Not
    because I thought the man was justified in his assault.  Not because
    I thought any cops lied.
    
    I voted not guilty because there was so much reasonable doubt as to
    the sequence of events that took place that there was no way any of
    us were going to vote to convict.  And I did not feel at all
    uncomfortable answering *NOT* *GUILTY* when the judge asked the
    question.
    
    That does not mean I do not hope to this day that she has stayed as far
    away from that man as possible.
    
    ---
    
|	How is what Weaver did (firing blindly, at no specific target) any
|	different than what Deputy Cooper did?
    
    For god's sake, man.
    
    Weaver was not charged because he fired into the air.
    
    He was charged with assault - because he participated in an assault.
    Once the overreaching conspiracy charges fell on their face, and
    once Harris was found not guilty of murder, it was clear that
    Harris and Weaver were not going to be convicted on assault either.
    (Though jury's have done such silly things in the past.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    No Mr Binder, Definition 1 proves my point!

    Try reading yourself.  I was commenting that billy's description of the
    events did not hold water.  I believe that he was being intentionally
    deceptive to try and prove his incorrect point.  Thank you for proving
    me correct.

    Dan

    .294
    
    Dan, you really are a piece of work.  A crossfire exists ANY TIME two
    people or forces are in case to fire at each other.  In any such
    situation, there is bound to be a point (actually a vertical line) that
    can be geometrically drawn such that LINES OF FIRE, not necessarily
    actual trajectories, cross thereat.
    
    Definition 1 proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a
    crossfire situation, EVEN IF NO BULLETS WERE FIRED BY ONE OF THE
    OPPOSING FORCES.
    
    You really do need to learn how to parse English.  What was your first
    language?  With a name like Killoran, I'd guess Gaelic.

    > Definition 1 proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a
    > crossfire situation, EVEN IF NO BULLETS WERE FIRED BY ONE OF THE
    > OPPOSING FORCES.
    
    And you have the guts to call me a piece of work!  All bullets from one
    side consititutes a crossfire..... I seeee, have you been feeling this
    way for a while.....
    
    So, John F Kennedy was killed in a crossfire.
    Bobby Kennedt was killed in a crossfire.
    Oswald was killed in a crossfire.
    Ronald Reagan was injured in a crossfire.
    
    Right, get a clue.
    
    Dan

    Lemme help Dan...
    "Crossfire" probably is derived from "crossing the line
    of fire".  Both sides need not be firing at each other for
    an individual to cross into the line of fire.  If you were
    to have been unfortunate enuf to get in between Brady and
    Reagan, in between Kennedy and Oswald, etc, then you would
    have been in the "crossfire".
     

  .297  er, i don't think so.

    re: Percival again....

|	Depends on how you define "taking fire". According to Weaver, he
|	fired into the air.
    
    You still insist on accepting *EVERYTHING* Weaver said as gospel?
    Do you actually believe that Weaver fired only one shotgun blast and
    only three or four shots 9mm rounds into the air that morning?  You
    believe that's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
    
    It's a simple question.  Answer it.  Do you believe Weaver is 100%
    correct in this non testimony?
    
    
    Let me explain.  With Weaver admitting that he fired his gun at
    that position we have clearly established he is a whore.  From
    there on we are only dickering over price.
    
    I don't believe for a moment Weaver fired three shots into the air.
    I believe he fired more than three shots, and they were directed.
    
    You, however, believe *EVERYTHING* Weaver says and assume *EVERYONE*
    else is in error.
    
|   It appears that the Deputy fired at the SOUND of that gunfire.
    
    No.  It appears Cooper assessed the team was under
    fire.  He further assessed that specifically he was
    the target.  He fired three rounds to supress that fire.  He
    further assessed that the team was still under attack after
    that return fire.  He further assessed that the target of that
    continued fire was Roderick.  He assessed that he could
    reach his objective (reach his wounded, dieing peer William
    Degan) without further fire, so he fired no more rounds.
    
    Is it your assertion that Cooper was mistaken or is your assertion
    taht Cooper was lieing is is your assertion both?
    
|   My understanding is that this was a heavily wooded area.
    
    They were in a clearing.  They specifically headed for a clearing
    because they could run faster through a clearing.
    
|   The sound of bullets cutting through leaves is pretty distinctive, yet
|   the Deputy made no mention that he heard this....
    
    Since they were in a clearing, I would be neither surprised nor
    concerned if there was or was not any mention of the sound of bullets
    going through leaves or trees.  
    
    File this one under another Jim Percival grasping at straws.
    
|   indication that he was actually being fired at.
    
    The deputy made the assement that he specifically was under attack. 
    He testified to that, under oath.  *THAT* *IS* *INDICATION* *THAT*
    *HE* *WAS* *ACTUALLY* *BEING* *FIRED* *AT* *AND* *WEAVER* *WAS*
    *NOT* *SHOOTING* *INTO* *THE* *AIR*   
    
    
    Three shots at someone who had just killed a peer, followed by
    three shots so that you could reach that peer is *NOT* *SPRAY*
    *AND* *PRAY*!  Not one Marshal even emptied every round in their
    weapon.  The weapon of the Degan was fired seven times.  Cooper's
    weapon fired six times.  Roderick's *once*.  Testimony *and*
    *physical* evidence corroborates these facts.
    
    To me all this reads as a prudent, measured response to danger that
    I hope I never face.  To you, it's a crime.  Bizzare.
    
    
    Finally, for your suggestion that Cooper put the other three
    members of the recon team in danger, the evidence shows that the
    two teams *knew* they were separated and *knew* that they were not
    together at the "y".
    
    -----
    
    Emphasis added from TFR....
    
    **********************************
    He [Cooper] then began taking fire
    **********************************
    
    and heard Degan call "Coop, I need you."  Cooper told Degan that he
    would be there "as soon as I can get 'em off our ass."[FN379]
    Cooper rose and fired a second, three-round burst in the
    
    ********************************************************************
    direction from which he had last received fire in order to provide
    cover fire for himself as he tried to get to Degan.[FN380]
    ********************************************************************
    
    Following
    these last shots, Cooper saw Sammy run out of view up the trail to the
    cabin. Cooper did not think that his shots had hit Sammy Weaver.[FN381]

    ********************************************************************
    When the fire shifted toward Roderick, it allowed Cooper to move to
    Degan's position.[FN382]
    ********************************************************************
    
    
    Degan had been hit once in the chest.[FN383]
    He was lying on his left side, his arm in the rifle sling, making a
    gurgling noise. He was conscious, but unable to assist Cooper in moving
    to a protected position. Within a few moments, Degan lost consciousness
    and died.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Dan, why is it necessary to spell things out for you?  Allow me to
    repeat definition 1:
    
        1. Lines of fire from two or more positions crossing each other at
        a single point.
    
    John and Bobby Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Ronald Reagan were not
    shot in crossfire situations because the agents with them were not
    in case to fire; their weapons were holstered and not expected to be
    used, and the agents had not established lines of fire.  Sammy Weaver
    was in a crossfire because both Randy Weaver and the group of agents
    were brandishing and had discharged loaded firearms.  Both sides had
    established lines of fire.  Hence, a crossfire existed.
    
    When you've learned how to read for comprehension, come back and we can
    discuss your upstart arrogance.

    
    Billy, you go around saying that people who disagree with you believe
    that the Feds were telling only lies, and you then go and assume that
    Weaver was only telling lies.  On both counts you are wrong.  I believe
    that each group has an agenda, not the least of which is to cover there
    own a**.  I'm looking for the truth, I believe that that can be found
    by looking for the most logical explanation for things.  When what
    Weaver says makes sense, I believe it, when the government says makes
    sense I believe that.  At this point in time the governments version
    has some MAJOR holes in it.  Until they can fill these holes, I can
    not accept what they say as true.  Not that Weaver's statements all
    make sense.  I do not and can not defend everything he has said, so I
    don't.  However your rantings, and I believe that to be an accurate
    description, can only be termed dogmatic.  Open your eyes and examine
    the issues with some rational.

    hoping for a complete recovery,
    Dan

    .301
    
    > hoping for a complete recovery,
    > Dan
    
    I too hope you recover completely, Dan, and speedily.

    
    Mr. Binder, your a arrogance is only exceeded by your incompetence.
    
    Given that Randy Weaver was not shooting at the agents, his claim which
    has yet to be disproven, his line of fire was directly upwards.  The point
    at which the "lines of fire" cross would be at Randy Weavers position. 
    If A shoots at B and C shoots at A you are trying to claim that ANYONE
    between A and B is caught in a crossfire.  Horse hockey, try again.

    If Sam Weaver was killed by Fed. agents shooting at Randy Weaver, then
    Sam Weaver was not killed in a crossfire, He was killed by the
    negligence of a federal officer.

    Hope this helps
    Dan

    
    >Mr. Binder, your a arrogance is only exceeded by your incompetence.
    
    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
    
    <sniff>
    
    Dan, Dan, Dan...
    

    .303
    
    A line of fire is not necessarily the direction in which an individual
    is firing.  Randy Weaver could see the agents, he had a live weapon,
    and he may or may not have perceived his situation as reason to fire on
    them.  The fact that he chose to fire upward (if he's to be believed)
    does not vitiate the existence of his line of fire.
    
    Killoran, you're hopeless.  It's been real, and it's been fun, but it
    hasn't been real fun.

    
    	re: .303
    
    	Slow down Dan.....take a deep breath and relax.
    
    
    jim

    
    > A line of fire is not necessarily the direction in which an individual
    > is firing.

    Interesting observation, not correct, but interesting.  What I said
    stands.

    > Killoran, you're hopeless.  It's been real, and it's been fun, but it
    > hasn't been real fun.

    Fleeing so soon..... drat, oh well, I will not shoot at retreating
    opponents.
    
    Dan

    .307
    
    Well, I'll stay around for a few more, I guess.  Take a close look at
    the following figure, which illustrates your position:
    
    	+----------+		+----------+		+---------+
    	| Person A |		| Person B |		| The Sky |
    	+----------+		+----------+		+---------+
    
    Person B is armed and can see Person A.
    Person A is firing at Person B. 
    Person B aims at person A but decides not to fire.
    Person B then turns and fires at The Sky. 
    
    Person B's line of fire toward Person A, along which he could have hit
    Person A had he pulled the trigger, MAGICALLY disappears.
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

        
    > Person B aims at person A but decides not to fire.

    As far as I know, this did not happen.

    According to the logic that you have graced us with in the previous few
    notes, a line of fire consists any direction in which the weapon COULD
    be pointed.  Interesting theory.  Have you ever been to a firing range?
    (I suspect that you have, so this was a rhetorical question)  Try
    asking the Range Officer what the line of fire is.  Next time before
    you start "educating" others, try a reality check.

    Dan

   <<< Note 399.299 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    You still insist on accepting *EVERYTHING* Weaver said as gospel?

	Every bit as much as you seem willing to accept the Deputy's 	
	testimony as gospel.

	Not much difference between our stubborness, is there?

Jim

    .309
    
    > Have you ever been to a firing range?
    
    Have you ever been in the army?
    
    > Try
    > asking the Range Officer what the line of fire is.
    
    I've BEEN an RO, probably before you were born.  There is a difference
    between the instantaneous line of your weapon's fire and your line of
    fire in a combat situation.
    
    Try a reality check before you start showing your ignorance.  Not
    stupidity; you're obviously not stupid.  But you ARE underinformed.  Or
    disingenuous.

    >Depends on how you define "taking fire". According to Weaver,
    >he fired into the air.
    
     Let's take what Weaver says at face value, that indeed hw shot "into
    the air" and not in the general direction of the "ZOG/NWO agents"
    (which requires a small suspension of disbelief given his behavior,
    attitude and words preceeding the assault.) In the hail of gunfire,
    given the fact that one of his fellow agents had taken lead, is it not
    possible that A) Agent Cooper believed that Weaver's gunfire was aimed
    in his direction or B) someone else (Sammy or Harris) was firing at
    roughly the same time in his general direction (so the distinctive
    sound of bullets cutting through leaves was present, but incorrectly 
    attributed to Weaver's location)?
    
    >No one should fire at anything EXCEPT a specific target.
    
     Ever? I disagree. Certain situations, such as those frequently
    encountered during armed conflict, make such a tactic justifiable.
    Which is not to say that any time a policeman gets shot at he has
    license to spray and pray, but there are times when cover fire is
    justified. IMO, YYMV, etc.
    
    >Deputy Cooper apparently knew the location of two other
    >Deputies, where were the OTHER three? 
    
     Not at the Y, as established by radio contact.
    
    >Who would shoulder the blame if Cooper had shot and killed one 
    >of his own men?
    
     He would have, although doubtless the gummint would have tried to pin
    it on the fugitives.

          <<< Note 399.312 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "the countdown is on" >>>

>     Ever? I disagree. Certain situations, such as those frequently
>    encountered during armed conflict, make such a tactic justifiable.
>    Which is not to say that any time a policeman gets shot at he has
>    license to spray and pray, but there are times when cover fire is
>    justified. IMO, YYMV, etc.
 
	We disagree. Anytime that a law enforcement officer fires his
	weapon he is responsible for identifying his target AND assessing
	the potential for causing harm to persons other than his target.
	Cooper did neither.

Jim

    CONSPIRACIES PEOPLE, CONSPIRACIES!!!

    
    Mr Binder, I believe that you are hair splitting in an attempt to
    buttress your very weak position.  You are still wrong, but you argue
    well.  I can see that I will not be able to penetrate your self-imposed
    blindness to reality.  I will still try to educate you on reality if
    you wish, but I'm afraid that I can already see that would be like
    trying to empty the ocean with a tea cup.  I await your response.

    Dan

Steve, they're all conspiring to rathole the topic.

    re.: 313
    
    Here, here Jim, well done.
    
    :-)
    Dan

    FWIW- this absurd semantic rathole regarding the use of the term
    crossfire to describe the unintentional intersection in the space-time
    continuum of a piece of lead and Sammy Weaver is nothing more than a
    diversionary tactic. Whether or not any particular person agrees that
    crossfire is the correct term to describe the shooting does not affect
    the _unintentional_ shooting of Sammy Weaver. His death is highly
    unfortunate, eminently avoidable, and given the facts at hand, not
    criminal. No one claims that Cooper aimed specifically at Sammy Weaver.
    Not Harris. Not Weaver himself. even after Sammy Weaver fired a .223 at
    federal marshalls (which is sufficient provocation to take him out.)
                                                          

    >Mr. Binder, your a arrogance is only exceeded by your incompetence.
    
     Come back once you've qualified for butt pimplehood. Talk about
    arrogance. You've not even the sense to recognize your betters.
    
     And don't think I didn't notice your failure to address direct
    questions. Your weakness in debate is evident to all; I see no need to
    underscore the obvious.

    But we all know that Cooper is a secret member of the Trilateral
    Commission, and has attended NWO meetings with Rockefeller.
    
    -steve

    .315
    
    You want a response?  Here, take this one:
    
    Go peddle your agenda-laden crap elsewhere.  You have my permission to
    declare a victory by default.  I've better things to do than to try at
    what your parents and more than a dozen educators failed to accomplish.
    
    We'll doubtless meet again in other topics.  Until then, I salute your
    staying power and I wish you well.

    > You've not even the sense to recognize your betters.

    I recognize no PERSON as my better.  My equal certainly.  More
    experience in a particular skill certainly.  But that kind of statement
    is only fit for for an elitist.

    > And don't think I didn't notice your failure to address direct
    > questions.

    Care to point out what I missed, and you Mark should not claim that I
    didn't answer direct questions when you yourself did not answer mine.
    "Those who live in glass houses..."

    Dan

    
    >...what your parents and more than a dozen educators failed to accomplish.

    And what might that be dear friend?  I believe that I have turned out
    quite well.  I am able to think on my own, and not rely on hair
    splitting to try and save me.  When I am mistaken I admit it.  This is
    a skill you might consider learning.

    Dan
    
    P.S. My best to you and yours...

    >Care to point out what I missed
    
     You can start with .284.
    
     And I'd, of course, be delighted to answer any of your questions I may
    have inadvertently missed (providing they are relevant.)

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 399.284                      Conspiracies                        284 of 324
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "the countdown is on"                57 lines   7-JUL-1995 10:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     .            .             .             .             .             .
     .            .             .             .             .             .
     .            .             .             .             .             .
     .            .             .             .             .             .

    > Riddle me this- were agents Roderick, Cooper and Degan "present" at
    > the shooting site?

    Yes.

---
    
    > You seem to be operating from a strangely restrictive definition of
    > "present." None of the participants could see all of the others all of
    > the time. To me, that doesn't mean they weren't present. But that seems
    > to be your position. Perhaps you can elucidate on your definition of
    > present.

    My statement that Randy Weaver was not present came from what I read in
    mr bill's posting.  It seems that Randy Weaver was in fact present in the 
    general area of the confrontation.  His exact location is as yet unclear.
    However this in noway invalidates my statement that Sam was not killed in a 
    crossfire as mr bill implied.
    
---
    
    > So, to me,
    > saying Sammy was killed in the crossfire accurately depicts the
    > situation. You disagree?

    As I said last time YES I disagree.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    now your turn try 399.250
    
    Dan

    
    See .136 and/or .251.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Oh, BTW Dan, on that matter of Vicki Weaver and "harboring a fugitive,"
    which like where was Randy is a concept you just can't seem to get....
    
    From the charges of conspiracy naming the principals.  (Of course
    this all is trumped up pap put together by a Zionist Occupational
    Goverment who lies at every opportunity....)
    
    								-mr. bill
    
1. To forcibly resist, oppose, impede, interfere with, intimidate,
assault and/or otherwise cause a violent confrontation with law
enforcement authorities in the engagement in or on account of the
performance of their official duties of enforcing the laws of the
United States. . . as to said Randall C. Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin
L. Harris and others; 

....

5. To hinder or prevent the discovery, apprehension, arrest and trial of
federal fugitives from justice;

    
    mr bill, How does your last note explain that Mrs. Weaver was harboring
    Randy Weaver?
    
    Dan

    
    I can't decide which is Mr. Bill's more prominent bete noire:  his
    constant insults and belittlement (which are actually a treasured part
    of 'Box lore and are, therefore, to be savored), or his deliberate 
    lumping of everyone critical of the government's actions into the
    evyl militia "nutter" category.  He still seems to be unable to grasp
    the fact that some of the people arguing against him can simultaneously
    hold the opinions that Randy Weaver is a dirtbag AND that the 
    government made mistakes handling the Ruby Ridge debacle.
    
    While I realize that part of the fun of Soapbox is in taking an 
    extremist position and defending it to the death, legitimate criticism 
    can (and should) be leveled at the Marshalls, the BATF, the FBI, and
    Agent Horiuchi in particular without being a member of the Michigan
    Militia.  Randy, Vicki, and even Sammy Weaver brought their fate down
    on themselves by their own actions.  However, the government agents
    involved did not help matters with their reckless and wanton disregard
    for the safety of the participants, most prominently illustrated by
    the criminal Rules of Engagement.
    
    It is not necessary to be part of the "damn the truth, there's 
    conspiracy theories to weave" crowd to question the government's 
    actions (although it may help ;-)).  Hearings should be held on both
    Ruby Ridge and Waco because people in the government did bad things,
    period.  When people do bad things, you hold them accountable.  You
    do not retain them or PROMOTE them to higher positions.
    
    Bring on the hearings.
    
    
    
    
    Rob
    

    >now your turn try 399.250
    
     I suppose 399.251 was too far for you to look?

    
    
    Anyone see David Brinkley over the weekend?  Rubin looks more like a
    politician than the head of the BATF.
    
    

    
    I saw Brinkley.  I can't decide whether Rubin or the militia spokeman
    disgusted me more.  Neither one would give a straight answer to any
    question.
    
    I thought the most amusing moment was when Rubin, with a triumphant
    flourish, pulled out a photocopy of a Boston Globe article to disprove
    allegations of misconduct during last week's raid in Boston.  When
    asked for specifics, he admitted he had not read the article, but was
    still sure that it proved that no misconduct took place.  Groan...
    
    
    
    
    Rob
    

    
    
    
    Yup, after the BATF set the record straight with the globe.  I also
    liked his answer when asked if Clinton knew and approved of the raid.
    Err, Uhhh, mmmmmm, errrr, uhhhhhhh, and then avoided the question with
    his best Slick fingerpoint.
    
    
    

    
    re: Cashmon
    
    And you seem unable to grasp that fact that I can argue against the
    nutters AND simultaneously hold the opinion that the government made
    mistakes handling the Ruby Ridge debacle.
    
    And do bring on the hearings.  You all, just like the nutters, will not
    believe them anyway.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Mr. Bill, 
    
    I know very well from your posts that you would agree that the 
    government made mistakes at Ruby Ridge.  I only wish you would 
    extend the same courtesy of understanding to Jim Sadin and the 
    others you have chosen to lump into the nutter camp.
    
    Believe it or not, I may or may not decide to believe the hearings, 
    after everything has come out that is going to come out.  But if I
    don't agree with the final outcome, it will be because I will have
    decided that the government is only interested in covering its own
    backside, and not because of some bizarre ZOG black-helicopter crap.
    I haven't swallowed the fanciful tales of the militia any more than
    you have.  I am merely skeptical that any real justice will ever be
    dispensed in this matter.
    
    FWIW, 
    
    Rob
    

Hellllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...........

    Hi Chris
    
    :-)
    

    BTW Mark, my mistake.  I should have immediately realized that one line
    of internet gobble-dee-gook, was the answer to my question.  How stupid
    of me.  Please for us "simple minded" types, TRY INDICATING THAT YOU
    ARE ANSWERING A QUESTION !

    Dan

                      WEAVER SHOOT-OUT ECHOS CONTINUE


Hoping to gain favorable press about their role in the fatal September, 
1992 siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, FBI officials have instead opened the door 
for it to be further investigated. Randall Day, Boundary County 
Prosecuting Attorney, is considering asking a grand jury to indict the 
federal agents involved on murder or wrongful-death charges.

Col. Bo Gritz, who negotiated the cease-fire there after three people were 
killed in what he calls "a militarized police siege," heard recently from 
Randy Weaver that "maybe we'll finally get justice." Weaver, widower of one 
of the victims, father of another and himself tried and acquitted for their 
murders, told Gritz that the FBI had at last released its 546-page report 
of the incident.

As Col. Gritz pointed out in Los Angeles during his recent speaking and 
preparedness-training tour, unlike the drop-off in media attention on Waco, 
the Weaver incident refuses to go away. America's most decorated Green 
Beret, Col. Gritz quoted stories from The Washington Post, The New York 
Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Los Angeles Times written months 
after the trial when one might expect public interest to have faded. 
Despite being Establishment-owned all of the newspapers voiced grave doubts 
about the FBI's handling of the incident. Typical headlines; "No 
Accountability at FBI," "Director of FBI Continues Cover-up ..." and 
"Somebody's Lying ..."

Gritz noted that murder is a state, not a federal crime, so it must be 
pursued by county officials. He quoted Prosecutor Day as saying, "If Randy 
Weaver and Kevin Harris are innocent, who killed those three people?" 
Before now, Day's intention to investigate the federal agents had been 
thwarted by the confidentiality of the  FBI report.

Col. Gritz's own eyewitness account proves that the Bureau agents lied to 
the public and the press: They had claimed that their sniper killed Vickie 
Weaver accidentally while trying to shoot Randy, but the head of FBI 
operations at the siege, Dick Rogers, told him privately, "Bo, we targeted 
Vickie Weaver because the psychiatrist said she was the maternal head of 
the family, that she would kill the children before she would ever allow 
them to surrender." As if to flaunt their savagery in having murdered an 
unarmed woman holding her infant, the FBI made a large "Camp Vickie" sign 
and hung it at their mountain base that night.

The government also falsely reported to the public that the Weavers were 
"white supremacists" in order to turn public opinion against them, Col. 
Gritz said, and he quoted the Red Cross supervisor on the scene who told 
him, "Bo, I was totally astounded. I was there as the FBI were loading the 
magazines of their machine guns. I heard them say, 'No one is coming off 
that hill alive.'"

The family had been under FBI surveillance for months, so the Hostage 
Rescue Team knew that there were four children on "that hill"; the Weavers' 
three daughters and the 13-year-old son Sammy, who was murdered by two M-16 
shots in the back as he ran toward his family.

Gritz explained that the Establishment press continued to spread lies after 
receiving the FBI report, claiming that Mrs. Weaver's death was accidental 
and that Weaver and his friend Kevin Harris had killed Marshal William 
Deegan the first day of the siege. Instead, Deegan, the most decorated U.S. 
marshal in that service's 208-year history, was killed by friendly fire 
from FBI agent Lawrence Cooper's silenced Cold 9mm submachine gun, as 
Cooper's own testimony and other evidence indicate. Weaver and Harris were 
themselves wounded by government gunfire, Harris almost fatally.

Col. Gritz concluded by asking public support for Mr. Day: Patriotic 
Americans should contact this "David" at (208) 267-7545 (phone) or (208) 
267-5284 (fax) and encourage him to face the Justice Department "Goliath."


>From Perceptions, July/August 1995.
http://www.primenet.com/perceptions

|"Somebody's Lying ..."
    
    Yup.  Somebody is.  I suggest you might want to start your search in
    Culver City California.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
>    Yup.  Somebody is.  I suggest you might want to start your search in
>    Culver City California.
    
    	These little treasure hunts are amusing and sometimes even fun, but
    if you already have the facts Mr. Bill, why not present them here in a
    reasonable fashion?
    
    
    jim

    
    Jim, Jim, Jim,.......
    
    You see that doesn't fit billy's M.O.  He only goes around insulting
    people, shouting and carefully selecting his words to imply things
    other than the facts indicate....
    
    I know it's been a while since billy's been here, but I'da thought
    you'da 'membered dat.... :-)
    
    Dan

    
    Perceptions lists a po box in Culver City, California.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    To give you a free clue.  If you want new age slant on UFO sightings,
    you want Perceptions.  If you want new age slant on herbs, you want
    Perceptions.  If you want new age slant on hemp ropes, you want
    Perceptions.  If you want new age slant on all the wonderful things
    that can be done with enemas, you want Perceptions.
    
    You want facts about Ruby Ridge?  You don't want Perceptions.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    > If you want new age slant on UFO sightings, ..... you want Perceptions.

    Free clue:  billy, you need better reading material...

    Dan

    I keep forgetting that Dan has quiet a connect the dots problem.
    
    .338 is from "Perception".
    "Perception" is in Culver City, California.
    "Perception" lies about Ruby Ridge.
    
    I have no interest at all in new age spin on UFO's, herbs, enemas, etc....
    (Hemp rope on the other hand....)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    > (Hemp rope on the other hand....)

    This could explain a lot of the rubbish you have been writing....
    
    Dan

    
    About a year ago I built my son a replica of a shaker bed.
    It has a rope foundation.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    >  -< I'd say you're riding explains quiet alot of you're righting.... >-
    
    Excuse me.
    

    
    
    
    No, no Dan....should be more like this......
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Welllllllllll, EXkyewwwwwwwws ME!  :*)
    
    

I reckon I'd toss this in right here, except you could look this deal up
    and prove me wrong -maybe.  Maybe not.  If you can't, you should
    do doing some form of war dance on over to the state capital to stuff 
    some of yer potatoEs up some politicians rear-ends. 
    
From:	US3RMC::"no-terrorism-bill@webcom.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 22-JUL-1995 23:59:42.93
Subj:	NTB! Federal police to enforce State law.

To Ken Gomes and others on my lists:

I posted a few weeks ago, Pennsylvania Senate Bill 75 of special session
that went much further than the bill below.  It confered police powers on
ANY federal law enforcement officer who has a badge and a gun.  It enabled
him to enforce everything right down to municipal law in Pennsylania.  It
even enumerated "a breach of the peace" as a reason for a federal police
person to act in the State.

I have been told that this has also surfaced in Mass., but you're watered
down version in Maine is nothing compared to Penna.  Look for this in your
own state legislatures people, I'll bet there are more of these.

Howard


At 08:44 PM 7/22/95 -0400, Ken Gomes wrote:
>Some friends of mine in the Maine State Senate found this bill which passed 
>and was neatly hidden away:
>
>Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follws:
>
>        Sec. 1 . 25 MRSA Par.1502, as amended by PL 1993, c. 123, Par.1, is 
>further amended by adding after the 2nd paragraph a new paragraph to read:
>
>        Sworn law enforcement employees of the Immigration and 
>Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice and officers of the 
>United States Custom Service of the Department of the Treasury have the 
>powers of the State Police.
>
>                              STATEMENT OF FACT
>
>        This bill confers upon United States Border Patrol agents, 
>inspectors and investigators of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
>of the Department of Justice and officers of the United States Customs 
>Service of the Department of the Treasury the statutory authority to enforce 
>Maine law. Notwithstanding the lack of authority, these federal law 
>enforcement officers are presented with serious violations of traffic and 
>criminal statutes that require immediate action and currently assist state, 
>county and local law enforcement agencies when requested.

****************************************************************

    
    Never confuse nutters with a few simple bills to prevent felons from
    getting a get out of jail free pass.
    
    								-mr. bill

>enforcement officers are presented with serious violations of traffic and 
>criminal statutes that require immediate action and currently assist state, 
>county and local law enforcement agencies when requested.

The Feds are going to run radar on the interstates???  This bill would appear
to completely wipe out the traditional jurisdiction boundaries of the various
levels of goverment.

Bob

    <--- That *would* seem to be their goal, IMO.

    Well, now the Trilateral Commission has found a place to test their
    lasers at.

    <-----
    
      {scowl}

    
    Thank you, Andy.  Glenn, come over here so I can perform the
    Prepositional Punishment.
                          

    What are you going to punish me with?

    
    Never you mind.  Just get over here.
    
    

    It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.
    
    I'll be right over sweetie.

    
    Darn, I missed again.  Anybody know where MSO is at?
    
    :-)
    Dan

    
    
    you are kidding, right dan????
    
    

    
    raq,
    <ssshhhhhh> I'm hoping Ms Deb catches the preposition at the end of the
    sentence.... hehehe

    :-)
    Dan

    
    Dan, you're SO transparent 8^).
    
    

    
    Hey, can't blame a guy fo' tryin'.....
    
    
    :-)
    Dan

    Mz_Deb, will you apply the preposition punishment for any of my notes
    you find sentences ending with prepositions in?
    
    Does the preposition punishment involve biting, or will I just have to
    find out?

    The punishment will make a prepositional fool out of you.
    
    {sigh}

    Oh, goodie, wonder what I'm in for?

    Now *there* (.365) is a far more refoined & amusing try than .364
    sheepishly (oo er HAAG::HAAG) admits, though it, regrettably, is about
    equally transparent.
    
    Far better, surmise I, to be aloof from the fray, trusting in the
    irresistible allure of the Critic.  Nay, not surmise, naked HOPE...
    
    (That's *CyberSocial* Critic, Dick, not NoozPaperMuzique...)
                                                                       
    |-{:-)
    

    <--- Hey, you talk funny.

    .368
    
    > about equally
    
    Is that anything like "approximately identical"?
    
    IMWTN.

    Not only that but he's hard to understand too.

    
    Buncha masochists in here 8^).
    
    

    
    <-----
    
    Depends on where you bite them...
    

    
>>    Depends on where you bite them...

    it would prolly be right in her office.
    

    
    
    Masochistically speaking, would that be any fun???
    

    Seems there is a conspiracy to be fixated with T&A in the nutter
    (oh-er) note.  What's up?  (ooooohhhhh)

    Depends on how long you're there for.

    Someone's gotta be having a hard day at the orifice.
    

    Where's everyone at?  

    
    My teeth are starting to itch.
    
    

    
    oooohhhh that sounds very interesting, 
    but what are you trying to get at?
    
    :-)
    Dan

    
    re: .380
    
    >My teeth are starting to itch.
    
    mz_deb
    
    Have a little Burgundy...

    
    <-- HEY!!!!! {glare}
    
    
    8^pPpPPpPpppppPPppPppPPppPpPpPpPPppp
    
    
    
    
    Anyhoo, it was Beaujolais 8^).
    
    

| <<< Note 399.379 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| Where's everyone at?


	plannin conspiracies of course!

    I have a great little box o' Bow-Jolly tm Lite in the fridge.  A hearty 
    red, fresh from the vineyards of central Wisconsin, guaranteed fresh,
    and only 75 calories a glass.  Has a cute little bow tie on it with a 
    nice, warm friendly smiley face on it.  Yummy.
    
    

    
    You're just BEGGING for "Big Yellow Taxi", aren't you?
    
    

                     ___   ~----._
            _______     ~~---.__  `-.    Re: .357
        --~~       ~~-----.__   `-.  \   What are you going to punish me with?

        _,--------------._   ~---. \  `.
      '~  _,------------. ~~-     `.\  |
     _,--~      _____    `        _____|_
         _,---~~          -----         `-.            /##
      ,-~   __,---~~--.       `._____,',--.`.        ,'##/
    ,' _,--~  __,----.          `  () '' ()' :    _,-' `#'
     ,~   _,-'   ,' ,--          `---' \ `.__,)--'     ,'
       ,-'      -  (                                _,'
     .'   _-~ ,'    `--                          ,-'
    /  ,-'  ,'  __                        ___,--'    _______________
     ,'  ,'~ ,-~     /            ___.ooo88o  |    ,'               `.
    /  ,' ,-'    /               ' 8888888888,'   _|                 |
      /  /    /                 '  `888888888.`.  \     GLENN!!!!!!  |
     /  /  /      /            '    `888888888 |   |                 |
       '      /     /         '       `888888','   `._______________,'
         /                   '           ~~~,'
        /   /  /            '            ,-'
         /           /                 ,'         

    Move a little closer.  It's time to nail your 'ead to
    the floor.
    

	I cutie.... hmmm.... I wonder if it is her hubby??? :-)

    My nose is turning red, my eyes are bulging out and my teeth are moving 
    about.

    >>>  -< Here He Comes Glenn!!! >-
    
    
    don't know why, but when i saw this, all i could think of was "here he
    comes a-glenn"... and it won't go away...
    
    

    I'm dancing 'neath the starry sky.

    re: .350
    
    MadMike,
    
      I read this for the first time just yesterday.  I consider this one
      of the most ominous things I have ever seen!
    
      Who do our state reps think they are anyway??!!!
    
    						Tony

Welcome to The World Citizen Web


If we could have a moment of your time...

Thank you for visiting the Web site of the World Government of
World Citizens. 

The WGWC's purpose is the global legitimization of human rights.

Please read on...



If you are familiar with the WGWC, you can go directly to the 
index. 

In Paris, France, in the year 1948, a World War II bomber pilot,
Garry Davis, renounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of his true
political identity: World Citizen. Expelled from France September
12th, he took refuge on the "international" territory of the United
Nations General Assembly convened in Paris. With friends, he
interrupted a session, calling for one government for one world.
Thus the World Citizenship movement began. 

On December 10th, 1948 the General Assembly proclaimed the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Within the first year, over 750,000 people registered with the
International Registry of World Citizens that Davis founded. 

With this popular grassroots mandate, on September 4th, 1953,
from the city hall of Ellsworth, Maine, Davis proclaimed the World
Government of World Citizens. 

From this beginning, the issuance of global identity and travel
documents became possible as a legitimate activity via the new
government. 

Today, the WGWC issues Human Rights documents through the 
World Service Authority. The WSA is the administrative arm of
the WGWC. The WSA has offices in Japan, and in Washington,
D.C., USA. The WSA documents include the World Passport, the
World Birth Certificate, and the World Identity Card, among
others. For a complete description of the WSA documents, with
photographs, go to the WSA documents page. 

These documents have proven to be a valuable tool for countless
refugees in countries all over the globe. Many such refugees, some
facing deportation and even death, have used the WSA passport
along with its supporting documents, to travel to a country where
they are accepted and allowed to live a normal life, free from
imprisonment. 

To learn more about the WGWC,
and its exciting projects such as the World Syntegrity Project,
please continue on to the index. 

Copyright (c) 1995 World Service Authority. All rights reserved. 
Mail now to World Service Authority.

This page is produced and maintained by Ross A. Carlson at
gdavis@together.net
Mail your comments now on improving this site.
This page last updated June 15, 1995 

How to register as a World Citizen


You will have to print this form to register, since it requires a
signature. To have a printed form mailed to you, write to the World
Service Authority in Washington, D.C., or in Tokyo, Japan. (See
address below)

All registered world citizens will receive the World Citizen Card,
laminated and in 7 languages: English, French, Spanish, Arabic,
Russian, Chinese and Esperanto. The possession of this card is
evidence of a global political status allied with each and every
other declared and registered World Citizen. 

CREDO OF A WORLD CITIZEN

A World Citizen is a human being who lives intellectually, morally
and physically in the present. A World Citizen accepts the
dynamic fact that the planetary human community is
interdependent and whole, that humankind is essentially one. A
World Citizen is a peaceful and peacemaking individual, both in
daily life and contacts with others. As a global person, a World
Citizen relates directly to humankind and to all fellow humans
spontaneously, generously and openly. Mutual trust is basic to
his/her lifestyle. Politically, a World Citizen accepts a sanctioning
institution of representative government, expressing the general
and individual sovereign will in order to establish and maintain a
system of just and equitable world law with appropriate legislative,
judiciary and enforcement bodies. A World Citizen brings about
better understanding and protection of different cultures, ethnic
groups and language communities by promoting the use of a
neutral international language, such as Esperanto. A World Citizen
makes this world a better place to live in harmoniously by studying
and respecting the viewpoints of fellow citizens from anywhere in
the world. 

AFFIRMATION 

I, the undersigned, do hereby, willingly and consciously, declare
myself to be a Citizen of the World. As a World Citizen, I affirm
my planetary civic commitment to WORLD GOVERNMENT,
founded on three universal principles of One Absolute Value, One
World, and One Humanity which constitute the basis of World
Law. As a World Citizen I acknowledge the WORLD
GOVERNMENT as having the right and duty to represent me in
all that concerns the General Good of humankind and the Good of
All. As a Citizen of World Government, I affirm my awareness of
my inherent responsibilities and rights as a legitimate member of
the total world community of all men, women, and children, and will
endeavor to fulfill and practice these whenever and wherever the
opportunity presents itself. As a Citizen of World Government, I
recognize and reaffirm citizenship loyalties and responsibilities
within the communal state, and/or national groupings consistent
with the principles of unity above which constitute now my
planetary civic commitment. 

X________________________________________________________

Signature of World Citizen and Date 
Fill out below and sign Affirmation above and return with fee to: 

World Service Authority * Suite 1106 * 1012 14th Street, NW *
Washington, D.C. 20005 * Tel: (202) 638-2662 * Fax: (202)
638-0638 

World Service Authority * 8th World District * 4-14-5
Numabukuro * Nakano-Ku * Tokyo 165, Japan * Tel: (81) (33)
319-5170 * Fax: (81) (33) 319-5127 

APPLICATION FOR A WORLD CITIZEN
REGISTRATION 

Please type or print all information 
FIRST NAME(S):______________________________________
FAMILY NAME:________________________________________
SEX: M F 
BIRTHDATE: DAY_____ MONTH_____ YEAR___ 
BIRTHPLACE:_________________________________________
TELEPHONE:__________________________________________
OCCUPATION:_________________________________________
CURRENT MAILING ADDRESS:
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Registration fee: US$20 
Annual minimum financial commitment to WORLD
GOVERNMENT (Optional): US$12 
Postage: US$2 
TOTAL: US$34 

Return to WCW home page

Copyright (c) 1995 World Service Authority. All rights reserved. 
Mail now to World Service Authority.

This page is produced and maintained by Ross A. Carlson at
gdavis@together.net
Mail your comments now on improving this site.
This page last updated May 15, 1995 

    
    	That's not like you, Jim ... a search of "gun" and "fire" on
    	those 2 replies came up empty.
    
    	8^)
    

    
    
    	:*) I may be a gunnut, but I'm a slightly diversified gunnut....:)
    
    jim

    
    So, Jim...did you register yet?
    
    ;^)
    

               
    Did that solicitation pass your President meets with Space Aliens sniff
    test?
    
    I'm surprised you haven't found the GIF of this month's Popular Science
    cover yet.  Remember.  4.1 Hz.  And aluminum foil on your baseball cap
    will protect you.  Go for the heavy duty premium brand, they protect
    you better.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	Oh yeah, check's in the mail <guffaw>...;*)
    
    
    

    
    
    	
>    I'm surprised you haven't found the GIF of this month's Popular Science
>    cover yet.  Remember.  4.1 Hz.  And aluminum foil on your baseball cap
>    will protect you.  Go for the heavy duty premium brand, they protect
>    you better.
    
    	I'm suprised you think I'd actually believe that cr*p. Well, then
    again, maybe I'm not suprised that YOU would think that...
    
    
    	go p*ss down someone elses back will ya?
    
    jim

The World Syntegrity Project


An ongoing global conference to explore the vital question:

"How can we, as sovereign world citizens, govern our world?"



A few pertinent questions for you:

   Are you fed up with national politics-as-usual but don't
   know how to change them? 
   Do you recognize yourself as part of one world and one
   humanity? 
   Would you like to exercise your will on world issues which
   affect you daily? 



Do you have answers to or opinions about these questions?

   Does humanity have legal rights? 
   Must human rights be protected by law? 
   How can we prevent the killing of fellow human beings? 
   How can we achieve a world of abundance for everyone? 
   How can we stop environmental destruction? 
   How do you practice world citizenship? 
   Who owns space: nations, or humanity? 
   Is the nation-state really sovereign? Should it be? 
   Can sovereign states make peace, and is there such a
   thing as national security? 


You can address these questions and many more through the 
World Syntegrity Project - the evolution of democratic world
government. Only you can add your unique point of view and life
experience. Sign up today...you really can make a difference. 


Background on World Syntegrity

The World Syntegrity Project was designed especially for the use
of world citizens to provide an effective means for individuals to
participate locally and yet have their voices heard globally. The
creation of the World Syntegrity Project is the logical and
inevitable link between organizational science and world politics,
enabling concerned citizens to surmount obstacles facing large
numbers of people who wish to communicate on issues of global
as well as local importance. This is the key to global government
through local involvement.

The Syntegration process uses Buckminster Fuller's geodesic
dome (icosahedron) structure and principles of cybernetics to
create a non- hierarchical group structure that permits maximum
creativity in problem-solving while still generating cohesive
results. Participants in the three-to-four day event examine topics
revolving around the question "How can we, as sovereign world
citizens, govern our world?" and issue final statements which,
compiled with statements from groups all over the world, are sent
to Heads of State and decision makers everywhere. These
statements will eventually form the basis of the constitution of the
World Government of World Citizens.

The World Syntegrity Project is sponsored by the World Citizen
Foundation. Garry Davis, Coordinator and Founder of the World
Government of World Citizens, and a stateless world citizen and
activist since 1948, commissioned eminent cybernetician Stafford
Beer in 1985 to develop the process, which was launched
successfully in 1993 in 10 cities worldwide. Results of all the
Syntegrations to date, are available in compiled booklet form from
the World Citizen Foundation or through e-mail at your request
(76507,2343@compuserve.com); and here on the World Citizen
Web. Syntegrations are expected to continue through the year
2000, and an online Syntegration is planned for the near future.



Synergy + Integrity = SYNTEGRITYtm

Let's SYNTEGRATE!!


Return to World Syntegrity Project page
Return to WCW home page

Copyright (c) 1995 World Service Authority. All rights reserved. 
Mail now to World Service Authority.

This page is produced and maintained by Ross A. Carlson at
gdavis@together.net
Mail your comments now on improving this site.
This page last updated May 16, 1995 

>>  <<< Note 399.395 by SUBPAC::SADIN "frankly scallop, I don't give a clam!" >>>
>>founded on three universal principles of One Absolute Value, One
>>World, and One Humanity which constitute the basis of World
>>Law. 

	One Absolute Value?  What - no two's complement?  What is 
	this Absolute Value?

    
    	ya got me lady di. Check out the page and see if you can figure it
    out.....:) I have a feeling they are referring to valuing all races,
    creeds, religions etc as one unit rather than separate entities....


    jim

    I'm disappointed that the World Citizen spec chose not to be
    inclusive by their omission of dolphins, whales, chimpanzees,
    other primates of intelligence, and other sensitive Earth creatures
    of deserving consideration.
    
    Don't they realize that we're all One?  To achieve full Oneness,
    they must acknowledge that they have much in common with all gentle
    life forms such as the amoeba.
    
    Chris

>Annual minimum financial commitment to WORLD
>GOVERNMENT (Optional): US$12
    
    The *minimum* is *optional*? 

    re: .403
    
    That one caught my eye, too.

    666 Snarf.

    
    	Wow ... must be New Math.
    
    	And I thought I learned New Math.
    

    Moon math is harder.

                     LAW BEGINS FROM 1933?

All Patriots:

Many of us engaged in legal research have encountered certain editions and
books "missing" from law library shelves.  Allegedly, Westlaw, a British
firm engaged in rewriting our law books have dropped any reference to any
law or cite prior to 1933.  As you know, many of the
sovereignty/citizenship/patriot movements rely on these still-standing cases
to bolster their arguments.  Also, if you desire to purchase the US Code on
CD ROM or any of your state laws on CD ROM, you will find no references to
the important cases.  I have encountered this as well as Tom Marcy, Robert
Jaggers, and most late, Joyce Rosenwald.

It ios most imperative that you obtain and save any old law books beiong
discarded from the law libraries, particularly from government offices.  In
many cases they are destroying the books rather than letting anyone get hold
of them.  Look for private collections from older lawyers who have died or
retired.  It's the only way to preserve the law.  This is certainly
reminiscent of Hitler Germany.

Is anyone else running up against the same brick walls??

Mike Innerarity

    

    
    What happened on March 9, 1933 ?

    
    	Wasn't that when Joan Templeton was born?
    
    	I don't see the significance.
    

    
    According to the nutters, we have been in a state of emergency since
    March 9, 1933.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    I guess that makes the Republican Parties of Texas and California
    'nutters', eh ?

    Mr. Bill,
    
    Can the ZOG/NWO crap. Since I am Jewish, I guess that makes me a world
    leader, doesn't it ?
    
    Please show me where any U.S. President since FDR has rescinded by 
    Executive Order, or not renewed, a state of National Emergency.
    
    
    ************************************************************************
    
    "By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 5 (b), of the Act
    of October 6, 1917 (1) as amended by Section 2 of the act of MARCH 9,
    1933...I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, do
    declare that a period of NATIONAL EMERGENCY still continues to exist
    and pursuant to said section, do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold
    coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental
    United States by individuals, partnerships, associations, and
    corporations...All persons are required to deliver on or before May
    1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or branch or agency thereof, or to
    any member bank of the Federal Reserve system, all gold coin, gold
    bullion, and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their
    ownership on or before April 28, 1933...Until otherwise ordered, any 
    person becoming the owner of any gold coin, gold bullion or gold
    certificates after April 28, 1933, shall within three days after
    receipt thereof, deliver same in the manner described..."
    
    (1) above - Trading With the Enemies Act of 1917
    
    --- By Executive Order, Franklin D. Roosevelt, April 5, 1933
    
    (emphasis mine)
    
    ***************************************************************************
    
    "This new money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is
     backed by the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes
     and other property of all the people in the Nation."
    
    --- Congressional Record, March 9, 1933
    
    **************************************************************************
    
    

    I read this in the HomeSchooling Conference. Thought it would be good
    to add it here.
    
    =======================================================================
         <<< 501CLB::EIS4$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]HOME_SCHOOLING.NOTE;1 >>>
                              -< Home Schooling >-
================================================================================
Note 124.0        Government registration/tracking legislation        No replies
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         244 lines  30-AUG-1995 13:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:	[HSLDA] "E-Mail Alert (Jennie Ethell)" 30-AUG-1995 12:52:30.93
To:	netcad::wiebe
CC:	
Subj:	HSLDA Alert on National Tracking Legislation

ALERT TO ACTION!

Congress Poised To Mandate Government Registration and Tracking of
All Americans

	Imagine an America in which every citizen is required to carry a
biometrically-encoded identification card as a precondition for conducting
business. Imagine having your retina scanned every time you need to
prove your identification. Imagine carrying a card containing your entire
medical, academic, social, and financial history. Now, imagine that
bureaucrats, police officers, and social workers have access under
certain circumstances to the information on your card. Finally, imagine an
America in which it is illegal to seek any employment without approval
from the United States government.

	This future may be more real than many Americans would like to
think if Congressional lawmakers are allowed to proceed with their most
recent attempt at monitoring the private lives of American citizens.

	Enter S. 269, the latest attempt by Congress to mandate a
computer-driven, biometrically-verifiable national identification system. If
enacted into law, S. 269 would require the most comprehensive
registration and tracking of American citizens by the federal government
in history. Some experts have speculated that once the system
envisioned by S. 269 is in place, the scope of the identity card could be
expanded to include information of a highly personal nature, such as
credit and spending history and medical, educational, and social records.

	In early September, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on S.
269, The Immigrant Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1995. The
bill has already passed the Immigration Subcommittee and is sponsored
by Senators Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). The
House version of the bill is H.R. 1915. The Clinton Administration is a
strong proponent of both bills.

	Why would Congress and the Clinton Administration consider
such a plan? Some Americans believe that America is in the midst of an
illegal immigration crisis. Politicians want to show their constituents that
they are taking strong action against illegal immigration. These politicians
argue that the best way to control illegal immigration is to give the
government the right to approve all employee hiring in America. By using
advanced technology to register, track and store information on every
citizen, they argue, it will be easy to spot illegal immigrants.

If At First You Don?t Succeed . . .

	Similar (but unsuccessful) proposals to create a national registry
and tracking system were advanced in the early 1980?s by a powerful
array of government agencies who brushed aside any concerns about
personal privacy. Agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, the State
Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency, each for their own
unique reasons, craved a law which would require every American to
carry a national identity card. One attempt to register and track
Americans came close to being endorsed by the Reagan cabinet in July
1981, but it was stopped when President Reagan personally vetoed the
idea on the grounds that it was a massive invasion of privacy.

	In 1993, under the guise of an immunization bill, Congress
attempted to register and track every American from birth, but the
measure was defanged of its dangerous provisions after tens of
thousands of calls and letters poured into Washington D.C. from parents
around the country asking Congress to respect their family privacy and
individual liberties. Perhaps the most famous attempt to create a national
registry came in 1994 as part of the Clinton Administration?s ill-fated
Health Security Act.

	Each time these proposals have been mounted, pro-family forces
have rallied to defeat them.

Smart Cards, Retina Scans, Voice Patterns and the Coming Biometric
Privacy Invasion

	Biometrics is the science of measuring unique physiological or
behavioral characteristics. In recent years, the technology which drives
this science has evolved well beyond fingerprinting and dental records.
In fact, the technology is available to identify people by the length of their
fingers, the pattern of their retinas, the sound of their voices, and the
smell of their skin. Senate lawmakers intend to incorporate advanced
forms of this technology as part of the most comprehensive identification
and information gathering program in history.

	On May 10, 1995, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration met for
a hearing entitled, ?Verification of Applicant Identity for the Purposes of
Employment and Public Assistance.? The hearing was chaired by
Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and was attended by Senators Ted
Kennedy (D-MA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Robert
Rasor, from the Financial Crimes Division of the Secret Service, provided
an explanation to the Subcommittee of the emerging ?biometric?
technologies? role in personal identification: ?The use of biometrics is the
means by which an individual may be conclusively identified? There are
two types of biometric identifiers: physical and behavioral
characteristics. Physiological biometrics include facial features, hand
geometry, retinal and iris patterns, DNA, and fingerprints. Behavioral
characteristics include voice characteristics and signature analysis.?

	Although the language of S. 269 does not mandate which specific
biometric technique will be used to register, track and identify every
American, it clearly calls for the use of biometrics (Section 115(7)).
Senator Dianne Feinstein, an original drafter of the proposal, recently
explained in a Capitol Hill magazine that it is her intention to see Congress
immediately implement a national identity system where every American
is required to carry a card with a ?magnetic strip on which the bearer?s
unique voice, retina pattern, or fingerprint is digitally encoded.?

?Fifteen years ago, they would have torn the building down.?

	Despite the fact that this bill could dramatically increase the role of
the federal government in the private lives of Americans, the proposal
has received relatively little media attention. Senate sponsors seem to be
pleased by the opportunity to act covertly. During his closing remarks
following the last panel of the May 10 subcommittee meeting, Senator
Simpson mused on the relative lack of media attention given the hearings
and the overlap between a national ID card and President Clinton?s
proposal for a ?Health Security Card? two years ago: ?There is much to
do here, but I was just saying to Ted [Kennedy] before he left, a hearing
like this fifteen years ago, they would have torn the building down. And
here we are today just a bunch of us, kind of sitting around and no
media, no nothing. This is fine with me. I get tired of them on this issue.?


Key Problems With The Bill

	Congressional attempts to include privacy safeguards in the
language offer little hope or consolation. Agencies like the IRS and the
Social Security Administration (SSA) have recently been subject to
criticism for their lack of control over employees who, in violation of the
privacy safeguards, were opening confidential files and making the
information available to outsiders. Among other things, the bill
establishes:

* That the federal government create a national database containing
information on all Americans and immigrants eligible to work in this
country (S. 269, Section 111; H.R. 1915, Section 403(b)(6)).

* Pilot projects to determine whether the federal government should
require everyone to have a national identity card (S. 269, Section
111(b)(2); H.R. 1915, Section 104).

* Beginning in 1999, all employers must receive authorization from the
national computer database before hiring any new employee?this does
not just apply to immigrants. For each new employee, the company
would be required to transmit his name and identification number via
modem and then wait for the national database to respond with an
authorization code. If the person?s name is not in the database, he can
not work (S. 269, Section 111; H.R. 1915, Section 115(5?6).

* All American children must register with the SSA by age sixteen. When
they register, they must provide the agency with a ?fingerprint or other
biometric data.? The agency would place the fingerprint ?or other
biometric data? on the child?s birth certificate, hoping to make the birth
certificate more fraud-resistant (S. 269, Section 115(7)).


A National Database Would Be a Nightmare!

	Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) called the national computer
registry and move toward a national identity card, ?an abomination and
wholly at odds with the American tradition of individual freedom.?
Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) recently joined Armey in signing a letter
denouncing the tracking system. Jack Kemp wrote in the New York
Times, ?An anti-privacy, anti-business and anti-American approach is no
way to run immigration policy.?

	Pro-family leaders agree. Michael Farris of the Home School Legal
Defense Association, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, Paul Weyrich of
the Free Congress Foundation, and others have indicated their opposition
to national registry. 

	These bills would create an unprecedented increase in the
government?s ability to collect information. For the first time:

* The government would have a comprehensive registry of every
American?name, date of birth, place of birth, mother?s maiden name,
Social Security number, gender, race, and other information.

* Personal information that is now scattered in many different places
would be consolidated in one database, controlled by a single federal
agency.

* Personal information would be accessible to local agencies and anyone
who claims to be an employer.

* The government would have to grant approval before a company
enters into private contract with a private citizen. Before a company
could hire a new employee, it would be required to receive authorization
from the government database.

The Legislation Is Likely To Pass Unless Significant Opposition Develops
Soon

	Currently, the national identification system enjoys broad
bipartisan support. Under the current political climate, the bill is likely to be
enacted into law. Most Senators and Representatives do not even
realize that the bill would create a national, computer-linked registry and
tracking system driven by biometric technology. Those who do
understand have not properly evaluated the tremendous threat to
individual liberties and family privacy posed by such a measure.

Action Is Urgently Needed

	The registry and tracking system currently before Congress must
be defeated. Now is the time to write and call your Representative and
Senators in opposition to the bills.

	The House version of the bill is H.R. 1915. It was introduced on
June 22, 1995, by Rep. Lamar Smith and is called the Immigration in the
National Interest Act of 1995. Although the language of H.R. 1915 is not
as offensive as the Senate version at this time, House lawmakers have
indicated that they will attempt to bring the bill into greater conformity with
the Senate version. Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) is expected to
introduce an amendment which would include in the language of the bill a
national registry driven by biometric technology.

	Urge your lawmakers on Capitol Hill to oppose any national
registry, tracking and identification system. Tell them that the threat to
individual liberty and family privacy far outweigh any potential benefits
that such a system might provide in curbing illegal immigration. Ask your
Senator to vote to strike Sections 111 through 115 from S. 269 and ask
your Representative to strike Sections 403(b), 104, and 809 from H.R.
1915. Tell them that there are acceptable solutions to America?s illegal
immigration problem but giving the government the power to register and
track its citizens is not one of them. 

	Call your Senator at (202) 225-3121, and your Representative at
(202) 224-3121

**************************************************************************************
Copyright 1995, Home School Legal Defense Association
P.O. Box 159, Paeonian Springs, Virginia  22129
(540) 338-5600
**************************************************************************************
Distribute Alerts in their *entirety* only.  Contact HSLDA by phone for
further information on issues covered in Alerts.  HSLDA members may
subscribe to this E-Mail List for $5.  Send name, street address, city,
state, zip, membership number, complete Internet address, and check to
HSLDA.
***************************************************************************************
HSLDA is solely responsible for content of Alerts.
***************************************************************************************

       <<< Note 399.417 by DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!" >>>
                          -< "They" know what's best >-

    I haven't read S 269, but HR 1915 appears to only apply to aliens who 
    are entering the United States.  It does not appear to require biometric 
    identification for all citizens.

        SEC. 104. IMPROVEMENT IN BORDER CROSSING IDENTIFICATION CARD.
          (a) In General  . - Section 101(a)(6) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(6)) is
        amended by adding at the end the following: `Such regulations shall
        provide that (A) each such document include a biometric identifier
        (such as the fingerprint or handprint of the alien) that is machine
        readable and (B) an alien presenting a border crossing
        identification card is not permitted to cross over the border into
        the United States unless the biometric identifier contained on the
        card matches the appropriate biometric characteristic of the
        alien.`.

    So are they deporting the aliens from Roswell?

    Only the ones who are dieting.

    
>         SEC. 104. IMPROVEMENT IN BORDER CROSSING IDENTIFICATION CARD.
>           (a) In General  . - Section 101(a)(6) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(6)) is
>         amended by adding at the end the following: `Such regulations shall
>         provide that (A) each such document include a biometric identifier
>         (such as the fingerprint or handprint of the alien) that is machine
>         readable and (B) an alien presenting a border crossing
>         identification card is not permitted to cross over the border into
>         the United States unless the biometric identifier contained on the
>         card matches the appropriate biometric characteristic of the
>         alien.`.

    'Scuse me...!!!!  Who's gonna pay for all this crapola?.....wait, let
    me guess!   :-|

    
    That would fit the current description of the Resident Alien ID
    card, form I-551.  It has a holographic laminate to prevent copying,
    OCR-B coded data on the reverse, a photo, RM fingerprint and holders
    signature on the front.  The fingerprint is scanned into a database
    maintained in Texas.  You also have prints taken of all fingers under
    the eyes of a federal/state official which are sent to the FBI.
    This card must be carried by the Alien at all times.
    
    If the fingerprints (or photographs) don't meet the digitization
    standards, you have to go back and get them done a second or third
    time.  The applicant bears the cost - about $300.
    
    
    It ain't easy being green.
    
    
    
    Colin
    

S.269

Immigrant Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1995
(Introduced in the Senate) 

S 269 IS

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

S . 269 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase control
over immigration to the United States by increasing border patrol
and investigator personnel; improving the verification system for
employer sanctions; increasing penalties for alien smuggling and for
document fraud; reforming asylum, exclusion, and deportation law
and procedures; instituting a land border user fee; and to reduce use
of welfare by aliens.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 24 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

Mr. Dole (for Mr. Simpson) introduced the following bill; which
was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase control
over immigration to the United States by increasing border patrol
and investigator personnel; improving the verification system for
employer sanctions; increasing penalties for alien smuggling and for
document fraud; reforming asylum, exclusion, and deportation law
and procedures; instituting a land border user fee; and to reduce use
of welfare by aliens.

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
   the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

   This Act may be cited as the `Immigrant Control and
   Financial Responsibility Act of 1995'.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

   The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

      Sec. 1. Short title.

      Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I--IMMIGRANT CONTROL

Subtitle A--Law Enforcement

Part 1--Additional Enforcement Personnel

      Sec. 101. Border Patrol agents.

      Sec. 102. Investigators.

Part 2--System To Verify Eligibility To Work and To Receive
Public Assistance

      Sec. 111. Establishment of new verification system.

      Sec. 112. Demonstration projects.

      Sec. 113. Database for verifying employment and
      public assistance eligibility.

Part 3--Alien Smuggling

      Sec. 121. Wiretap authority for investigations of alien
      smuggling.

      Sec. 122. Adding offenses to RICO relating to alien
      smuggling or fraudulent documents.

      Sec. 123. Increased criminal penalties for alien
      smuggling.

      Sec. 124. Expanded forfeiture for smuggling or
      harboring aliens.

Part 4--Document Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Failure To
Present Documents

      Sec. 131. Increased criminal penalties for fraudulent
      use of government-issued documents.

      Sec. 132. New civil penalties for document fraud.

      Sec. 133. New civil penalty for failure to present
      documents.

      Sec. 134. New criminal penalties for failure to
      disclose role as preparer of false application for
      asylum and for preparing certain post-conviction
      applications.

      Sec. 135. Criminal penalty for false statement in a
      document required under the immigration laws or
      knowingly presenting document which fails to contain
      reasonable basis in law or fact.

      Sec. 136. New exclusion for document fraud and for
      failure to present documents.

      Sec. 137. Limitation on withholding of deportation
      and other benefits for aliens excludable for document
      fraud or failing to present documents.

      Sec. 138. Definition of `falsely make any document.'

Part 5--Exclusion and Deportation

      Sec. 141. Special port-of-entry exclusion procedure
      for aliens using documents fraudulently or failing to
      present documents, or excludable aliens apprehended
      at sea.

S.269

Immigrant Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1995
(Introduced in the Senate) 

SEC. 111. ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW VERIFICATION
SYSTEM.

   (a) In General- Within eight years of the enactment of this
   Act, the Attorney General, together with the Secretary of
   Health and Human Services, shall develop and implement,
   subject to subsection (b), a system to verify eligibility for
   employment in the United States, and eligibility for benefits
   under government-funded programs of public assistance.

   (b) System Requirements- No verification system may be
   implemented which does not meet the following
   requirements:

      (1) The system shall be capable of reliably determining
      whether--

         (A) the person with the identity claimed by the
         individual whose eligibility is being verified is
         in fact eligible, and

         (B) the individual whose eligibility is being
         verified is claiming the identity of another
         person.

      (2) If the system requires that document be presented
      to or examined by either an employer or a public
      assistance administrator, as the case may be, then the
      document--

         (A) shall be in a form that is resistant to
         counterfeiting and to tampering; and

         (B) shall not be required by any government
         entity or agency as a national identification
         card or to be carried or presented except--

            (i) to verify eligibility for employment
            in the United States or eligibility for
            benefits under a Government-funded
            program of public assistance,

            (ii) to enforce sections 1001, 1028,
            1546, or 1621 of title 18 of the United
            States Code, or

            (iii) if the document was designed for
            another purpose (such as a license to
            drive a motor vehicle, a certificate of
            birth, or a social security account
            number card issued by the Social
            Security Administration), as required
            under law for such other purpose.

      (3) The system shall not be used for law enforcement
      purposes other than to enforce the Immigration and
      Nationality Act; sections 1001, 1028, 1542, 1546, or
      1621 of title 18 of the United States Code; Federal,
      State, or local laws pertaining to eligibility
      Government-funded benefits described in section 201
      of this Act; or to enforce laws relating to any
      document used by the system which was designed for
      another purpose (such as a license to drive a motor
      vehicle, a certificate of birth, or a social security
      account number card issued by the Social Security
      Administration).

      (4) The privacy and security of personal information
      and identifiers obtained for and utilized in the system
      must be protected in accordance with industry
      standards for privacy and security of confidential
      information. No personal information obtained from
      the system may be made available to any person except
      to the extent necessary to the lawful operation of the
      system.

      (5) A verification that a person is eligible for
      employment in the United States, or for benefits under
      a Government-funded program of public assistance,
      may not be withheld or revoked under the system for
      any reason other than the person is ineligible under the
      applicable law or regulation.

   (c) Employer Sanctions.--An employer shall not be liable
   for any penalty under section 274A of the Immigration and
   Nationality Act for employing an alien, if--

      (1) the alien appeared throughout the term of
      employment to be prima facie eligible for the
      employment (under the requirements of section
      274A(b) of such Act);

      (2) the employer followed all procedures required in
      the verification system established in section 111 of
      this Act; and

      (3) (i) the alien was verified under such system as
      eligible for the employment; or

      (ii) a secondary verification procedure (as described in
      section 113(d) of this Act) was conducted with respect
      to the alien and the employer discharged the alien
      promptly after receiving notice that the secondary
      verification procedure had failed to verify that the
      alien was eligible for the employment.

      <<< Note 399.424 by SUBPAC::SADIN "frankly scallop, I don't give a
    clam!" >>>
                          -< it doesn't look too threatening >-
    
    
    Yeah, neither did the income tax when it first started at 1%...
    
    Remember, government grows like cancer.

    re -1
    
    	I just meant the bill doesn't come right out and say "we're going
    to implant small transmitters in your head and you're going to like
    it!". ;*)
    
    
    jim

    
    
    Or the social security number
    
    ed

    They already have small transmitters in dogs.  Won't take 'em long to
    think of a good reason to put 'em in people.  Along with all the good
    excuses why it will be good for us.

    .426
    
    Jim, that's just it! Since they don't come out and say it, they mean
    it! They got the technology from that crash in Roswell, you know.
    Perfected it while faking the moon landings at studio 42 on the
    Paramount lot in Hollywood. Most FBI guys already have the chip - it's
    like LoJack for gumshoes. They listen in to what you're saying through
    your fillings - the flouride recharges the miniature batteries in your
    teeth. See, when they tap your lines to listen in for the sounds of
    illegal assault weapons being manufactured, they're also altering your
    credit rating so you can't pay any tolls without ebing monitored on
    camera as you ;lofsagdrlh789h78 ipsaghsdfg
    
    Ahem. There is nothing to worry about. Mr. Covington is being
    momentarily detained for...um...failure to pay taxes. Yeah, that's the
    ticket.
    
    					-You Local FBI agent..

    Mulder?

    
    
    	Scully???
    
    

    
    
    Vince???
    

    
    	Foster??
    
    

    Grant??

|   Can the ZOG/NWO crap. Since I am Jewish, I guess that makes me a world
|   leader, doesn't it ?
    
    Yup.  According to these rather smelly conspiracy theories.
    
|   Please show me where any U.S. President since FDR has rescinded by 
|   Executive Order, or not renewed, a state of National Emergency.
    
    Excuse me, it's the nutters who make this outrageous claim.  It's
    the nutters who must support the claim.  They can't.  Because it's a
    lie.
    
    As for the Texas Republicans, according to Texas Republicans, they have
    indeed been taken over by nutters.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .435
    
    color me confused...
    
    You say it's a lie that any US Prez has removed or not renewed a state
    of National Emergency since FDR in '33.
    
    And FDR declared one in '33.
    
    So how do you say that we are not in one today?

    
    	Mr. Bill is always right. Just leave it at that and nobody gets
    hurt....
    
    
    

    
    <----------
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH....{sniff},{sniff}
    
    Tooo funny!
    :-)
    

    
                                        September 11, 1995
                                        SENATOR DUKE
                                        (719) 481-9289

                     By Senator Charles R. Duke
                         Colorado District 9

                THE DAY OUR CONSTITUTION WAS STOLEN

     In this column, several references have been made to the
Emergency Banking and Relief Act of 1933.  Those who read this column
now know that Republicans in both California and Texas have taken
steps to have this law repealed.  Dr. Eugene Schroder of the American
Agricultural Movement has alleged that this may be considered to be
the genesis of the loss of our Constitutional rights.
     Could it be there is one law responsible for all subsequent laws
that trample our Constitutional rights?  What was it about this law
that many believe declared the American people to be enemies of the
government?  President Herbert Hoover (in the final days of his term)
had refused to implement this law, which was based on a recommendation
from the Federal Reserve.  Why, then, did succeeding President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt so warmly embrace this unconstitutional law?
Why did FDR find it necessary to declare a national emergency, the
effect of which was to suspend our Constitution, a suspension that
exists to this day?
     On October 6, 1917, the Congress had passed the Trading with the
Enemy Act, dealing with how the government may control the activities
of those considered to be enemies or allies of enemies of our
government.  Prior to 1933, Paragraph 5(b) of that Act read, "That the
President may investigate, regulate or prohibit, under such rules as
he may prescribe by means of foreign exchange, export or earmarkings
of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in
any form (other than credits relating to transactions to be executed
wholly within the United States)..."
     Since 1917, then, the President had the power to seize or block
financial transactions of those considered to be our enemy.  It is
also very clear that, in 1917, the Congress wanted to exclude the
American people from the oppression of such powers.  The bill was,
after all, supposed to define our government's posture in dealing with
our enemies or allies of our enemies.
     The Emergency Banking and Relief Act, passed by Congress in
special session on March 9, 1933, modifies paragraph 5(b) of the
Trading with the Enemy Act just discussed.  The modified paragraph
reads, "Section 2.  Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October
6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as
follows: (b) During time of war or during any other period of national
emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any
agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or
prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by
means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange,
transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as
defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting or earmarking
of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within
the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction
referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete
production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other
papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such
person, either before or after such transaction is completed.  Whoever
willfully violates any of the provisions of the subdivision of any
license, order, rule or regulation issued thereunder, shall, upon
conviction, be fined not more than $10,000..."
     This Act granted to the President broad sweeping investigative
and prosecutorial powers against anyone, including the American
people, found by the President to be an enemy.  By removing the former
"...transactions to be executed wholly within the United States..."
the Congress was effectively putting the American people in the same
category as our nation's enemies, and gave the President essentially
dictatorial powers.
     This Act was, of course, unconstitutional.  Historians tell us
FDR stacked the U.S. Supreme Court with judges who would vow to
continue his dictatorial powers.  Those powers have been assumed by
all Presidents since FDR, including the one presently in the White
House.  Small wonder, then, that none have adhered to a strict
upholding of our Constitution, despite swearing an oath before God to
do so.  The dictatorship would end, the Federal Reserve's stranglehold
on our government would end, and our Constitutional Republic would be
restored.
     Later in 1933, Colorado's Governor Ed Johnson radically
transformed Colorado state government, creating all the departments to
handle such "licensing" privilege assumed by the President.  That is
the year a licensing authority was assumed by state governments to
regulate marriages, driving, hunting, automobiles, and trade.
Preliminary research indicates many other states were being
transformed, as well.  The governors, you see, had agreed to this
unconstitutional assault a few days before March 9, 1933.
     There are many subsequent laws to further reinforce and verify
Dr. Schroder's contention.  For those who wish to know more, you may
contact him directly at P.O. Box 89, Campo, CO 81029, (719) 787-9958.
He has, in this author's opinion, accurately documented the beginning
of the assault by your government on our Constitution.  He has a
number of books that will explain matters in any detail you would care
to explore.
     The solution to this exploitation of the American people is
solely within the hands of the President.  By simply issuing an
Executive Order to end the state of emergency, our Constitution could
be returned as the Supreme Law of the Land.  So far in 1995, no
Presidential candidate, except for Republican Charles Collins of
Georgia, has had the courage to tell the truth about our nation's real
troubles.  Only a public demand of the highest magnitude will force
our Constitution to the front again.
                                   END
    

                 Justice Investigates Allegations 
                  FBI agents fabricated evidence

WASHINGTON [14 Sept.1995 ] The Justice Department's inspector general is 
investigating allegations by an FBI scientist that evidence in high-profile 
criminal cases was tampered with at the FBI's crime laboratory.
The probe involves some of the biggest cases in recent years, from the O.J. 
Simpson trial, to the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings to a 
Georgia mail bombing case investigated by FBI Director Louis Freeh in his 
days as a prosecutor. No wrongdoing by Freeh has been alleged.
Attorney General Janet Reno said today she met with Inspector General Michael 
R. Bromwich to discuss the allegations, which came to her attention last 
month.

"I told him I wanted to make sure that we pursued any matter of concern ... 
and we'll await his report," Reno told a news conference.

The FBI said it has reviewed more than 250 cases involving work done by its 
crime lab after one of its agents alleged that his colleagues slanted their 
testimony and fabricated evidence to help prosecutors in some cases.
   
"To date, no evidence tampering, evidence fabrication or failure to report 
exculpatory evidence have been found," the FBI said in a statement Wednesday.
"Any findings of such misconduct will result in tough and swift action by the
FBI."
Special Agent Frederic Whitehurst, who made the allegations and was 
interviewed Wednesday night on ABC-TV's "Primetime Live" program, labeled 
the FBI statement "garbage."

"I am obviously disagreeing with my superiors in this matter. This report is 
garbage. ... It's garbage. I personally know about the review of those 250 
cases," Whitehurst said.
Whitehurst said he was under orders not to discuss specific cases.

Defense lawyers want to call Whitehurst as a witness at the O.J. Simpson 
murder trial in Los Angeles because he has claimed that FBI agent Roger 
Martz, who gave testimony damaging to Simpson, has slanted evidence in 
testimony in other cases. Asked if there had been evidence tampering at the 
FBI lab, Whitehurst told ABC, "Yes, I believe there has been evidence 
tampering."

He said he would testify at the Simpson trial "if the FBI orders me to go."

Martz could not be reached for comment. There was no answer at the office 
phones either Martz or Whitehurst late Wednesday. Their home phone numbers 
could not be found. The FBI said Whitehurst had, over the past several years, 
raised "a variety of concerns about forensic protocols and procedures 
employed in the FBI Laboratory." It said that the bureau and the inspector 
general's office of the Justice Department had "vigorously investigated" his 
concerns in all instances and were continuing to do so.

The FBI said its laboratory examinations at trials are "constantly subject 
to extraordinarily vigorous challenge through cross-examination and the 
presentation of expert testimony by defense witnesses." Whitehurst told ABC 
he was speaking out because it was his duty as an FBI agent.

"I swore to uphold the constitution of the United States, and I swore to 
enforce the law. There was no caveat in that swearing -- if I caught 
persons with badges I would turn my back. I am an FBI agent. It's my duty," 
he said.
Whitehurst testified last month at the terrorism trial of Sheik Omar 
Abdel-Rahman and nine other Muslims accused of plotting to bomb the United 
Nations building and other New York City landmarks that he was pressured to 
distort findings about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to favor 
prosecutors.

Citing a series of internal memos sent by Whitehurst to his FBI supervisors, 
ABC said the agent listed "one example after another of what he calls 
perjury, fraud, even the fabrication of evidence" in cases at the crime lab 
going back at least five years. One of the cases, ABC said, involved a 1991 
Georgia mail-bombing that killed a federal judge and a civil rights lawyer. 
It was investigated by Freeh, now the FBI director. Walter LeRoy Moody Jr. 
was convicted in the deaths. ABC said Whitehurst alleges that two agents in 
that case, one of whom was Martz, slanted evidence by testifying about tests 
that weren't done and scientific conclusions they couldn't support.

The FBI lab was used to analyze blood evidence involving Simpson. Martz, a 
toxicologist, was called by the defense, but was declared a hostile witness. 
He testified that blood on a sock from Simpson's bedroom and from the crime 
scene showed only vague signs of a preservative. Simpson's lawyers say the 
blood was planted and the presence of the preservative proved it.

While testifying in New York Aug. 14, Whitehurst said Martz was among 
several FBI investigators who concluded the World Trade Center bomb was 
urea-nitrate-based even though it was impossible to prove that 
scientifically because the substance is so common.
After Whitehurst complained to his superiors, he said, reports about the 
bomb were corrected. He said they were accurate when they were introduced 
at last year's World Trade Center trial, which resulted in convictions for 
followers of Abdel-Rahman.

Whitehurst, the FBI's main explosives-residue analyst at the time of the 
bombing, said he has since been demoted and assigned to analyze paint for 
forensic evidence.

    
    re: .439
    
|   That is the year [1939] a licensing authority was assumed by state
|   governments to regulate marriages, driving, hunting, automobiles,
|   and trade.  Preliminary research indicates many other states were being
|   transformed, as well.  The governors, you see, had agreed to this
|   unconstitutional assault a few days before March 9, 1933.
    
    Oh, stuff and nonsense.  Do you all *really* believe that marriage
    licenses did not exist prior to 1939?  Takes a nutter, I guesss.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Helpful hint.  No longer do you have to assemble your own
    anti-mind-control hat.  Because, let's admit it, walking around with a
    hat covered with aluminum foil is not exactly stylish.  (Not to
    mention it's damn hot.)
    
    For just a couple of twenties, you too can get "The CyberCap" designged
    to shield your pineal gland and hypothalamus from those evil 4.10 Hz
    gummint-mind-control waves sent out by ZOG/NWO.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    And in an ever widening conspiracy, "Enchanter" is gone, done in by
    "a plot by the Illuminati to force me off the web."
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    > Because, let's admit it, walking around with a hat covered with aluminum 
    > foil is not exactly stylish.  (Not to mention it's damn hot.)

    Speaking from personal experience?

    
    Actually, in this case, I think the foil is on the inside of the head.
    
    ;^)

>    Actually, in this case, I think the foil is on the inside of the head.
 
        Sure it wasn't an epee?
        
        

    re: Note 399.441 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE
    
    You're an idiot.  The issue is not simple.  It is intentionally
    complex to keep people (such as yourself) "confused".  The good
    thing about this "conspiracy" is you can read the code yourself
    and break it (understand it).  You can also turn around and use this
    code to your advantange.  UCC 3-501 is a good example.
    
    Understand:  When did the Uniform Commercial Code become the law of
    the land?   WHAT is the UCC mr. Bill?  Work out your little web browser
    and check it out.  UCC pertains to CONTRACTS.  Everything you do these
    days is a CONTRACT. 
    Why can the state steal your children?  Birth Certificate - contract.
    Why can a court enter a plea for you?  Power of attorney - Drivers
    license.
    
    Face it:  Our liberties are now privileges sold back to us for a fee.
    
    Do you know why people put wedding announcements in the paper?
    Today it's for glamor and recognition.  In the olden days it was
    PUBLIC NOTICE of a marriage.  Now you need to get licensed
    (get permission) to get married.  Er, not really, if you know what
    your doing... another thing.  Churches require that license, right?
    And they are tax exempt?  (bestowed gov't privilege)  as opposed
    to exempt from taxation.  (non regulatable entity, separated from
    gov't).
    
    Read some of those legal notices in the paper sometime (BORING).
    Sale under power.  Breach of contract.  Notice of Divorce,
    ah ha, you got a license to get married, is it any wonder why you
    get to go through the ringer in court to break that contract too?
    
    We're property.  Property has no rights and serves a master.  You
    need permission to get married, go someplace, you pay tribute to
    possess/use property. it goes on and on.
    
    Your supposed to be smart.  You know it's against the law to
    tax a right.  Right?  Yet you pay tax on property.  Do you know why?
    
    Another quick question for you.  How much tax is on a gallon of
    gas.  What is that tax SUPPOSED to pay for?  Remember that next time
    the gov't floats a bond to build a road, or when you're sitting at
    a toll booth.  I don't mind paying tax on gas.  I mind getting soaked
    2 or 3 times to pay for something I already paid for.
    
    MadMike

    
    Isn't there an alt.fan.timothy.mcveigh newsgroup where people who
    understand the "code" talk about how unfair life is?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Yawn because you tire of reading all the lies?  I do to.    
    Or yawn because I keep calling them lies?  Tough.
    
    
    Just as an example from the assortment of unsupported assertions that
    just appeared in that screed back there.
    
    In the world vision of the nutters, property taxes are unconstitutional.
    Yet property taxes are older than the constitution.  The framers paid
    property taxes.  Their children did.  Their grandchildren did.  Their
    great-grandchildren did.  And so on through the generations.
    
    Yet we have the nutters misreading law and screaching that property
    taxes are unconstitutional.
    
    We won't even get into the various kooky "positive law" theories
    propagated by the nutters.  Let alone the bizare "laws don't apply to
    me if I drive a car without a license plate" theories that McVeigh
    and his ilk buy into.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    Dance mr bill, dance.

From:	CRL::"djsussma@jupiter.acs.oakland.edu" "David J. Sussman" 22-SEP-1995 02:02:30.56
To:	c-news <c-news@world.std.com>
CC:	
Subj:	C-NEWS: Announcing the Hugh Sprunt CIR on the web



Hugh Sprunt, BS and MS MIT, JD and MBA from Stanford, has authored the 
Citizen's Independent Report on the death of Vincent Foster.  This 165 
page report summarizes the discrepencies in the official 2700+ page 
Congressional hearings records.  

Without stretching to additional sources outside the official 
investigations, there is ample evidence to question the "official story."

A summarized article by Hugh Sprunt appears in the current Strategic 
Investment newsletter.

To download a copy of the CIR, check out http://141.210.150.23


David Sussman
Listowner cs and okcty lists at majordomo@oak.oakland.edu 


-------
C-News courtesy of Berkeley Internet Connections
http://www.berkeleyic.com  |  info@berkeleyic.com
-------
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.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA09886; Fri, 22 Sep 95 02:00:32 -0400
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA15854; Fri, 22 Sep 95 01:56:23 -0400
% Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.6.12/Spike-8-1.0)id BAA11609; Fri, 22 Sep 1995 01:47:13 -0400
% Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)id AA16318; Fri, 22 Sep 1995 01:40:59 -0400
% Received: from jupiter.acs.oakland.edu by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)        id AA06078; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:05:18 -0400
% Received: (from djsussma@localhost) by jupiter.acs.oakland.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id LAA00358; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:06:07 -0400
% Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:06:07 -0400 (EDT)
% From: "David J. Sussman" <djsussma@jupiter.acs.oakland.edu>
% To: c-news <c-news@world.std.com>
% Subject: C-NEWS: Announcing the Hugh Sprunt CIR on the web
% Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950921110122.382A-100000@jupiter.acs.oakland.edu>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
% Sender: c-news-approval@world.std.com
% Precedence: bulk
% Reply-To: "David J. Sussman" <djsussma@jupiter.acs.oakland.edu>

              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 6  Num. 11
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")


-----------------------------------------------------------------

CONSPIRACY-RELATED AND OTHER WEB SITES
======================================

We are awash in web sites. Here are some that may be of interest. 
Many of these I have yet to check out, so sorry if they aren't 
accessible or give you problems or whatever.

If I have forgotten to include *your* web site in the following, 
sorry about that. Send it to me and I'll consider adding it to 
the list.

Note that sites listed are (for now) in no particular order.

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

__ CNN Interactive is at http://www.cnn.com/
(No further info available at this time.)

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

__ CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS, author of "Who Stole Feminism?," is the subject
of a page at http://www.pitt.edu/~dxdst6/csommers.html

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

__ INTERESTED IN THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING?  The Oklahoma Daily, the
student newspaper at  the University of Oklahoma has many local stories
on the tragedy. http://www.uoknor.edu/okdaily/bombing.html

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

__ A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF OVER 1200 NET SERVICE PROVIDERS in the US and
around 70 other countries is available from Internet Direct.
http://thelist.com/

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

"The Whitewater Scandal Home Page"
(http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~crow/whitewater/)

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

"Whitewater & Vince Foster" 
(http://www.cris.com/~dwheeler/n/whitewater/whitewater-index.html)

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

"Media Watch is a current collection by top writers and researchers of
exposes on government, corporate and institutional coverup and fraud.
Exposing serious media abuses, by Southwest Solutions Newspaper, Phoenix.
http://www.primenet.com/~swsn"

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

Source: C-SPAN home page: http://www.c-span.org/

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

I wrote to you about two months ago asking if i could put up a CNation 
web page. Well, I finally got all my sh** together and finished the first 
draft of my web site. If you want to check it out it's at the address 
above my .sig.

The address for the CN web page is:
http://www.lglobal.com/TAO/conspire.html

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

       Scanned images of several key documents are available via the
World Wide Web at the EPIC Home Page:

               http://www.epic.org/crypto/ban/fbi_dox/

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

http://www.clark.net/larouche/welcome.html.
Lyndon LaRouche site.

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

A-albionic research      <http://a-albionic.com/>
(Good place to start)

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

The New NandO Times (www.nando.net)
(No further info available at this time.)

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

__ NOTES ON WHITEWATER from The Washington Times are at
http://www.townhall.com/townhall/Wash_Times/editorial821.html

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

        www:      http://www.paranoia.com/coe/
"The Church of Euthanasia"

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Laissez Faire Books: The world's largest selection of books on liberty.
>info@LFB.org; http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/lf/Laissez-Faire.html
>800-326-0996; free Laissez Faire Book News e-mail list & print catalog

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) home page at
http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon/exon.html.

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

__ THE OFFICIAL WWW HOME OF THE NUGGETS is Jeff Donels' Right Side Of The
Web. http://www.clark.net/pub/jeffd/nuggets.html

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

On KLAS-TV in Las Vegas, Nevada, respected investigative journalist
George Knapp did a noteworthy report on interesting and ongoing UFO
sightings near Dolan Springs, Arizona. Here is the URL for the story:
http://www.infi.net/vegas/KLAS-TV/scripts/6pm.html

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

  [or, http://www.tezcat.com/octopus/Inslaw/ ]
(No further info available at this time.)

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

For Inslaw Info:

ftp://ftp.webcom.com/inslaw
or
http://www.well.com/user/pfrankli
(Good site)

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

There is no reason to doubt that the man killed in the Garrett barn was
JW Booth.  The body was clearly identified by a number of means, and this
identification was documented.  This spring I transcribed a lot of that
information and put if on Brian Boyle's Web site.  If anyone is
interested, look at

http://www.access.digex.net/~bdboyle/booth.txt

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

Subject: Go Meet the "Real Militia" on the Web
http://www.shore.net/~adfx/2455.html      'nuff said

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

>Date: 5 SEP 1995 03:10:17 GMT 
>From: Meier Internet Directory <ddi@cyberstore.ca>
>Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.announce
>Subject: COMMERCIAL: Age of Secrets, non-fiction book, political expose 
>
><URL:http://www.meier.com/meier/aos.html> is the Internet address for 
> 
>  [Instead of above URL, try URL: http://www.infoserve.net:80/meier
>  then spacebar to Age of Secrets.]
> 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

__ The Libertarian Party is at http://www.lp.org/lp/

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

Steamshovel Press WEB site: http://www.umsl.edu/~skthoma

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

   Flatland our current address is:

   "http://www.mcn.org/Bussect/Flatland/flatland.html"

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

I had trouble connecting with the following, but you may want to 
try...
-- 
===========   T H E   A N I M A T I O N   P L A N T A T I O N  ============
|  Michael F. Rivero - rivero@netcom.com - 16 years in the business       |
|  -------------------------------------------------------------------    |
|    It's easy to look back at Hitler and realize that his regime was not |
|  a very nice one. But, as our own political destiny unfolds, it is      |
|  important to recall that at the time, Hitler made sense to the German  |
|  People. He was voted into the government prior to seizing total        |
|  power, and even TIME Magazine declared Hitler their "man of the year"  |
|  for the positive changes he was making in Germany.                     |
|  -------------------------------------------------------------------    |
|  WEB PAGE OPEN AT ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ri/rivero/plant.html         |
=========================================================================== 

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
                           SEE ALSO
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

1) Back issues of Conspiracy Nation available via anonymous ftp 
at ftp.prairienet.org  pub/lists/conspire (use "uncompress" 
command after transfer, e.g. "uncompress 9508.Z").

2) Citizens' Committee to Clean Up the Courts: (a) telnet 
prairienet.org (b) logon as "visitor" (c) "go citcom"

3) Assorted files via anonymous ftp at ftp.shout.net  
pub/users/bigred

-----------------------------------------------------------------
     I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation 
  Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail 
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" 
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the 
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? 
(1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O what fine thought we had because we thought    | bigred@shout.net
That the worst rogues and rascals had died out.  | Illinois,
  -- W.B. Yeats, "Nineteen Hundred And Nineteen" | I'm your boy.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    Glen's back!

<----Shawn.... I didn't miss it!!!!!!

    
    	Mr. Bill, you might like this:
    
    http://134.83.112.57:8080/~ee94ggb2/subv.html
    

THE NEW AMERICAN -- October 30, 1995
Copyright 1995 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913

ARTICLE: American Opinion
TITLE: Global Gorby
AUTHOR: William F. Jasper


Much of the world sat glued before their television screens, eyes and
ears transfixed by the drama unfolding in a Los Angeles courtroom. The
closing arguments by Johnnie Cochran and Chris Darden in the O.J.
Simpson trial held millions in thrall.=20

Meanwhile, up the coast in San Francisco, an event of another sort
(and of arguably much greater consequence) was getting under way with
considerably less attention: "The State of the World Forum," a
planetary confabulation sponsored by the Gorbachev Foundation. Held
atop the city's famed Nob Hill at the luxurious Fairmont Hotel, the
forum brought together a glittering constellation of global notables
representing the epitome of worldly power, prestige, fame, wealth, and
influence: presidents, princes, potentates, philanthropists, poets,
philosophers, and poohbahs.

Who's Who

The weighty seriousness and ambitious reach of the conference
indicated by the title of the event -- "Toward a New Civilization:
Launching a Global Initiative" -- were underscored by the list of
attendees, a veritable Who's Who of Wall Street, the Trilateral
Commission, the World Economic Forum, the Aspen Institute, the Council
on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, the Bilderbergers, the
Politburo, the Commission on Global Governance, the World Future
Society, and other Insider bastions of power.

Among the 400-plus eminent personages from 50 countries who flocked to
the five-day affair (September 27th-October 1st) were former
Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz (both co-chairs of
the forum), former President George Bush, former British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Askar Akaev of Kyrgystan, former
President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, Prime Minister Tansu Ciller of
Turkey, Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel, former Canadian Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney, and South African Vice President Thabo Mbeki.

Additional participants included: Worldwatch President Lester Brown;
New Age gurus Fritjof Capra, Jeremy Rifkin, Willis Harman, Deepak
Chopra, Robert Muller, and Matthew Fox; Marxist poetess Rigoberta
Menchu; Earth Council president and billionaire eco-warrior Maurice
Strong; Microsoft wizard Bill Gates; media mogul Rupert Murdoch;
futurists Alvin Toffler and John Naisbitt; Senator George Mitchell;
Archer Daniels Midland CEO Dwayne Andreas; computer tycoon David
Packard; Esalen founder Michael Murphy; motivation superstar Tony
Robbins; Men's Wearhouse CEO George Zimmer; chimpanzee expert Jane
Goodall -- not to mention Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carl Sagan, John
Denver, Shirley MacLaine, Dennis Weaver, Ted Turner, Jane Fonda,
Theodore Hesburgh, Timothy Wirth, Max Kampleman, Milton Friedman,
Randall Forsberg, Saul Mendlovitz, and Alan Cranston.=20

Overseeing the entirety of this summit of the anointed was, of course,
Mikhail Gorbachev himself. The purpose of the convocation, he
proclaimed, was to "launch a multi-year process, culminating in the
year 2000, to articulate the fundamental [world] priorities, values,
and actions necessary to constructively shape our common future." And
who better to kick off an ostentatious extravaganza of that sort than
global media titan and former "Humanist of the Year" Ted Turner.
Identifying himself as a "great student of history" and a longtime
friend of Gorbachev, Turner praised the "ex-Communist" and former
dictator for ending the Cold War, which he acclaimed as "the greatest
accomplishment in the history of humanity." "Now, with the Cold War
behind us," said Ted, "this forum's job is to help chart the way for
humanity."

Global Brain Trust

Gorbachev let it be known that he was not one to shirk from that
solemn task. Wasting no time, he opened his remarks with this
magnanimous proposal: "From the outset I would like to suggest that we
consider the establishment of a global Brain Trust to focus on the
present and future of our civilization." This is important, he said,
"because the main reason why we are lagging behind events, why we are
mostly improvising and vacillating in the face of new developments, is
that we are lagging behind in the thinking and rethinking of this new
world. Of course, this idea of a Brain Trust can only succeed if
endorsed and actively pursued by people who are widely respected as
world leaders and global citizens." Respected world leaders and global
citizens like -- well, like those assembled at that very same august
colloquium on Nob Hill: selfless billionaires, statesmen, academic
double-domes, Nobel laureates, and spiritual mahatmas in the service
of humanity and planetary survival. This is a theme Gorbachev has been
playing in concert with similar motifs in which he has called for
"non-governmental commissions of 'wise men'" and "Councils of Elders"
to solve the world's intractable problems.

No one bothered to ask how he would reconcile the obvious
contradictions inherent in his "Brain Trust" proposal and the forum's
other throbbing themes of "democratization," "pluralism," and
"egalitarianism." During the course of the marathon palaver, Gorbachev
and other conference participants regularly attacked present
political, economic, and social structures as "elitist,"
"anti-democratic," and "exclusionary," but were conspicuously vague on
how their proposed "Brain Trust" would surmount those problems.
Obvious questions went begging: Who would appoint this group? What
would be its powers? How would it be funded? What would be the
selection criteria? To whom would it be accountable? How would the
"diversity" of the group be guaranteed?

The very term "Brain Trust" reeks of elitism, social engineering, and
manipulation by a cabal of experts of supposed cerebral superiority.
It is an epithet of opprobrium to all lovers of liberty who are aware
of the monstrous abuses initiated by the socialist planners of FDR's
New Deal "Brain Trust": Raymond Moley, Rexford Guy Tugwell, Lindsey
Rogers, James W. Angell, Adolf Berle, Hugh Johnson, Charles Taussig,
George Peek, and others. A global "Brain Trust" by the intellectual
and spiritual heirs of these statists would mean a prescription for
global tyranny.

But drastic measures are needed, says Gorby. The traditional political
structures "no longer respond to the needs of an interdependent world.
The political culture that we inherited from the past stands in the
way of efforts to unite mankind's resources in the face of global
challenges."

Mere transformation of political structures, however, is far from
adequate. "We are in dire need of redefining the parameters of our
society's economic, social, political, and spiritual development," the
Soviet seer told his worshipful votaries. "Indeed, we have to reinvent
the paradigm of our existence, to build a new civilization." It was a
rehearkening to other familiar themes Gorbachev has sung: "developing
a global consciousness," "embracing the task of spiritual renewal,"
launching "the next phase of human development." An awesome
undertaking, to be sure. Fortunately for us, he is graciously willing
to enlighten and minister to our darkened souls as well as our sick
body politic. How does he propose to do this? Comrade Gorbachev
proposes to "set up a kind of United Nations Council of Elders."

It was in this "Elder" capacity that Gorbachev offered the next part
of his lecture. "Civilization will shift and new values and new ways
of life will be needed to find real solutions to the problems of our
environment, a way out of the ecological crisis," the sage of Moscow
told his San Francisco gathering. Then came the punch line: "Gradually
we will have to achieve a change of emphasis in the archetypal
dilemma: to have or to be; to change the nature of consumption."
"Perhaps it is a little risky in this country to speak about that," he
beamed to a titter of audience chuckles. "We have to change the nature
of consumption. And I have much to say about that here."

Compassion Con

He certainly did have much to say on the topic, as did many of the
other participants during the course of the forum. What was most
amazing was that no one gagged or guffawed at the brazen effrontery
and hypocrisy of the sainted one's sermonizing on conspicuous
consumption while his rapt audience feasted on a sumptuous array of
epicurean comestibles fit for royalty: smoked trout salad, filet of
beef in shashlik marinade, and a dessert of panna cotta with autumn
fruit. This gourmet creation was the work of celebrity chef Joyce
Goldstein, and her tantalizing production was but the first of many
offerings by famed masters of gourmand haute cuisine such as Wolfgang
Puck, Julian Serrano, Joachim Splichal, and David Ribbons.=20

But the richness of the contradiction was no doubt lost on the pious
frauds who paid $5,000 to attend this prestigious soiree. They have
grown inured to their own fakery; from palatial palavers in Rio, to
Cairo, Paris, Copenhagen, Geneva, etc. -- they have become accustomed
to the lavish amenities in which they luxuriate, while feigning
selfless pathos for the world's poor and excoriating "hedonistic
consumption" by the "middle classes" of Western industrialized
societies.

"World Citizen" Ted Turner represents the acme of this compassion con.
According to some analysts, the recently announced sale of his Turner
Broadcasting System to Time Warner could net him $2.6 billion, a tidy
little sum to add to his already bulging billions. After the forum, he
and wife Jane could fly off in their private jet, perhaps to their
40,000-acre bison barony in Montana, or to one of their many other
humble domiciles to plan still more crusades to save the planet from
the destructive consumption of the world's troublesome riffraff.

Getting to the crux of the matter, Gorbachev pontificated: "We have
to, I believe, gear consumption more to people's cultural and
spiritual needs. Also, through culture and education and within the
framework of laws we shall have to address the problem of controlling
the world's population." And control, of course, as always, is the key
word and concept here. Control. Power.

Sound like familiar drumbeats for global government? Oh no, says
Gorby: "We should not hope that the solution can come from some global
center, a kind of world government. What we need is common ground
rules accepted by the world community and observed by everyone and for
that we need the international mechanisms and the international law
that is required." Meaning simply that the "visionary" Russian is
glibly proficient in the Aesopian word games employed by the
globalists to put off troublesome "isolationists" who rightfully
suspect this subversive flummery.

How else to square Gorbachev's denial with his "Churchill" speech of
May 6, 1992 in Fulton, Missouri, wherein he explicitly called for
"global government" under the United Nations? Or to square it with the
obvious intent of global governmental power implicit in his repeated
calls for "international mechanisms," "international law," and "global
controls"?


Call for Global Government

The New York Times reported on September 17, 1987 that Mikhail
Gorbachev had "called for giving the United Nations expanded authority
to regulate military conflicts, economic relations, environmental
protection and ... also called for enhancing the power of the
afflicted International Court of Justice to decide international
disputes." These appeals for further empowering the UN were amplified
in the Global Security Programme report published last year by the
Global Security Project of his Gorbachev Foundation.

Chairman of the board of advisers of the Gorbachev Foundation is past
Senator Alan Cranston, a past national president of the United World
Federalists. In 1949 Cranston pushed through the California
legislature a resolution memorializing Congress to call a national
convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to "expedite and insure the
participation of the United States in a federal world government."
However, in a 1976 interview he advised fellow one- worlders against
mentioning world government since "the more talk about world
government the less chance of achieving it, because it frightens
people who would accept the concept of world law." Gorbachev,
obviously, has heeded the advice of this "elder statesman."

Some of the globalists slip up, however. Recent statements by James
Garrison, co-founder and president of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA,
for instance, must have caused Mr. Cranston to wince. "Over the next
20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government,"
Garrison said in an interview in the May 31-June 6, 1995 issue of SF
Weekly, a liberal-left San Francisco newspaper. "It's inevitable."
Garrison continued: "What's happening right now as you break down the
Cold War, what is emerging now is ethnic identities. You are going to
see more Yugoslavias, more Somalias, more Rwandas, more [Timothy]
McVeighs and more nerve-gas attacks. But in and through this
turbulence is the recognition that we have to empower the United
Nations and that we have to govern and regulate human interaction...."
(Emphasis added.)

But Gorbachev's dissembling over world government/world law should not
surprise. Like his treacherous use of "democracy," "pluralism,"
"diversity," "interdependence," "perestroika," "glasnost," and other
globalist shibboleths, it is in full comportment with the Communist
program of dialectical deception. Consider his conveniently flexible
position on "Communism." One speaker after another at the San
Francisco forum praised the venerable aparatchik (and former General
Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) for putting an
end to Soviet Communism. Gorby himself denounced the evils of
"totalitarian ideology."

"Convinced Communist"

But this is the same Gorbachev who, a few short years ago (November
1987) proclaimed: "In October 1917, we parted with the Old World,
rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, the
world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road." (Emphasis
added.) "Perestroika," he said then, " is a continuation of the
October Revolution."

In 1989, Gorbachev declared: "I am a Communist, a convinced Communist.
For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal." The
following year, even as he was being hailed as the "man who ended
Communism," he reiterated this conviction, stating, "I am now, just as
I've always been, a convinced Communist."

In his book Perestroika, he plainly admitted: "We are not going to
change Soviet power, of course, or abandon its fundamental principles,
but we acknowledge the need for changes that will strengthen
socialism." In the same revered text he explained that "according to
Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible," and the "essence of
perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy
and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in
theory and in practice." (Emphasis added.) Thus, when he declares for
"democracy," he means "democracy" within the Leninist conception and
definition of the term, something quite the opposite of that which
most Americans assume he is talking about.

But this dialectical legerdemain does not concern George Shultz, who
introduced the royal eminence with an embarrassing gush of
superlatives ("brilliant," "bold," "daring," "imaginative,"
"astonishing energy and intellectual grasp," "an intellect of the
highest order") and anecdotes of their long "friendship." Shultz, a
member and former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, and
Gorbachev go back a long way together. In 1985 the duo signed the
Soviet-American Education Exchange Agreement negotiated by the
one-world subversives at the Carnegie Corporation. Shultz spoke with
fond remembrance to the forum guests of the "historic" 1986 Reykjavik
Summit at which he and President Reagan, together with Gorbachev and
Eduard Shevardnadze, laid the groundwork for the INF Treaty and other
disarmament debacles.

For the opening "Plenary Session" of the forum, Gorbachev shared
co-chair honors with Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki, the longtime Marxist
theoretician and globe-trotting ambassador of the terrorist African
National Congress, and a top member of the South African Communist
Party (SACP), was an appropriate choice. The ANC chief said he was
pleased to attend on behalf of the poor and suffering people of
Africa, who might otherwise not be represented in a "new world order"
where "the world's agenda is addressed only by the powerful."

Mbeki, a frequent guest at the Council on Foreign Relations and other
lairs of American and European ruling elites, understands power. On
July 5, 1993 Mbeki attended a dinner hosted by David Rockefeller for
corporate CEOs to raise funds for the ANC's election drive. Mbeki
praised Rockefeller as a longtime friend who "has backed the ANC
financially for more than a decade." As Nelson Mandela's heir
apparent, Mbeki has been given a "moderate" image by the ANC-friendly
Insider media.

Steps to "World Order"

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, noted
that there was "something profoundly symbolic and hopeful" about the
fact that the opening session was co-chaired by Gorbachev and Mbeki.
Which in itself says a mouthful about the "worldview" of Zbig and his
like-minded fellow conferees. Burnishing his bogus anti-Communist
credentials, Brzezinski denounced the terrible record of "carnage"
wrought by "Hitlerism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism," and decried the
monstrous deeds of the "coercive utopians."

"Yet five years after the end of the century's greatest ideological
struggle and five years before the onset of the next millennium,"
wailed the architect and first director of the Trilateral Commission,
"the end of the ideological centrality in global politics has not
ushered in a new world order.... We do not have a new world order.
Instead we are facing growing doubts regarding the meaning of our era
and regarding the shape of our future."

"We cannot leap into world government in one quick step," Brzezinski
told his audience, apparently ignoring Gorbachev's caution. Such a
grand goal "requires a process of gradually expanding the range of
democratic cooperation as well as the range of personal and national
security, a widening, step by step, stone by stone, [of] existing
relatively narrow zones of stability in the world of security and
cooperation. In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization --
genuine globalization -- is progressive regionalization, because
thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units."

This "regionalization" is in keeping with the original Trilateral
plan, as outlined in Brzezinski's book, Between Two Ages, which called
for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward
"the goal of world government." In that same tome, David Rockefeller's
Polish prot=82g=82 proclaimed that "National sovereignty is no longer a
viable concept" and praised Marxism "in the form of Communism" as a
"major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to
his world" and a "further vital and creative stage in the maturing of
man's universal vision."

NATO and the European Union must be expanded to include Russia and the
former Warsaw Pact countries, he said, and the scope of those
arrangements must be "furthered, deepened, and institutionalized."
Furthermore, Brzezinski asserted, similar structures must be crafted
for the Middle East, the Far East, and Central Asia.

Joining Brzezinski at the rostrum was astronomer and cosmic sage Carl
Sagan, who warned (predictably) that humanity faces "an absolutely
new, unprecedented series of threats to the global environment that
sustains us all." These "crises" include (of course) "depletion of the
protective ozone layer and global warming through the increasing
greenhouse effect...."

Yawn. Same tired, old, toxic eco-drivel. But wait! -- there is an
exciting new "crisis": asteroids, which are certain to collide with
earth in the not-too-distant future. This threat is "necessarily a
problem for the whole species" and one in which we will have to join
in collective action (presumably through the UN) to solve.

All of these crises show that we must begin to view the planet from
the astronauts' perspective, says Sagan: "There are no national
boundaries in that perspective. It is only one integrated, whole
planet, all parts of which rise and fall together."

The "New Paradigm"

John Naisbitt, futurist, techno-savant, adviser to corporate titans
and world leaders, and member of the board of advisers of the
Gorbachev Foundation, was more upbeat. The author of the mega-
blockbusters Megatrends, Megatrends 2000, Megatrends for Women, and
Global Paradox prefaced his remarks by stating his commitment to "free
markets and free trade." But like the rest of his colloquium
colleagues, he emphasized the need for everyone to adopt a "new
vocabulary," "new concepts," and a new "worldview" if we are going to
understand the "new paradigm" the world has entered.

This "new paradigm," naturally, requires "new leadership" -- leaders
who will lead by "moral authority." "My candidate for what a new
leader would be like," said Naisbitt, "is Vaclav Havel." Mr. Havel,
the celebrated socialist playwright and president of the Czech
Republic, of course, also talks of "free markets" -- while installing
unreconstructed and unrepentant Communists such as Alexander Dubcek in
the top positions of power in his government.

Another of his favorite new leaders, said Naisbitt, is Nelson Mandela.
Colin Powell is yet another, and Naisbitt criticized those who ask
where Powell stands on the issues or what he would do concerning this
matter or that: "The point is not what is Powell going to do; the
point is who is he going to be. The new leadership is shifting away
from being in charge to moral authority, responsibility, and
inspiration." You see, in the "new paradigm," you need only be dazzled
by the "moral authority" oozing from the persona created by the elite
media image makers. We have apparently entered the age of ontological
politics -- the politics of "being."

"The New Architecture of Global Security and Paths to Building a Civic
Society (The Global Age)" was the title of a presentation by Kassa
Kebede, a member of the board of directors of the Gorbachev Foundation
and an active participant in the Foundation's Global Security Project.
Kebede is a former ambassador to the United Nations and was Foreign
Secretary during the 1980s for the murderous and genocidal Communist
regime of Haile Mengistu in Ethiopia.

"The globalization of the challenges confronting us will certainly
affect the traditional concept of sovereignty," Kebede told the
attendees. Indeed. Echoing the Kennedy Administration's treasonous
1961 Freedom From War proposal to transfer U.S. armaments to the UN,
Kebede's disarmament plan calls for "storage of the warheads and of
the delivery systems in separate places under international control."

The Ethiopian commissar also commended the proposition put forward in
Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global
Governance* to create "a standing force of 10,000 soldiers under the
authority of the Security Council." This in spite of the fact that the
UN's present "peacekeeping" operations, as Kebede himself admits, are
already vastly "overextended," with "more than 70,000 personnel, and
costs of over $3.5 billion."

------------------------------------------------
*NOTE: See the April 3, 1995 issue of The New American, page 5.
------------------------------------------------

Kebede parroted the Global Security Programme and Zbigniew Brzezinski
in calling for establishing regional "security" (i.e. war-making)
organizations similar to NATO "in the Middle East, South Asia and
North East Asia."

Joining the Mikhail/Zbigniew Doublespeak Chorus, Kebede chirped: "The
commonality of goals, and shared values of global ethics, produce
justification for world governance. This concept is in no way an
alteration of national sovereignty, and does not lead to world
government."

Although the state of the world's political, economic, and social ills
came in for thorough treatment at the forum, it was in the area of
global spiritual enlightenment that the gathering blossomed into full
flower. Leading the cosmic charge were a host of the reigning Brahmins
of New Age bliss, including Willis Harman, Barbara Marx Hubbard,
Richard Baker, Matthew Fox, Shirley MacLaine, Deepak Chopra, Fritjof
Capra, and Rupert Sheldrake.=20

Willis Harman, New Age philosopher, president of the Institute of
Noetic Sciences, and author of Global Mind Change and The New
Metaphysical Foundation of Modern Science, has had a profound effect
on our society in the past couple of decades. In "Our Hopeful Future:
Creating a Sustainable Society," one of his new essays distributed at
the forum, Harman reported, "Around the world one detects murmurings
that industrialized and 'developing' countries alike have a need for a
new social order -- that, in fact, the situation calls for a worldwide
systemic change." Really? Have you heard such "murmurings" in your
neighborhood? Not likely - - unless your neighborhood is home to some
of Harman's murmurous disciples.

Evolutionary Process

These murmurers, who comprise "an expanding fraction of the populace,"
perceive "a shifting underlying picture of reality." They see "the
connectedness of everything to everything" and place "emphasis on
intuition and the assumption of inner divinity." These adepts of the
"new spirituality" share a "commitment to global change." Their "New
Order," says Harman, is characterized by "an emphasis not on goals but
on process ... the process is an evolutionary one, and the goals are
emergent." The message is: Don't question where I am taking you, just
start moving. And trust me; I'm doing what's good for you.

"Interconnectedness" is the overarching theme also preached by
biologist Rupert Sheldrake, a Theosophist who posits that a
"morphogenic field" -- an invisible matrix or organizing field that
connects all life and thought on earth -- holds the keys to our
existence and to the "Ageless Wisdom."

Fritjof Capra, physicist and systems theorist, New Age swami, and
author of the international best-sellers Uncommon Wisdom, The Turning
Point, and The Tao of Physics, provided a similar message. "The
Elmwood Institute, which Capra founded in Berkeley, California, sees
that none of the major problems of our time can be understood in
isolation," write New Age political activists Corinne McLaughlin and
Gordon Davidson in Spiritual Politics: Changing the World From the
Inside Out. "A systems approach is needed, as all our problems are
interconnected and interdependent, facets of one single crisis --
essentially a crisis of perception. This crisis is part of a cultural
shift from a mechanistic worldview to a holistic and ecological view,
from a value system based on domination to partnership, from quantity
to quality, from expansion to conservation, from efficiency to
sustainability."

A Capra essay, "The Turning of the Tide," was included in the Fall
1993 issue of ReVision: A Journal of Consciousness and Transformation,
which was part of the free literature made available to the forum
participants. In it Capra writes:

"The view of man as dominating nature and woman, and the belief in the
superior role of the rational mind, have been supported and encouraged
by the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which adheres to the image of a
male god, personification of supreme reason and source of ultimate
power, who rules the world from above by imposing his divine law on
it. The laws of nature searched for by the scientists were seen as
reflections of this divine law, originating in the mind of God."

This traditional Judaeo-Christian-influenced thinking, says Capra,
"has led to attitudes that are profoundly antiecological. In truth,
the understanding of ecosystems is hindered by the very nature of the
rational mind. Rational thinking is linear, whereas ecological
awareness arises from an intuition of nonlinear systems." Capra
celebrates Eastern mysticism as a superior spiritual path, while
applauding the "inevitable decline of patriarchy," the demise of
"fixed ideas and rigid patterns of behavior," and the rise of the
feminist and ecological movements.

Barbara Marx Hubbard, author of The Book of Co-Creation, claims in her
curricula vitae to be "establishing Evolutionary Circles throughout
the world to support small groups in their emergence as universal
humans, founders of a global civilization." Hubbard was an organizer
of the 1988 Soviet-American Citizens' Summit in Alexandria, Virginia,
coordinated with the Soviet Peace Committee, a creature of the Soviet
Central Committee's International Department established by Stalin to
carry out penetration and subversion of foreign countries. Hubbard is
also a former director of the Federal Union, founded by Fabian
Socialist Rhodes Scholar Clarence Streit.

As a psychologist with Task Force Delta, an army think tank of
futurists, strategists, and psychology and parapsychology researchers,
Hubbard is credited with the idea of "bombarding" the Soviets with
"psychic love," and formation of the First Earth Battalion (FEB). The
credo of the FEB "guerilla gurus" states: "I take personal
responsibility for generating evolutionary conspiracies as a part of
my work. I will select and create conspiratorial mechanisms ... that
will create and perform evolutionary breakthrough actions on behalf of
people and planet. One people, one planet."

But according to these cognoscenti, there are too many people on this
"one planet." Willis Harman's essay grapples with the "dilemma.": "In
the economy-dominated world, as the outspoken anthropologist Margaret
Mead once put it bluntly, 'The unadorned truth is that we do not need
now, and will not need later, much of the marginal labor -- the very
young, the very old, the very uneducated, and the very stupid.'" "This
dilemma is perhaps the most basic one we face," said Harman. Society
can't afford "from an environmental standpoint, or from the standpoint
of tearing apart of the social fabric -- the economic growth that
would be necessary to provide jobs for all in the conventional sense,
and the inequities which have come to accompany that growth. This
dilemma, more than any other aspect of our current situation,
indicates how fundamental a system change is now required."

In the closing plenary session of the forum, philosopher/author Sam
Keen summarized the consensus of the learned ones. Among the
conference participants, said Keen, "there was very strong agreement
that religious institutions have to take primary responsibility for
the population explosion. We must speak far more clearly about
sexuality, about contraception, about abortion, about the values that
control the population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is
the population crisis. Cut the [world's] population by 90 percent and
there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological
damage."

How do we "cut" the planet's population by 90 percent? Even genocidal
mass murderers Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao combined did not come
close to attaining such a "lofty" goal. As always, the devil is in the
details. Forum participant Barbara Marx Hubbard may already have
provided some of the devilish answer. In The Book of Co-Creation she
writes: "Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is
electing to transcend.... One-fourth is destructive [and] they are
defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a 'natural
death.'... Now as we approach the quantum shift from the
creature-human to the co-creative human -- the human who is an
inheritor of god-like powers -- the destructive one-fourth must be
eliminated from the social body.... Fortunately, you are not
responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God's selection
process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of
the pale horse, Death."

Lord help us all if this de facto "Brain Trust" of diabolical misfits,
murderers, megalomaniacs, terrorists, and tyrants succeed in
establishing their "new world order," their "new global civilization."

END


THE NEW AMERICAN -- October 30, 1995
Copyright 1995 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913

WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for
informational purposes to allow individual file transfer and non-
commercial mail-list transfer only. All other copyright privileges are
reserved. Address reposting requests to <birch@athenet.net> or the
above address.

from Sunday's Washington Times:

Samuel Francis; RELEASE: 10/14/95|

 COULD FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN BEHIND ARIZONA TRAIN ATTACK?
 By Samuel Francis
 What a convenient coincidence! Just as Congress is about to reject
anti-terrorist legislation that would vastly expand the powers of the FBI
and the federal government, a ''terrorist attack'' takes place in Arizona.
It sort of reminds you of Waco, where the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms just happened to descend upon David Koresh's compound on the eve
of congressional budget cuts for the ATF.
 Ever since the Oklahoma City bombing, various people have suspected the
ATF itself committed that atrocity. There's little evidence to support that
suspicion, though it is curious the ATF was one of the few federal agencies
that suffered no serious casualties in the Oklahoma City explosion.
 But the attack on the train in Arizona, which killed only one person,
looks a little different. So far none of the circumstantial evidence
surrounding the attack seems genuine.
 In the first place, only someone with a thorough knowledge of trains and
how they operate could have rigged the tracks so Amtrak's Sunset Limited
would sail off the bridge at just the right spot. There are terrorist
groups that know how to do that, of course, and it's probably not that hard
to figure it out if you work at it. But the ostensible perpetrators of this
particular act of sabotage are not likely to know or to know how to find
out.
 The note left behind near the spot where the train derailed purported to
be from a group calling itself ''Sons of Gestapo,'' after the Nazi secret
police. No one has ever heard of this group before, and it's unlikely
neo-Nazis would use such a name. They tend to be people who whitewash the
Nazis, and the Gestapo was not noted for covert terrorist operations like
this one. Neo-Nazis, in any case, would be unlikely to be knowledgeable
experts on trains.
 Moreover, the note invoked Waco and the FBI siege at Ruby Ridge against
Randy Weaver and his family as justification for the attack and also blamed
the FBI and the ATF for them. But the attack wasn't directed against either
agency, or for that matter against any of the favorite targets of the
extreme right -- synagogues, Jews, or racial minorities.
 Some terrorist groups like to send communiques or dispatches justifying
their violence, but in recent years this has not been typical of extreme
right-wing terrorists. The ''Order,'' a group of neo-Nazis in the 1980s
that murdered a Jewish talk-show host and committed armed robberies, seldom
or never sent communiques. Neither did the perpetrators of the Oklahoma
City bombing. As for this note left under a rock in the desert, one of the
passengers who saw it says she was surprised by how clean it looked.
 Curiouser and curiouser.
 Is it possible the FBI or some other federal law enforcement agency or
rogues within them commmitted the act of sabotage in Arizona? It's not as
wacky as it might seem. We know the FBI tried to falsify evidence against
Randy Weaver after the siege at Ruby Ridge, and we know the ATF falsified
the facts about Mr. Weaver's (non-existent) criminal background. We also
know the Bureau or someone in it destroyed crucial evidence about the
authorization of the ''rules of engagement'' under which FBI snipers shot
and killed Mrs. Weaver. The days are long gone when Americans can assume
that federal law enforcement always operates within the law.
 We also know that FBI undercover informants have sometimes entrapped and
actually taken part in violent activities on the groups they were supposed
to spy on. Gary Rowe, a Bureau informant in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s,
was indicted for the murder of a civil rights worker, but a federal judge
blocked the trial. Rowe also took part in assaults on freedom riders while
an FBI informant, and the Bureau gave him a bonus for doing so.
 Despite all their sound bites about terrorism, lawmakers are now reported
to be less than eager to pass new laws giving the feds more power so soon
after Waco and Ruby Ridge. Desperate to crank up public support for the new
powers, could some federalistas out of control have thought another
terrorist incident was just the ticket?
 Nothing in the attack on the Amtrak train so far proves the federal
government was involved in it, and it's probably out of the question that
anyone other than low-level rogue agents or informants would have done it
or even known about it. But what we do know is that federal law enforcement
agents in recent years don't hesitate to sidestep the law or destroy
innocent people when they believe it necessary or useful, and the sad truth
we have to face is that the feds are as likely to have perpetrated the
Amtrak attack as any of the other usual suspects.

 (C) 1995 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.


Vin Suprynowicz          vin@terminus.intermind.net
"I sense that he's concealing something." -- D. Troi

------------------------------

Copyright, 1995, U.S. News & World Report All rights reserved.

U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT, OCTOBER 23, 1995

ONE MORE LEAP FOR NUTTINESS

In Arthur Conan Doyle's first Sherlock Holmes mystery, A STUDY IN SCARLET,
the murderer scrawls in blood upon the wall beside his victim the word
RACHE--German for ``revenge.'' His aim is to cloak a simple act of personal
vengeance in shadowy suggestions of political intrigue and secret socialist
societies. Needless to say, the press and the police, eager to blame
``foreigners'' and sucked in by the drama of the murder scene, fall for it.


   No matter whether the person who derailed an Amtrak passenger train in
Arizona last week, killing one and injuring more than 100, was a psychopath,
a disgruntled employee or someone trying to make a bizarre political
statement, the eagerness of everyone from the local sheriff to the president
of the United States to label the tragedy an act of ``terrorism'' bespeaks a
human foible that too many these days share with Doyle's flat-footed
officials and sensation-seeking journalists. Simply put, it sounds ever so
much more important to be investigating a terrorist plot hatched by
calculating ideological fanatics than a vandal's prank hatched by teenagers
or mental patients with a fixation on trains.


   But it is worse than just a foible. Calling these acts ``terrorism''
confers that sense of inflated importance upon the thugs, pranksters and nut
cases themselves, people who in earlier days would have been called . . .
thugs, pranksters and nut cases. Sadly, but significantly, this is hardly the
first time someone in this country has decided to get a kick out of running a
train off its tracks. In August 1992, a switch was thrown near Newport News,
Va., wrecking Amtrak's Colonial. The culprits turned out to be two young
coast guardsmen, one of whom, a self-described train buff, wanted to see if
he had the ability to derail a train. (He did.) In May 1993, two boys, ages
12 and 13, were arrested for wedging pipes under a track in Opa-Locka, Fla.,
derailing an Amtrak engine and four coaches. Neither was dignified with the
rank of ``terrorist.''


   But now, apparently, anyone who compounds his act of vandalism by penning
an incoherent manifesto ranting about Waco, and signing it with even so
infantile a name as ``Sons of Gestapo,'' can instantly quadruple his
importance--just as any juvenile delinquent who spray-paints a swastika on a
wall is these days transformed from a common punk into a perpetrator of a
``hate crime.''


   In the end, such overheated lingo only backfires. But in the meantime, the
thugs and punks and lunatics love the attention. The militia gangs who looted
the countryside in the course of Lebanon's civil war achieved a remarkably
increased stature when, largely thanks to American ``terrorism experts,''
they came to be seen and feared as part of some sinister political and
fanatical cabal at war with Western civilization.


   Call it sabotage, call it murder, call it despicable. But the derailment
of a passenger train does not threaten to undermine the foundations of
American society. It is a crime. It is not terrorism.

BY STEPHEN BUDIANSKY

Subj:	[FWIW] Globalist's "slip" is showing...

FWIW

	"Over the next 20 or 30 years, we are going to end
	up with world government...It's inevitable...
	we have to empower the United Nations...we have to
	govern and regulate human interaction..."

				- James Garrison
				  Co-Founder and President of
				  the Gorbachev Foundation/USA
				  Interview: May 31- June 6, 95
				  SF Weekly

Source: The New American
	Global Gorby, p.23
	October 30, 1995

Subj:	[FWIW] Sure quacks like a duck...

FWIW

	November 1987 he said:

	"In October 1917, we parted with the Old World,
	rejecting it once and for all.  We are moving
	toward a new world, the world of Communism.
	We shall never turn off that road.  Perestroika
	is a continuation of the October Revolution."

	In 1989 he said:

	"I am a Communist, a convinced Communist.  For 
	some that may be a fantasy.  But for me it is
	my main goal."

	Then in 1990 (while being credited with "ending Communism"):

	"I am now, just as I've always been, a convinced
	Communist."

	Then in his book:

	"We are not going to change Soviet power, of course,
	or abandon its fundamental principles, but we
	acknowledge the need for changes that will strengthen
	socialism."

	Who is this "duck"???......none other than the recent
	host of "The State of the World Forum" where "the
	forum brought together a glittering constellation of
	global notables representing the epitome of worldly
	power, prestige, fame, wealth, and influence:
	presidents, princes, potentates, philanthropists,
	poets, philosophers, and poohbahs."

	..................MIKHAIL GORBACHEV


Source: The New American
	Global Gorby, p.23
	October 30, 1995

    Gosh and golly, why doesn't Jim Sadin post this crap too?
    
    Here we learn that Ron Goldman was a member of a japanese mafia
    homosexual dope gang, and Fred Goldman has ties to drug lords *and*
    high tech theft rings.
    
    Brought to you by "Nutters!", where every day is friday.
    
    
              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 6  Num. 27
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")
                                                            

-----------------------------------------------------------------

FRED GOLDMAN AND THE BLACKMAILERS -- THE O.J. SIMPSON MESS
==========================================================
By Sherman H. Skolnick
[CN Transcript of reading by Mr. Skolnick]

The O.J. Simpson mess. The players are blackmailing each other 
*and* blackmailing the Clinton White House and George Bush.

In the criminal defense, supervising the detectives: a former New 
York cop, long, reportedly, on the mafia payroll, was a silent 
partner in mafia gay disco bars jointly with Mattie "The Horse" 
Ianello -- now a jailbird. The ex-cop is an expert on gay 
violence and dope hit teams, early-on suspected. He found links 
to CIA dope, Mena, Arkansas and Clinton as governor and 
president, Bush and Ollie North.

The CIA's Herrera dope gang of Mexico is fighting with the 
Yakuza, the Japanese mafia. Ron Goldman and his room-mate, also a 
waiter, himself later murdered, were apparently part of a 
homosexual dope gang for Yakuza.

We told you: witnessing the double murder: O.J.'s other 
detectives tracking Nicole -- part of the cover-up; O.J., an 
accomplice to murder. Also witnesses: a drug enforcement 
undercover team using see-in-the-dark video.

Ron's father, Fred Goldman, an advertising exec, reportedly 
linked to a public relations firm representing the Chicago 
Tribune and sports teams. The firm is apparently leading an 
attack on O.J. to help Fred now blackmail big bucks in the 
pending civil damage suit against O.J. Some claim the P.R. gang 
are also in the dope rackets and theft of high technology.

Related: an almost secret case in Chicago.

 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +

I neither necessarily agree nor disagree with either all or 
portions of the preceding. Persons mentioned are invited to send 
their rebuttals, of reasonable length, to bigred@shout.net for 
probable distribution.
                         -- Brian Francis Redman, Editor-in-Chief

-----------------------------------------------------------------
     I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  For information on how to receive the new 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O what fine thought we had because we thought    | bigred@shout.net
That the worst rogues and rascals had died out.  | Illinois,
  -- W.B. Yeats, "Nineteen Hundred And Nineteen" | I'm your boy.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


-- 


    

    
    
    
    Now.... how did I ever guess *WHO* was gonna pipe up next????
    
    Will wonders never cease!!!!
    

	Setting the clocks back is a major conspiracy!

    
    	I wonder how many clocks break as a direct result of turning then
    	ahead/back every year?
    
    	Could the clock/watch companies be behind the conspiracy?
    

    
    
    	
>    Gosh and golly, why doesn't Jim Sadin post this crap too?
    
    	Ya know, usually this kind of outright degradation would frost my
    shorts, but not today. Three people I care alot about have died in the
    past 3 days.....your vulgar, imflammatory crap is pathetic. The fact
    that you feel the need for these little outbursts just tells me how
    infantile you really are. Someone with just a wee bit of edicut would
    find a way to make their point without resorting to 5th grade school
    bus name calling.
    
    	Have a nice day,
    
    	jim

    I found the vulgar, inflammatory crap pathetic as well.
    That's why I posted it.
    Why do you post vulgar, inflammatory crap?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	
>    Why do you post vulgar, inflammatory crap?
    
    	Conspiracy Nation, The New American, etc are not directed at
    you, nor are they attacks on you as an individual. However vulgar and
    pathetic you may find them, they were not attacks by me against you.
    Your note was a deliberate poke at moi. Big difference, but you don't
    care anyway so why am I bothering to talk to you? I'll have to ponder
    that question tonight....
    
    
    jim

           <<< Note 399.469 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>

Jim,
	I think that you should ask Bill to defend his posting. Turn about
	being fair play and all that.

	;-)

Jim

    
    
    Yup Jim, I think the best thing you could do is just move on.  billy
    boy is getting a charge at stirring the pot.  I've come to the
    conclusion that he really don't care about any of this he's just here
    to pester like a skeeter flying around us.
    

|   However vulgar and pathetic you may find them, they were not attacks by
|   me against you.
    
    Read .59, the first note I entered in this topic.  It was *funny*!
    Here's .63, your reply to it:
    
|   	Ah Mr. Bill, so nice to hear from you again. I see the medication
|   isn't working quite as well as we had hoped. Better double up on it.
|    
|   forever yours,
|    
|   jim
    
    Take your thin skin elsewhere.  When you post this crap, expect to be
    called on it.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    In other news, if you liked the "Perl/RSA" T-Shirts, you'll *love*
    this.  Or not.
    
    http://www.danger.com/netstuff-current.html
    								-mr. bill

Mr. Bill,

In .59 you wrote:

>    Already has - among the nutters who believe this crap.

        Yup, starts off pretty funny. The whole note was a subtle slam.

In .63 I wrote:
    
>    	Ah Mr. Bill, so nice to hear from you again. I see the medication
>    isn't working quite as well as we had hoped. Better double up on it.

        In response to your slam against all of us "nutters" who don't have
100% faith in the U.S. govt.

In .468 you wrote:

>     -< Why do you post Conspiracy Nation, The New American, blah blah b >-

        Hmmmm...seems to me you were upset at these postings (that are NOT
shots at you personally), yet you see fit to insult me personally. Then you
back pedal and say "Oh no, I'm upset at you from WAY BACK THEN and that
gives me every right to just bring your name up at any time and slap you
around a bit". Ya know, if you'd just act like a rational person then maybe
we could end this pissing contest and just argue without stooping to
insults.

        But then again, what fun would that be....


jim
        
         

    
    Learn to laugh.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    BTW, the whole note wasn't a subtle slam.  It was a *BLATANT* slam.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	
>    BTW, the whole note wasn't a subtle slam.  It was a *BLATANT* slam.
    
    	Ok, that made me laugh....:)
    
    

From today's Washington Times

Whitewater Papers feared destroyed

By Jerry Seeper

	The special senate Whitewater committee will issue subpoenas today for 
records it says the White House has refused to release amid growing concerns
that Clinton Administration officials shredded Whitewater-related documents and 
    withheld important telephone records.



Foster note described as forgery

	Three handwriting experts said yesterday that someone forged the 
     torn-up suicide note that was discovered after White House lawyer Vincent 
     W. Foster Jr. was found with a fatal gun shot wound.  At a news conference,
     the specialistspresented analysis of the note found in Mr. Foster's 
     briefcase after the deputy White House counsel was found dead July 20, 
     1993, in a park near Washington.  They said it appeared the note was not 
     written by Mr. Foster but was a forgery.

<above from Reuters News Agency>

    The Electronic Telegraph  Thursday 26 October 1995  World News

                                                                            

    Vince Foster suicide note forged, say experts

    By Stephen Robinson

    THE mystery surrounding the 1993 death of Vincent Foster, a senior
    White House official, deepened yesterday when three handwriting
    experts, one of them an Oxford don, ruled that his alleged suicide note
    was a forgery.

    Reginald Alton, emeritus fellow of St Edmund Hall, Oxford, who flew to
    Washington to announce the results of his inquiry, said it was clear
    the torn-up note recovered from a briefcase in Mr Foster's office could
    not have been written by him.

    The note listed Mr Foster's grievances in his life in Washington, and
    its contents were taken as evidence that he was suicidal at the time of
    his death.

    Written on a yellow legal pad and torn into many pieces, the note has
    long been a riddle within the wider mystery surrounding Mr Foster's
    death.

    His body was recovered at a secluded piece of parkland outside
    Washington, a pistol in his hand and a bullet wound to the head. No one
    heard a shot or saw Mr Foster arrive. The note was not recovered during
    the first search of Mr Foster's office, but was found six days after
    his death by Bernard Nussbaum, a White House legal counsel and a friend
    of President and Mrs Clinton.

    Forger was unable to recreate Mr Foster's confident counter-clockwise
    loops or circles

    During Whitewater hearings last summer, senators expressed bafflement
    that the note could have been overlooked, and some suggested White
    House staff were deliberately obstructing investigators on behalf of Mr
    and Mrs Clinton.

    In the note, the writer purporting to be Mr Foster regrets mistakes he
    made, complains of hostile coverage of his office in the Wall Street
    Journal, and concludes: "I was not meant for the job or the spotlight
    of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport."

    Mr Alton introduced himself with a donnish self-effacement at
    yesterday's press conference in Washington, and advised reporters not
    to "mistake me for another interfering Brit" out to paint America in
    unflattering light.

    The conference was organised by Strategic Investment, which has taken
    an interest in the Foster case and paid the experts.

    Ronald Rice, who has 18 years' experience in forensic and handwriting
    work, came to the same conclusions as Mr Alton. Vincent Scalice, a
    retired New York detective with extensive forensic experience,
    concurred.

    The comparison was made between the note and 12 samples of Mr Foster's
    handwriting. Mr Alton confirmed that all 12 samples had been written by
    Mr Foster, but that the other note could not have been written by him.

    The formation of the letters was different. For instance, Mr Foster
    wrote the letter b with a single stroke, while the forger used three
    separate strokes. The forger was unable to recreate Mr Foster's
    confident counter-clockwise loops or circles.
                                                           

    
    
    Okay.... what nutter group is this "Strategic Investment" associated
    with???
    

|   Okay.... what nutter group is this "Strategic Investment" associated
|   with???
    
    Hey, progress.  At least you are asking questions.  You don't want to
    know the answers, but at least you are asking questions.
    
    
    The Reuters story was in the Globe this morning.  Absent from the
    reports entered in Soapbox is the *fact* that Vince Foster's *wife*
    identified the note as written by Vince Foster.  But hell, she's just
    part of the coverup, right guys?
    
    								-mr. bill

   >  Absent from the
   >  reports entered in Soapbox is the *fact* that Vince Foster's *wife*
   >  identified the note as written by Vince Foster.  But hell, she's just
   >  part of the coverup, right guys?
    
   I didn't realize that she was a hand-writing expert ...

    
    
    nor did I..........
    
    
    keep grabbing at them straws, William, just be careful that you don't
    fall too hard off of that high horse you're sitting on.

    What makes you think these hand-writing experts are?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    re: .481
    
    >Hey, progress.  At least you are asking questions.  You don't want to
    >know the answers, but at least you are asking questions.
    
    With idiotic assertions like this, no wonder no-one wants to listen to
    you!! Will you remain hopeless forever Billy???
    
     How about this for a reasonable explanation Billy?
    
     Here's a woman who just lost her husband. She's in emotional turmoil
    and everything that reminds her of her husband brings on tears and
    memories.. She can't look at his toothbrush at home, or his slippers
    next to the bed without crying.
    
     Someone... some young, three-piece suit, thrusts a put-back-together
    note supposedly written by her husband explaining why he did himself.
        
     With no emotion, this woman looks at it and analytically, logically,
    determines it's her husband's writing...
    
     Naaaaaaaah.... only some nutter dream!!!
    

    re: .484
    
    Ever see a drowning man frantically grab at anything close by?? 
    
    Even their rescuer???
    

>    What makes you think these hand-writing experts are?
>    
>    								-mr. bill

    Given that they are declared to be long experienced in these fields
    and that there are three of them all agreeing, that adds a little weight
    to their conclusion. 

    Of course, they could be in a conspiracy together  :-)

    Was the letter ever examined by FBI experts?

    Doug.

|   Given that they are declared to be long experienced in these fields
|   and that there are three of them all agreeing, that adds a little weight
|   to their conclusion. 
    
    Only if you belive nutters.  A similar hodge podge of assembled
    "experts" have told us that OKC could *not* have been done by a truck
    bomb, have examined "siesmic traces" and done "audio analysis" and
    have regalled us with stories of pineapple bombs, etc etc etc etc.
    
|   Was the letter ever examined by FBI experts?
    
    Hey, another question asked!  Are you really interested in the answer?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
      I'm not much on conspiracies.  However, even without the
     handwriting thing, this Foster note story always did look fishy.
    
      By now, everybody in the USA knows BC was peripherally involved
     with crooks in Ark before coming to DC.
    
      Somehow I doubt D'Amato will ever get to the bottom of it, but
     it would come as no surprise at all if the administration were
     caught in an outright big lie of some sort.
    
      bb

    
    re: .488
    
     You watched "The Point" again last night... didn't you Billy???
    

    
    Do you have answers to the two important questions so far?
    
    	- Who the hell is "Strategic Investment"?
    	- Did the FBI ever do hand-writing analysis?
    
    You don't?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    His wife may not be a handwriting expert, but I should think she'd be
    more familiar with her husband's handwriting than 3 strangers, experts
    or not.
    
    Has she been permitted to examine it again recently?
    
    

    
    BTW, the Electronic Telegraph is also the source of such gems as there
    was a massive conspiracy and cover-up following Lincoln's
    assassination.
    
    Who is burried in John Wilke's Booth's grave?  Ah, that is the question.
    Because you see, according to "experts", John Wilkes Booth committed
    suicide in 1903.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    And did you know a British novelist was killed by government officials
    on his way back to the US?  The man died during a transatlantic flight.
    The coronor ruled "shellfish" as the cause, but we all know better.
    Besided, another friend of the author died *AT* *HOME*.
    
    Do you all see a pattern here?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    The story came from Reuters, Bill.
    
    
    

    
    It's always fun watching billy trying to "enlighten" us igrants.
    Goooolllly billy, where ed we be wit' out ya... ???
    

    
    
    REUTERS - Boston Globe 10/26/95 pg. 21
    

    
    .494
    
    >Do you all see a pattern here?
    
    Hmmmm...now that you mention it...I *do* see a pattern developing
    in this topic.
    

    And will likely deviate off the topic.

    Secret trickery snarf!

    
    <-------
    
    Loser!!!
    

    Proud of it! :-)

    
    The story was carried by Reuters.
    
    Did a press conference take place?
    Yes.
    Did self-proclaimed "experts" offer their "expert" opinion?
    Yes.
    What is the credibility of the people funding this "research" and the
    "experts" who conducted the research?
    You don't have a clue.  I don't have a clue.
    
    But do continue on with your assumptions.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Mr. Bill:
    
    Are you this objective with people from the other side of the aisle?
    
    For years Bob Packwood was under the fire, understandably so!  Your
    silence was deafening!!
    
    -Jack

    
    See 6.433.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    BTW, the "Strategic Institute" is promoting a conspiracy theory that
    Vince Foster was an Israeli spy.  It's the same old same old
    anti-semitic crap, but tied into the lefty inslaw/bcci/october surprise
    grand unified conspiracy theory.  (All conspiracies for these idiots
    always lead back to Israel, for some not-so-odd reason.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
================================================================================
Note 6.433                Conference Policy Discussion                433 of 576
PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left"  41 lines   2-AUG-1995 09:19
                                 -< re: .428 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .          .          .          .          .          .          .
    .          .          .          .          .          .          .
    .          .          .          .          .          .          .

    Defend George Bush's BATF/US Marshals/FBI against obscene charges about
    Ruby Ridge?  You betcha.
    
    Defend Bill Clinton/Lloyd Bentsen/Janet Reno's [nntm-crowd, what's the
    right way to do that?] BATF/FBI against wacky charges about Waco?
    You betcha.
    
    .          .          .          .          .          .          .
    .          .          .          .          .          .          .
    .          .          .          .          .          .          .
        
    Truth matters to me.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  [emphasis added]
    Your mileage may vary.  
    
    								-mr. bill

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    billy, you're a hoot !  Truth matters to you ONLY when it's convenient to
    you.  Keep trying though.

    Regards,

My money's on B L-K. He calls a spade a spade, even while others are seeing 
hearts.

Tom

    
    >My money's on B L-K.
    
    Actually, part of your money is going to pay the Weavers... Aren't you
    just tickled pink about that??
    

    
    
    Tom, Tom, Tom.......I had hope for you, but alas, with your last note I
    am deeply disappointed.  So who has to print the article so that you
    will consider it?  It was printed in the Glob and put out by Reuters,
    not that that makes it fact, but there's got to be something there.
    
    
    Mike

The Electronic Telegraph is the electronic edition of the
Daily Telegraph, one of England's major national newspapers.

/john

    Re .488:
    
    >|   Was the letter ever examined by FBI experts?
    >
    > Hey, another question asked!  Are you really interested in the answer?
    
    Are you?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

|    >|   Was the letter ever examined by FBI experts?
|    >
|    > Hey, another question asked!  Are you really interested in the answer?
|    
|    Are you?
    
    Yup.  Found an answer yet?
    
    								-mr. bill

|The Electronic Telegraph is the electronic edition of the
|Daily Telegraph, one of England's major national newspapers.
    
    The Daily Telegraph (and the Electronic Telegraph) published in article
    where "experts" claimed that John Wilkes Booth committed suicide in 1903.
    (Bonus points for anyone who knows *where* he alledgedly committed
    suicide.)
    
    Is it therefore a fact that John Wilkes Booth committed suicide in
    1903?
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 399.510 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "RIP Amos, you will be missed" >>>

    
Awww, don't give up hope yet, Mike. :')

Any paper or wire service will pick up news if they think it'll be 
titillating, as long as it has a shred of credibility. Time often erases 
that meager shred. I think Mr Bill is right on this one. There's a *chance* 
I'm wrong, but, hey, that's what bettin's all about.

Just 'cause you want it to be true doesn't make it so. (I know, I know, it 
cuts both ways.)

Your pal on the left,

Tom

    
    
    Alright, Tom.  Now for your penance, turn your dial to Rush Limbaugh
    for the next hour. :')
    
    
    I wonder if we'll ever find out if it's true (read, I wonder if the
    major media will pursue this).
    
    
    Mike

    Re .513:
    
    You asked first.  Did you find an answer yet?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

|   You asked first.
    
    No, I didn't.
    
|   Did you find an answer yet?
    
    Have you even bothered to *look* for an answer yet?
    
    								-mr. bill

I have said this before and I'm saying it again now: there is a
conspiracy to lower the life of lightbulbs. I replace more and more
all the time, and my replacement frequency is much higher than it was
10-15 years ago. We buy lightbulbs every time we shop, like we used to
do with milk and TP.

Pete

    
    I found the answer.
    
    The FBI did indeed do a handwriting analysis.  They concluded (correctly)
    it is Vince Foster's handwriting.  Which is just of course evidence
    that the conspiracy is *huge*.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    So.. that brings us back to Billy Boy's bug-a-boo... someone lied and
    someone didn't...
    
    Who's who Billy???
    

Hey!  How do you know they're dope gangs?  :-)

    
    	and more importantly, how do you know they are gay? 
    
    

    
    
    
    And we know the FBI never lies, right Bill?  

    
    No, we know the FBI sometimes lies.

    								-mr. bill

    
    
    
    No, I agree with you Bill.
    
    
    Mike

    
    re: .525
    
    So... since neither side has an "agenda", someone must be... doing what
    Billy??? Lying? Fibbing? Exaggerating??
    

    
    > The FBI did indeed do a handwriting analysis.  They concluded (correctly)
    > it is Vince Foster's handwriting.
    
    billy, your bias is showing again....   :-P
    

    
    	It wasn't the word "correctly" that clued you in, was it?
    

    Re .518:
    
    > No, I didn't.
    
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this could be an honest
    misunderstanding:  My meaning was that you were the first to ask
    whether a person were interested in the answer, and that is true.
    
    > Have you even bothered to *look* for an answer yet?

    I'm still waiting for the Treasury Department to send me the Waco
    information I asked for, or the court that issued the subpoena to
    respond to my letter.  Do you really think you asked the right person
    about seeking information?  I've listed before the lengths I've gone to
    to get information.  What have you done?
    
                                            
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .520:
    
    > I found the answer.
    
    Where?
    
    > The FBI did indeed do a handwriting analysis.
    
    By whom?  Where does one find information about this?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

     "We at Strategic Investment believe that the evidence in this case
      overwhelmingly points to murder."

-----

Strategic Investments News Release

For Immediate Release

October 25, 1995

"vince-foster.txt" 1198 lines, 55625 characters
October 25, 1995


For More Info Contact: Anne Dunne
                       xxx-xxx-xxxx


EXPERTS SAY FOSTER "SUICIDE" NOTE IS A FORGERY


At a press conference this morning at Washington's Willard Hotel, James Dale
Davidson announced the findings of an international panel of forensic panel
(sic) who examined a copy of a note that was found in Foster's briefcase
shortly after his death.
     The panel of three forensic handwriting experts have determined that the
note is a forgery, and not written by the late Deputy White House Counsel.
     James Dale Davidson, Editor of Strategic Investment, a premier world
financial newsletter, offered the following statement today:

Ladies and Gentlemen, Strategic Investment has asked a forensic panel of
handwriting experts to examine the so-called "suicide" note, said to have
been written by the late Vincent Foster.
     The panel's conclusions were collected over a three month period. Each
panelist worked independently and came to their own conclusions without
interference.
     They completed their study with far greater care, thoroughness, and
apparent accuracy than the federal institutions that were intended to protect
us. It is indeed ironic, that Vincent Foster, as the number two lawyer in the
White House and one of the highest ranking law enforcement officials in this
land--would have his own death covered up.
     The fabrication of a "suicide" note by high officials, is just one more
indication that Vincent Foster did not commit suicide.
     With us today are our expert panel whose reports you have copies of, as
well as the torn note, and a set of known documents written by Vincent
Foster.
     Mr. Reginald E. Alton, from Oxford Univeristy, has flown in for this
conference. He is a world-recognized expert on handwriting and manuscript
authentication. For 30 years he has lectured at Oxford on handwriting, and
has engaged in forensic document examination.
     Recently he ruled on the authenticity of C.S. Lewis's Diaries. He has
been consulted by British police authorities and has testified in British
courts on both criminal and civil matters involving questioned documents.
     He has determined the note to be a forgery.

     Mr. Vincent Scalice, is formerly a homicide expert with the New York
City Police Department. He is a certified Questioned Document Examiner with
the American Board of Forensic Examiners. He has 22 years experience as a
document examiner, and has worked for some of the country's largest
institutions in this capacity, for example Citicorp and Chemical Bank.
     He has determined the note to be a forgery.

     Mr. Ronald Rice has 18 years experience performing civil, criminal and
forensic handwriting examination. He is a consultant to the Massachusetts
Attorney General's office. He has examined documents on a number of
celebrated cases, and recently was asked by CNN to examine notes written by
O.J. Simpson.
     He too has determined the note to be a forgery.

     Three experts--70 years of combined forensic examination
experience--conclude forgery.
     Both the Park Police and later the FBI determined the note to have been
written by Mr. Foster.
     But look more closely. The Capitol Police handwriting expert compared
the so-called Foster note to only one document--which is not in keeping with
a proper and complete examination. We learn today from Mr. Christopher Ruddy,
the reporter from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the the Park Police used the
services of [a] Sergeant from the Capitol Police who has never been certified
as a document examiner.
     Later the FBI, and former Special Counsel Robert Fiske reports, found
the note to have been written by Foster, again by comparing it to a single
document and several checks written by Foster. Like so much of the duplicity
in the Fiske report, we learn that the checks proved an inconclusive match to
the note. The FBI violated standard forensic procedures to match the
document.
     Former FBI Director William Sessions has charged that his firing the day
before Foster's death led to a "compromised" investigation into the death.
Political considerations have guided Foster's death investigation from the
beginning. Allegedly, in America, no one is above the law. But the
investigations, by the Park Police, Fiske, and the Beltway insider Kenneth
Starr, show that the law applies differently to different people.
     We at Strategic Investment believe that the evidence in this case
overwhelmingly points to murder. It is a threat to the credibility of
America's justice system that possible obstruction of justice by the Park
Police and the FBI is whitewashed.

|   I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this could be an honest
|   misunderstanding....
    
    I won't.  Bye.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    And for what it's worth, the "experts" examined photographs that SI
    *alledges* are the document, not the document itself.
    
    I wonder if that would stand up to "forensic standards"?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Oh, Remember Ted Gunderson, peddler of the "pineapple bomb" OKC theory?
    He's peddling a new theory:
    
    	A government run child pedophile sexual abuse child
    	pornography stanic cult ritualistic abuse - wheh -
    	whose purpose was to entrap and blackmail foreign officials
    	and I suppose even domestic officials as well.
    
    Somebody might actually find all the documentation for such a
    conspiracy, if only if only if only *THEY* couldn't hide behind
    "national security".
    
    Hey, for only $11.95, you can get the *full* story.  Just a PO box
    away.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .532:
    
    > -< re: .529  But "Strategic Investment" has no bias????? >-

    Certainly no more than one Bill Licea-Kane.  But at least they named
    their sources, which is more than can be said for the latter.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 27 OCT 1995 22:21:50 GMT 
From: John Q. Public <capmicro@execpc.com>
Newgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Subject: Re: Fortune vs. Forbes--The First Shot? 
    
NEWS TRENDS

A STORY YOU WON'T READ IN FORBES

LINDA GRANT

    When Forbes ace investigative reporter James R. Norman wrote a cover
    story entitled "Oil! Guns! Greed!" last January, editor James W.
    Michaels took pains to inform  readers that Norman was "not the
    paranoid sort." Perhaps Michaels is having second thoughts. The
    article, described as a tale of "bank fraud, oil trading, and bombs,"
    prompted Norman to follow a tangled skein of connections to a second,
    much broader, story. This one raised questions about the death of White
    House deputy  counsel Vincent W. Foster and alleged a conspiracy
    involving espionage, foreign  bank accounts, and CIA hackers. 

    Forbes had planned to publish the piece, in which Norman detailed
    unattributed  charges that Foster had been under Central Intelligence
    Agency surveillance for  selling U.S. secrets to Israel and secreting
    the proceeds in a Swiss bank, in May.  When the story arrived,
    Michaels--as any mainstream editor might--killed it. In a  prepared
    statement, Forbes said Michaels had decided that "many of the story's
    sources were not credible." 

    But Norman, who had spent ten years at Business Week before he joined
    Forbes five  years ago, couldn't let go. He eventually published the
    piece, entitled  "Fostergate," in the August issue of Media Bypass, a
    magazine whose subtitle is  "The Uncensored National News." Shortly
    thereafter Norman sent Michaels a memo  urging him to reconsider
    publishing the Foster story in Forbes. 

    But the memo--which quickly found its way onto the Internet--made
    another allegation that Norman attributed to anonymous CIA sources:
    that Caspar Weinberger, a former  Defense Secretary and now Forbes'
    chairman, was one of "scores" of government  officials who had stashed
    millions in Swiss accounts. Norman claimed that the booty had been
    wiped out by a renegade band of CIA computer hackers. The embarrassing 
    memo was particularly ill timed. Malcolm S. "Steve" Forbes Jr., the
    magazine's  48-year-old editor-in-chief, is readying a campaign to run
    for President on the  GOP ticket. 

    Only hours after receiving the memo, Norman says, Michaels gave him a
    choice: to  take indefinite unpaid leave or accept a severance package.
    Norman resigned, and  has thus cast his lot with a cadre of
    conspiracists who believe that Foster was  snuffed to cover up an
    immense scandal. All of which leaves several tantalizing  questions.
    Was Vince Foster an Israeli spy? It seems unlikely. And what about
    Cap's secret stash? Forbes spokesman Raymond F. Healey Jr. says that
    Weinberger  has no comment. 

    --Linda Grant 

    Copyright 1995 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

Foster Investigation: Park Witness To Appear Before Starr's Grand Jury
by Christopher Ruddy
(from Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,  Oct. 29, 1995)


Washington, D.C.  A man who says he was at Fort Marcy Park on the evening
Vincent Foster, Jr., died was served a subpoena last week to appear before
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's Whitewater grand jury at noon
Wednesday.

Since being served the subpoena, Patrick Knowlton appears to have been
monitored around his Pennsylvania Avenue residence in Georgetown under a
massive surveillance operation.

A week ago, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of London's Sunday Telegraph reported
details of Knowlton's account of a tie-in to the Foster case.  Knowlton
was apparently the first person to see Foster's automobile in the parking
lot at Fort Marcy.

The Telegraph reported that Knowlton was "stunned" when he was shown a
report on his interview with FBI agents working for former Special Counsel
Robert Fiske.  His statements had been falsified, the Telegraph reported. 
Knowlton agrees with part of the FBI statement: that he arrived at the
Fort Marcy parking lot on July 20, 1993, at about 4:30 p.m.  Foster's body
was found more than an hour later.


Details At The Park

Knowlton said that the first car he saw in the lot, a Honda, was parked to
his immediate left and had Arkansas plates.  He said he parked his car a
few spaces from the Honda and observed another car, a blue sedan with a
young man sitting in it, who gave Knowlton what he said was a menacing
look.  Knowlton described the man as in his 20s and possibly Mexican or
Cuban.

As Knowlton quickly relieved himself by a nearby tree, the Hispanic man
got out of his blue sedan and stood leaning over the roof of the car.

Frightened, Knowlton said he quickly left the park, but mentally noted
some of the contents of the Arkansas Honda, including a suit jacket and a
briefcase.  He called the Park Police later the same night after he heard
on the news of Foster's death.  The police took a brief statement from him
over the phone, which they included in their report even though they
spelled his name wrong.

But Knowlton told the Telegraph that a key statement attributed to him by
the FBI during the Fiske investigation was "an outright lie."  The FBI
agents who interviewed him wrote, "He [Knowlton] could not further
identify this individual [the Hispanic man] and stated he would be unable
to recognize him in the future."


Sharp Memory For Details

In point of fact, Knowlton said he has a haunting memory of the man.  With
the assistance of a police artist provided by the Telegraph, Knowlton even
produced a sketch of the man.  The composite sketch was published in the
Telegraph.

Knowlton, who owns a trading business, said, --his friends agree-- that he
has a sharp memory for details.  Knowlton told the Telegraph that
interviewing FBI agents Larry Monroe and William Colombell went to
extraordinary lengths to convince him that he saw a blue Honda of recent
vintage with Arkansas plates.  Knowlton insisted that he saw an older
model brown Honda with Arkansas plates.

According to experts familiar with the case, Knowlton's testimony could be
critical on several points:

*If Foster did not commit suicide, Knowlton likely could positively
identify a person somehow involved in the attorney's death.  Key forensic
and circumstantial evidence led two New York police investigators to
conclude that "overwhelming" evidence indicated Foster's body was moved to
the park.  One source close to Starr's probe has suggested that the man
Knowlton saw may have been there to "secure" the lot.  A rear entrance to
the park is close to where the body was found and could have, some
theorize, been the actual point of the body's entry.

*He possibly could demonstrate that the FBI covered up key elements in the
case.

*He possibly could indicate that another car with Arkansas plates, similar
to Foster's, was placed in the park to leave potential witnesses with the
impression Foster was in the park earlier than he was.  A nagging problem
with the case is the large amount of unaccounted-for time, five hours from
the time Foster left his office until his body was found.

Last Thursday, Knowlton said an FBI agent with Starr's office showed up at
his door to serve him with a subpoena, one of several the agent said he
had to deliver that day.


Witness Being Watched

Since then, Knowlton has been aware that he is being watched.  "He called
me and said that he and a female friend had been passed twice that evening
by two men in a dark sedan who gave menacing looks at Patrick," reporter
Evans-Pritchard said.

On Thursday night, this reporter visited Knowlton at his residence and
noticed no unusual activity outside.  Knowlton appears to be a stable,
credible professional.  His friends in the building describe him as a
rather normal person who seems beset in the middle of something much
larger.

He knows little about the larger issues of the Foster controversy and was
unaware of the political overtones of the case.  His foyer wall proudly
sports a Clinton-Gore bumper sticker.

Knowlton and a female friend recounted Thursday's events.  Knowlton said
that while taking his daily walk for a newspaper, he encountered more than
a dozen men, all wearing suits, who would be walking toward him or coming
from behind, then would give him a sudden, purposed stare.  His female
friend said he has no history of paranoia.  To verify Knowlton's account,
he agreed the following day to take his daily walk with this reporter.

The surveillance was apparent, almost from the instant we exited his
apartment.  He was approached again and again by the same men: dark suits,
soft-soled shoes, each carrying a pad or newspaper.  And as they passed
us, each gave a pointed, timed stare at Knowlton.  After crossing the
first intersection, a man crossing the same street from the other side met
us at the sidewalk.  He looked at Knowlton and shook his head in an
awkward gesture.

Another man, short and Middle Eastern looking, passed us and stared. 
After he passed, his walk slowed considerably and he made some comment to
an African-American man casually dressed and carrying shopping bags, an
individual we already had passed who had also given us "the stare."  The
short man appeared aimless after passing us, a phenomenon repeated by the
others.

Several cars appeared to trail us.  In one white Honda with Virginia tags,
two dark men with moustaches appeared to make no bones about their
surveillance.  They first caught our attention as we crossed the
intersection, and both gave us a menacing stare.  The car entered a
traffic circle, and instead of carrying on, circled back and came
alongside, stopping in the middle of the road just yards in front of us. 
The occupants began to manipulate their mirrors to watch us along the
sidewalk.


Similar Circumstances

In all, at least two dozen and possibly three dozen people were
encountered under similar circumstances from the time Knowlton left his
apartment until he returned.  He said he recognized two of them from the
day before.  We then took a drive around the block; no one appeared to
follow us.  But when we first entered the car, a pedestrian came alongside
and noticeably checked the car's front and rear license plates.

Knowlton took out a camera and photographed the man, who quickly moved his
hand toward his face.

After midnight that evening, Knowlton called Evans-Pritchard to say his
apartment doorbell had been rung but no one answered when he asked who was
there.  Then there were four immediate knocks on the door. 
Evans-Pritchard said that a license plate Knowlton noted from Thursday had
checked out with a law enforcement source of Evans-Pritchard's as being a
Federal government vehicle.  His source suggested Knowlton was "being
warned, or there was an attempt being made to destabilize him before he
appears before the grand jury," Evans-Pritchard recounted.

Knowlton's lawyer has contacted the FBI to complain.  There has been no
return call.


Catching Up

The subpoena is one indication that Starr may be playing catch-up: the
Telegraph reported that three critical crime scene witnesses had never
been called before his Washington grand jury, though Starr says he has
been actively investigating the case for more than a year.  In addition to
Knowlton, Starr never brought two witnesses who said that when they
entered Fort Marcy's lot they saw two men, not Foster, in and around his
Honda just before the body was found.  One man, described as having long
blond hair, was said to have stood in front of the car with the hood up,
as was reported in the Tribune-Review months ago.

The failure to aggressively examine these major discrepancies seemingly
corroborates earlier reports that Starr's lead Foster prosecutor, Miquel
Rodriguez, resigned after being thwarted by his superiors in conducting a
full grand jury probe into the death.

Starr's possible passivity with the Foster case seems to have attracted
some notice on Capitol Hill.  A leading Republican member of the Senate's
"Whitewater" Banking Committee said Thursday night that he was
"disappointed" with Starr's work so far.  The senator, previously believed
to have been a supporter of Starr's, said Starr's work was "embarrassing"
on the Foster case.  The senator suggested that Starr is motivated by a
desire to be on the Supreme Court.  He added, as it stands now, that any
notion of Starr getting on the court "is finished."

    
    Now this one Jim Sadin has to explain.  I was wondering when Jim was
    going to find the Norman rantings.  And he did.  Perhaps he'll post
    the *full* Norman rantings sometime soon.
    
    But here's the question.
    
    I guess Jim Sadin found .88 *so* "interesting" that he decided to post
    it again on .539.  Why?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
      The CIA sent U.S. leaders flawed reports about the former Soviet
     Union that were known or suspected to have come from enemy agents,
     CIA Director Deutch told lawmakers.  He said he was greatly disturbed
     by findings in two new CIA reports, saying his most urgent task
     was to "re-establish the agency's credibility".
    
      bb

    
    	Oops! Forgot I had entered that before.....I'll delete the note.
    Thanks so much for the kind pointer to my unintentional oversight Mr.
    Bill. Yer a dear...
    
    
    jim

    
    
    Ya know you're an anti-nutter when you remember a double posting *AND*
    take the time to go look for it and mention it...
    

                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 399.539                      Conspiracies                        539 of 539
SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free."                 567 lines   1-NOV-1995 08:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj:	USA! Texas Adopts War Powers Resolution!



Resolution of the Republican Party of Texas



Restoration of the United States Constitution



Adopted by unanimous vote on June 17, 1995 by the Republican Party of Texas

State Executive Committee RESOLUTION # 5



     Whereas, The Republican Party of Texas recognizes that acts of

     the Congressional body and the Office of the President of the

     United States of America created an emergency condition, and that

     on and after March 6, 1933 and March 9, 1933 the same said Public

     Offices effectively impaired and suspended the Constitution for

     the United States of America under pretense of these same created

     emergency conditions, and that the impairments and disabilities

     yet exist and are in full force and effect throughout the Nation

     and several States of the Union as of the date of this

     resolution"; and



     Whereas, there has occurred continuous breach of trust, duty and

     obligation imposed under authority of the Constitution for the

     United States of America, resulting in a continued abridgment of

     the Rights, Privileges, Immunities, and Liberties of Citizens and

     others, all committed under pretense of a continuing national

     crisis and furtherance of emergency conditions"; and



     Whereas, In the "Foreword" of United States Senate Report 93-549

     it states "Since March 9, 1933, the United States of America has

     been in a declared state of national emergency which has not been

     resolved during the last 62 years"; and



     Whereas, Senate Report 93-549 admits and professes that "This

     vast range of powers taken together confers enough authority to

     rule our country without reference to normal constitutional

     process"; and



     Whereas, in Title 12 United States Code it is arbitrarily

     declared that "The actions, regulation, rules, licenses, orders

     and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated,

     made, or issued by the President of the United States or the

     Secretary of Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the

     authority conferred by subsection (b) of the Act of October 6,

     1917, as amended [12 USCS sec 95a], are hereby approved and

     confirmed.. (Mar. 9, 1933, c.1, Title 1, sec 1, 48 Stat. 1.)". We

     therefore recognize that every order issued by the President

     since March 9, 1933, or any order issued thereafter was and is

     automatically approved and confirmed. These powers being

     conferred under purported authority of the Act of October 6,

     1917, as amended on March 9, 1933, are strictly the War Powers,

     and have been wrongfully used against the several States of the

     Union and the People (See Stoehr vs. Wallace 255 US 239) ;and



     Whereas, our forefathers recognizing these same conditions wrote

     to the British Parliament and King of Great Britain in The

     Declaration of Rights of 1774: "Whereas, since the close of the

     last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to

     bind the people of America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever,

     hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others,

     under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a

     revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies

     established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional

     powers , and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty,

     not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of

     causes merely arising within the body of a county.



     And Whereas, in consequence of other statutes, judges, who before

     held only estates at will in their offices, have been made

     dependent on the Crown alone for their salaries, and standing

     armies kept in times of peace... Today under pretense of the

     emergency and reorganization the mischief has been recreated and

     reinstituted within the Nation and several States of the Union,

     and has once again left the people without any plain, speedy or

     adequate remedy, and is wholly contrary to the true original

     extent and end of the Union and civil Government as ordained and

     established by the People; and



     Whereas, In November, 1994 our Republican State Governors

     unanimously adopted the Williamsburg Resolve. In it, they said:

     "The challenges to the liberties of the people... comes from our

     own Federal government that has defied, and now ignores,

     virtually every constitutional limit fashioned by the framers to

     confine its reach and thus to guard the freedoms of the people"

     and that "Federal action has exceeded the clear bounds of... the

     Constitution, and thus violated the rights guaranteed to the

     people"; and



     Whereas, George Washington forewarned the Nation and several

     States of the Union in his 1796 farewell address "If in the

     opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the

     constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be

     corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates.

     But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one

     instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary

     weapon by which free governments are destroyed... "; and



     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Texas

     being duly apprised of the continuing emergency declared on March

     9, 1933, demands that the Gold and Silver Coin be fully

     reinstated and maintained as the lawful money and tender of

     payment of debts within the United States of America, and that

     any and all notes and obligations heretofore or hereinafter

     issued be brought back to and maintained at par value with the

     said Coin"; and



     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The Republican Party of Texas hereby

     demands the rescinding of the Emergency Banking Relief Act of

     March 9, 1933 and all subsequent related acts thereunder and

     demands a Presidential proclamation declaring the related state

     of national emergency declared on March 9, 1933 terminated

     thereby returning the United States of America to its original

     peacetime Constitutional Republic.



Adopted by unanimous vote on June 17, 1995 by the Republican Party of Texas

State Executive Committee



[Image]



Resolution of the California Republican Assembly



WAR EMERGENCY POWERS



Number 395.1



     Whereas: When the United States Congress declares an emergency,

     there is no Constitutional government, and are no restraining

     laws put upon Congress under War Emergency Powers; and



     Whereas: On March 9, 1933 the United States Congress approved War

     Emergency Powers pursuant to Sec. 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917

     and since March 9, 1933 the people of the United States of

     America have been in a state of delcared national emergency; and



     Whereas: Under the power delegated by these statutes the

     President may seize property, organize and control means of

     production, seize commodities, assign forces abroad, institute

     martial law, seize and control all transportation and

     communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise,

     restrict travel, and control the lives of the lives of the

     American people; and



     Whereas: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be

     suspended in case of declared national emergency; and



     Whereas: Citizens may be held for capital offenses without the

     indictment of a Grand Jury in the times of war or public danger;

     and



     Whereas: On March 9, 1933 Chapter 1, Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat 1

     the actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and

     proclomations issued by the president or the secretary of

     treasury pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b)

     of Sec. 5 as amended 12 USC's Sec. 95a has not been rescinded;

     therefore be it



     Resolved: The California Republican Assembly at the Annual

     Convention in San Diego, March 26, 1995, does hereby determine to

     inform members of state and federal elected and appointed offices

     that the United States of America is presently under War and

     Emergency Powers and has been for 62 years; be it further



     Resolved: That the California Republican Assembly will support

     only men and women who are willing to become aware of the

     usurpation of the power of the United States Constitution and who

     are committed to restoring our Constitution to its rightful place

     as the Supreme Law of our Land.



Adopted by the California Republican Assembly, March 26, 1995.



[Image]



                                BILL: SJR 7

              SHORT TITLE: OPPOSING FEDERAL MANDATES ON STATES

                       BILL VERSION: HCS SJR 7 (STA)



TITLE: Relating to mandates imposed on the states by the federal

government. SJR 7



     Relating to mandates imposed on the states by the federal

     government.

     BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:



     WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United

     States states:



     "The powers not delegatd to the Unites States by the

     Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to

     the States respectively, or to the people."; and



     WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal

     power as being that specifically granted by the United States

     Constitution and no more; and



     WHEREAS the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means

     that the federal government was created by the states

     specifically to be an agent for the states; and



     WHEREAS today, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of

     the federal government; and



     WHEREAS many federal mandates are directly in violation of the

     Tenth Amendment; and SJR 7 and



     WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v.

     United States, 2 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that the Congress may

     not simply commandeer the legislative ["and regulartory" - left

     out of Alaska] processes of the states; and



     WHEREAS a number of proposals now pending before the Congress may

     further violate the Tenth Amendment of the United States

     Constitution; and



     WHEREAS numerous resolutions addressing various mandates imposed

     on the states by federal law have been sent to the federal

     government by the Alaska State Legislature without any response

     or result; and



     WHEREAS the United States Constitution envisions sovereign states

     and guarantees the states a republican form of governmentp; and



     WHEREAS Alaska and its municipalities are losing their power to

     act on behalf of SJR 7



     WHEREAS Alaska and its municipalities are losing their power to

     act on behalf of state Citizens as the power of government is

     moving farther away from the people into the hands of federal

     agencies composed of officials who are not elected and who are

     unaware of the needs of Alaska and the other states; and



     WHEREAS the federal court system affords a means to liberate the

     states from the grips of federal mandates;



     BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims

     sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution for the

     United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and

     granted to the federal government by that constitution; and be it



     FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution serves as notice and demand

     to the federal government to cease and desist, effective

     immediately, imposing mandates on the states that are beyond the

     scope of its constituitionally delegated powers; and be it



     FURTHER RELOLVED that the Governor is respectfully requested to

     examine and challenge by legal action on behalf of the state,

     federal mandates contained in court rulings, federal laws and

     regulations, or federal practices to the extent those mandates

     infringe on the sovereignty of Alaska or the state's authority

     over issues affecting its citizens; and be it



     FURTHER RESOLVED that Alaska's sister states are urged to

     participate in any legal action brought under this resolution.



     COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Bill

     Clinton, President of the United States; the Honorable Al Gore,

     Jr., Vice-President of the United States and President of the

     U.S. Senate; the Honorable Strom Thurmond, President Pro Tempore

     of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the

     U.S. House of Representatives; to the Honorable Ted Stevens and

     the Honorable Frank Murkowski, U.S. Honorable Don Young, U.S.

     Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress; and

     to the the governor of each of Alaska's sister states.



[Image]



"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."... Hosea 4:6

Get involved! Many of your elected officials are not aware of this

information. Please write your representatives and inform them of this

website. The only way we can regain our Constitution is through knowledge.



If you know of resolutions being passed in your state regarding the

termination of the Title 12 USC section 95a & 95b or 10th Amendment

resolutions, please send email to: John Tello afc@metronet.com



Permission to copy and distribute this information is hereby granted by

virtue of public record.



[Image]  Return to American Freedom Coalition Home Page



---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Created 1/17/95 by American Freedom Communications

                           Last revised 8/25/95


*************************************************************************
UCC 1-207 Unsubscribe info - send to usa-forever-request@webcom.com the
word unsubscribe in the body of the message. | Listowner howard@pc-man.com

    

    
    Nah, you know you don't care about truth when you post the same old
    same old more than once.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
      We could nominate Mr. Statute as 'Box archivist.
    
      bb

    
    
    	re: .539
    
    	What the h*ll is your major defect Bill? I take the time to delete
    the posting that you complain about, and then you go and post it again!
    Yer a classic you are...
    
    
    jim

    
    I did not complain about the note. 
    I did not ask you to delete the note.
    
    I asked you a question.
    You gave me an answer.  (Weak, real weak, but an answer.)
    
    Then you took it upon yourself to delete the note.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	Ok, you didn't complain about the note....you stated that it had
    been posted here before. I deleted the note rather than take up disk
    space with a repost. You then take it upon yourself to repost the note
    without my permission (very naughty). I find your brief history to be
    weak....
    
    jim

    
    jim...
    
    YOU LIE!!! WHY DO YOU LIE!!!
    
    You're a nutter and nutters are nothing if not redundant....
    
    It was not a minor mistake on your part!!!!
    
    ADMIT IT YOU DAMN NUTTER!!!!!!!!!
    

    Re .548:
    
    > I asked you a question.
    
    You also issued an imperative.  ("Now this one Jim Sadin has to
    explain.")  Jim Sadin doesn't have to explain any more than you
    have to apologize for your libel.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

|   I deleted the note rather than take up disk space with a repost.
    
    You misunderstand the way Notes servers work.  A note such as yours,
    once posted, takes up space.  Deleted or not.  Only if the conference is
    *compressed* periodically is the space saved.  You can find out from
    /john how often that takes place.
                            
|   You then take it upon yourself to repost the note without my permission
|   (very naughty).
    
    Why is it "very naughty"?  You don't accept ownership for the content
    of your reposts.  So how can my repost of your repost be "very
    naughty"?  Are you saying you refuse to accept ownership of notes that
    you do *NOT* delete, but assert ownership of notes that you *do*
    delete?  (How very odd.)
    
|   I find your brief history to be weak....
    
    I figured you would.  Should I weave it into the grand unified
    conspiracy theories that you so enjoy reposting?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    Time to watch "The Point" again, Billy....

    
    
    It's going to be great to see the dims lose more seats next year as
    well as losing the White House.  Expect more stuck pig sounds from
    Bill.
    
    
    

re .552:

>|   I deleted the note rather than take up disk space with a repost.
>    
>    You misunderstand the way Notes servers work.  A note such as yours,
>    once posted, takes up space.  Deleted or not.  Only if the conference is
>    *compressed* periodically is the space saved.  You can find out from
>    /john how often that takes place.

He could also do a CONVERT/RECLAIM on the file.  While this technically doesn't
save the space of an old note it allows the space to be reused.

    
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  You think I would be
    interested in what newsgroups Bart Simpson's comic store proprietor
    follows?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Now this one Mr. Bill has to explain.  I was wondering when Mr. Bill was
    going to find one of Jim's reposts.  And he did.  Perhaps he'll repost
    all of Jims notes sometime soon.
    
    But here's the question.
    
    I guess Mr. Bill found .539 *so* "interesting" that he decided to post
    it again on .539.  Why?
    
    								-mr. doug
  
re: Mr. Bill,

  >  You misunderstand the way Notes servers work.  A note such as yours,
  >  once posted, takes up space.  Deleted or not.  Only if the conference is
  >  *compressed* periodically is the space saved.  You can find out from
  >  /john how often that takes place.
 
  So you took it upon yourself to take up even more disk space with a third
  post of the same information? Curious behaviour don't you think?

  Doug.   

    
    	Well, Mr. Bill, if a COMPRESS were to be done and Jim hadn't
    	deleted the entry, then you're right, it WOULDN'T save any
    	space.
    
    	However, he DID delete the entry, so the potential for saved
    	[or recovered] space does exist.  And as has been mentioned,
    	you decided to re-post it anyways.  And THAT is no savings
    	no matter how you look at it.
    

    
|   I guess Mr. Bill found .539 *so* "interesting" that he decided to post
|   it again on .539.  Why?
    
    Because I think it is important enough to show that information gets
    regurgitated again and again and again over time on "newsgroups" and
    "mailing lists" sometimes without a change other than the subject
    and the date it was unleashed upon the world.
    
|  So you took it upon yourself to take up even more disk space with a third
|  post of the same information? Curious behaviour don't you think?
    
    No.  See above.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    >Because I think it is important enough to show that information gets
    >regurgitated again and again and again over time on "newsgroups" and
    >"mailing lists" sometimes without a change other than the subject
    >and the date it was unleashed upon the world.
    
    	This is the stuff that urban legends are made of.
    

    
    	Oh well, if Mr. Bill wants to play notes games then who am I to
    stand in the way of his enjoyment? :)
    
    
    jim

    
|    	This is the stuff that urban legends are made of.
    
    Ayuh.  And every so many months, across AP's and Reuter's newswires,
    that same poor schmuck gets blown off that same toilet in some town
    in Israel.
    
    And it's how, going into 1996 and beyond, Randy Weaver's shotgun is
    *still* 1/4" short, even though we all here (well, almost everyone here)
    should know by now this is simply untrue.  The White Supremicists
    *counted* on this effect when they unleashed their MUAFF.  And it
    worked.  Worked very well.
    
    At best, Jim is a dupe who is helping this process.  But he finds
    it "interesting."  How.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    And, in the not-too-distant future, the 3+ million awarded to the
    Weaver family will balloon to twice that in some sad nutter's fire-side
    legend...
    

  >  Because I think it is important enough to show that information gets
  >  regurgitated again and again and again over time on "newsgroups" and
  >  "mailing lists" sometimes without a change other than the subject
  >  and the date it was unleashed upon the world.
  
  Which you already did in a previous, much shorter note; .539 deleted or
  not.

>|  So you took it upon yourself to take up even more disk space with a third
>|  post of the same information? Curious behaviour don't you think?
>    
>    No.  See above.
 
   Poor excuse.

I don't compress.

\john

|  Which you already did in a previous, much shorter note; .539 deleted or
|  not.
    
    Obviously, I disagree.
    
|  Poor excuse.
    
    Obviously, I disagree.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Blush, thanks \john.  (I really don't get you and that artist fellow
    mixed up.)
    
    So, Jim's deleting .539 saved no space.
    If I were to delete .539 now, it would save no space.
    
    Can we end this meta-discussion now?
    
    								-mr. bill

Did re-entering .539 take up the same space that the first version of that
note took up or did it take up a whole new chunk of disk space (bigger since 
the new note contained a header)?

Curious minds ...

    
    Jim, don't sweat billy.  He re-posted your stuff because it makes him
    feel important.  Being a brain-washed supporter of the liberals, he
    NEEDS to take every opportunity he can get now a days.  This is
    something that you tend to see in VERY immature adolescents.  I was
    surprised when I first encountered it, but I've learned to identify
    when I'm dealing with it, and just ignore the little pest.  Responding
    to them only encourages them to keep it up.

    re: .537
    
    BTW, it was an article from *FORTUNE*, not Time.  One hint is from
    the "Subject" line.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .559:
    
    > Because I think it is important enough to show that information gets
    > regurgitated again and again and again over time on "newsgroups" and
    > "mailing lists" sometimes without a change other than the subject
    > and the date it was unleashed upon the world.

    In what way is this different from anything you post?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .567:
    
    > If I were to delete .539 now, it would save no space.
    
    If you had never reposted .539, it would have saved space.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    BTW, did you know the Jews and Jewish sympathizers derailed the train
    in Arizona?
               
    								-mr. bill

    
    Oy!