Conference back40::soapbox

    
    
    	IMHO these guys are idiots. They are emulating the things they say
    they hate about the government. Saying they'll shoot anyone who
    disagrees with them or gets in their way and screwing people out of
    money. 
    
    I certainly hope this situation can be resolved without bloodshed.
    
    
    jim

    I'm only worried about the kids. I guess there's a few in there, it's
    not their fault their parents are a crop of paranoid yahoos. I hate to
    say this, but if they are as sincere about their beliefs and "township"
    as they seem to be, the government will crush them all.
    
    					lunchbox

    Too many people watching for it to become another stand off of blood
    shed. 

    If they stick to their little masquerade, there will be inevitable
    bloodshed. They are on property somebody else owns, and once the feds
    get themselves in position, they cannot back down, or every other group
    of tax protesting militia people will be encouraged to follow suit. If
    they don't surrender peacefully, the feds will go in with all guns
    blazing, which is why even anti-government folks like Weaver (who has
    felt FBI wrath first-hand) are asking them to give in.
    
    
    						lunchbox

    Seems to me that government action against these clowns will be
    publicly supported. They are pretty clearly not "minding their own
    business". Lawless individuals must expect their ways to be opposed.

    
    what's this?  what's happening?
    
    Don't tell me you guys have another loon problem.
    
    
    
    I.

    
    
    
    .6, Yes and day eight of the standoff.
    
    	 

    There's another group of rednecks called the Freemen, who have a ranch
    called the Justus Township. They have holed themselves up and armed
    themselves to the teeth, they stopped paying taxes, they tried to take
    land bounding their Township, they are convinced they can fend off the
    government, they have given themselves titles like "Justice of the
    Peace" and "Sheriff", and because of their refusal to pay their bills
    the ranch was seized and auctioned off. However, they refuse to leave,
    hence the standoff with the FBI. Two leaders of the group have already
    been arrested, and a third surrendered Saturday.
    
    These silly militias keep popping up in America. It's ridiculous to
    see: a hundred guys running through the woods with hunting rifles
    swearing up and down that they will fend off the government. They're a
    little old to be playing "soldiers", IMO.
    
    					lunchbox

    
    re: .8
    
    >There's another group of rednecks 
    
    Lunchie...
    
    Don't add to your ignorance with statements like this...
    
    hth
    

    Lunchbox,
    
    Did you get a chance to watch them interview with the news media this
    past Sunday? 

    In a way, I can sympathize with them on the "tax" thing, but this is
    not the way to go about their business.
    
    As long as you can be taxed on your land, you can never really "own"
    it.
    
    This is not really an example of loonies, IMO, but is an example of men
    who are fed-up with the out of control, money-hungry government.  I may
    not agree with their methods, but I silently agree with the point I see
    them making.  For all we know, they had paid off this land long ago,
    and are tired of paying government "rent" on their own property.  I
    can't really blame them if this is the case.
    
    There will be more examples of this sort of thing in the future. 
    People are sick and tired of government intrusion and over-taxation. 
    They do not like where 90% of their tax $$ are spent, and they
    seemingly can do NOTHING about it (vote in new blood, and you still end
    up with no real change).  Aggrivation and frustration make for potent
    motivators, though perhaps not the best ones for thoughtful action.
    
    Don't make the same mistake with this situation that many made with
    Waco.  These men are being characterized as "loonies" and "extremists"
    already by the media.  Before I actually make up my mind one way or
    another as to their sanity, I would like a bit more information on this
    group and their beef with the government.  I'm willing to bet a large
    sum of money that there is more here than meets the eye.
    
    They MAY be loonies, but I'll withold that judgement until I can get
    information from somewhere besides the mainstream media who did such a
    ham-fisted hatchet job on the Branch Dividians.  I simply do NOT trust
    the media to accurately report the news, or to disseminate all
    available data.  I'm funny that way.
    
    [Also note that I am in no way supporting the actions of the Freemen, I
    simply don't have enough information to support or condemn this group.]
    
    
    -steve

    In fairness many militia groups are saying these people need to come
    out as well.  
    
    These are not your standard seperatists.  They have set bounties for
    every government official in mussleshell and garfield counties.  One JP
    (lifelong resident) has moved his wife and two kids out of the state
    for their safety.  Ranchers on all sides are arming themselves and
    welcome the feds coming in, they only wish it had been earlier, as the
    "Freemen" wish to "annex" the private ranches in the area, as well as
    all state and federal land for the "Justus Township."  The ranch they
    are squatting on actually belongs to someone who would like to get in
    and plant their spring wheat, but has been run off their own property
    at gunpoint.  
    
    Whereas Koresh and Weaver both owned their property and sort-of minded
    their own business, this group has been squatting on property they
    don't own, taken the most extreme position of the "Sage Brush
    Rebellion" groups regarding public property, have set up their own
    "court" and justice system, have been writing hot checks and fraudulent
    money orders, and have threatened local people with death, kidnapping,
    imprisonment, and theft of property.  They won't pay taxes, yet are
    willing to sue every official they can think of in their own courts,
    and throw liens on the property of the officials.  While the liens are
    proven frivolous in the normal justice and civil system, it costs money
    and time to get them removed.
    
    meg

    re: .12
    
    I agree with Meg, regardless of the veracity of their 
    message, they cooked their own goose on this one.
    
    What I don't understand is that the media seems to portray
    them all (Waco, Ruby Ridge, and now the Freemen) as lunatic fringes
    catapulting themselves into the public eye, rather than as the symptoms 
    of much larger problems with our society and our federal government 
    which they honestly are.  
    
    The problem is not going away. The fissures between social classes
    will continue to grow, the anger at the federal government will
    continue to grow at all levels, the problem we see manifesting
    itself here will continue to get worse, unless we are willing to
    do something solid about civil rights, private property, the tax code
    and the size of the federal government.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    Are you telling me these Freemen aren't rednecks? Maybe that's a
    derrogatory term but the image it conjures up is pretty accurate. They
    have made their views on minority groups clear. I didn't see the
    interview, but quotes or excerpts from the show would be interesting,
    if anybody knows any. I can't respect anybody who has taken their issue
    with the government and hurt hardworking, law abiding Americans in the
    process. I can agree with their arguments about taxes, but they most
    certainly are loonies, if not brainwashed, to go about it this way.
    
    					lunchbox

    Well, now.  If this be true, that certainly would put them in the
    "loony" category.  I thought that they owned the land, and lost it due
    to not paying tax.  The new owner bought it via auction, but the
    squatters refuse to acknowledge this ownership.
    
    Placing a "bounty" on federal officials is plain stupid (and
    wrong-regardless of thier beef with the feds), if indeed they
    have done this. 
     

    They would have to be in the "loony" catagory anyway!!! They think 20
    people can fight the government!! They think the government will ignore
    it if they don't pay taxes and stockpile weopons!!! The U.S. has the
    largest volunteer military in the world, and enough firepower to blow
    up the solar system. To want to fight in the face of those odds is just
    plain loony.

    There are bounties put out for cops, lawyers, and other officials that
    go down to a bullet from local hoo-la-gins on a daily basis. Druglords,
    crime boss's, gang's... etc.
    
    I don't agree with what is going on with the guns and the Freeman croud
    either. But, I have had some heavy handed governing bodies make it
    unfair in landlording. Try a three month window to chase down someone
    who has trashed your unit? But I also don't have some goverment dweeb
    telling me how many cattle I can or cannot have grazing on my property
    either, or whom or what I can/cannot sell my product beef to. Case in
    another point, the 1980 Olympics and the fun games the Penut Farmer for
    Prez did to these people and to the athletes.

    I think it is still illegal for the government to use
    military force on American citizens.  Not that this technicality
    bothers the current crop of ham-fisted federales (Waco being a good
    example).
    
    There have been attempts made by this administration to allow the use
    of military against citizens, however.  I'm not sure if they slipped
    this in with the anti-terrorist legislation or not.
    
    
    -steve

    Treason is always illegal. Granted it isn't wartime (not yet, anyway,
    in Bosnia), but these people are clearly acting against the interest of
    the country and the community around them. They have bounties out on
    officials, they're threatening the neighbors and chasing them with
    guns, I think that qualifies as terrorism.
    
    						lunchbox

    they're just a bunch of dangerous jerks.

    With the move towards elimination of all freedom, which this country is
    quickly moving towards, we will see more and more of these people who
    just can't take it anymore. Call them loons if you want, but be
    prepared for the looney bin to soon be bursting at the seams.

    i see no legitimate excuse for their behavior.

    re-taxes
    
    Tax on land/homes is necessary for the protection of the home and the
    land. If your home catches fire, your taxes pay for the fire equipment
    and the firefighters. If somebody breaks into your house, the taxes pay
    for the police to come. If a foreign country wants to attack this
    country, taxes pay for the troops and the equipment. While you own your
    house, you pay taxes in order to pay for the civil service you recieve.

    re: .22
    
    I'm not saying it is legitimate, I'm saying that we should be prepared
    to see much more of it. Especially those who have grown up in the
    western US. They were free to conduct their lives as they saw fit with
    little to no government interference. They were free. Now the government 
    is eliminating that freedom with subjective laws and regulations
    designed only to usurp power. These people are not going to stand still 
    for this. These guys have gone overboard IMO. However, I can sympathize 
    with the reason for their lunacy. 
           

    re: .23
    
    I guess brainwashing is for real. I used to think it was nonsense. But,
    Lunchbox has proved me wrong.

 Z   In a way, I can sympathize with them on the "tax" thing, but this is
 Z   not the way to go about their business.
    
    I agree with this.  I was at a seminar this weekend on Constitutional
    issues and how the government was based on Christian principles.  Not
    Christianity mind you but Christian principles.  George Washington
    understood the admonitions given regarding the praying for and
    supporting of your government.  This is why he was very careful NOT
    to display any kind of revolt until the Continental Congress had been
    established.  In order for this kind of revolt to be valid, they should
    form their own government if they really believe they follow Christian
    principles.
        
 ZZ   As long as you can be taxed on your land, you can never really
 ZZ   "own" it.
    
    Absolutely.  There are NO property owners in Massachusetts or New
    Hampshire, since these two states levy property taxes to owners.  The
    rent we are being charged for our land is unconstitutional.  This is
    why we need to really define "reform", since many of us feel reform
    should not be a milktoast change in policies.  Many of the goodies we
    take for granted should be completely obliterated, overturned, and 
    legal under constitutional guidelines.

    At least I proved something. I know your comment was directed at me but
    I think you are just as programmed to think you have the freedom to do
    whatever you want in this country. This isn't the land of the free, nor
    the home of the brave. Freedom in this country is a failed experiment.

    Lunchbox:
    
    It is not a failed experiment.  Our generation was simply uninformed
    that freedom has a heavy price.  Freedom is not free.

    Jack-
    
    	While it says nothing in the constitution about "renting" your
    land, it also doesn't say anything about the protection and privilages
    you enjoy that are the fruit of the taxes you pay. If you think about
    it, one third of your pay isn't that much considering you have 24 hour
    monitoring of this country with incredible technology, fire and police
    personnel a phone call away, parks to enjoy with your family, and a
    system of checks and balances. While this country isn't perfect, it's a
    lot better than the alternitives.

    Lunchbox, if we TRULY funded only that which is constitutional, then we
    could afford much of these little perks such as Police and Firefighters
    on 1/20th of our salary.  

    sounds like we've got ourselves a liberal on our hands

    Correct, Freedom isn't free. While there is a lot of "pork" that our
    taxes go to, there are a lot of necessary services, too.

    Don't EVER use the "L" word to descibe me!!!!!

  .29  privileges
       alternatives


      nnttm, really

    re.34
    
    	Every time I note in here I feel like I have a nasal teacher
    looking over my shoulder to correct every spelling error I make, yet 
    I always see others making spelling and grammatical errors and going
    unchecked. What Gives?!
    

    
    
    	re: .35
    
    	you just keep getting caught is all...
    
    
    

    it's a inishiation right.

    Lunchbox:
    
    My guess is that there are things Unconstitutional that you wouldn't be
    willing to stop funding.  Same with most of us, since we have been
    conditioned to think socialistically.
    
    

    re: .27
    
    >I think you are just as programmed to think you have the freedom to do
    >whatever you want in this country.
    
    If you think that I think this, you haven't been paying attention.

    I'm being singled out, or watched more or something...

    we've all been condishioned to think socialistikally.

    
    
    	re: .40
    
    	paranoia alert! :)

    Are you guys picking on poooooor lunchbox? How come your nice to
    everyone else, but only attack him?  {sniff}   :)

    Regarding the cattle and numbers thing.  You are free to ruin you own
    land with as many cattle as you wish to graze on it.  You are not free
    to do the same on grazing leases on federal land, although the cow-unit
    density on most pieces is still too high to be sustainable over years. 
    One only has to hunt on BLM land with grazing leases to see that the
    allotments are either too many cattle, or ranchers are ignoring the
    density of cow-units limitation on the land.  Overgrazing doen't just
    affect me as a recreational user or the single rancher doing it.  It
    eventually impacts water quality, topsoil conservation, air quality
    (see topsoil conservation) and the survival of wildlife that shares the
    grazing lease with the cattle.  
    
    For those of you who live in the east, it may seem insane to limit the
    number of cattle on a lease to one cow-unit/40 acres, but in the
    western desert that can be marginal for sustainable grazing and
    riparian protection.  
    
    meg

    Dem bellies full, but we hungry.
    
    			hth
    
    					lunchbox

    Lunchbox:
    
    Think of Soapbox like that one celled creature from Star Trek.  You
    know, the one that roams the universe and the pancake looking thingies
    attacked Mr. Spocks back.  Soapbox is comprised of many carbon units,
    but in essence, they are one unit, and they attack.
    
    The attack usually comes when everybody has collective menstrual
    cramps.  They attack spelling and mainly anybody who is a social
    conservative.
    
    -Jack

>               <<< Note 692.40 by CSLALL::SECURITY "LUNCHBOX" >>>

>    I'm being singled out, or watched more or something...

	not by me, i can assure you.  i act on this pedantic nature at
	totally random junctures.

    I don't watch Star Trek, but I think I get what you are saying.

      Aren't the Fremen the lunatic race on the Planet Harrakis
      (Dune)???
    
      Whose leader is one Muad'dib???
    
    						Tony

    re: .46, Meg.
    
    And that one cow per 40 acres is a good number because some bureaucrat
    says so, I suppose.  These ranchers have been grazing these lands for
    over 100 years now. They know and understand the land better than
    anyone in Washington. Bureaucrats say they are overgrazing because
    they are over a set number of cattle/acre. These ranchers know that the
    overgrazing crap in a policy put into place to control them.

    
    
                                 40 acres sounds about 
                                    right to me!!!
                           (__) / 
    			   (OO)
    		     _______\/ 
                    /|     | | 
                   / | |w__| |
                  *  ~ ~   ~ ~
    
    

>    Are you guys picking on poooooor lunchbox? How come your nice to
>    everyone else, but only attack him?  {sniff}   :)

Shaddup, Ralston!

    re: .40
    
    Help! help! I'm being repressed!!

    
    re: .52
    
    >Shaddup, Ralston!
    
    
    Shouldn't that have been "Puppy-Chow"????
    

re: .51
			  (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| That's a funny-looking cow.  Perhaps she is an 
                    ~~    ~~ over-grazed Eastern cow? 

    

  >    <<< Note 692.54 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "tumble to remove burrs" >>>
    
  >        re: .52
    
  >      >Shaddup, Ralston!
    
  >       Shouldn't that have been "Puppy-Chow"????
    
    
    I love SOAPBOX, it's just like being in 8th grade again.

    re.55
    
    		                        Bugger off, Leech!!! 40 acres of
                                           land to graze by yourself
                                           adds up around the middle, kid!
                                  (__) /
                                  (OO)
    			   ________\/     
                          /|      | |
                         / | |w___| |
                        *  ~ ~    ~ ~

    re: .27
    
    >This isn't the land of the free, nor the home of the brave.
    
    Couldn't agree with you more.  Especially in a cowardly nation that
    calls patriots (defined by those who call for NO compromize on our
    founding documents) "extremists".
    
    We are a nation that is too afraid to succeed or fail on our own
    merits.  We have no clue as to what "freedom" is all about.  We only
    seek security these days, and from the wrong source.
    
    >Freedom in this country is a failed experiment.
    
    No, it was a very successful experiment, actually.  The problem is that
    we fell asleep at the wheel.  Many of our FF went on record as saying
    that this nation would not be overthrown from without, but from within,
    and that we must be ever-vigilant.  Very prophetic words, indeed.  
    
    By the time the masses understand (assuming they ever do)what has been 
    done to them, it will be too late to react...i.e., if they can be
    bothered to raise their apethetic heads from the tv long enough to make
    an attempt to actually DO anything at all.
    
    
    -steve    

    oh, steve, so you think these "freemen" are patriots?

    Patriots?
    
    	maybe it's a stereotype, but it seems that these people have a lot
    of white supremecist issues they are trying to accomplish. I agree that
    this is a cowardly nation content to let everything be done for them,
    however. But these "patriots"  that I have seen are a bunch of
    beer-bellied rednecks that have some paranoid idea that the government
    is out to get them, and some ridiculous idea that they can take their
    hunting rifles and defend "their" land.

    
    	Dave, except for the "rednecks" remark, you pretty much desc-
    	ribed pretty much all of the gun-nuts in here.
    
    	8^)
    

    I have nothing against guns, myself the owner of a Glock model 19
    compact 9mm. As long as people have them for the "right" reasons, I
    have no problem.

    
    
    
    .56 Now I remember you! 
    
    

    re: .59
    
    I knew SOMEONE would try to make this connection.  8^)
    
    I was not referring to the "freemen", with this comment.  As I said 
    previously, I am reserving judgement on the freemen situation until more 
    facts are revealed (by sources other than the mass media).
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 692.59 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "april is the coolest month" >>>

| oh, steve, so you think these "freemen" are patriots?

	Bonnie, I think the lowest paid Patriot gets about $200K right now. So
I don't think they can be considered freeman. The Cinncinnati Bengals play like
they aren't getting paid, so maybe it would be better to compare freeman to
them? :-)

    Not just the Freemen, all of these militia groups I have seen have fit
    this description. Perhaps you could name one that doesn't.

    
    
    re: .61
    
    	I ain't a white supremicist and I'm certainly not beer bellied.
    Also, I'd like to hear why a hunting rifle is an inferior weapon when
    compared with a military firearm.
    
    
    jim

    Are you in a militia group, Jim? The only NH one I know of is the
    Dragoons.

    
    
    re: .66
    
    	perhaps you should check out the leader of the Ohio militia...he's
    african american and I doubt he's pushing a white supremicist agenda.
    
    
    jim

    .64
    
    who were you referring to then?  who, in your eyes, is
    a "patriot" who has been labeled an "extremist"?

    A little late back there, glen!!

| <<< Note 692.67 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>


| I ain't a white supremicist and I'm certainly not beer bellied.


	Jim, I'm not even sure you have room for a belly!

| <<< Note 692.72 by CSLALL::SECURITY "LUNCHBOX" >>>

| A little late back there, glen!!


	Yeah.....I know.....but you took too long to turn around

    Glen-
    
    		as soon as I entered that note I knew what you were going
    to say!!! 

    
    .62
    
    >As long as people have them for the "right" reasons, I
    >have no problem.
    
    And who exactly determines what the 'right' reasons are to own a
    firearm?
    

| <<< Note 692.76 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Little Chamber of Full Body Frisks" >>>



| And who exactly determines what the 'right' reasons are to own a firearm?

	That's easy, Deb. It's determined by anyone who DOESN'T own a firearm. 

    
    
    re: .68
    
    	Nope, not a militia member nor would I want to be. If a time ever
    does come to fight, the worst thing to do would be to be organised into
    a unit somewhere....you'd just get closed in upon and squashed. During
    the revolutionary war the British commanders often complained that
    there was no where to fall back to to regroup...the enemy was in every
    household! 
    
    	jim

    >and who exactly determines what the 'right' reasons are to own a
    firearm?
    
    
    That's up to the individual. Somebody else might think it's OK to go
    out and pick off deer, to an animal lover that may be wrong. I said I
    have no problem with people owning them for the right reasons. I meant
    the reasons that I personally agree with. I'm not the government and it
    isn't up to me to determine why people should own guns. Morally, some
    of the reasons people do bothers me, and I have a problem with these
    reasons. I didn't mean any kind of gun control should be installed.
    
    					lunchbox

    
    	Jim, I thought for sure you'd spring that "militia = people"
    	definition on him and tell him that we're ALL part of the
    	militia.
    

    Why, then, did you feel it necessary to tell us that you "ain't a white
    supremecist and certainly are not beer bellied"? I was speaking of
    militia people when I said that.

    Militia groups are unconstitutional unless they recognize Clinton as
    the CiC.  They should establish their sovereignty first. 

    
    
>               <<< Note 692.81 by CSLALL::SECURITY "LUNCHBOX" >>>
>
>    Why, then, did you feel it necessary to tell us that you "ain't a white
>    supremecist and certainly are not beer bellied"? I was speaking of
>   militia people when I said that.
    
    	I was referring to the note immediately following yours, entered by
    Shawn. He said you'd just described most of the gun owners in here.
    
    jim

    Oh, that doesn't descibe me either, by a long shot!!!

    re Ralston,
    
    First that is one cow-unit per x acres not single cow.  Secondly I do
    get out in the woods and also know many of the wildlife biologists and
    resource managers that work BLM issues.  They are not fat beaurocrats
    living in an Ivory tower back east.  
    
    Thirdly I did grow up here, and have seen the results of overgrazing. 
    The Sonoran and Colorado Deserts used to have grass as high as a cow's
    belly.  Try to find that now.  The damage done in the last 75 years
    will take over a century to recover from.  While a person can do what
    ever he or she wishes to with their own property, I want the property
    that I jointly own with 250+ million other US Citizens to be cared for
    properly.
    
    meg

    re: .79
    
    The government should not be determining the "right" reasons, either. 
    In fact the Second Amendment says specifically that it (the government)
    cannot infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
    
    
    -steve

    .58
    
    |Couldn't agree with you more.  Especially in a cowardly nation that   
    |calls patriots (defined by those who call for NO compromize on our   
    |founding documents) "extremists".
    
    again, steve, would you name some patriots who have been 
    called extremists?  i'm really curious and would like to 
    see some names.

    I completely agree. There are certain people who own guns that I would
    rather did not, and certain people that use guns in ways I don't agree
    with, and that's what I meant when I mentioned the "right" reasons. In
    my eyes, there are plenty of right and wrong reasons to own a gun.
    However, I wouldn't want the government to act even if they completely
    supported my beliefs. It's not up to any one person or body to decide
    who can own what and who can do what with firearms.

    Samuel Adams for one.

    re: .71
    
    You can start with the NRA, who refuses to budge on the Second
    Amendment.  By the way Schumer and the media in general talk about
    their (the NRA's) "extremism", you would think that they were a
    terrorist organization.
    
    Many militia members/groups are patriots, yet all militia groups are 
    labelled "loonies" and "extremists" in general (and of course, my
    personal favorite of ignorant remarks: "red-necks").  A nice broad brush 
    by our national propaganda machine, parroted by folks who rely on the
    mass media outlets as their sole source of information.
    
    
    -steve

    The NRA is not a militia group, Steve. I think what was being asked for
    was a specific militia group who are patriots, yet are not extremists.

Dear Mr. Lunchbox, sir,

.60>			that have some paranoid idea that the government
.60>    is out to get them,

Do you not, on occasion, get the sense that the government is out to get you,
or are you consistently of the opinion that the government is your friend,
here to help you?

And, whilst I have the moment, I'm still confused re: your opinion of the
ownership of firearms, as you indicate that you haven't a problem with those
who have them "for the right reasons", you mention that "the right reasons"
are those with which you agree, and that certain people having them for other
that "the right reasons", shouldn't. Again, as has been asked, who is it that
gets to set the guidleines for which reasons are "right" and which are not?
Should we assume that if someone with appropriate power/influence were to
decide that your "reasons" for owning weren't "right" anymore, that you'd
be happy to just hand over your Glock and be on your merry way? You see, the 
way I see it, it's nobody's goddam business why anyone has whatever weapon 
they want, provided that they don't employ it to break the law.

    Who the fudge is Malerheum? That doesn't matter anyway...
    
    The remark I made about "right" reasons was intended to mean (before
    everybody looked way too deeply between the lines) that all kinds of
    people have guns. Hunters have guns, police have guns, gang members
    have guns, my girlfriend's 68 year old grandmother has guns, normal
    people have guns that they will never fire, etc. Some of these people
    do things with their guns that I don't agree with in the least, and I
    should hope that you don't either. I have a real problem with police
    being trigger happy and shooting unarmed kids. So much for me thinking
    the government is my friend. While I have a problem with this, I
    realize that this is my opinion, and while I'm sure there are people
    that agree with me, there are also those that feel that if a kid is out
    stealing cars, he deserves whatever he gets. I don't make the rules,
    and I don't trust anybody else to either. I have a problem with the way
    certain people use guns, but that is my personal opinion and thus is my
    problem.I don't approve of any legislation to control guns, as it will
    only hurt the law abiding gun owner.
    
    						lunchbox

    He said fudge.

>    The NRA is not a militia group, Steve. 
    
    As a member, I am well aware of what the NRA is and is not.  I never
    said they were a militia group.
    
>    I think what was being asked for
>    was a specific militia group who are patriots, yet are not extremists.
    
    Wrong.  I was asked who is being called "extremists", yet does not fit
    this moniker.  
    
    My original comment was meant in a general sense.  I was trying to point
    out trends, not individuals.
    
    In a general sense I can add most Constitutionalists to my list.  They 
    seem to be looked upon more and more as extremists, too.  In
    fact, one propaganda outlet coined the phrase "Constitutional extremist", 
    which actively attempts to makes a good, patriotic position seem somehow
    sinister.  
    
    If you haven't read George Orwell's _1984_, I highly recommend it. 
    Especially interesting is the way the media and vocabulary were
    used to manipulate/control the populace.
    
    
    -steve

    there's another reason that the locals in Garfield County like to 
    see the feds and newsies around: rent. THey are getting around $1K/
    month for places they were lucky to get $200/month before all this 
    started. 
    
    

    
    
    
    .95
    
    
    	NRA has become an extreme group, IMHO.
    
    	When they send letters to editors posing as the common citizen
    	with phoney names to push their agenda, that's desperate.
    
    	Not the act of a respectable group. 
    
    	They have turned away from their membership and courted
    	the extreme. 
    
    	I could have almost voted for Bush again when he dropped his
    	membership. ( I mean if he ran again.)
    

    
    re: .97
    
    re: phony letters..
    
    Of course, you have the evidence to back that assertion?
    

    And HCI handouts do not count as evidence.

    
			  (__)
                          (00)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| Live free and SNARF! 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    .90
    
    |You can start with the NRA, who refuses to budge on the Second   
    |Amendment.
    
    Quite the broad brush there, stating that all NRA members are
    patriots.  Anyway, I was looking for specific names of people,
    not organizations.  Individual "patriots" who had been labeled
    "extremists".  In this century, please.   

How about Barry Goldwater?

    Barry Goldwater
    
    
    
    Ask the 58,000 men and women who did not come back from VN...
    
    Ask the thousands of homeless men who did...
    
    He was right, LBJ was, well lets leave it as wrong...

    re: .101
    
    To what point?  We aren't likely to agree, it would seem.  My original
    comment was one of generality, not specifics.
    
    As far as the NRA goes, I never said all NRA members were patriots-
    this is your conclusion alone.  I would venture to say that they are
    mroe patriotic than most- at least they care about part of the
    Constitution and fight to protect it.
     
    You asked who is being called an "extremist" (who isn't), I answered.
    But since you seem to go from generic to specific (in wanting a name),  
    I'll give you one:  Steve Leech.  
    
    The media, via its broad brush, is demonizing me as an "extremist", when 
    it demonizes the NRA as such.  In reality, the NRA is on solid ground, 
    Constitutionally, on their Second Amendment stance- but this matters
    not to the propaganda machine.
    
    All this is really beside the point I was trying to make, in any case.
    
    
    [If you want the name of a "famous" person, try Harry Browne.  I've
    heard him labelled as an "extremist", specifically.  Unfortunately for
    the label tossers, he is on solid ground, Constitutionally (and
    economically), with his ideas.  If this is today's brand of
    "extremism", then I am right on the money with my previous comments
    that you bring into question.]
    
    
    -steve 

    Barry Goldwater called _himself_ an extremist in that
    famous quote of his that i cannot recall verbatim.

    He just wanted to beat the media to the punch.  8^)

    The "daisey cutter" commercial did not label him as an extremist? I
    must look up the word again. Painting someone as taking us to nuclear
    war must be childs play 8-)

    i am not familiar with the "daisey cutter" commercial.
    
    steve, you hold extremist views, but i would not call you
    an bona fide extremist.  to me, an extremist is someone who takes,
    well, extreme (and usually illegal) action to get a point 
    across.  like these bozos in montana.

    
    
    .98 You mean 
    
    a) You missed this in the news or you think I'm making it up
    b) You've heard this but don't believe it and have something to
       contribute.
    
    

    When officials of the government do not act properly, people begin to
    fear what might happen to them. For example what happened to Allen
    Woodbridge.  Please read it when you have the opportunity.  Firearms
    5683.291
    Fear creates fear.  Mistrust leads to lack of communication than armed
    conflict.

>LANDO::OLIVER_B "april is the coolest month"          6 lines   1-APR-1996 16:15
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    i am not familiar with the "daisey cutter" commercial.
>    
>    steve, you hold extremist views, but i would not call you
>    an bona fide extremist.  to me, an extremist is someone who takes,
>    well, extreme (and usually illegal) action to get a point 
>    across.  like these bozos in montana.
    
    
    If conservatives 'labeled' people so easily as you have labeled me, we
    would be so throughly trashed in the media and society it would be
    incredable. What do YOU know about me? I w ould really like to know?
    
    Steve

 .111  i'll bet she at least knows you're not Steve Leech.

    re: .108
    
    Okay, fair enough.  I'm curious as to what views of mine you consider
    extremist, and why.  I ask this so I can understand what your
    definition of "extremist" is, and why you define it as such. 
    
    
    -steve

    re: .109
    
    I've got something to contribute.  I took a part in the mailing (the
    only one I know of) to the networks.  Though the NRA did have a ready
    made post card (for convenience, and it was convenient) minus postage,
    I can assure you that I not only read it before sending it in myself,
    but I agreed with it and added my own comments.  
    
    I can assure you that it was my signature on the card, as well.
    
    The NRA has had a couple of these mailings- one to a few networks and
    one to local Congresscritters (and I admire their organization on this
    major undertaking)- both of which I took a willing part in.  In both
    instances I read and agreed with what I was sending in.  In both
    instances, I added my own comments to the card, as well.
    
    I think the news probably scewed the context a bit, which is normal
    when reporting on the eeeevyyyl NRA.
    
    
    -steve

    
    
    
    .114 This was written to the newspapers, not the networks.
    	 The people that signed the letters don't exist. This is not
    	 the typical cookie cutter postcard.
    
    	 Did you hear about this or not?
    
    

I haven't, please elaborate ...

    
    Bonnie,
     
    Do you consider Randy Weaver an "extremist"??
    

    .111  
    
    mr steve keith, i was addressing mr steve leech, not you.

    extremist - n., a person who advocates or resorts to extreme
                    measures, esp. in politics.
    
    this isn't the "a" topic, nor is it meant to be, but i believe
    steve leech's views on "a" to be extremist.  now, if it came to
                  ^^^^^
    my attention that steve leech could be found outside a woman's 
    health clinic harassing, blocking, and verbally abusing women
    trying to get into said clinic, i would then label him an
    extremist on that particular subject.  this is only an example
    to shed light on my take on the word "extremist".

    
      OK, let's see if we can come up with a use for this much-misused
     word, "extreme".  At one time, this was an effective way of
     dismissing various views in the USA - by saying Barry Goldwater
     or George McGovern was an "extremist", you no longer had to consider
     what they were saying, and you won the election.  One of Ronald
     Reagan's many little accomplishments was to defeat this strategy,
     with the result that calling somebody "extremist" is now viewed by
     a skeptical public as just another campaign ploy.  I've noticed
     that in the last few years, the label has become so watered down
     as to be ineffective and almost meaningless - it just means that
     you disagree with whoever it is.  Waste of a useful word, IMHO.
    
      Where a condition is Boolean (or nearly so), all positions are
     extreme.  You are either extremely dead or extremely alive.  The
     idea of "extremism" only makes sense if the condition is graded,
     e.g. "on a scale of 1 to 10".  Writing "1" or "10" in response
     means you take the extreme position on one end or the other.  This
     does NOT mean that you're incorrect - sometimes, the extreme position
     turns out (later) to have been stunningly correct.  A mass moving
     at a velocity close to zero would be extremely slow, near the speed
     of light extremely fast.
    
      This is NOT the same thing as saying a view is in the majority or
     minority.  If for some graded condition, 99% of all samples are at
     one extreme, they are still extremist, although they are the overwhelming
     majority of the population.
    
      Similarly, this definition is not pejorative.  I freely admit to
     being extremist in this sense on some issues, not on others.  For
     example, under this definition, advocates of a "single-payer" health
     insurance scheme are, in this sense, "extremist", because there
     just isn't any position further along the scale than theirs.
    
      This is so sensible a meaning, it will never be common usage.
    
      bb

    
    re: .119
    
    So Bonnie... We can label someone like Jesse Jackson an "extremist" for
    advocating boycotts and ribbon-wearing and protests at such functions
    like the Oscars... right?
    

    i don't know about jesse, but martin luther king was 
    definitely an extremist.

    YOU GUYS ARE ALL WACKOS!!!
    
    except for me of course.   :)

    
    
    So, it's really not a bad thing to be sometimes...
    

    .124
    nope. 

    .119
    
    Okay, that's how I figured you were using the term.  The other thing I
    was asking is an example of one of my _views_ that you think to be
    extremist, and why.
    
    
    -steve

    
    
    
    .116
    
    While my memory isn't perfect. It happened I think last August.
    An offical in the NRA sent letters for the Editorial sections
    of Newpapers across the country BUT signed and addressed from
    local citizens (to each paper that they were sent to). 
    These people didn't even exist. 
    These letters were published in the Atlanta Constitution and a paper 
    in Tennesse I think before the ruse was discovered. 
    
    
    
    
     

    Stand by.  The media hasn't finished viliifying these people yet.
    This whole excersize is a smoke screen.  Did you see morris dees
    on the tube last night?  What a crock.  Even some folks in here
    been talking about "rednecks", militias and whackos.  Well, IMO:
    These people went looking for a confrontation, and by golly they're
    gonna get one.
    
    You need to see through the crap, hype, emotionalism and
    misinformation.  This whole deal is about BANKING & FINANCE.  The
    boys were onto something, right or wrong, but they rocked the boat
    a little too much.
    
    IMO:  This deal will end on 4/19.  Hopefully peacefully, when they
    give up on this day.  Who knows.
           
    If you want to do something CONSTRUCTIVE, why don't discuss the
    specific issues which these people were dabbling in.  A fine
    example of this is common law.  It's getting knocked around pretty
    heavily in the media... but apparently the State of Michigan is trying
    to use it to finally hang Dr. Kivorkian.  Hey, if the state can
    use it, apparently us peons can demand it as well, since it's
    SPECIFICALLY stated in the Bill of Rights.  The only problem is, these
    days our courts operate in Equity, or Admiralty, not common law, which
    is why the freemen are so paranoid about the legal system.  The
    system is broken.  We all know it, yet we'd like to see the freemen
    give up and be tried by it.  
    
    What these folks did was wrong, the way they went about it is wrong, 
    but they are CORRECT on their underlying beliefs that the gov't
    is haywire.
    
    Finally, if you take the time to read the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE,
    you will see that it is our DUTY and OBLIGATION to abolish tyranical
    gov't.  The only issue is HOW do you do that?   The process is
    broken.  I'm sure the papers back in the 1770's were full of slamming
    people who thought like Sam Adams and Co.  I'm NOT saying these
    people are rightuous, I'm just saying take a look at the WHOLE
    SITUATIION.  
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

    re: Note 692.11 by ACISS2::LEECH
    
    } In a way, I can sympathize with them on the "tax" thing, but this is
    } not the way to go about their business.
    }  As long as you can be taxed on your land, you can never really "own"
    
    True. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS:
    
    The freemen "used obscure law" to take OWNERSHIP (allodial title) of 
    their land.
    The bank(s) foreclosed on them.  The banks and courts probably
    ignored their "legal" manuevering (because they goofed up somewhere).
    So, now they've been foreclosed on.  The local sheriff has to 
    extract them from the property.  The freemen conviene a common law
    court and convict a bunch of people (sheriff, judges, etc...), file
    bonds etc... on these people and then start trying to write
    checks against the liened entities.  For some reasn, some of the
    checks CLEARED inside the system (LIGHTBULB TIME).  Shortly thereafter
    the checks, or cheques are dishonored, things bounce.  People get
    pissed....  now they're on the national news.
    
    I believe the "obscure law" was commercial liens.  The bonds are
    called "distress bonds", which used to be how to get IMMEDIATE LEGAL
    ACTION when you were sitting in jail.  If I tie up a judges finances,
    he'll be hearing my case real quick like, and not let me rot in jail
    for months.
    
    These people goofed up, though.  They (IMO) used the system as an
    offensive weapon, when they should have been concerned with
    defense.  Like abating the foreclosure, in court.  Something like
    that.  They took a heavy and illogical (i.e. liened for  billions of
    dollars) approach, they painted themselves into a corner and now
    they are stuck.
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

    re: Note 692.23 by CSLALL::SECURITY
    
    } Tax on land/homes is necessary for the protection of the home and the
    } land. If your home catches fire, your taxes pay for the fire
    } equipment
    
    "A man's home is his castle".  Take a look at history and taxation.
    Your local taxes pay for SCHOOLS.  Fire and police are new, after all,
    you can't force someone to pay $2000-4000/year in tax and have them
    get nothing for their money.  Gotta try and justify it somehow.
    
    Things used to be FEE based.  Applications, permits and licenses used
    to pay for gov't services.  It used to be sufficient.  If you used
    something, you paid for it.  If you don't use it, you don't pay.
    Of course, that's not to say we let your house burn down.  If you
    were robbed, under common law, that is a crime, and the sheriff
    is obligated to act.  Having the sheriff come out to hassle you
    over something stupid, like a junk car parked in your yard is not a
    crime.  Things like this are common today, you can't leave your house
    and NOT be a criminal, cause everyone's doing "SOMETHING"
    wrong/illegal.  This breeds contempt for the law.  Disrespect for
    lawfull authority.... mistrust.  Us vs. Them.
    
    You need to go back and look at some history.  You know that a 
    standing army is (was) illegal.  We're allowed a NAVY.  Conviniently,
    the Marine Corps is tied TIGHTLY to the Navy... wonder why?  Now
    they've codified everything under "ARMED FORCES", allowing for a huge
    standing army, even during peacetime.  right?  Wrong?  I don't know, 
    just look at history.  Apparently it was a PITA mustering an
    effective national army ASAP in the time of need.
    
    FWIW: this stuff (federal level) was paid for by tariffs and duties
    on goods entering our country.  Something we just junked via GATT.
    Everything is bass-ackwards now.  
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

        \What these folks did was wrong, the way they went about it is
        \wrong, but they are CORRECT on their underlying beliefs that the
        \gov't is haywire.
    
        yeah, so what if they're correct on their underlying briefs?  
        will you cry about the big, bad haywire government when it 
        prosecutes these people in court?

| <<< Note 692.131 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "april is the coolest month" >>>


| yeah, so what if they're correct on their underlying briefs?
| will you cry about the big, bad haywire government when it
| prosecutes these people in court?

	I don't think it is illegal to wear something under your briefs. Not
practical, maybe....but never against the law. Even in Helm's state you can do
this.

>        \What these folks did was wrong, the way they went about it is
>        \wrong, but they are CORRECT on their underlying beliefs that the
>        \gov't is haywire.

	i know - it's not like it takes a brain surgeon to realize that
	the government is "haywire", at least to some extent.  that does
	nothing to mitigate the circumstances they've put themselves and
	the feds in.

    
      By the way.  How come the government doesn't easily win these
     sieges with a bit of technology ?  I mean, can't you starve,
     thirst, freeze, heat them out or something ?  I mean, even back
     in the Medieval period, much stronger forces could win a siege.
    
      Mebbe the FBI/BATF/assorted feds dunno there own business well ?
    
      bb

    the freemen convene a common law court...this is too funny.
    is this anything like a kangaroo court?

| <<< Note 692.135 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "april is the coolest month" >>>

| the freemen convene a common law court...this is too funny.
| is this anything like a kangaroo court?

	Not if the baseball players are on strike....

>        will you cry about the big, bad haywire government when it 
>        prosecutes these people in court?

I've got (or soon will have, one hopes) a 2-liter bottle of Coke Classic
that says some of them will never make it to court alive.

    oh, jack, i'll take that bet.  they won't lay a hand on
    those fellers.  not one little finger.

    I doubt they will try any WACO style festivities this election year.
    They seem to lack a convenient excuse, too, with no ready made villain
    sexually abusing children or other such sources of high tension.
    
    Which doesn't mean it couldn't have a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance
    Kid ending, either.

    Jack:
    
    If Bonnie wins, should I divert my path to Boxboro and deliver the Coke
    I owe you to her?  This way I won't have to walk around at our next
    bash nekkid with one boot on and I won't be jeered at.

    
    
    So.. what's the main problem here?
    
    Don't they have the main "perps" in custody??
    
    Is it just a case of eviction of the rest??
    

re: Note 692.135 by LANDO::OLIVER_B
    
   } the freemen convene a common law court...this is too funny.
   }  is this anything like a kangaroo court?

Ya, it's funny alright.  And when done PROPERLY it is the most lawful
court in this country.  Kangaroo courts are what we currently have,
witness cases like:

"The State of Ohio vs.  1984 Lincoln Continental"  or something
stupid like that.  These are "administrative" issues, tried by
tribunals, which APPEAR to be operating "officially".  In reality, they
are "legal", but not necessarily lawful.  If you know what is going on
you can counter this move.  A good example of this would be forcing the
IRS to take their "case" against you FROM "tax court" and changing
venue to US District Court.  Now the IRS has some problems, because they
are on shaky ground to begin with, and now they're going someplace where
the RULES are less favorable for THEM.  Ideally, when this happens the
matter is "dropped".  In reality, the judge thinks you're a pinhead and
screws with you.  So much for our "legal system".

You want some kangaroo court (that you probably didn't hear about?) laughs,
howbout da judge who REFUSED to hear a case in his court because a "kangaroo
court" previously adjudicated the matter?  This borders on problems called
double jeopardy, and the judge threw the case out (they were traffic tickets).

The "problem" is this "obscure law" works.  Something about "precedent".
When done right, nobody will come near you.  When done wrong the system will
go out of its way to hang you in front of jeering folks like you.
(thumbs down!  feed them to the lions!)
                           
Regards,
MadMike        

                                   

re:        <<< Note 692.140 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

Er, no, I don't think that delaying this until the Montana matter is settled
would be a wise idea, Jacko.

    changing venue, yes.  that i've heard of.
    
    obscure law?  what is this?  a cousin of natural
    law?  or is it secret common law or what?  

re: Note 692.29 by CSLALL::SECURITY
    
}    	While it says nothing in the constitution about "renting" your
}    land, it also doesn't say anything about the protection and privilages
}    you enjoy that are the fruit of the taxes you pay. 

100% absolute BS.  The DoI mentions "Life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness".  This includes the absolute right to CONTRACT, and to OWN
property.  You can not tax me for my mere existance.  This is known as
slavery.  This is further protected by the 5th Amendment, where you will not 
be deprived of the above, without DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  And when "due process"
get's bunged up, and the state of michigan can sieze a ladys car because
the ladys hubby was doing the nasty in the back seat with an unsanctioned
whore, you realize how screwed up things are.  This has NOTHING to do with
taxation.

    }   If you think about
    }it, one third of your pay isn't that much considering you have 24 hour
    }monitoring of this country with incredible technology, fire and police
    }personnel a phone call away, parks to enjoy with your family, and a
    }system of checks and balances. While this country isn't perfect, it's a
    }lot better than the alternitives.

You are scary.  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  -  Ben Franklin.
Obviously Franklin was an extemist.

Let's quickly take "the parks" example of above.  Do you pay admission
to get into the park?  I'll bet you do.  Where is taxation necessary?
Ain't that public land to be used for the good of all people, since we
ALL own that land?

MadMike

> You are scary.

It's like I said, Mike - he's Malerheum all over again.

    who realized this?  the lady, the hubby, or the unsanctioned
    whore?  

    re: Note 692.147 by LANDO::OLIVER_B
    
    } who realized this?  the lady, the hubby, or the unsanctioned
    
    Hopefully not YOU.  I can't wait for the day when someone in your
    family (child/spouse/family member) misuses YOUR property and
    the state seizes it.  Sure that's extreme today, but the tax rate
    was only 1-3% a couple decades ago.  What this does is open the
    door to forfeiture.  Next week, speeding will be a sufficient reason
    to confiscate your car.  Maybe your car will be STOLEN, and since the
    crook plowed into someone with it, it's your fault.  Whoops, sorry,
    they already allow for that.
    
    MadMike
    PS. I had a nice reply to your common law vs. natural law, that went
    into the bit bucket (dang modem problems).  I'm sure you ain't gonna 
    complain.

    WTF is Malerhuem?!!

    i will not allow whores in the back seat of my car,
    sanctioned or unsanctioned.

    L'box:
    
    It's a term of endearment given to a long departed 'Boxer, who in
    retrospect, is prolly head and shoulders above u as a noter.

    mike, my point is that just because several angry guys
    got together and decided to "hold court" so to speak,
    doesn't mean that there's one ounce of legal validity to
    it.  right?
    
    too bad about the modem thing.  were you calling common
    law obscure?

    I'm sorry I'm scaring you, Big Block Mike. I don't like seeing how much
    money I _would_ have if it wasn't taken before I see it. I can't
    justify the feds paying hundreds of thousands towards a study of how
    much methane gas is released due to cows flatulating. However, the very
    blanket of security I sleep under every night is paid for with tax
    dollars, also. As far as cars being confiscated when they are used for
    a crime, I have mixed emotions. You don't have any constitutional right
    to a car, Mike. I don't have one. A car is a privilage. If you cannot
    handle the privilage you should not have one. Do you know how much
    money drunk drivers cost us a year?! If a drunk has his car taken to
    offset the cost I'm all for it. The problem is, Joe Blow might get
    arrested in his '77 Pinto, worth about $200, and Frank Jackson might
    get arrested for the same crime in his '96 Lexus, worth $40,000. If
    there is a way to make the punishment uniform I am all for it. If you
    are lending your car to somebody who is going to use it for a crime, I
    have no problem with the car being taken.
    
    					lunchbox

    re: Note 692.66 by CSLALL::SECURITY "LUNCHBOX"
    
    } Not just the Freemen, all of these militia groups I have seen have
    } fit this description. Perhaps you could name one that doesn't.
    
    Like the BATF?  They had a little gathering in the back woods of
    tennessee. Some type of little round-up, where they'd smoke dope,
    score chicks and pass out ni**er hunting licenses.  Whatever came out
    about this?  (nothing).  Yet these same folks found it ok to Blow
    vikie Weavers head off because they wanted to be left alone.
    
    Also I have a saying that anyone who meets the wrong end of a jackboot
    has been "kinged".  Ala Rodney.  Rememeber him?
    
    What I'm saying is not all militias are racist.  Not all patriots
    are in militias.  That's MEDIA HYPE and misinformation.
    
    MadMike

    
    You're the scary one, lunchbox.  Next time someone borrows your car and
    ends up committing a crime with it, a crime you knew NOTHING about, I'd
    like to see how happy YOU are to take the ankle bus to work.
    

    L'Box:
    
    Y r calling MadMike a scary guy?
    
    I hope u sleep good tonite...make sure u listen and investigate each of
    those noises nd creapy sounds you'll hear.  
    
    And don't give up your day job.

    Don't think I have any love for the FBI, state or local police, CIA, or
    any other government agency. I, like any other person who pays
    attention, don't trust them.
    
    hth

    But you are studying to become one of them, one of the Enforcement
    Engineers....
    
    sounds kinda like u can't have yer cake n eating it too!z
    

    BTW, I am throwing out this &*^%%$#@!@!() keyboard... back later

    I didn't call Mike a scary guy, he said that about me. Deb, I take a
    subway to the train station, where I take a train to a different train
    station 20 miles away, where I get off and walk 2 miles to work. When I
    get a car I will have enough respect for it to not lend it to anybody
    shady.
    
    						lunchbox

    
    	Dave, even I have a problem with the confiscation.
    
    	Mike's comment about that woman's car being confiscated after
    	her husband got caught propositioning a hooker wasn't a joke,
    	it was an incident that actually occurred last week.  It's
    	quite obvious that the wife didn't know anything about this
    	beforehand.
    
    	What does a car have to do with propositioning a hooker, be-
    	sides the fact that that's what he was sitting in at the
    	time?  Nothing at all.  If he'd walked into a city and went
    	up to a hooker, he could have propositioned her just as easily.
    
    	This is quite different from someone being convicted of a 4th
    	OUI, especially if personal injury is involved and the auto is
    	directly related to the crime.
    

    Hallr-
    
    
    		We all have to sell our souls at some point. I hope I can
    be 'different', but burnout comes quick in Criminal Justice.

    
    >get a car I will have enough respect for it to not lend it to anybody
    >shady.
    
    
    	Like your wife/girlfriend, who decides to cruise downtown and
    	pick up a gigolo?
    

    If my wife/girlfriend decided to pick up gigalo I guess I didn't know
    her as well as I thought.

    re: Barry Goldwater called _himself_ an extremist in that
    famous quote of his that i cannot recall verbatim.
    
    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

    this gigolo a sanctioned freeman?

    that's barry's quote!

    
    Lunchie..
    
    I suggest you get rid of that shovel and quit digging that hole you're
    standing in before it gets over your head...
    
    Can't straddle that fence forever...
    

 Z    A car is a privilage. If you cannot
 Z    handle the privilage you should not have one.
    
    Driving a car is a right which requires responsibility.  The right
    comes when one is taxed for the use of a vehicle.
    
    Constitutionally, we don't have a right to own software.  However, we
    purchase a license which gives us the right to use it.  C++ isn't
    something we consider a privilage for the customer.  The license not
    only gives them right to ownership, they also have the right to copy.
    
    -Jack 

    .153
    
    A car is not a privilege.  A car is property.  Driving is a privilege. 
    There is a difference between suspending someone's license and taking
    their car.
    
    
    -steve

    
    Hey!! If it protects one person!!
    

> A car is a privilage. 

No, it's not. It's property. And if you think that it's reasonable for the
government to confiscate it, then please tell me what the point of owning
property of any sort is.

If someone is found guilty of the commission of a crime, then they should
be subjected to whatever the punishment is that's appropriate for that crime.

The confiscation of private property is not in concert with reasonable
and just punishment.

>        <<< Note 692.173 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
.
>If someone is found guilty of the commission of a crime, then they should
>be subjected to whatever the punishment is that's appropriate for that crime.

	with any luck, it's death.

    I disagree. If you use your property to commit a crime, I feel
    confiscation of that property is just. If you legally own a gun and you
    illegally shoot a person with it, is it wrong for it to be confiscated?

    
    
    
    .171 of course if there is "Due process of law"  they can.
    
    

    
    Lunchie, in the case in question, the woman who OWNED the car wasn't
    the one who committed a crime with it!  It was her sleazebag of a
    whoring husband, and yet her car was still confiscated.
    
     

    
    	Anyways, I don't care who propositions who while sitting in a
    	car ... it's still ridiculous to consider the car a vehicle
    	for the crime.
    

    I am familiar with the case. If I lend my gun to my trigger happy manic
    depressive girlfriend and she goes postal in McDonalds, can I have my
    gun back?
    

    
    re: .175
    
    >I disagree. If you use your property to commit a crime, I feel
    >confiscation of that property is just.
    
    really?
    
    So what should happen if you and your girlfriend get married, buy a 
    house, mortgage it together.. and then one of you has a wild drug party
    there? You're away on a business trip and the Feds seize the place??
    

>					If you legally own a gun and you
>    illegally shoot a person with it, is it wrong for it to be confiscated?

More to the point, what's the value in confiscating it? Certainly not as
punishment, because, presumeably the perp is either incarcerated or being
executed (my personal preference). The value is in enriching the coffers
of the state, or, more likely, lining the pockets of the officials. If the
perp has law abiding relations to which his/her assets should be assigned,
they have a right to the value of the gun, regardless of what the idiot may 
have done with it. I daresay, they have a lot more right to it than does
the state or the officials or society in general.

    
    I somehow doubt you'd lend your gun to a "trigger happy manic
    depressive" girlfriend.  What about if you lent your car to your nice
    normal girlfriend, and she goes out and uses it in a crime for God knows 
    what reason that you'd never have guessed?  Do you think you should wave 
    bye-bye to your car?
     

    re.180
    
    	I said I agree with confiscation of property if the property is
    misused. If the scenerio you described occurred, I would be a hypocrite
    to say I am immune to the punishment.

    
    	RE: .179
    
    	Yes, there's no reason for you not to get the gun back.  But
    	you seem to think it should be confiscated.
    

    
    
    
    .180, I agree with you but it was the conservative side of the Supreme
    Court that said this was ok, and the "L"-Word side that lost.
    
    
    You on the wrong side guys. The ACLU is your friend.
    
     

>				If I lend my gun to my trigger happy manic
>    depressive girlfriend and she goes postal in McDonalds, can I have my
>    gun back?

Certainly you should! What possible rationale exists for you not having
your property restored to you? You're innocent of wrongdoing, are you not?

     We've a jack booted thug in training in our midst.
    
     Wait until he's old enough to have actually been burned by the system
    he so smugly defends. I'd buy the little twerp a "question authority"
    t-shirt, but they don't come in brown.

    
    re: .183
    
    >I said I agree with confiscation of property if the property is
    >misused. If the scenerio you described occurred, I would be a hypocrite
    >to say I am immune to the punishment.
    
    Lunchie.. you's got a lot of learnin' and growin' up to do...

    
    re: .187
    
    >We've a jack booted thug in training in our midst.
    
    I wuz only followink orderz... Herr Commandant...
    

    I'm sorry you don't think I question authority. I'm also sorry you
    predict me becoming a jack booted thug. I can only hope to avoid the
    latter, I cannot guarantee it.
    
    You don't think I've been burned by the system?! You don't think I get
    bothered by "jack booted thugs" weekly? You don't think I've ever been
    smacked by one? Think again...

re: Note 692.144 by LANDO::OLIVER_B
        
}    obscure law?  what is this?  a cousin of natural
}    law?  or is it secret common law or what?  

The "obscure law" that the media is alluding to is most likely common
law.  They put down common law, like a "common law wife" is less of a
wife than a government sanctioned and approved legal wife.  Common law
is the FOUNDATION for all law in this country.  It's explicitly
stated in the 7th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  It's probably
explicitly mentioned for the very fact that the founding fathers knew that
sooner or later, "the system" would try people in "inferior courts" or
by tribunal (much like they do today).  
It is still recognized if used properly.  Obviously, since this is spelled
out in the 7th amendment, it is dangerous, legally, to ignore something
filed this way.

There are different courts for different reasons.  In the olden days
the sheriff would call a common law court, at the request of the people.
I have a lien on my house that can only be removed if the elected
sheriff in my county calls a common law court and the PEOPLE decide to remove
it.  Therefore, my lien isn't going anywhere, and it is superior to all
other (potential) liens that may be issued against me (commercial/tax/etc...)

Under common law, there must be a damaged party to bring suit against the
offender.  Obviously this isn't very lucrative, for example, under common
law, all speeding tickets, tinted windows and fat tire "citations" would
be void.  If someone slams into someone else, now you have an issue.
If that someone slams into someone because he couldn't see because
of his tinted windows, or because he was stiff, now a crime has been
committed.  This obviously would force the legal system to deal with
real criminals.  It would take away power from the gov't.  Obviously, this
is why it was ignored or "superseded" back in 1938?  It can't be ignored
or superseded, it must be REPEALED.  Since it hasn't been replealed
that means, if you know what you are doing, you can force this issue.

A fine example of hypocrisy is the prosecutor in Michigan going after
Dr. Jack Kivorkian under common law, since they can win using their
everyday ordinary legal system.  He's pulling stuff out of the hat to 
convict this fellow and TWO juries have said "NO DADGUMMIT!!!!"  Get the
friggin message already.  Yet, when some "extremist patriot militia" mentions
common law they are drop kicked and slammed hard by the media, and by
people who don't know any better.  

Regards,
MadMike

    .191
    
    |A fine example of hypocrisy is the prosecutor in Michigan going
    |afterDr. Jack Kivorkian under common law, since they can't win using
    |theireveryday ordinary legal system.
    
    on this point, i couldn't agree with you more.
    
    thanks, mike.   

    Lunchie:
    
    If u gave your loonie girlie friend a gun and she committed a crime, u
    should also have your head examined but your gun should not be
    confiscated.
    
    All you liberals think alike; it the blasted {you name the weapon}'s
    fault that a crime is committed.   BSSSST!  U R Wrong!  U and your
    limoliberal arsehole friends have never taken personal responsibility
    for your akshuns, and you blame the weapon, instead of the person who
    committed the crime, as the responsible entity.  Again, BSSSST! U R
    Wrong, my imposter of a psuedo intellectual rent a cop toting friend.

re: Note 692.153 by CSLALL::SECURITY
    
}    I'm sorry I'm scaring you, Big Block Mike. I don't like seeing how much
}    money I _would_ have if it wasn't taken before I see it. I can't
}    justify the feds paying hundreds of thousands towards a study of how
}    much methane gas is released due to cows flatulating.

So, you throw your hands up and bend over?  Or do you work to fix things?
before you can fix things, you have to UNDERSTAND what happened.  and
how it happened.  For example, even the IRS admits that the tax system
is VOLUNTARY.  Wow, do you recall volunteering?  Can you unvolunteer?
(yes).  The governments DUTIES and OBLIGATIONS are CLEARLY spelled out
in the Constitution.  Where they ran haywire is with the "provide for
the common defense and the general welfare" part.  This means to them that
they can do anything they want, since it falls under general welfare.
That is not the case.


} However, the very
}    blanket of security I sleep under every night is paid for with tax
}    dollars, also. As far as cars being confiscated when they are used for
}    a crime, I have mixed emotions. 

You musta missed my Franklin quote.  My government is OBLIGATED to safeguard
my liberty, freedom and rights.  It's that contractual deal, the Constitution.


}You don't have any constitutional right
}    to a car, Mike. I don't have one. 

No, but I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  and
if owning a car makes me happy, and I can afford one, I suppose it's ok then.
Then the 5th amendment will allow me to assert the right to own that
car, but I digress, the State of Georgia owns most of my cars, therefore
all Constitutional protections go out the window (from a realistic standpoint).


}A car is a privilage. If you cannot
}    handle the privilage you should not have one. 

No, you must be talking about driving.  Driving is a privilege.  Traveling
is a right.  There is a difference.  I travel unlicensed and will own up
to my mistakes.  I'm not looking for the legal privilege of hiding behind
the state if/when I screw up.

}Do you know how much
}    money drunk drivers cost us a year?! If a drunk has his car taken to
}    offset the cost I'm all for it. The problem is, Joe Blow might get

Yes, now the $24,000 question.  WHY NOT PUT DRUNKS WHO PLOW INTO OTHER
PEOPLE IN JAIL?  Oh, that cost money, and we might as well keep fining their
a$$ off every time we catch them.  That's more lucrative than putting
dangerous people in prison.  This breeds contempt.  DO you have a beer
or two after work and then drive?  (maybe not cause you take the subway),
but did you know the LOWEST limit Georgia has for dui is .03?  So, if
they get a hair across their butt and you blow a .04 then can go after you
full throttle even though the "legal limit" is .08.  The moral of the story 
is don't drink and drive.  If you do, and you hit someone, you should be hung 
by your dangly-parts.  Something that made news here was a lady who was 
creamed by a drunk guy, she sued his rear off in civil court and won $$$$$.  

Regards,
MadMike

    
    
    	Lunch,
    
    	Maybe I'm missing something here but the issue that's been
    	raised was that the car that was used did not belong to 
    	the perpetrator.  If it had been *his* car then, yes, I would
    	agree to it being impounded/confiscated.  However, it wasn't 
    	his.  It was someone else's.  It wasn't *her* fault he used
    	to it to ***** a whore.  She didn't commit a crime, her property
    	should not be confiscated.
    
    	And in regards to the methane gas/cow flatulence comment.  Methane
    	gas is one of the top four contributors to air pollution...which
    	leads to depletion of the ozone...... also leads to acid rain....
    	which leads to soil and water pollution...... which you drink and
    	eat vegetables grown in that soil and watered with that water.
    	So maybe a few hundred thou spent on figuring out why it does what
    	it does, isn't such a bad idea.  (I am, of course, NOT saying
    	that the gov't doesn't **** away our money on stupid things,
    	because I know they do)
    
    	JJ
    
    	

    In regards to liberal v conservatives on this issue...
    many a conservative parted company w/George Bush on this very issue of
    confiscation of private property...I happen to agree with that
    prevaling thot.

    
    
    
    .193, this isn't any liberal fault. This is fall out from the Republican 
    war on drugs.

    Mike
    
    
    		The government has an obligation to protect you, which they
    cannot do for free. The police, fire, army, navy, etc. all recieve
    paychecks. Until we go to an all-volunteer system, your tax dollars
    must foot the bill for their salary, as well as the equipment they use.
    
    Hallr
    
    		You are so  busy hurling dime store cheap shots, you don't
    even listen to what I am saying. I never blamed the weapon for any
    crime; I blamed the weapon owner for allowing it to fall into the hands
    of whoever misused it. Funny what you can learn when you pay attention.
    
    
    `							lunchbox

    Judy
    
    		The cow fart thing was the first study that came to mind.
    I'm sure there are other studies that are a ridiculous waste of money.
    How about $2250 for a hinge for the overhead door of Air Force One. I
    cannot remember the cost of the president's pen, but that's way up
    there, too. These are what I see as waste of tax dollars, not defense.
    
    					lunchbox

    L'Box:
    
    Address the first paragraph of my last entry; you may see what I and 
    others are harping about and stop spending some much time making a fool
    out of yourself with some of the ridiculous things u happen to come up
    with...there's a time and place to lick your wounds, don't do it in the
    'Box, man.

    Hallr
    
    	Your last entry dealt with George Bush. What wounds have I licked.
    I usually ignore your little snide remarks because they are not worth
    my time. I didn't want to hurt your feelings by making you think I
    didn't notice them.
    

	Lunch, hopefully these guys'll get the "grow up, sonny boy"
	crapola outta their systems soon. 

    
      In regard to the seizure of property, once the perpetrator was
     convicted, even though it belonged (or partly belonged) to someone
     not proven guilty of anything :
    
      On the constitutional question, SCOTUS was clearly literally correct.
     Property can be seized after due process of law.  There was.  Just
     a matter of reading English.
    
      On the policy question, it is clearly in all of our interests that
     property used in crime be seized, except for the felons.  Looks like
     a no-brainer to me, I'd vote for this.
    
      No-brainer to both parties, too, as both Democrats and Republicans
     have routinely passed legislation along these lines.  Currently, it
     is a chest-pounding exercise to see who can be the strongest
     anti-crime.  Clinton is going into his "get tough" routine, as are
     all the congress critters.  Reason is, seizure is popular.  Sorry,
     you guys are a minority.
    
      bb

    It's a nice cop-out, and an easy way to question my credibility. I take
    it as a compliment, since they can't find any tangible points to pick
    at.
    
    				lunchbox

    Lunchbox, Di and other defenders:
    
    If you take your conclusions to its logical ending, having
    manufacturers pay for the crime that an owner of a product produced
    uses in a criminal act is not only possible, but is trying to be
    written into law as we speak.  Maybe the Ford Motor Corp should pay the
    "victim" of the crime for the use of the car in the commission of the
    crime?  Maybe the steel make who provides the steel for the car should
    pay damages also.

    
    	Hmmm, how about someone riding a city bus through Boston and
    	propositioning a hooker from the window?
    
    	If she accepts, and gets on the bus, will the bus be seized?
    

>    Lunchbox, Di and other defenders:

	how about thinking before you include me in the list of
	people supporting lunchbox's position on this?  i haven't
	said i agree with him, and in fact, i don't.

	i sincerely hope this helps.

    Maybe like the communist regime in the country formerly known as the
    Soviet Union, all private property would be seized since none of us are
    responsible for each of our actions and we all can live off big daddy
    fed guvt teats until we crumble from within.
    
    Not for me, sorry, not for me.

re: Note 692.169 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN
    
} Z    A car is a privilage. If you cannot
} Z    handle the privilage you should not have one.
    
}    Driving a car is a right which requires responsibility.  The right
}    comes when one is taxed for the use of a vehicle.

Driving is a privilege.  One that requires you to be licensed.  Supposedly
because, you're driving the states property, on the states roads engaged
in commerce.  It is against the law to profit from public property.  That's
why you need to be licensed to do business in public places.  TRAVELING
on the other hand, is a right, a liberty, upheld by courts.  What you
travel in is immaterial, you can walk, ride a horse, use a car...
licensing people is the 1st step in controlling who can go where, and when
and how they get their.  Just talk back to the gov't and see what happens.
They revoke your license, and now you can't drive.  Better behave.
   
Drivers licenses protect idiots from their own incompetence.  If drivers
licenses were awarded to people who demonstrated competence, you'd think the 
accident rate would plummet.  It doesn't.  It's a state run racket IMO.
FWIW:  You can't travel while your license is suspended.  And if you don't
have a license to begin with, the state will take it upon themselves to
open an account for you and immediately suspend that.  These people (DMV)
are tough to deal with.

MadMike

    Suspending a license does nothing. If people had any regard for the
    law, their license would not have been suspended to begin with. Why
    would they be afraid to break the law again. A license is about as good
    as a restraining order. In effect, it is just a piece of paper. It only
    takes a little disregard to break the law.
    
    				lunchbox

    
    	But in that scenario, every time you break a law the penalty
    	is stiffer.  This is a deterrent to some people.
    

re: .197, Dennis

"The Republican war on drugs", eh? Then how come Slick is now a Brigadeer
General instead of having surrendered?

The WoD ain't any more Republican than it is Democrat. It's simply the
Federal Government's war - no matter the stripe.

    Lunchbox:
    
    In .210 u said the first intelligent thing I heard today...it's only a
    piece of paper, like all the so-called necessary laws that need to be
    passed to restrict one's freedom, access, etc.
    
    

    re: Note 692.183 by CSLALL::SECURITY
    
    (Hypotetical)
    
    Hey security, tell me where you live.  I'll swing by some night and
    toss a couple joints in your living room.  Then I'll call the cops
    on you.  After they break down your door at 3AM and hopefully take
    you into custody without filling you full of holes, you'll eventually
    get bonded out of jail (if you got $10000 or so laying around) in
    time to defend the property siezure.  This will be BEFORE you get
    convicted  of having dope in your house to begin with.
    
    If you don't think this happens, guess again.  The tattle-tail also
    probably gets a REWARD (to buy crack no doubt) for turning you in,
    and the gov't gets a house they can liquidate to perpetuate this
    fiasco.  It's called the "war on drugs".
    
    } I said I agree with confiscation of property if the property is
    } misused.
    
    The magic word is "misused".  What is misused?  Changine the oil
    in your driveway?  Painting the place orange?  Having a loud 
    party?
    
    MadMike

    By misused I meant used in a crime. You can paint your house any color
    you want.

    It's the end of the world.  (Insert Scottish accent here)

    I don't mean for all crime to result in confiscation of property, only
    those deemed serious enough. Apparently, the people wherever this
    woman's car was taken thought the prostitution problem was serious
    enough to warrant confiscation of property. From what I've read and
    from the people I've talked to you'd be surprised how many people are
    in favor of this kind of thing. People are as fed up with crime as they
    are the government.

>				Apparently, the people wherever this
>    woman's car was taken thought the prostitution problem was serious
>    enough to warrant confiscation of property.

"The people?" Which "people" is it that you think are making these decisions
as to what's serious enough to warrant confiscation, Lunchbucket? Are you naive
enough to believe that there's some sort of "town meeting" wherein all those
of legal voting age get to "decide" these matters?

    re: Note 692.198 by CSLALL::SECURITY
    
    } The government has an obligation to protect you, which they
    } cannot do for free. The police, fire, army, navy, etc. all recieve
    
    You are a little goose-stepper.  Do you know how many times people
    have SUED the gov't for failing to protect them - and lost?  A lot.
    It has been held, that the government is NOT OBLIGATED to protect
    you.  Period.  Therefore, they can not be held liable when the
    cops are at the donut shop while you're getting a crowbar upside your
    head downtown.  The cops can't be everywhere at once.  You are
    RESPONSIBLE for your own safety.  There's that damn responsibility
    word.
    
    Also, don't lump all your "services" under one umbrella.  I know that's
    hard because you think everything comes from Washington DC, but you
    know that various local/state/federal "services" are funded
    differently, from different sources.  NOT taxes.  An excellent
    example of that is hunters.  They pay bazzilions for the priviledge
    of hunting on public land.  This money pays for the people to watch
    the land, take care of the land, etc... no taxes involved whatsoever.
    Don't like it?  Don't hunt.  Or hunt on your own land.  Now you're
    not contributing to that fund.  See how this is supposed to work?
    
    MadMike

    The lawmakers are wise enough to vote the way their constituents would
    like, otherwise they will be bumped out of office next time around. If
    they thought the law was silly a new candidate would campaign that he
    would change the law once elected, so the law wouldn't be around that
    long anyway.
    
    						lunchbox

    
    	So I guess you're saying that the majority of the constituents
    	are flaming idiots?
    
    	OK, I can agree with that.
    

>    I disagree. If you use your property to commit a crime, I feel
>    confiscation of that property is just. If you legally own a gun and you
>    illegally shoot a person with it, is it wrong for it to be confiscated?

 Is this such a tough question to answer? Try this ...

	Who committed the crime?
	Who should pay for that crime?

 Ownership of the gun/car/baseball_bat is irrelevant.

 Would the authorities have confiscated the car of the man who was soliciting
 a prostitute if the car was an AVIS rental?

 The question you should be asking is where will the final line be redrawn
 once it is accepted that it can be drawn?

 If you do not believe that such a practice of confiscation will not be
 abused beyond what it was originally intended for (remember the drug lords? take
 the profit out of it!) then you are either very naive or a fool.

 Doug.

    Doug
    
    If the woman lent her car to a criminal, she is, in fact, aiding and
    abetting the crime. 
    
    
    				lunchbox

    
    	Hey, lady, I'm a criminal and I want to use your car for a
    	getaway after a bank robbery.  Thanks.
    
    	Mom, can I borrow the car to go downtown for awhile?  Thanks.
    

    It would seem that in this day and age, "wise lawmaker" is an oxymoron,
    unless their intention is to regulate every aspect of our lives.  In
    the latter case, they are wise, but are also traitors.
    
    -steve

   > The government has an obligation to protect you

	Since when? Care to elaborate? 

   It has been upheld in the courts that the authorities are under
   no obligations to protect individuals. 

   Doug.
    
 

    >>Hey lady, I'm a criminal and I want to use your car for a getaway
    after a bank robbery. Thanks.
    
    >>Mom, can I borrow the car to go downtown for awhile? Thanks.
    
    
    Gee, sir, that gun is scary. I am not necessarily giving you permission
    to take my car, it is sort of by force.
    
    
    Gee, son, had I raised you correctly I wouldn't have to worry about if
    my car will get confiscated, per the law.
    
    

    Somebody earlier (I'm not sure who) argued that the government was
    obligated to protect the residents of this country, that is what I'm
    replying to.
    
    				lunchbox

>      On the constitutional question, SCOTUS was clearly literally correct.
>     Property can be seized after due process of law.  There was.  Just
>     a matter of reading English.
 
 Due process of law? What's that! being arrested? Lots of property has
 been confiscated and sold long before the accused was aquitted.   

    
    	Dave, I never said the criminal pulled a gun on her.
    
    	But there was a distinct difference between the 1st and 2nd
    	situations, that being "knowledge of intent".
    
    	No matter how you raise the kid, you can never guarantee
    	that they'll always do the right thing.
    

    If you think they will be doing the wrong thing, or if you have any
    questions, you probably shouldn't be lending the kid the car.

    
    	Well, it appears that you're missing the point completely.
    
    	Maybe people like you SHOULD be punished for your kids' mist-
    	akes, if you think every incident of misbehaving is caused by
    	improper upbringing.
    

>    Doug
>    
>    If the woman lent her car to a criminal, she is, in fact, aiding and
>    abetting the crime. 
>    
>    
>    				lunchbox

  Ok, so a rental car company would also be an accompliss, or the person
  from which the car was stolen would also be an accompliss ...

  You really need to take a cold hard look at ALL sides of the equation.

  In the end, The individual who knowingly and deliberately carries out
  the crime is the one responsible. If you remove these creatins from 
  our society instead of slapping them on the wrists and sending them back
  out into the streets there would be no need for all the residual laws
  that affect the WRONG people.

>    If you think they will be doing the wrong thing, or if you have any
>    questions, you probably shouldn't be lending the kid the car.


  And if you think that junior is a little angel, and you turn out to
  be wrong, then what?

    Kids parents are often held responsible for the actions of their
    offspring, usually in civil court, but occasionally in criminal court,
    too.
    
    As I said earlier, Doug, I have a problem with the fact that it's
    almost impossible to keep this law uniform, as in Pinto vs. Lexus, as
    in lady vs. Avis. If there were a way to work out all the bugs I would
    be 100% in favor of this law, instead of the 95%  I am now.
    
    					lunchbox
    

>    The lawmakers are wise enough to vote the way their constituents would
>    like, otherwise they will be bumped out of office next time around. If
>    they thought the law was silly a new candidate would campaign that he
>    would change the law once elected, so the law wouldn't be around that
>    long anyway.


Tell me, Lunchbag, just what percentage of all of the sagans of laws,
policies, processes, agencies, regulations, etc. that we have on the books 
across this nation do you think are ones that were enacted because they were 
so desired by the constituencies of the lawmakers, versus those that were 
enacted because they were so desired strictly by the lawmakers or some other
government agency?

Second question, how frequently have you seen politicians make campaign 
promises that they've never kept, versus the contrary?

Third question, how frequently do you see unpopular laws, regulations, policies,
agencies and processes repealed by the legislatures in relation to the total
number of unpopular laws, etc. in force?

    I don't know where I would go to get the "percentages" that you would
    like to see, and certainly there are enough unpopular laws out there.
    However, as I said, from what I've heard this type of law has been
    welcomed wherever it has been placed.
    
    
    					lunchbox

Actually I wasn't so much concerned with hard numbers as I was with
your perception of government and the usefulness of legislators, so
a guess would be fine.

>    However, as I said, from what I've heard this type of law has been
>    welcomed wherever it has been placed.

Well, I'd be curious as to what you're listening to if this is what you've
"heard". The sense that I get from most acquaintances of mine is that the
confiscation policies currently in place are oppressive, unconstitutional,
and inappropriate, due only in part to their lack of effectiveness, their
improper direction, and their abuse, bb's contention to the contrary 
notwithstanding.

So, tell us, why don't you?

    Not surprisingly, you hang around with a much different crowd than I
    do. From letters in the newspapers to the radio call in show that I
    listen to occasionally, from my classmates to my friends, from my
    relatives (except for my stepmother but she voted for Ted Kennedy) to
    the people I take the train with, I have heard a resounding "yes" in
    response to drug dealers, johns, drunks, etc. to have their property
    confiscated. This isn't an everyday issue, just something that comes up
    every now and then when something terrible happens or there is a major
    prostitution or drug bust going on around here. 
    
    To answer your question about percentages of unpopular laws:
    
    I would guess that a total of about 10% of laws would be considered
    unpopular, though I would suspect that 95% of people have some law that
    they disagree with. I'm basing this on the assumption that by
    "unpopular", you mean more than half of all people disagree with a
    particular law.
    
    
    
    					lunchbox

    
    happened to catch an interview on TODAY this am, with Olson
    a big militia leader, I presume.
    
    This man did not speak English at all; to all questions his
    answers were militia-laden jingoistics. Just slogans, 
    fighting words, er.. like oppression of the masses,
    thugs and bully, tyrannical so and so.... I mean this man
    could not string a sentence together, let alone actually
    answered any questions.
    
    The stonewalling fanaticm was quite scary!
    
    Anyone else saw this??
    

    re .-1
    
    nope. didn't see it. had to work early (bleah!)
    
    however, I once stayed in the campground in hamiltown MT that these
    'militiaites' are in..
    
    
    nice place. prob'ly overrun with posters of "the sayingss of chairman Mao"
    now.

>    As I said earlier, Doug, I have a problem with the fact that it's
>    almost impossible to keep this law uniform, as in Pinto vs. Lexus, as
>    in lady vs. Avis. If there were a way to work out all the bugs I would
>    be 100% in favor of this law, instead of the 95%  I am now.
>    
>    					lunchbox
 
    Your focused on the wrong problem - punishing the criminal - to the
    extent that you can't see the residual damage this law promotes.
    I'll bet that few would support confiscation of non-criminals 
    property used by criminals in a crime (for instance, the wifes car). 
    
    To support otherwise increases the number of victims of the crime
    while having no increased affect on the criminal. Do you understand
    that the victims are INNOCENT?
    
    What would Binder say about your humanitarianism :-)
    
    The law cannot be made to affect only criminals, and it can not
    be made to prevent abuse of it. Yet you would still support
    it 95%?
    
    There are better ways to discipline societies guilty that don't
    involve creating more victims ...
    
    Doug.
    
        

>    Not surprisingly, you hang around with a much different crowd than I
>    do.

I must wonder why you conclude thusly, other than the obvious difference 
in our ages.

> I have heard a resounding "yes" in response to drug dealers, johns, 
> drunks, etc. to have their property confiscated. 

Izzat so? Oddly, these that you mentioned tend to be "crimes of the commmon 
man". Among the least likely to be popularly prone to oppressive punishment
from a sociological perspective. Again, I have to wonder what one expects is
accomplished by confiscating the property of a john or a wino.

>    I would guess that a total of about 10% of laws would be considered
>    unpopular [...] I'm basing this on the assumption that by
>    "unpopular", you mean more than half of all people disagree with a
>    particular law.

Then you are naive, Lunchsack. Quite naive indeed. You're basically 
right wrt my definition of "unpopular", but naive as all get out 
wrt your perception of society's sense of unpopularity relative to
laws/policies/processes/regulations/agencies. 

    re: Note 692.240 by MARIN::WANNOOR
    
    } Olson interview - what a guy... NOT!
    
    Olsen started the Northern Michigan Militia.  He's "out there", but
    he gets himself onto your TV screen.  A hell out a lot more than the
    colored gentleman from Ohio who runs that state militia.  You barely
    see him, eh?  On the other hand, you have morris dees, who thinks 
    everyone who doesn't kiss a jackboot is a klansman, white supremisist,
    racist bigot militia man.  He can't quite figure out what to say
    when he's asked about the militia leader from Ohio though.  I got
    dirt on morris dees, taken from publicly available information in
    Alabama.  He's a looser, but the media parades him around every now and
    then trying to legitamize the sob.
    
    Regards,
    MadMike 

    re .239
       Man, I'm afraid I'd lose all my possesions.:)_

    
    Lunchheave,
    
    Taken in that frame of mind, I suppose we should just seize the
    property of anyone who has a currently-unpopular opinion, since most
    of our laws don't center around the offense of a particular person
    or a particular person's property, only that non-existent "person"
    known as the state.
    
    Commu-crap.
    
    --- Barry
    

    =If the woman lent her car to a criminal, she is, in fact, aiding and
    =abetting the crime.
    
     But the person who commits a crime isn't a criminal before the crime
    is committed. 
    
     This whole idea of forfeiture is bogus. It's one thing to take away
    the means of committing a crime from the person who has committed the
    crime; it's quite another to engage in seizure for the sake of seizure.
    And that's what most of the seizure laws amount to. RICO allows the
    seizure of property used in the commission of a series of crimes. The
    law's author says that is has been misused and abused and used for
    things that the lawmakers never intended- uses you undoubtedly would
    support. Say you owned a small business, like a corner store or video
    store that was opened until late at night. Unbeknownst to you, your
    trusted employee was selling drugs while you were not there. And he got
    busted. You can lose your store. That's just plain wrong, and you won't
    get it until it happens to you or somebody you feel doesn't deserve it.

    In some ways this about freedom of speech. If the givmint plants
    something in your house, then gets a 'tip' and finds the plant and
    confiscates your house, your neighbor may be less inclined to speak out
    against the givmint.
    
    Think about it....
    
    
    Steve

    =  On the policy question, it is clearly in all of our interests that
    = property used in crime be seized, except for the felons.  Looks like
    = a no-brainer to me, I'd vote for this.
    
     It is NOT clearly in "all of our interests" that property used in
    crime be seized indiscriminately. The Long Island Railroad car that was
    used in that massacre should be seized because it was used in a crime?
    How, exactly does that benefit anyone? A stolen car used by the bank
    robber/murderers that stole from an armored car that was delivering to
    my bank in Hudson, NH 18 months ago to flee the scene should be
    confiscated? What exactly is that going to accomplish, once the
    relevant evidence has been collected? Problem is, the seizure laws
    allow for this property to be seized, despite the fact that innocent
    people are the ones paying the price for the seizure. In my opinion,
    whether or not the SCOTUS is able to craft a decision that demonstrates
    this to be unconstitutional is not germane; it is clearly unfair and
    for no better reason than that the law should not exist. Oh, you say,
    but nobody's used the law that way. So far. The fact that they have the
    discretion to do so is precisely the problem; such laws are ripe for
    abuse and misapplication for political or personal reasons and as such
    they should be struck down. It seems to me that if the SCOTUS were
    interested in preserving the little liberty they have not yet allowed
    legislators to usurp, they could at least fall back on
    "unconstitutional vagueness".
    
     Seizure's purported popularity arises from media cheerleading about
    how we took away this drug lord's ferrari, etc. People can nod their
    heads yes in support of such things. But the "zero tolerance" policy
    instituted by the Coast Guard was very unpopular, especially when
    middle class taxpayers started losing cars and boats and such as a
    result of minor infractions committed by their children or children's
    friends. Since when ought you be punished for something someone else's
    kid does? But that's just what has happened. I truly think that people
    who support this and think they are safe because they haven't done
    anything wrong ought to be subjected to exactly the sort of abuse of
    power they so cavalierly advocate. There's no better teacher than
    experience.
    
     It's only a matter of time before such seizure laws are applied to
    drunk drivers. And maybe someone who drives drunk deserves to have
    their car seized. But consider a guy who goes to someone else's house
    for, say, a wine tasting and has a bit too much to drink and causes
    some damage before getting bagged. Should his car be confiscated? What
    if it's his wife's car? And what about the people who hosted the event?
    Should their property also be confiscated? After all, they "enabled" a
    criminal.
    
     At some point, the cure becomes worse than the disease.

      re: .217
    
      Hi Lunchbox,
    
        By the way, I have only read from .200 t0 .217, but I had to reply
        to you.
    
        You mentioned being "fed up with crime" from the context of (for 
        this reason) making allowances for things the govt. does (in this 
        case, confiscation of property).
    
        Correct me if I am wrong, but this is a classic case of short-
        sightedness.  You are essentially saying that because of a certain
        situation, the citizens of the country are better off relinquishing
        certain rights to the govt.  In this case, the rights are one's
        ownership of that which one actually owns.   In certain cases,
        we seem to be favoring giving the government things that the govt.
        never had a right owning.
    
        An analogous example is gun ownership.  Private citizens are too
        violent (some say) and thus we need to relinquish more of our
        Constitutional rights.  Give up the right to bear arms some say.
        Let the government be the only body within our country to have
        the right to bear arms.  (This is what the Nazis did.)
     
        Implementation of your reasoning is the opening of a Pandora's
        box.
    
        When the box is fully open, we will have finally made the
        transition from liberty to tyrany.
    
    						Tony
        

    
      re, .229 - in the SCOTUS case, there was a trial, judge, jury,
     guilty verdict.  That's due process.  No, a cop taking an apple
     in the grocery store isn't due process.  The legal definition of
     due process in a criminal case is a proper trial and verdict.
    
      bb

    re: lunchbox
    
    I stand by what I said earlier, if only you knew as much as you think
    you know.  If you are representative of your generation, this country
    is in more trouble than I thought.
    
    Bob

    re: .239
    
    Just goes to show you how little some folks understand about the
    Constitution, and effectiveness/abuses of certain laws.
    
    I weep for America, for what we've lost over the last 90+ years (the
    seeds of our current federalized state actually were planted in the
    Civil War era- though fruitation did not begin in earnest until the
    early 1900's).  We are no longer free, yet don't even realize this.   
    We've gotten lazy and complacent, giving up our personal sovereignity for 
    percieved security.  All I can say is that we are getting the laws we
    deserve, as a nation.
    
    The funny thing is, most folk are so ignorant as to the Constitution,
    that even though they "feel" something is wrong- that they work very
    hard and still cannot provide for their families as they'd like to-
    they don't understand even the most basic aspects of the problem.  They
    rightly blame high taxes for making their situation worse, but in
    reality, high taxation is only the fruitation of Unconstitutional
    programs/law.  Public education...ain't it grand?  
    
    I always wondered why the Constitution- THE most important
    document in this nation- was only briefly looked at throughout my
    trek through public education.  Guess it wasn't deemed important by the
    educators (why, I have no idea).  No doubt, my experience is not a rare
    example.  No wonder folks have no clue.
    
    
    -steve                                 

    
    
    
    >federalized state actually were planted in the Civil War.
    
    This is true, but I disagree that this is a weakness.
    I think it's the nations strength.
    
    

    
    
    
    .240
    
    
    I saw it. He spoke native gibberish.
    

    
      It's now Day 10 for the trapped Freemen.  One of the hundreds of
     circling newsmen reported everyone they talked to was "hopeful".
    
      The circus atmosphere is the biggest thing to hit Billings, Montana
     in the 20th century.  Waves of helicopters with videocams swarm
     the skies - only a few are cops.  Tourists and groupies have
     descended on the place.  Virtually every resident has been
     interviewed.  Prices have soared.  If these guys want to go out
     with a bang, it will be the best recorded bang in memory.
    
      bb

    an interesting aside:  the MOVE case is back in civil court.
    remember this one?  a black "radical" group holed up in a 
    house in a Philadelphia neigborhood.  the authorities finally
    decided to bomb the house, consequently setting afire 60 
    other houses in the process.  five or six people died.
    
    the last remaining member of the group is suing for damages.

    .254
    
    >This is true, but I disagree that this is a weakness.
    >I think it's the nations strength.
    
    This is true to a point, but only if you are talking about the strength
    of the federal government.  As citizens, we are weaker and less
    free than ever before due to said federalization. 
    
    The seeds planted in the Civil War era have brought about the death 
    of States' rights (rights confirmed in the 10th Amendment, which limits
    the federales to the specific powers granted to them via Constitutional
    text).   I'm not sure you comprehend the weight of this statement, nor
    do I comprehend it fully, I imagine.  It is NOT a good thing, however.
    
    Oh, we still hear a lot about States' rights- specifically from the GOP
    (the Democrats seem very uninterested in this subject, currently) who is 
    trying to "bring back States' rights"; but the fact that they are trying 
    to bring them back shows that such rights are only recognized on paper, 
    rather than policy.  For all practical purposes, States' rights are
    a thing of the past.
    
    If states' rights can be so usurped by such grand federalization of 
    everything, so can individual rights...and they have been, drastically,
    and they will continue to be usurped.
    
    I find it amazing that while so many people crow about rights and such,
    that they, at the same time, support laws that usurp these very rights
    and freedoms.  Not that such rights are not recognized (at least on
    paper), mind you, but they are effectively circumvented by these 
    oppressive laws stemming from percieved "emergency situations" (the 
    example of the woman who had her car nabbed by government for something 
    she did not do, is a good one).  
    
    To me, there is no emergency great enought that I will willingly give
    up my God-given rights, and no government has the right to take away
    what God has given.  But I digress.
    
    So, I agree that the federal government became much stronger, but the
    end result of of this major swing in power will be the end of our
    Constitutional republic.  The side effects of this, accellerated by the
    inevitable corruption when so much power is centered in one area,
    is the abuse of taxpayers (and in effect, one abuse is forcing all of us 
    to be labelled AS taxpayers, IMO...the federal government used to be 
    supported by taxes and tarrifs on imports and such) which will result
    int the loss of freedom and the inevitible bankruptcy of this nation- 
    which will force us into a more global form of government.
    
    By happily calling ourselves 'taxpayers', we are accepting our position
    and role that is being dictated by the federal government.  
    
      
    -steve 

OTLbox, etc. -

re: .198
> The government has an obligation to protect you, which they

    Get real!!

re: .203
> ...      Reason is, seizure is popular.  Sorry, you guys are a minority.

    Popluar with whom?? Law enforcement (i.e., lbox)? Sure. They get to use 
    it to buy more expensive cop toys and hire more goons. Airline flunkies? 
    Sure. They get a cut.     

re: .239 - popularity of seizure ...
> ... from my classmates to my friends, ... <snip> to the people I take the 
> train with, I have heard a resounding "yes" ...

    Yes, you are in law enforcement training, aren't you?

re: .238
> Well, I'd be curious as to what you're listening to if this is what you've
> "heard". The sense that I get from most acquaintances of mine is that the
> confiscation policies currently in place are oppressive, unconstitutional,
> and inappropriate, due only in part to their lack of effectiveness, their
> improper direction, and their abuse, bb's contention to the contrary 
> notwithstanding.

    <--- What he said.

re: .222 
> Would the authorities have confiscated the car of the man who was soliciting
> a prostitute if the car was an AVIS rental?

    Sounds unlikely at first, but they might, and Avis would bill you for 
    the car under the terms of the rental agreement. If it hasn't happened 
    yet, just wait.

re: .249
> At some point, the cure becomes worse than the disease.
              
    We're way past that point already.

re: .197
>  This is fall out from the Republican war on drugs.

    More like it's become the Democratic War On Independence.

re: .291
> You are a little goose-stepper. 
    
    And it sounds like you've really found a home.

    If you like the seizure of the car, you probably approve of the retired
    folks who had their house seized when their grandchild, saying with them 
    temporarily, planted a pot seed in their garden.

re: 187
> We've a jack booted thug in training in our midst. ...  I'd buy the little 
> twerp a "question authority" t-shirt, but they don't come in brown.
             
    <---- Beautifully said!

    
    Ahem,
    
    It was Reagan who sounded the alarm and started pushing the "zero
    tolerance" confiscatory laws regarding drugs.  Carter had been at the
    point of saying that the punishment for the crime should be
    proportionate to the damage done by it. 
    
    meg

Yes, Meg, but Slick is just as giddy about his ability to extend the practice 
as Ronbo or GHWB was. Like I said yesterday, the WoD isn't any more a 
Republican thing than it is a Democrat thing at this point - it's simply a 
Federal Government thing, which is readily bought into by all law enforcement 
agencies and prosecutors at the state and local levels.

Lucnhmeat: How do you feel about the black farmer who was separated from
his bankroll in an airport simply because he fit the model of a drug dealer.

No evidence of wrongdoing mind you, just walking around with a wad and fitting
the description the FBI gave to airport employees to look out for and
report.

If you want to live in a police state, you may soon get your wish.

Doug.

    
    
    
    .261, That's Clinton pandering to the conservative elements in the
    country. The liberal take on drugs or course is legalization.
    
    It's a Conservative thing. Like forcing religion on people or
    their right to choose.
    

Horse foofey, Dennis. It's Slick pandering to the beaurocracies
of the DEA and other enforcement agencies that won't allow the WoD
to be abandoned because it means the unemployment office for them.

    
    	Isn't DEA Drug Enforcement Agency?
    
    	Can someone explain how they expect to enforce drugs?  Or are
    	they actually trying to enforce drug laws, thereby admitting
    	that they shortened the acronym from DLEA because it's easier
    	to pronounce in its current state, even though it's a grammat-
    	ical abomination?
    

    Actually the DEA does enforce drugs. Check the stats and see if the
    laws and this taxpayer drain has even come close to eliminating drugs.
    In fact the DEA actually perpetrates the problem just to stay in
    business and justify their bogus jobs. 

    
    	But then they'd be the Drug Usage Enforcement Agency.
    
    	You see, there's still a letter missing from the acronym.
    

    Just something I thought of in the shower last night;
    
    
    When a couple gets married, isn't it such that they no longer possess
    anything solely? Of course, in a healthy marraige, each recognizes the
    other's possessions as being owned by the other. But isn't it a legal
    merger of two individuals, sharing everything? If this is so, then the
    car that was seized was _not_ the woman's car, but the couple's car.
    So, in part, it was his car.
    
    As far as those who would mutilate my p-name(the p-name that I didn't
    choose, but that was given to me way back) and infer that I am a Nazi,
    Pinko, jack-booted thug, etc,; if people could handle the absolute
    freedom that was the dream of the founders of this country, I would be
    all for it. However, freedom has been abused since the constitution was
    written. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. You can call me what
    you want, you can blame my attitude on my age, but this is how I feel,
    and no matter how much you cry about taxes and no matter how much you
    quote the constitution my opinion will not change.
    
    					dave

    one can only hope you get the treatment from authorities such an
    attitude deserves.

    
    	Dave, what's the point in seizing her car?  Heck, what'd be the
    	point of seizing HIS car for the same crime?
    
    	If prostitution is such a bad thing, why don't they make it a
    	felony, punishable by death or life in prison without parole,
    	to be a prostitute?  Well, I'll tell you why ... then there'd
    	be no bait out on the streets with which to lure these men to
    	them such that their cars can be seized and used by the force
    	for whatever undercover operation they're focusing on this
    	week.
    
    	It almost makes you think that prostitution is OK, but that
    	the real problem is solicitation of prostitutes.
    

    
  >  The liberal take on drugs or course is legalization.
  >  

  Well, no major politician in the USA, liberal or conservative, even
 the ones like Clinton and Gingrich who admit to onetime usage,
 advocates legalization now.  Not a senator.  Not a governor.  Neither
 party.  Opinion polls clearly indicate the idea is a big loser
 among the electorate, and it has lost everywhere there's been a
 referendum.

  That doesn't mean it isn't the correct answer.  But you will look in
 vain for any politician to advocate it in the 1996 elections, or to
 introduce such an idea in the US Congress this century.

  bb    

    Prostitution is a terrible crime. First of all, it exploits women and
    makes them "buyable". Second, it rips families apart. Third, it
    contributes largely to the spread of STD's, particularly the deadly
    AIDS virus. If prostitution were made a felony, I would have no
    complaints.
    
    						dave

>Second, it rips families apart.

Bull crap. Tell me the relative percentages of married vs. unmarried
johns before you make a claim like that.

> However, freedom has been abused since the constitution was written.

And just how is it that the people of this country have so grossly abused 
their freedom as to warrant the need for the oppressive laws/policies/
agencies/processes/regulations that are currently in place? You apparently
have a clear picture of this abuse, so a half dozen or so examples should
suffice to demonstrate your point.

    
    >Prostitution is a terrible crime. First of all, it exploits women and
    >makes them "buyable".
    
    	Women "sign up" to be prostitutes, so they're exploiting them-
    	selves.
    
    	T&A movies exploit females, but I don't think you'd want to
    	make it a felony to produce those, would you?
    
    >Second, it rips families apart.
    
    	If a married guy goes to a prostitute, I guess there's more
    	wrong with that marriage than you thought.  If a single guy
    	goes to a prostitute, then who's going to be mad at him?
    
    >Third, it contributes largely to the spread of STD's, particularly
    >the deadly AIDS virus.
    
    	Yes, just like the LA bath houses contributed to the spread of
    	AIDS among homosexuals in the early 80's.
    
    	Even prostitutes have access to condoms and other birth control
    	methods, just like "normal people" do.
    

    I live in an area occupied by many prostitutes. You'd be surprised at
    the number of minivans that come through to pick up a hooker, sometimes
    with childrens' car seats in the back. You cannot tell me this crime
    doesn't effect families. I'm not clear on the percentages of married
    vs. unmarried johns, but I would't be amazed if about 30% is married.
    This is just a guess based on what I've seen.

    
    	So you get rid of the prostitutes, not the solicitors.
    
    	Without prostitutes, all the solicitors are forced to drive up
    	and down the streets and not pick up anybody.
    

    
    re: .277
    
    Sheeesh!!! What logic, Shawn!!
    
    With that kind of scenario, there wouldn't be as much of a need for
    cops on the streets to bust the johns!!
    
    They would be obligated to go and protect the general public!
    
    Besides, Lunchie would then be out of a (possible) job!!
    

    How can you get rid of prostitutes? For that matter, how can you get
    rid of johns? All the hookers around here are addicted to drugs,
    usually crack or heroin. There is no way they can hold down a job in
    their strung out state, so they go lay on their backs or perform some
    sex act, the whole thing takes 10 minutes and they have enough for
    their next 2 fixes. It's disgusting to see, but there are always going
    to be guys who have a psychological disorder and "need" prostitutes,
    and there are always going to be drug addicted prostitutes who "need" 
    johns. It's like drug dealers; as soon as one gets picked off a street
    corner by the police, another one takes his place. There is no getting
    rid of prostitutes or johns.

RE: Lunchbox:

 I haven't seen your answer to the question (rephrased):

 Do you support laws that increase the number of victims per crime?

 Doug.

    What laws would increase the number of victims per crime? I didn't see
    the initial question, and I don't understand the rephrased question.
    
    					lunchbox

A synopsis:
 
 >  To support otherwise increases the number of victims of the crime
  >  while having no increased affect on the criminal. Do you understand
  >  that the victims are INNOCENT?
 
 Doug

    re: .282
    
    Well, let's take the prostitute/john in minivan scenario for
    example.  Now while it may be possible that large numbers of
    middle-aged men believe it is extremely sexy to be seen
    trolling for prostitutes in a minivan, I doubt it.  Therefore,
    the minivan must be a necessity.  Mom and the kids use it.  Ok,
    so said john is caught and the minivan is confiscated.  A 
    victimless crime?  I think not.  Now Mom and the kids are out
    a minivan.  Mom can't get to work, can't get the kids to school,
    sports, afterschool activities or daycare.  She still has car
    payments which need to be made, however, so she can't get a similar
    car.  So, she buys a cheaper car that isn't as safe.  Maybe she
    can't afford to replace all the child seats.  So, Mom gets in
    an accident, and two of the kids are seriously injured.  Still
    a victimless crime?  Wait, it gets better.  Mom can't keep the job
    now and has to quit, since with the invisible car payments she couldn't
    afford insurance for the other car.  Well, now she can't afford the 
    car payments on top of the other bills after losing her job, and they 
    wind up filing for banruptcy and losing their home.  The children are 
    doing lousy in school, Mom and Dad are fighting all the time about 
    money.  Still a victimless crime?  Wait, there's more.  So now,
    someone at school approaches little Billy about joining a gang.
    Home life is horrible by now, there are six of them in a two bedroom
    apartment and Mom and Dad scream at each other all hours of the night.
    The police have been called four times.  Billy joins the gang, and
    is so traumatized by his childhood that he grows up to become a 
    serial killer of prostitutes.  Now, what happened to your
    "victimless" crime?  Was the minivan really worth all this?
    Huh?
    

    Is one of the demands of the Freemen to allow sex industry workers into
    Justus Township?

    No, I don't support something like that. Obviously it's terrible that
    this woman has to be embarrassed by her husband's actions, then lose a
    car, etc.  But just because you don't agree with a law doesn't mean you
    are immune to it. People who smoke marijuana do so with the knowledge
    that it is illegal, but if you get busted, you cannot well go before a
    judge and say "Well, that's a stupid law, anyway". As I said earlier,
    if there were a way to make property confiscation uniform and fair I
    would be all for it. Until such a time there will be cases where
    innocent people get hurt, so either the laws must be changed to work
    all of the bugs out, or be removed from the books until the bugs can be
    worked out.
    
    					lunchbox

    |Is one of the demands of the Freemen to allow sex industry workers
    |into Justus Township?
    
    only if they're unsanctioned.

>Until such a time there will be cases where
>    innocent people get hurt, so either the laws must be changed to work
>    all of the bugs out, or be removed from the books until the bugs can be
>    worked out.

Did you read the part about 80% of the victims are never charged or
found guilty? Do you believe that the abuses can be controlled when the
group that profits from confiscation is the group doing the confiscating?

Do you still support such laws (95%) after what you've (hopefully) learned
over the last 24 hours?

Doug.

Nice story. I agree in principle, but in fairness - a decent into skid row
for the loss of a car? Really!! :-}

    I haven't learned anything new in the last 24 hours, nor have I changed
    my position on the issue.
    
    					lunchbox

descent - excuse me ...
nnttmyself

    re: .286
    
    >car, etc.  But just because you don't agree with a law doesn't mean you
    >are immune to it. People who smoke marijuana do so with the knowledge
    
    And just what law did the woman violate???
    
    You still don't get it.  I'm afraid you never will.
    
    Bob
    

    re: .289
    
    In all fairness, they only descended into a two bedroom
    apartment and Mom and Dad never got divorced......now
    little Billy becoming a serial killer may have been a stretch,
    but you never know what pushes someone buttons......
    

With an attitude that "I will never change my mind" - regardless of the
evidence, I would say you're prime material for law enforcement. Maybe they'll
buy you an RPG.

    
    	RE: Bruce
    
    	Add a car payment into your budget, which is being made on a
    	car you don't even own, and then compound that with either
    	another car payment for the car you just bought, or the cost
    	and repair of a "new" used car and some people might find it
    	tricky to keep up.
    
    	[Hmmm, let the finance company come and repo the car that the
    	cops confiscated.  Yeah!!  8^)]
    

    The woman didn't violate any law, her husband did, and the law in that
    area says that vehicles used in this sort of crime are to be
    confiscated. She can challange this law on a constitutional basis, but
    if the law says the vehicle is to be taken, that's the law. She doesn't
    like the law too much at this point, I would guess.
    
    					hth
    
    						lunchbox

    re: .296
    
    And why should this woman be punished for a crime she didn't commit?
    
    Bob

Ah, but he already answered that, Bob. Cuz the law says they can take the car.
Seems pretty simple to me.

    
    	Like I said, Dave, if your girlfriend/wife ever gets YOUR car
    	confiscated for using it during the commission of a crime, I
    	guess you might not like this law too much.
    

    Because her husband is an idiot.

    
    >Because her husband is an idiot.
    
    case closed then!!!
    
    
    Lunchie... you had some great potential there for a short while when
    you first signed in...
    
    sigh...
    

    No, I would hate the law at that point. I would probably challange it's
    legality based on the constitution. This woman has that option. The law
    is the law, until it is changed that's the way the hookie mumbles.
    
    					lunchbox

    Lest anybody think I was serious about note .300, I wasn't. I'm just
    sick of repeating myself. Anybody wondering why this woman's car can be
    confiscated can refer to all of my previous notes about what powers the
    police have in that jurisdiction, as well as my note about married
    folks owning all material possessions together.
    
    				lunchbox

You'd hate it "at that point" and challenge it, but, now, you love and support
it because "the law is the law".

Why am I not surprised at this?

    
    	And this guy is studying to legally carry a gun??
    
    	8^)
    

    
    
    Lunchie...
    
    The "law" is 55 mph (65 in some places)
    
    If'n you break the law, should they confiscate your car on the spot??
    
    Speak up, boy!
    

    I would challange it much the same way people who are arrested for
    drunk driving challange the breathalyzer, the cop's judgement, etc. I
    agree with the law, but if it effected me I would look for some way
    around it, I think anybody else in here would do the same.

Look, Lunchsack, no one is claiming that the law isn't as it is. The vocal
majority responding here is saying that the law sucks and shouldn't be. You
seem to be about the only one, along with bb, who's claiming that the law
has merit.

    
    I could be wrong, but I don't think it's an given in all states that
    married couples automatically own all property jointly.  I believe
    married people are allowed to own property severally.
    

    
    
    Do you think that would stop the feds???
    
    
    
    "gather it all, sort it out later!!"
    

<--- True. Washington, for example, is a "community property state".

    re.308
    
    I claim the concept has merit if the bugs can be worked out.
    
    Shawn-
    
    	I already legally carry a gun.
    
    speeding/confiscation.
    
    	The police would have quite a used car lot if a 10 MPH violation
    constituted the seizure of a car. I think this is extreme. I agree with
    confiscation of crimes such as (but not limited to) prostitution,
    narcotics, homicide.
    
    					lunchbox

    Another data point to consider is that it takes money to
    fight the law.  Money for lawyers, money for court costs.
    People who are barely making ends meet do not have extra $$$'s
    to fork over for legal assistance.  
    
    Should we allow bad laws to be made, and simply wave them off
    by saying, "Oh, if we make a mistake, they can take us to court."
    
    I've got a better idea, if they make a mistake, they paid treble
    damages, all court costs and go to jail for a year.  How's that?
    Besides, it's long been my thinking that people who are sworn to
    uphold the law should be held to a higher standard of conduct and
    behavior than ordinary citizens anyway.
    

    
    	RE: Dave
    
    	So how about we compare driving infractions to prostitution/
    	solicitation.
    
    	Driving to endanger, full penetration = vehicle seizure
    	20MPH over limit, oral sex = vehicle seizure
    	10MPH over limit, petting = small fine
    
    
    	Is this a better penalty scale?
    

So you would challenge the law's constitutionality?

Hellllooooo .....

Didn't SCoTUS decide this case a couple of weeks ago? Who you going to 
challenge it with?

    I'm note sure if SCOTUS has looked at this or not.

    .268
    
    I agree.  The near-police state we live in today is mainly due to
    abuses (I could state matter of factly why this is, but I'd be poo
    poo'd and abused to no end, so I won't  8^) ) of our rights, though
    this isn't the entire story.  Equally responsible for the
    near-elimination of the BoR are our "solutions" (laws) to these
    abuses.
    
    You can't just say "people cannot handle freedom", then proceed to take 
    away said freedoms,  regardless of what lame rationalization *seems* 
    logical at the time.  Crime is an emotional issue in more than one way,
    and emotions tend to could judgement. 
    
    The problem also lies with the self-appointed elitists who decide that it 
    is okay to ignore the BoR all in the name of "emergency" or "necessity".  
    They are only deceiving themselves and others out of their God-given 
    freedoms, usually by judicious use of fear-mongering amoung the
    populace.  They are worse than the "freedom abusers", IMO.  At least
    you can put the "freedom abusers" in jail (which should be the
    solution- punish the guilty *person*...not the tool, not the
    transportation, not someone else's property, et.).  The "solutions" are
    much worse than the problems, as they promote abuses and corruption
    from government agencies (after all, government agencies are made up of
    people...and people tend towards corruption when they are given power).
    
    It isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to be.  In fact,
    government is by far the bigger threat.  At least I can defend myself
    against an individual who crosses the line and threatens my rights.  I
    cannot, however, defend myself against a government who choses this
    same path. 
    
    Be careful what you ask for...you may just get it.  I don't think you
    are a jack-booted thug in the making (as someone coined the phrase, 
    earlier); I just have the notion that you aren't really thinking this 
    issue through from all angles.
    
    
    
    -steve                  

    |The near-police state we live in today 
    
    steve, if you lived in a real police state you'd
    know what a ridiculous statement that is.

    
    
    
    .317
    
    
    Yep, it's all over. Need a change in the law now.
    

    Ed had a note, I read it quickly and when I came back it was deleted.

         I had something to say, but then I remembered past misadventures
    and decided to keep my opinions to myself. From now on, I won't jump
    into debates on any topics more controversial than hockey or baseball.

    what did it say?

    Go ahead. If you have a point to make, make it.

         I was only going to call one of the noters a communist and a
    traitor, but then I decided that wouldn't go over too well. 

    No, I am neither a communist or a traitor. In fact, I support the laws,
    so I must be quite the opposite.

    whew!  lunchbox, i'm so happy to find this out!

         C'mon, Lunchbox, you're a cop wannabe. No wonder you support the
    laws. You wish you were a blue-uniformed storm trooper and not just a
    lowly security guard.
                                   

    I have no desire to be a cop. I had an opportunity to be a corrections
    officer and decided against it. I want to do juvi probation. I really
    don't like police.
    
    					lunchbox

    Me neither.
    

    Has anybody seen the cops in southern CA beating the crap out of the
    two Mexican immigrants? They were swinging their billy clubs like
    baseball bats on this guy and woman. I guess there was a 70 mile chase
    and the cops were all hyped up and they went bananas. The cops are
    saying the Mexicans were throwing metal out of their truck at the cops
    the whole time. It was a pretty brutal beating, anyway. The woman is
    already suing. Both cops have been suspended. I've been listening to
    Howie Carr (I hate to admit it), and a lot of people are defending the
    cops because the people were here illegally, as though that means that
    they must relinquish their basic human rights. I guess that's to be
    expected from Howie's audience.
    
    						lunchbox

         The driver of that truck endangered the lives of his passengers,
    as well as the lives of other motorists. He intentionally rammed other
    cars twice during the chase in an attempt to distract the pursuing
    officers. The only surprising thing is that the passengers, who were
    nearly all killed when the camper shell blew off, didn't beat the
    driver to a pulp themselves. 

    The cops aren't the judge and jury, though. Their job was to take the
    driver into custody, not beat him into a bloody pulp along with his
    wife. I can't figure you out, Ed. One note you're complaining about
    stormtroopers, then you seem to defend the worst examples of them.
    Whose side are you on?

These illegal immigrants should consider themsleves lucky. In most other 
countries they could have been shot at.

This human rights thingie is sometimes going way over the line. If an illegal,
*and*, on top of it does something illegal like this, I wish the law should 
beat the crap out them, never mind if its physical.

	These illegals are setting this now prevalent anti-immigration tone, 
and as a result law abiding, tax paying legal immigrants get the brunt of it -
- Simpson Bill

-Jk

	Please step over the Canadian border at an area that there is no post. 
I will try and get Glenn Richardson to get those mounties to beat the crap out 
of you. Now is this something you see as right?


Glen

         If these immigrants truly wished to become American citizens, they
    should respect the laws of this country. By endangering the lives of
    the pursuing officers, as well as innocent motorists, the driver of
    that truck demonstrated that he has no intention of becoming a
    productive, law abiding citizen. 

	Does that mean when they weren't resisting arrest, it was ok to beat
them?

       I bet they won't try to resist again.  Maybe more -would be- illegal
    immigrants will take warning.

         I am not attempting to justify the actions of the officers
    involved in the beating. They have no right to beat anyone, regardless
    of the crime. Their job is to enforce the laws, not administer
    punishment. I am only reminding you that it is wrong to sympathize with
    the driver of that truck, who did not for a moment consider the
    consequences of his actions. Being hit with a baton is better than
    being smashed in a high-speed wreck, which is nearly what happened to
    him. 

>    I claim the concept has merit if the bugs can be worked out.

And, it would appear that, at least in this conference, you are relatively 
isolated in that opinion. The vast majority of respondents here - Republican 
and Democrat, conservative and liberal, are telling you that they fail to find 
the merit that you do. Yet you still contend that "most" people in this country
favor confiscation programs?

    If the immigrants should have respect for the laws of this country, so
    should the officers who are supposed to enforce the laws. These cops
    broke the law, and I hope they are punished to the full extent. BTW,
    cops are only supposed to use force equal to that of the criminal. The
    woman in the truck did not resist, yet she was ripped out by her hair
    and beaten.
    
    					lunchbox

    re.340
    
    I said most of the people I have talked to. I have never seen a poll on
    this subject. I hardly think SOAPBOX is a cross-section of society. 
    
    
    						lunchbox

> I hardly think SOAPBOX is a cross-section of society. 

Well, we certainly have a very broad spectrum of political viewpoints here.
It's quite conceivable that the socioeconomic variance is not as broad.

What do you think Soapbox lacks in order to constitute a representative sample?
Perhaps if we understood that we'd have a better sense of exactly who it is
that finds confiscation programs advisable.

>>         I am not attempting to justify the actions of the officers
>>    involved in the beating. 

On the contrary I feel the cops did the right thing, and US govt should
request the Mexican Govt, to display these videos on Mexican TV, in an attempt
serve as a warning to those -would be- iilegals. Most likely the next round 
of illegals would be the near and dear, kin, relatives and friends of those 
which came today. If they see the smashed up blood stanied faces of their
forerunners on TV (instead of phone call like, "Hey, everything was OK, just 
take those bushes 80 miles east off El Paso"), they will think twice.

    I think SOAPBOX has a lot of open minded individuals, who take time to
    think things through, which is a refreshing change from mainstream
    America. However, I live in South Boston, and I think 'boxers represent
    smaller towns and lesser crime.
    
    				lunchbox

    re .344
    
    Thank the good Christ you're not in charge.

       I've lived in several places (Boston included) and crime is pretty
    much bad all around.
    -ss

>On the contrary I feel the cops did the right thing

Wrong.

Getting whatever message you like across to would-be illegal aliens is
fine, but that does not justify the actions of these cops. It is neither
their duty nor their right to beat the crap out of anyone other than in 
very specific situations of self defense or defense of another. Such wasn't
the case here any more than it was in the Rodney King assault. More to the
point perhaps, is the fact that they weren't at least directly beating these 
people for being illegals, so the "message" would be ill-directed.

Howie Carr this PM was indicating that he was soft with respect to the
treatment appropriate for the cops. He started by saying they should be fired
and then backed off saying that they should merely be suspended for some 
relatively short period. Excuse me? If someone works in the dreaded private
sector and clearly violates the rights or duties of their office/position, 
they don't normally get handslapped, they get canned. You violate PP&P at
DIGITAL in a serious fashion and you're gone. Now, I doubt very seriously 
that these cops work in a department which has a clause in their PP&P which
states that it's just dandy to whale the stuffings out of someone under
detention. So how come some temporary suspension should be in order?

    re.344
    
    
        That's pretty harsh, JAYAKUMAR. You would have people beaten and
    terrorized for trying to cross the border? If you were in charge,
    people would be trying to escape the other way - south. 

    
    
    	re: various comments about the U.S. being a police state
    
    
    	Let me just say this; cops can do just about anything they want and
    get away with it. I know of one gent out of Worcester now confined to a
    wheel chair because of a beating he received by worcester's finest. His
    crime? Having long hair and wearing a leather jacket. I remember
    another kid in holden having his car trashed and himself beat to a pulp
    by holden cops. His crime? His car broke down and he was walking home
    (he also wore a leather jacket and had long hair). These two people
    were never arrested and the one that is paralyzed was dumped off in his
    driveway at 2am.....his parents awoke to his screams.
    
    	The police can walk in and beat you, take your property and KEEP
    it, and harass you at will. You can be arrested and held without being
    charged with a crime (witness the suspected unabomber in Montana...he
    is being held and has NOT been charged with anything as of this
    morning). 
    
    	It may not be a full fledged police state, but we're working on
    it...:*|
    
    
    jim

    My nephew is a police officer in FL. He tells me that he likes to work
    with the feds when they come to town because all his rules; Warrants
    etc are not needed... and it is not that they obtain them instead of
    him...
    
    Steve

>           <<< Note 692.350 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>

    
    >	Let me just say this; cops can do just about anything they want and
    >   get away with it.
    
    and this was not true prior to... when?

    
    
>             <<< Note 692.352 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>
    	
    
>    and this was not true prior to... when?

    	Not my point. My point was, this has always been true but it
    shouldn't be. People seem to accept this as "normal" and "ok" as long
    as it's the other guy getting picked on. The police/feds need to be put
    on a short leash and start having the rules apply to them too. The
    police/feds are SUPPOSED to need warrants to search you/your
    possessions. They are SUPPOSED to not be able to hold you without
    charging you with a crime. They are not SUPPOSED to be able to take
    your property without due process of law. These powers are being abused
    more and more now that PD's count on confiscations for much of their
    budget. Things need to change.....
    
    
    jim 

   jim, i don't accept it as normal or ok, but you were saying that
   we're working on becoming a police state, as if the abuse of power
   is something new.  i'm wondering just how much worse it has gotten
   in actuality, and over how long a period of time.  i agree that it
   needs to change.

    
    
    	>             <<< Note 692.354 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>
>
>
>   jim, i don't accept it as normal or ok, but you were saying that
>   we're working on becoming a police state, as if the abuse of power
>   is something new.  i'm wondering just how much worse it has gotten
>   in actuality, and over how long a period of time.  i agree that it
>  needs to change.
    
    	Police depts and federal agencies have become increasingly
    dependent on confiscation to supplement their rising operating
    costs. I wish I had the numbers in front of me, but from memory the
    police depts in most major cities depend on confiscation for about 25%
    of their budget (up from not depending on it for any of their budget).
    This isn't icing on top of the cake....it's part of the cake. Obviously
    this is going to lead to an increased need to make more busts and meet
    the "quota" for the budget. Hence, more questionable arrests/property
    seizures and more innocent people being rolled over.
    
    	As far as simple beatings/assault goes, just the fact that
    PDs/agencies are increasing in size means that there will be more bad
    cops mixed in with the good cops. 
    
    	jim

    re: .319
    
    First of all, I said "near-police state", not police state.  I guess
    you have not been paying much attention to the federales efforts over
    the last several years, nor the current string (confiscation of
    property- in the way being described in this topic- is definitely
    police-state material).
    
    In any case, you should know by now that I tend to choose words for
    their literary "shock" value, when I'm discussing this sort of thing. 
    In this case, I don't feel the exaggeration is all that great-
    especially considering current trends.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .296
    
    back to the seizure issue:
    
    l'box:  I doubt there is a specific law written 'on the books' that
    says any person apprehended while driving a vehicle and soliciting a 
    prostitute MUST surrender that vehicle to the authorities prior to
    adjudication of the allegation.  As the Doctah pointed out many,many
    notes ago, these seizure problems are a direct results of the RICO
    laws, which were enacted as a way to 'get' at the top drug kings in
    the country.  We couldn't get these guys with what laws were available,
    they were too far removed from the actual commission of x,y,z crimes,
    but the thinking was if the big cheeses were removed, the basic
    structure of organized crime would collapse.  So, in order to do this,
    they made laws which (RICO) where they could go after these guys and
    part  of this was the entire seizure issue.  It wasn't right then and
    it's not right now.  As we can all see, this had the marvelous result
    of making our streets drug-free.  Everytime they bagged a 'biggie'
    there were 20 more lined up to take his place.  So, not only has this
    WoD NOT solved the drug problem in this country, law enforcement
    officials are further perverting the intent behind RICO to line their
    coffers and more innocent people will suffer as a result of this
    blatant abuse.  Oh, but that doesn't matter, you can sleep at night.
    Well, I'm glad you can. 

re: .326 (Lunchie)

>    No, I am neither a communist or a traitor. In fact, I support the laws,
>    so I must be quite the opposite.

Supporting random laws just because they're "on the books" is no virtue,
and doing so doesn't make you a patriot of any sort.

Glad to help.

\john

    If you believe in reincarnation, a couple hundred years ago LB would've 
    been telling us how great King George was and how it behooved us to
    remain true to mother England.

>>        That's pretty harsh, JAYAKUMAR. You would have people beaten and
>>    terrorized for trying to cross the border? If you were in charge,
>>    people would be trying to escape the other way - south. 

Right. I was a bit too harsh on that note. What makes me write like this is, 
I am absolutely mad on a few issues on immigration in this country:

 - The harsh treatment by Immigration officers, given to educated and talented 
   individuals, who wish to come to this country for higher education/high 
   paying jobs, leading to permanent residency (especially more so, if you 
   happen to come from not most-favoured-third-world-nation). 
   My friend's mother who wanted to visit him and spend some time with his 
   3 month old baby, was rejected a 3 month Visa. Reason: "Visa officers 
   thought his mother would be a potential immigrant". BS. Nonsense. His wife 
   had to wait close to 4 years, to join him here, because of these skewed up 
   Visa laws.

   	.. all this is perhaps OK... but...

- On the other hand I see how thousands of illegals just cross the border with 
  no hassle. I was absolutely horrified to see how the Chinese and the Cuban 
  illegals who came on a boat last year, got their green-cards within the 
  first week of their arrival. I guess the lesson is: the easier route for 
  immigration is to take a flight to the closest island off key-west, and jump 
  on a floating object and head towards Florida. Never-ever try the legal route.

  The point is, while there may be legitimate reasons on being tight on 
  immigration from a few countries (and I also do understand that US is still 
  the most open country in the world for immigrants), there is absolutely no 
  justification for being so soft on illegals. If not today, in a decade or two
  this will become an unbearable problem, and then the Govt will be cave in
  to public pressure, and such cop-beating incidents then will hardly evoke
  any response from the public.

-Jk

| <<< Note 692.338 by BSS::SMITH_S "lycanthrope" >>>

| I bet they won't try to resist again.  

	I bet that maybe if they had resisted, what you said above would
actually have made sense. But seeing they did not, it makes ZERO sense.

| Maybe more -would be- illegal immigrants will take warning.

	Yeah, come to America, get beaten, become a millionare. 

	I was watching the Today show this morning and this thing has really
gotten out of hand. I caught it in the middle of it, so I don't know who this
guy was representing. My guess is the cops. The guy had the nerve to say Mexico
has to take partial responsibility for this incident as they created a bad
economical envioment, which made people come over the border. Is this guy for
real? Mexico has NOTHING to do with those 2 people who got beaten. ZERO. The
cops are the ONLY ones who should be taking responsibility for what happened.



Glen

> i'm wondering just how much worse it has gotten
> in actuality, and over how long a period of time.

I have a theory on this. The first major move in this direction occurred
in the latter part of the 19th century when major American cities began
to really expand with the influx of immigrants. Along with that increase
in our population, came the need (perceived or real, I don't know, I wasn't
there) to beef up the police forces in the major cities to "deal with"
whatever the issues were that resulted from the greater populations. [Now,
before anyone jumps on me due to their lack of reading comprehension
skills, please note that I'm not _blaming_ anything on the immigrants
here. I'm simply noting that the population explosion which they contributed
to was the impetus for large city governments to accellerate the expansion
of their police forces.] To a large extent, these expanded police forces
took it upon themselves to overstep their bounds, largely because they
had a lot more time on their hands, there being more of them, than had their
predecessors who, being fewer in numbers, may have had all that they could do
just to keep up with what _had_ to be done.

The second, and in my opinion far more significant step in this direction
took place in the early part of this century with the proliferation of
the automobile. Now, any area of the country, whether a major urban center
or not, had a need to increase the budget and the workforce of the police
department in order to "enforce" the myriad of traffic regulations which
were put in place. This legacy is quite obviously with us to this day,
to the extent that almost every enforcement agency in this country spends
more time and budget on vehicular enforcement issues of some sort than they
do on actual crime. Once again, the sheer population of the police forces
is a contributing factor to their individual need to push their muscle
around, as they have more than sufficient time on their hands in which
to do so. If the cops' numbers were cut such that they weren't spending 
entire shifts sitting out on the highways looking for trouble (often where 
it doesn't exist), then they wouldn't as frequently be acting as they do.

It isn't any wonder that people show concern for the increase in the
police state when we see things like Slick's crime bill setting the wheels
in motion to add hundreds of thousands of cops to the payrolls. A lean
police force is a better idea than a bloated one. If a cop is complaining 
that he has so much to do that he can't handle it all, then that cop is
unlikely to find the time to harrass innocent citizens without making
it clear to his superiors that he's doing something other than his job.
When you have too many cops, those sorts of activites become less apparent.

| <<< Note 692.344 by EDSCLU::JAYAKUMAR >>>

	See note .335. Now respond to it.

| <<< Note 692.345 by CSLALL::SECURITY "LUNCHBOX" >>>

| However, I live in South Boston, and I think 'boxers represent smaller towns 
| and lesser crime.

	If you live in SB, we should get together sometime. I think it would be
cool to meet ya!

>  The point is, while there may be legitimate reasons on being tight on 
>  immigration from a few countries (and I also do understand that US is still 
>  the most open country in the world for immigrants), there is absolutely no 
>  justification for being so soft on illegals.

I couldn't agree with you more. But it still doesn't mean that cops have an
automatic right to beat the snot out of anyone.

| <<< Note 692.348 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

| and then backed off saying that they should merely be suspended for some
| relatively short period. 

	What I find ironic about this is the city says how ashamed they are for
this incident, so they put the cops on paid leave. Yeah....they seem so
ashamed.....

| <<< Note 692.355 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>


| This isn't icing on top of the cake....it's part of the cake. 

	Jim, is it a boob cake?

    
    
    re -1
    
    	just a small one.
    
    

re: 692.296 CSLALL::SECURITY "LUNCHBOX"
    
>    The woman didn't violate any law, her husband did, and the law in that
>    area says that vehicles used in this sort of crime are to be
>    confiscated. She can challange this law on a constitutional basis, but
>    if the law says the vehicle is to be taken, that's the law. She doesn't
>    like the law too much at this point, I would guess.
 
    I'm not asking you to repeat yourself here, Just asking you to answer 
    questions you have so far not responded too.
    
    Do you support laws which increase the number of victims per crime?
    
    Do you agree that the confiscatory laws can (often do) increase the 
    number of victims per crime?
    
    Do you believe that confiscatory laws create victims when NO crime
    has been committed?
    
    Do you agree that there is widespread abuse of the confiscatory laws?
    
    Do you still support these laws (you previously responded with 95% yes)
    given what you (haven't) learned in this string?
    
    I'm not looking for the 'law is the law' here. I want to know what
    you beleive is reasonable law.
    
    Doug.

    
    Did the cops know they were illegals when they were beating them?

    Two things...
    
    -The Mexican government has absolutely NO right to squak about this,
    since it is their policies which propogate illegal immigration.  They
    deserve no apology.
    
    -The illegals who got beaten up deserve NO due process.  This means
    they cannot receive any stipends from and federal or local government.
    They can't even have their day in court.  What they should get is
    compassionate help in getting over their ordeal...just before they are
    transported back to the Mexican border.  
    
    -Jack

>>	Please step over the Canadian border at an area that there is no post. 
>>I will try and get Glenn Richardson to get those mounties to beat the crap out 
>>of you. Now is this something you see as right?

What response do you expect from me? If I accidentally wander into the Canadian
border, I will not be stupid enough to run away from cops. Knowing that I had
trespassed I would rather politely ask them directions to get back home.

-Jk

	And if they don't believe you, and beat the hell out of you, is it ok?

    
      So how come Lady Di sticks it to me for "beat to a bloody pulp",
     but you guys get away with "beat the crap out of" and "beat the
     hell out of" ?  Unequal Modulator harassment !
    
      I've been bludgeoned by Bonapartistes again...
    
      bb

   .374  I hold you to a higher standard than I do most 'boxers, dear.
	 For this, I won't apologize. ;>

| <<< Note 692.374 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>


| I've been bludgeoned by Bonapartistes again...

	Maybe if you had worded it like the above, all would have been ok. :-)

>>	And if they don't believe you, and beat the hell out of you, is it ok?

Oh! Now I understand. These Mexicans, "accidentaly" crossed the border and still
thinking they were in Mexico, they were surprised and shocked to find themselves
near LA, and when confronted by the cops, they politely asked to be escorted
to the border.... 

	      ... and then the cops beat the crap out them.. 

You know, that is bad.. real bad...  I always had the suspicion that these 
radio and TV guys are distorting the facts.. now I know for sure.. Thanks for 
enlightening me Silva. 

-Jk

re: The tendency toward a Police State

Let me tell you a little story.

When I moved to Mont Vernon and built my house in 83-84, Mont Vernon
was a sleepy little community of about 1500 people with a part-time
police chief and about four or five part-time police officers. We did 
not have 24x7 on-duty police coverage in town, but we also didn't
have any major crime problems or a perceived need for such coverage,
so we largely didn't GAS regarding what we apparently "lacked".

In 1985, there was a murder in town. To this day, I don't think I've
seen any definitive summary of what happened, but the story has always
been that the murder was drug related and that the perp came into
town from someplace in the PRM to do the dirty deed. I.E., we ain't
exactly harboring a lot of criminals in town.

When the murder was discovered, the police were called. When no one is
in the police office, the call forwards to the dispatcher in Milford,
who then worries about getting the appropriate parties to the emergency
site. The first to arrive on the scene were the State Police. The town
police chief showed up some time thereafter. A few days later, the town
police chief and the selectmen were royally reamed by the State Police
Department out of Concord. They were told that the town IS REQUIRED to
have full time 7X24 coverage by a salaried police force.

So the selectmen floated a bond or what-have-you to come up with a salary
for a full time police chief for the rest of the year and hired a full-time
chief (who, as it turns out, was a washout from some desk job in Lowell
PD, and, let me tell you, a fine little goose-stepper this turkey is).

The following spring, of course, the new Chief of Police submitted a budget
to the Selectmen and requested funding to hire two more full time officers
and the purchase of additional cruisers plus a 4x4 (some dirt roads in town,
doncha know, as well as difficult-to-traverse gravel driveways and roads
subject to gates-and-bars which Chiefey wanted to be able to freely access.)
Over the past eight years, this clown has talked them into boosting the budget
each year and he now has a day-shift dispatcher in town, two more full time 
officers and near a dozen part time officers. Well, in fairness, the town _has_ 
grown - we're now up to just shy of 2K people.

We don't have any more of a crime problem in town now than we did 12 years
ago. As a matter of fact, there hasn't even been another murder, if you
can imagine that. What we do have, however, is a fleet of cruisers and
4WD vehicles sitting by the roadsides all over town every day most of the
day "taking pictures". I must admit that it's not a revenue enhancement
plan, though, as we don't have court system in town and any monies paid
out on speeding fines go to the Milford Municiple Court where the cases
are heard. But I'll tell you, the Chief and his boys have lots of time
on their hands to bother the citizenry.

Some other time I'll tell you about the man-hours that they spent worrying
about the fact that my dog was unlicensed last year after she'd run away
three months previously.

| <<< Note 692.377 by EDSCLU::JAYAKUMAR >>>


| You know, that is bad.. real bad...  I always had the suspicion that these
| radio and TV guys are distorting the facts.. now I know for sure.. Thanks for
| enlightening me Silva.

	I guess you're a bigger idiot than I thought. It comes down to that
when someone is not resisting arrest, they should not have the crap beaten out
of them. It wouldn't matter who the person was. Even if it were you.

    
    	Glen, you still can't liken a person "accidentally crossing the
    	border" to "a truckload of illegal aliens causing massive prop-
    	erty damage in a police chase".
    
    	And Jack, maybe the crime rate is that low because of the pres-
    	ence of the police.
    

>              <<< Note 692.380 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Basket Case" >>>
    
>    	And Jack, maybe the crime rate is that low because of the pres-
>    	ence of the police.

    that occurred to me, too.  one of those things it's pretty much
    impossible to know.
    

>    	And Jack, maybe the crime rate is that low because of the pres-
>    	ence of the police.

Yes. I'm sure that's it, Shawn. I mean, the fact that we had an almost
non-existant crime rate prior to the institution of a full-time town
Armed Forces Department, and the fact that we still have same is almost
certainly a tribute to the police presence. No doubt there was a crime
wave just waiting to happen in Mont Vernon and these clowns nipped it
in the bud. I think you've called it properly.

    Yeas Brian, unfortunately you are held to the same standard that I am. 
    We must persevere together for Lady Di!
    
    I lived in Mont Vernon for three years.  It's a sleeper town...no
    crime.  Has nothing to do with the police presence.
    
    -Jack

    re: .380, .381
    
    If there wasn't any crime before they hired the full-time police force
    and none after, all we know is that the full-time police force didn't
    make things worse.
    
    Bob

      .356
    
      /First of all, I said "near-police state", not police state...
      /In any case, you should know by now that I tend to choose words 
      /for their literary "shock" value, when I'm discussing this sort 
      /of thing.  
    
      oh, i see.  you choose words for their literary shock value, even
      if those words express ideas that are patently false.  let me tell
      you something, dearie.  if you used those words in a _real_ police
      state you might encounter the following:
    
      -abduction by the police
      -a good beating down at the police station
      -live electrodes applied to your genitals to 
       encourage you to sign a "confession"
      -maybe your relatives and bowling friends would
       hear from you again, and maybe they wouldn't
      -no legal recourse   
    
      /In this case, I don't feel the exaggeration is all 
      /that great - especially considering current trends.
    
      and i think it is.  

    
    	But if it didn't get worse, that means it is arguably better
    	than it could have been.
    
    	Jack M., there is no way to know that the crime rate wouldn't
    	be worse now.  Maybe the criminals know to stay away because
    	of the obvious police presence ... and they all go to Lowell
    	instead.
    

>    	But if it didn't get worse, that means it is arguably better
>    	than it could have been.

You're kidding, right?

???

    Maybe visible prsence of cops deters criminals from elsewhere from
    coming in and committing crimes (as in the case of the murder)?
    
    

    
    	RE: .387
    
    	Ummm, no.  Almost stands to reason.
    
    
    	RE: .388
    
    	Yes, I think that's what I just said.  8^)
    

It sounds like a few respondents in here have actually been listening to 
Slick and the cops nationwide telling them to just fund their programs
so that they can protect them. It's no wonder we're in the state we're
in. I rest my case and extend my thanks to the opposition for making
my point for me.

    Shawn:
    
    There is one police officer on duty in the evenings.  He grew up in the
    town, he's about 24 years of age, and he cruises up and down Rt.
    13...much of his time is in the firestation parking lot.  He was my
    next door neighbor.  Nice kid.  
    
    Criminals are not deterred by this Shawn...not in the least.
    
    -Jack

    
    	Well, Jack, maybe you can suggest some sort of a "quota system"
    	on violent crime.  If a town goes more than 5 years without a
    	murder, you eliminate the police force completely ... or at
    	least remove X officer[s]/year.
    
    	I know you don't want to believe it, but police presence is a
    	deterrent of sorts.
    
    	What's "worst case"?  1 officer for every resident.  Would you
    	agree that the crime rate would effectively be 0 with "round
    	the clock" 1-on-1 protection?
    
    	What's "best case"?  0 officers for every resident.  Would you
    	agree that the crime rate would be mugh higher, or the max that
    	the crime rate could achieve?
    
    	The idea is to find a happy medium.  I don't know what that is,
    	but apparently the happy medium that was decided on was chosen
    	and approved by more than 1 person.
    

    Shawn:
    
    I'm not poo pooing the guy being on duty.  I believe it is goodness. 
    I'm merely stating that Mont Vernon is a sleeper town and that
    criminals aren't here simply because there is nothing to come here for.
    
    

    
    	I see.  None of the residents have cars or jewelry?
    

>    	The idea is to find a happy medium.  I don't know what that is,
>    	but apparently the happy medium that was decided on was chosen
>    	and approved by more than 1 person.

Well, yes, I suppose so. By some group in the State Police Dept. in
Concord who rammed this idea down the Selectmen's throats, if you'll
recall the sequence of events. No one in our town, including the
selectmen, prior to the strong-arming by the SPD, WANTED a full time
force. It was ANOTHER POLICE AGENCY that put us in this situation.
And it's the town cop who keeps boosting the budget and threatening
the selectmen with the evils that will befall the town if he doesn't
get his new officers and fast cars.    

The issue is that it's a stupid idea to go around looking for solutions
to problems that you don't have on the pretense that it's preventative.

We're looking at a clear example of a town which had pretty much gotten through
most of the 20th century WITHOUT using the cookie cutter cops plan adopted
by most other towns in the country and had done so successfully. But we
were pressed into a mold, kicking and screaming as it were, so that we could
"conform" to the model. Most likely because it would have been in bad form
for us to be recognized as being crime free without a police presence.

More issues - case in point -

May 1990, a weekday morning, 5:30 AM. I get up. My house sits down at
the end of a windy quarter-mile gravel driveway in the woods. Not the
sort of place where one just "happens to be" without some reason. I look
out my front window, and here's the goddam village cop 4x4 sitting in
my front yard. I throw on a pair of slippers and go to the front door
to ask him just what the hell he thinks he's doing. I open the door
and he guns the engine and practically lays rubber (on the gravel, no less!)
as he heads back up the driveway at about 40MPH (I hope he busted something
on that damn Blazer.) 9AM I call Chiefey to inquire as to why the hell
he has one of his stooges on private property at that time of the AM and
BTW did the airhole have a warrant? Chiefey's response? "The officer
on duty at that time was nowhere in the vicinity of your property. You
must be mistaken." Sure. My eyes are going, but I sure as hell know
a town cop car at less than 50 feet. Now, you tell me that these guys
don't have too much time on their hands and that they're honest as the
day is long and that they don't hassle the innocent.

Yeah. They're just there to protect and to serve. My butt, they are.

    
    	Jack, police officers are like car insurance.  You pay for car
    	insurance, even though you don't need it right now, because
    	you might need it some day.
    
    	I don't know why the cop was in your front yard ... that's
    	somewhat relevant to the "spare time" portion of this disc-
    	ussion, but no more than that.
    

>    	I don't know why the cop was in your front yard ... that's
>    	somewhat relevant to the "spare time" portion of this disc-
>    	ussion, but no more than that.

BS. We were discussing "how did we get to where we are in terms of cops
overstepping their authority". I claim it's because we have an excess
number of cops, which provides them with time to be putting their
noses where they don't belong. I brought up the story as an indicator
that they do exactly that.

But, typically, and as expected, the response is "Well, I can't explain it
but it's not important anyway." Not so. It's a demonstration of what's at 
the very heart of the matter.

   .390  maybe, just maybe, some of us indulging in a little pure
	 speculation.  you have no way of knowing, for certain, why
	 the crime rate in mt. vernon hasn't increased, and we don't
	 either.

    Easy...the get away cars would get stuck in the mud driveways! :-)

    
    	Jack D., I was speaking in regards to the current thread of
    	"too many officers in Mont Vernon".  I wasn't trying to con-
    	nect to "overstepping of bounds", but of course you're right
    	in that that's what he did.
    

>   .390  maybe, just maybe, some of us indulging in a little pure
>	 speculation.  you have no way of knowing, for certain, why
>	 the crime rate in mt. vernon hasn't increased, and we don't
>	 either.


And the difference is I'm not willing to buy the argument that Slick and the
law enforcers are peddling - Put more cops out there and it'll be safer -
and you are.

    
    	Jack, with that cop sitting in your front yard, what are the
    	chances that someone would try and break into your house?
    
    	Slim, bordering on none?
    
    	Now we're going full-circle to that 1-on-1 protection I was
    	talking about earlier.
    

>        <<< Note 692.401 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>And the difference is I'm not willing to buy the argument that Slick and the
>law enforcers are peddling - Put more cops out there and it'll be safer -
>and you are.

	where did i say that?  i love how everybody attributes all this
	stuff to me without my saying anything.  it's just great. ;>

>    	Jack, with that cop sitting in your front yard, what are the
>    	chances that someone would try and break into your house?

Shawn, with a quarter mile driveway that winds it's way through the woods
and no other means out of the property, what are the chances that anyone
would be stupid enough to try to come in there to break into the house
without any way of knowing whether someone might drive in behind them and 
find them. Most crooks don't tend to be dumb enough to paint themselves
into corners and the ones who are don't have the wherewithall to be
rifling through rural neighborhoods as they find 7-11's more to their
liking.

It's just as I said, you've actually been listening to, and now believe,
this crap about how they're there to protect you.

    
    	I think I'm starting to understand this now:
    
    	All cops are bad, because a very small percentage happen to over-
    	step their boundaries.
    
    	Not all gun owners are bad, just because a very small percentage
    	happen to overstep their boundaries.
    
    	Crystal clear.
    

Di,
   You indicated that "the thought occurred to you" that the crime rate
   was low because of police presence. I took that to be a veiled
   way of saying that you believed that to be the case. This is the Slick
   plan and the plan of law enforcers nationwide - that people should
   believe such tripe.

   Crime rates are low where there is an absence of crime. Period. Regardless
   of how many cops there may be in that area. While it may be the case in 
   some instances that a police presence tends to lower the incidence of 
   crime, that is not a universal truism. In a pre-existing absence of crime, 
   there is no justification for a police presence to maintain the status 
   quo simply because Slick or some cheap cop wants one to think so.

>    	All cops are bad

a) Nobody said that, and
b) I'm not a gun owner

>             <<< Note 692.381 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

>              <<< Note 692.380 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Basket Case" >>>
    
>    	And Jack, maybe the crime rate is that low because of the pres-
>    	ence of the police.

>    that occurred to me, too.  one of those things it's pretty much
>    impossible to know.

    no, here's what i said, Jack.  i was trying to look at it from	
    a logical perspective, i.e., that it's impossible to know what
    would have happened to the crime rate had the police numbers
    not increased.  period.  end of story.  nothing veiled about it.
    the rest of the preaching you did in your last note was basically
    to the choir, but thanks anyways.
    

Well, then, I was mistaken in my interpretion of your note and I apologize.

   .409  you're a honorable man, but we all knew that.  thanks. ;>

>>	I guess you're a bigger idiot than I thought. 
				^^^^^

.. and the irony is you are talking about law and civilized behaviour

>  Is one of the demands of the Freemen to allow sex industry workers into
>Justus Township?

Yah.

Their motto is "Free the C Men".

re .372:


>What response do you expect from me? If I accidentally wander into the Canadian
>border, I will not be stupid enough to run away from cops. Knowing that I had
>trespassed I would rather politely ask them directions to get back home.

My sister actually did this (get lost and not realize it until reaching
Canadian Customs booth).  I am very glad the Mounties did not beat her to
a bloody pulp.

[Now it will be time for /john to tell us his story about inadvertently
 crossing the border into Canada. This will be the tenth time that I've
 seen it posted.]

    re. more police protection == less crime
    
    Known as 'Crime Hardening'. Purpose is to deter crime. Similar to
    security alarms, security cameras in stores, and (believe it or not,
    gun ownership).
    
    Does it really work? My guess is that the 'true' criminal will always
    find a way around this stuff. But it probably does deter the dabbler,
    or as the old saying goes, "It keeps honest people honest."
    
    Does more police protection == less crime?
    
    I guess that depends on how many law there are to break. I'd be more
    likely to venture that more laws == more crime...

    
    	Ummm, Michelle, your last sentence isn't exactly a ground-break-
    	ing announcement.
    
    	0 laws = no crime
    	infinite number of laws = 100% crime
    
    	So, yes, the more laws you have, the more crime that occurs.
    

        .418
    
        \all your bullet points happen or have happened to people at the
        \hands of various law-enforcement officials.
    
        just what are you saying, steve?  are you referring to law 
        enforcement officials in the US?  are you saying that people 
        have "disappeared", never to be seen again after being abducted 
        by the the police in this country??  please be more clear. 

    Oops...I deleted .418 to fix a grammatical problem, and forgot that I
    can't reply/last as I had already posted another note.  
    
    .419
    
    I think you have the gist of it.

    Jack-
    
    	Your 'visitor' may have had his 'girlfriend' on his lap, and didn't
    want it to get back to his wife. If the cops in your town are creeping
    around people's property, you might not want to confront them in your
    yard. It would be easy to shoot you and lay a knife or gun next to your
    body, and then claim self-defense. I would stay inside and take
    pictures.
    
    
    					lunchbox

    .420
    
    \I think you have the gist of it.
    
    what state did this happen in?  where was a person abducted by
    police, never to be seen or heard from again?

> It would be easy to shoot you and lay a knife or gun next to your
> body, and then claim self-defense.

Knowing the cops in my town, they'd be more likely to shoot me, lay the
knife next to my body, and claim suicide.

    Boy, Mont Vernon is sounding a lot like the projects eh?

>    	Jack, with that cop sitting in your front yard, what are the
>    	chances that someone would try and break into your house?

Some further reflections on this with some more serious implications, Shawn.

If the purpose of the cop's being there was ostensibly protective, then
why is it that he hightailed it out of there as soon as he saw me open 
the door, before he could be identified?

If there was no reason not to acknowledge the possibility of his having
been there, why did Chiefey tell me I "must be mistaken" rather
than suggesting that he'd investigate the matter?

My expectation is that this is worse than a "spare time" issue, Shawn.
My suspicion is that he was "casing" the place, and that the Chief was
aware of his actions. And, with a response from the chief such as I
got, what recourse did I have to pursue the matter? After all, it would
be only my word against the cheap cop's.

But, getting back to the "low crime rate follows from police presence"
lie, there's another maxim that comes to mind.

	If it works, don't fix it.

There wasn't really anything in Mont Vernon that needed fixing. Still
isn't. But we've got it anyway.

    
      Jack, did this cop have a doughnut, by chance ?
    
      bb

    I have to agree with Jack.  If'n it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    We have a house in upstate New York which happens to be where
    my SO grew up.  Russia, NY.  Near Utica and not terribly distant
    from Rome.  Poland, the village which serves Russia, does not
    have a police department, nor do most of the other small
    towns between us and the Adirondack Park.  The area is 
    serviced by the State Police. In spite of the fact that crime
    in Utica has jumped appreciably in recent years, there have
    been no major problems.  No one is running out to acquire
    police.  
    
    Yes, we've been broken into twice. Hey, the house sits
    next to the highway out in the middle of nowhere and it's empty
    half the year, what do you expect?  We talked to the State Police
    about putting in an alarm (you can reach the officer in his office 
    in Poland from 3:00-3:05 PM every day :-) but he said, hey, it'll 
    take me 20 minutes to get there anyway, why waste the money.  So we 
    don't keep anything up there we can't afford to lose (This year
    they grabbed the busted stereo system).  
    
    Of course, everyone up there knows how to shoot and has more than 
    one gun :-) :-).  As Keith's cousin told the state trooper, "If
    I catch them in the house you won't be taking them back in the
    cruiser, and I'll be fixing the holes in the wall." :-) Life 
    is different up there, and frankly I prefer it to here where
    everyone runs scared is are willing to give up their own
    freedoms so that other people can protect them from violence.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    

re .426:

NY is run a little differently as far as cops go.  In the PRM and, I believe,
NH, counties are almost nonexistant and towns have local power.  In NY towns
usually don't have much power and counties are much more important.  Only
cities and the largest towns have their own cops.  The rest rely on the county
sheriff's department and the state police.

My family also has a cottage in Nowheresville, NY, and it, too, has been broken
into twice over about 15 years.  We had to call the state police who were about
a half hour away (assuming they don't get lost), there is no town police force.
There is no real crime other than mostly kids up to pranks (one breakin they
didn't take anything, they did things like throw darts into the ceiling)

The town I grew up in now has about 25,000 people and it still doesn't have its
own police force.  (It happens to have a state police barracks in town so
it doesn't really need one)

    
    
    
    .406 and .408
    
    
    
    Actually an experiment was done, where Police patrols were removed
    from one area and doubled in another.  (They still responded to calls
    in area 1 though)
    
    In both areas crime rates stayed exactly the same.
    
    
    

    That study was done in Connecticut.
    
    Not that it matters...

   .428  is that supposed to prove something?  or is it just
	 supposed to be interesting anecdotal evidence?

    
    
    .430 I guess it would tell me to staff police high enough to respond
    	 to calls but beyond that is over kill. As it has no visable effect
    	 on crime. (I think many areas they don't staff high enough to
         respond to calls though.)
    
    .429 I thought it was in Ca.
    
    

>                    <<< Note 692.431 by ALFSS2::WILBUR_D >>>

	so this one test does prove something to you.  interesting.

    
    	How long did they run this experiment?
    
    	A day?  A week?
    

>>    	Ummm, Michelle, your last sentence isn't exactly a ground-break-
>>    	ing announcement.
    
>>    	0 laws = no crime
>>    	infinite number of laws = 100% crime
    
>>    	So, yes, the more laws you have, the more crime that occurs.
    
    
    Yeah, I figured it was old news, but couldn't help myself  (';

    The times are different, but the Freeman are not freemen
    in the eye of the all mighty government.   Government
    wants their TAXes, enforce laws, etc...
    
    What is the difference between the Freemen and say the
    people who participated in the Boston Tea Party?  or 
    fighting the war against the British?
    
    I would tend to say that these people have a gripe with
    the government which parallels alot of the battles 
    that made this government "we the people"...  I see
    this "we the people" as slipping away myself.
    
    Only thing is ALOT of people are getting fed up and will
    be popping off in the future.   Government is into our
    lives to much. 

|   The times are different, but the Freeman are not freemen
|   in the eye of the all mighty government.
    
    The freemen aren't freemen to any rational human.
    
|   What is the difference between the Freemen and say the
|   people who participated in the Boston Tea Party?
    
    Learn a little more about the !free!men, and you'd be able to answer
    that question quickly.
    
    								-mr. bill

    |What is the difference between the Freemen and say the   
    |people who participated in the Boston Tea Party?
    
    well, for starters, it seems the participants in the
    Boston Tea Party were able to drum up considerable
    support for their cause (i.e. they weren't bozos). 

    .436 Learn a little more about the !free!men, and you'd be able to
    .436 answer that question quickly.
    
    Where can I find some of their literature?   I don't want any stupid
    heresay from the press.

    .436 - do you know alot about them other than what crap our 
           useless press dishes out?   
    
    
    

    
    !free!men "literature"?  Where's George Carlin?
    
    								-mr. bill

    They (the freemen) have no literature.   Everything you
    ever heard about them was spoon feed to you by a press 
    that could do a better job of reporting FACTs and only
    FACTs.

    Don't mind Mr. Bill, his blood pressure goes up when things like
    "militia", "conspiracy", and the like are brought up.  If you dare to
    question that folks like the Branch Dividians, Randall Weaver and
    militia folks are not exactly as the media pictures them, you
    automatically get a good blasting.
    
    I think that the freemen likely have a legitamate beef with the
    government.  From all I know so far, however, they have not handled the
    situation with much intelligence.  
    
    
    -steve

|   They (the freemen) have no literature.
    
    No kidding?  Guess the Jumbo Shrimp reference went bazing, right over
    your head, did it now.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
      A legitimate beef ?  Not from the UK, then.
    
      bb

    of course the fleemen have a legitimate beef -
    they live in a near-police state, for peet's sake.

    
    And it's called "Justus".
    
    								-mr. bill

    <---- you have a good point, Oph.

>    cruiser, and I'll be fixing the holes in the wall." :-) Life 
>    is different up there, and frankly I prefer it to here where
>    everyone runs scared is are willing to give up their own
>    freedoms so that other people can protect them from violence.

Sadly, few realize others will not and can not protect them. For the former,
see SCOTUS, for the latter, how many minutes away is your police department?

The police are not the force that holds society together.

    Given the preceding arguments, it's a tad odd that the Freemen decided
    to elect a sheriff.

About the 'legitimate gripe with the government' comment.

Seems the local Sheriff agrees with this, although he does not
agree with their methodology in addressing the issue.

Said sheriff also stated there will be more of the same in the near
future if those folks in DC keep going the way they have and don't
start paying attention to the people  ...


Doug.
 

    
    But the `folks in DC' are in complete agreement with the actions of the
    Freemen when it comes to writing bad checks on the house bank....
    

    re: Note 692.449 by BRITE::FYFE
    
    } Seems the local Sheriff agrees with this, although he does not
    } agree with their methodology in addressing the issue.
    
    Bingo.  This stuff doesn't just happen overnight.  The freemen shook
    up the "real" gov't.  Some of the cheques they were writing/cashing
    bounced deep in the banking system, meaning, some of the checks
    were "good".
    
    The folks are taking a bashing in the media, and the mainstream
    people can think they're wacko idiots, racist, whatever... but 
    SOME of the things they were doing ARE legit.  The reason the
    FBI hasn't started killing people is because the Freemens liens
    won't be dischargable for another 99 years.  Get the liens removed,
    and THEN the FBI can start shooting and bombing the "compound".
    
    C'mon folks, like them or not, look a litter deeper.  There's more
    to the story.  This deal is located in ::FIREARMS, topic 6502 I 
    believe. 
    
    MadMike

      Say Mike, could you post the node to firearms?
    
      I've been steering clear of this topic because I know I
      am ignorant, but I don't mind expressing my gut feel.
    
      Which is this...
    
      Some people way up high essentially want to disarm America.
      There is a powerful intelligence somewhere that says militias
      have got to go.
    
      Its the easiest trick in the trade.  Create a national attitude
      of desiring your own desire.  Create in the minds of the 
      citizenship the desire to dismantle all militias.  Use what-
      ever resources you have.  The media.  The example of extremism
      (should this be the actual case or contrived. makes no 
      difference...)                                
    
      Bottom line...its called the disarming of America.
    
    						Tony

    |There is a powerful intelligence somewhere...
    
    over the rainbow?

    agagagagag.

    America will never be disarmed. It would lead to a situation similar or
    worse than prohibition. Firearms are too deeply rooted in our society
    to be abolished. If the government had tried gun control in the first
    150 years of this country, it might have worked. There are just too
    many guns and too many gun owners now. The big danger, IMO, is the
    ignorant non-gun owners who see firearms as evil, who call for a ban on
    semi-auto weapons because they think they are the same as automatic
    weapons, and who think all gun owners are like the militia people.
    
    
    					lunchbox

And just how do you think the "ignorant non-gun owners" got these ideas?

    According to the freemen, from the jewish controlled media and the
    jewish controlled government and the jewish controlled banks.
    
    								-mr. bill

    media...banks...government...trilateral???  uh-oh.

         What are you implying here? I only hope you are making a specific
    comment about the freemen, and not a general statement about gun
    owners.

    
    It's a specific comment about the !free!men.
    
    								-mr. bill

         This incident, and other recent similar incidents, have given
    law-abiding gun owners a bad reputation. Sorry, some of us are just a
    bit touchy these days.

    That's another reason to hate these clowns. It causes the Domocrats to
    paint us all with a broad brush. 

         Hey, lunchbox, my supervisor is really getting on my case for
    using this account too much. Try sending notes to my personal
    account-I'm outta here!!!!!!!
    

    Your disk space is exceeded, Ed. Purge that thing and you might get
    mail!!!

    Firearms is on node foundr::

| <<< Note 692.462 by CSLALL::SECURITY "LUNCHBOX" >>>

| It causes the Domocrats to paint us all with a broad brush.

	That's why I vote for Democrats! Those Domocrats are pure evil! :-)

    pick pick pick pick pick pick pick pick
    
    

<---got bugs????

      ___                       ___                                
     /\__\                     /|  |                               
    /:/ _/_       ___         |:|  |           ___           ___   
   /:/ /\  \     /\__\        |:|  |          /\__\         /|  |  
  /:/ /::\  \   /:/__/      __|:|__|         /:/  /        |:|  |  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::\  \     /::::\__\_____   /:/__/         |:|  |  
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \/\:\  \__  ~~~~\::::/___/  /::\  \       __|:|__|  
  \::/ /:/  /   ~~\:\/\__\     |:|~~|     /:/\:\  \     /::::\  \  
   \/_/:/  /       \::/  /     |:|  |     \/__\:\  \    ~~~~\:\  \ 
     /:/  /        /:/  /      |:|__|          \:\__\        \:\__\
     \/__/         \/__/       |/__/            \/__/         \/__/
      ___                       ___           ___     
     /\  \                     /\  \         /\__\    
     \:\  \       ___          \:\  \       /:/ _/_   
      \:\  \     /\__\          \:\  \     /:/ /\__\  
  _____\:\  \   /:/__/      _____\:\  \   /:/ /:/ _/_ 
 /::::::::\__\ /::\  \     /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/ /\__\
 \:\~~\~~\/__/ \/\:\  \__  \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/ /:/  /
  \:\  \        ~~\:\/\__\  \:\  \        \::/_/:/  / 
   \:\  \          \::/  /   \:\  \        \:\/:/  /  
    \:\__\         /:/  /     \:\__\        \::/  /   
     \/__/         \/__/       \/__/         \/__/    
      ___           ___           ___           ___           ___     
     /\__\         /\  \         /\  \         /\  \         /\__\    
    /:/ _/_        \:\  \       /::\  \       /::\  \       /:/ _/_   
   /:/ /\  \        \:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\__\     /:/ /\__\  
  /:/ /::\  \   _____\:\  \   /:/ /::\  \   /:/ /:/  /    /:/ /:/  /  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/\:\__\ /:/_/:/__/___ /:/_/:/  /   
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/  \/__/ \:\/:::::/  / \:\/:/  /    
  \::/ /:/  /   \:\  \        \::/__/       \::/~~/~~~~   \::/__/     
   \/_/:/  /     \:\  \        \:\  \        \:\~~\        \:\  \     
     /:/  /       \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\    
     \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/    

         Okay, lunchbox, I'm purging my account and getting rid of just
    about all my files (including notes). They lowered the boom on noting.
    I guess it's only ok for engineers and office people. Us lowly line
    workers are supposed to stay quiet (and ignorant). Had a good time,
    though.

    I know the disagreeing with the following sentiment will be
    overwhelming, but this is a sad day for SOAPBOX. We have lost the
    resident court jester. As annoying as Ed could be, we knew that his
    barbs were always in good fun. He forced us to look at ourselves as
    clowns and losers; it's tough to admit but his angst was pretty funnny
    sometimes.  So long, ED.
    
    				lunchbox
    

Then again, "We hardly knew him".

| <<< Note 692.470 by BSS::E_WALKER >>>

| I guess it's only ok for engineers and office people. Us lowly line
| workers are supposed to stay quiet (and ignorant). 

	Ed, I think you were really good on the ignorant part. :-)

    

    	Last I heard this morning the "freemen" had let a woman and her
    five yr old daughter leave the ranch. Law enforcement personnel still
    just waiting.

    	jim

    
    Ah yes, they let a woman and a child leave "Justus."
    
    Freedom to travel is often restricted by police states.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	yesterday two men road in on horseback and gave some of the
    children in "Justus" a ride around the ranch. Then they road out,
    unhindered by "Justus" residents or law enforcement personnel. 
    	
    	Other than that, things are still the same.
    
    
    jim

    
    
    	re: .475
    
    	were these people held against their will, or did they just opt to
    leave because they didn't want to stay any more? 
    
    
    jim

    I'm sorry, but my sources are jewish controlled.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	I don't have any sources that say anything about these two people
    who left the ranch except that they are the wife and daughter of one of
    the freemen wanted for forgery (sorry for the run on sentence). My
    source is NPR.
    
    	You're making yourself sound pretty damn silly going on about
    "jewish controlled" sources. 
    
    jim

    
    	I guess he's been talking to Marlon Brando.
    

    
    It sounds less silly when people replace the phrase with "mainstream
    media"?
    
    								-mr. bill

    a freekid and freewife were released?

    free kin, good news.

    
    
>    It sounds less silly when people replace the phrase with "mainstream
>    media"?
    
    	It certainly sounds a lot less silly than "jewish controlled"! Did
    not the "mainstream media" bring us the falsified report of trucks
    exploding from a side impact? Did not the "mainstream media" bring us
    quotes like the following:
    
    from an interview with Richard M. Cohen,
    Senior Producer of CBS political news stated:
    
            "We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing
             with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with."
     
    Richard Salant, former President of CBS News said in an
    interview:
    
            "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we
            decide they ought to have."
    
    John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff of the New York Times,
    call by his peers, "The Dean of his profession,"  was asked in
    1953 to give a toast before the NY press club and said:
    
             "The business of journalist
             is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify;
             to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his
              race for his daily bread.  You know it an I know it and what
             folly is this toasting an independent press?  We are the tools
             and vassals for rich men behind the scenes.  We are the jumping
             jack, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our
             possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.
             We are intellectual prostitutes."
    
    jim

    
    It's amazing how much of your stuff comes from the John Birch Society
    and you don't even know it.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	are you telling me these quotes came from the John Birch Society?
    They seem like straight forward quotes to me....can you provide proof
    otherwise?
    
    
    jim

    
    Of course they seem like straight forward quotes to you.
    
    It never occurs to you that Jack Mclamb might *LIE*?  He is undoubtably
    the source of your last quote.  "Operation Vampire Killer 2000" ring a
    bell to you?  At all?  No, how come?  Why don't you know the *source*
    of your lies?
    
    								-mr. bill

      Mr. Bill,
    
        Much of your attitude, imo, is based on an unsupportable
        postulate which is simply, "It cannot possibly happen here."
        Nothing is falsehood on the basis that it is extremist and 
        nothing is truth on the basis that it is 'mainstream.'  Of
        course, the converse is true as well.
    
        I have yet to see you support the notion that it cannot possibly
        happen here.  The whole foundation of your nonsupport of these
        things seems to be that they are extremist/nonmainstream.
    
        The fact that extreme things have happened before is proof of
        the POSSIBILITY (admittedly, not necessity) that they can
        happen again.
    
        Your rationale is completely without credibility as it is based
        on an underlying assumption of, "Extreme things cannot possibly
        happen here."                                           
    
    							Tony

    OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER 2000

    P.O.BOX 8712, PHOENIX, ARIZ. 85066





    OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER 2000 A U.S. POLICE ACTION



                               PURPOSE



    The Police Officers, National Guardsmen and military officers

    who have contributed to this special publication are aware of

    a plan to overthrow the Constitutional Republic of these

    United States of America.



    This publication, many months in preparation, was found dif-

    ficult to compile for many reasons. One important reason was

    that none of the officers involved were pleased with the duty

    of bringing to the attention of our colleagues the names and

    activities of some in our nation who have been in the past

    (or presently) engaged in what can only be described by law

    as treason and/or sedition against their own government.



    While detailing the plan of these Internationalists, the main

    goal of this special police publication will be to promote an

    active program that will defend America from those at work

    forming an oligarchy of Imperialism against this nation of

    free people.



    The herein-described plan to halt this unAmerican activity

    can succeed only with the combined efforts of the People's

    Protectors (the Police, Guardsmen and Military) and their

    countrymen in the private sector.





    DEFINITIONS:



    In defining "treason" and "sedition" we look to the Fifth

    edition of Black's Law Dictionary. pg. 1345, and pg. 1218



    TREASON: The offence of attempting by overt acts to overthrow

    the government of the state to which the offender owes allegi-

    ance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign

    power.



    SEDITION: ...knowingly becoming a member of any organization

    which advocates the overthrow or reformation of the existing

    form of government of this state by violence or unlawful means.



    The facts and information about some of the persons and their

    actions listed in this special report is prima facie evidence

    of their long involvement in activities directly designed to

    overtly overthrow the lawful, constitutional government of

    the United States of America. These individuals thus hope to

    deliver the People of the U.S. into the hands of a foreign

    power known as the United Nations, which is actually an oli-

    garchy of the world's superrich, who have no allegiance to

    any one nation and who control the U.N. from behind the scenes.



    As the reader will find, many of these persons are, or have

    been, members of various organizations that have as their

    purpose the destruction of this Constitutional Republic.



    IMPORTANT NOTE: Not all of the people listed in this report

    are involved in treason and sedition against the United

    States. Some of the individuals listed and quoted are pre-

    senting evidence of these crimes committed by others or are

    listed/quoted for informational purposes only.



    As patriotic Americans of all races. religions and political

    beliefs, we claim our right to defend our Republic from all

    enemies foreign and domestic. This educational work is one

    such attempt.





                 THE NEW AGE / NEW WORLD ORDER GOVERNMENT PLAN



    Many of our nation's INTERNAL PROTECTORS know of the well laid plan

    which will culminate in the year 2000, to usher the United States,

    along with the rest of the nations of the world, into a "utopian"

    global community allegedly under the control of a "philanthropic"

    United Nations. A great many of our fellow Officers and National

    Guardsmen are taking a stand against this plan because they realize

    that their fellow Americans were never allowed to know of this plan nor

    given the opportunity to vote on such a change in their government.

    In addition, the officers are concerned patriots and realize that this

    plan of world domination is injurious in the extreme, and a total fraud

    perpetrated against the people of the world!



    This publication outlines the plan of these American Internal Protec-

    tors which they believe will stop this diabolical agenda.



                                 THE NEW ORDER



    Allegedly this new order is being set up to save THE PEOPLE OF THE

    WORLD from a whole variety of "imminent" life and world threatening

    disasters. Of those sworn protectors of the people that are aware of

    this global scheme, few realize that the actual behind the scenes plan

    is for an oligarchy of the world's richest families to place 1/2 the

    masses of the earth in servitude under their complete control, adminis-

    tered from behind the false front of the United Nations. To facilitate

    management capabilities, the plan calls for the elimination of the

    other 2.5 billion people through war, disease, abortion and famine by

    the year 2000. As we can plainly see, their plan for "Population Con-

    trol" (reduction) is well established and under way.





                       OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER 2000 PLAN



    Our OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER 2000 plan involves the awakening (educa-

    tion) of our fellow officers to the extreme need for them to take an

    immediate and active role in assisting their fellow Americans in

    stopping this plan for world domination, using every lawful means

    available.



                                HUMAN PARASITES



    These elitists and their families have made most of their massive

    fortunes off the American people, and have dedicated entire lifetimes

    to using public funds to subjugate the People to the will of their new

    world ARISTOCRACY.



    This special police officer publication is a private endeavor, and is

    dedicated to those sworn Protectors of the People who refuse to play a

    role in enslaving their countrymen. We are proud of these brave Offi-

    cers who are presently assisting other patriotic Americans of all races

    and creeds in halting this program for world domination called the NEW

    AGE/NEW WORLD ORDER.



    Some of our Police/National Guardsmen readers suggested names for this

    private police action plan. Our government, to maintain privacy in its

    activities, has long been in the practice of choosing unusual names for

    covert operations, such as "Transylvania & Co.", "Garden Plot", "Oper-

    ation Zapata", "Thunder Muffin, Inc.", "Operation Watchtower", and

    "Cable Splicer", to name a few. We officers, while in the alternative,

    desiring the greatest amount of publicity about our plan of attack

    against these anti-American types, likewise have chosen a cute little

    name for our off-duty, First Amendment POLICE ACTION. That name is:



                         OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER 2000



    It is felt that this name reflects the actual program in which offi-

    cers are involved, designed to stop or "kill off" the ongoing, elitist,

    covert operation which has been installed in the American system with

    great stealth and cunning. They, the globalists, have stated that the

    date of termination of the American way of life is the year 2000.

    Therefore it is fitting that our date to terminate, at the very least;

    their plan, is also the year 2000.



    LET IT BE WELL UNDERSTOOD, WE PROTECTORS OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE

    NOT ASKED FOR THIS BATTLE. IT IS OUR NATION'S ENEMIES WHO HAVE BROUGHT

    THIS FIGHT TO THE VERY DOOR OF EVERY GOOD AMERICAN.





    BE IT RESOLVED:



    * Our prayer and promise is to do all within our power, as faithful

      countrymen, to overthrow this evil, treasonous plan in a completely

      non-violent, lawful manner.



    * Our sworn duty is to protect the people of this nation and its Con-

      stitutional, republican form of government from any enemy that would

      come against it.



    * Our pledge is that WE WILL, BY EVERY MEANS GIVEN UNTO US, UPHOLD OUR

      OATHS AND FULFILL OUR SWORN DUTY TO OUR COUNTRYMEN.





    PUTTING THE STAKE THROUGH DRACULA'S HEART



    WHAT CAN WE DO, WHAT SHOULD WE DO? The Globalists' agenda is a diabol-

    ical program which, through patient gradualism, is slowly draining the

    moral, economic and political life blood from the United States and the

    hard working American people.



    We in America, Officers and private citizens alike, are fortunate that

    at this moment in our history we can still LAWFULLY EXTERMINATE these

    parasitic Global Blood Suckers by placing numerous "STAKES" made of

    words, paper, pen, and hard work through their hardened hearts.



                             EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION



    Presented here are oft-used, famous quotes and statements which will

    make for easy reference for those who wish to use them to educate our

    fellow officers, National Guardsmen and military, or the private sec-

    tor. As the reader will see, most of these statements have been around

    for many decades and are known by those who study history and the mach-

    inations of megalomaniacs known today as Globalists. Most are not new

    revelations, but just the opposite; however, few will ever be found in

    the controlled press. There are literally thousands of such well-worn

    statements about the coming world government. We have selected some of

    the very best and well known.



    INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: As the investigator will notice not all of the

    quotes are documented as to date and place of utterance. This will

    trouble some. If this is a problem to the reader, he should either

    eliminate those quotes, or consider, as police investigators do, the

    great preponderance of evidence pointing toward a given hypothesis! In

    addition, as in other investigations, sometimes the investigator must

    look at the results to accurately check the validity of the information

    one is receiving. This is to say, that many times we must look to see

    if what the statement purported would occur, ACTUALLY OCCURRED, in

    order to check and see if the original information received was valid.

    As the investigator will recognize, this same process used by law en-

    forcement in proving the reliability of a Confidential Informant (CI).

    The reader will readily see that what the undocumented statements list-

    ed in this publication exposed, or stated would occur in the future,

    has either occurred, or is in the process of taking place today.

    Therein lies the proof of the original statements and why they were

    chosen to be included in this publication.





                           FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES



    FROM THEIR WORKS YOU WILL KNOW THEM. Here are their words and works,

    and some very important evidence (STAKES) to use to expose and "kill

    off" the World Government Vampires in our society. In addition to this

    are included other pertinent materials (government maps, etc.) all of

    which revealed other parts of the same treasonous operation.



    With these facts in hand, our nation's internal protectors, police and

    National Guardsmen, will be able to alert even the most hard headed of

    our colleagues to understand that:



    VERY SOON, IF WE DO NOT STOP THESE WORLD GOVERNMENT PROPONENTS, AND IN-

    STALL IN PLACES OF LEADERSHIP HONORABLE MEN AND WOMEN, ALL MILITARY,

    NATIONAL GUARDSMEN AND OFFICERS OF THE LAW WILL BE USED AS THE "EN-

    FORCEMENT ARM" TO GUARANTEE A FULL COMPLEMENT OF "VOLUNTEERS" FOR THESE

    IMPERIALISTS' "PEACEFUL" SOCIALIST GLOBAL SOCIETY.





               EXPOSURE IS THE DEATH KNELL OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER



    Investigating Officers always must demand proof of a crime. No assump-

    tions can stand alone. Here are the confessions right from the mouths

    of these parasites of liberty. Once armed with this information, our

    PLAN is simply for each officer to take this publication, make copies

    of it (or order more copies) and pass them out ASAP to every Police

    Officer and National Guardsmen he knows. All officers, for their own

    welfare, and in order to be of assistance, need these facts. Keep in

    mind that these global government Blood Suckers, just like the old

    movie Vampires, must do their dirty deeds in darkness. The purpose of

    this publication is to bring that darkness to light! If we do this, the

    only other activity we "Police Against the New World Order" need apply

    is to UPHOLD OUR OATH OF OFFICE. In other words, our duty is to protect

    the people and their rights under the U.S. and State Constitutions.



    We welcome everu Internal Protector that loves liberty and has taken an

    oath "to protect our U.S. Constitution and the freedoms of their fellow

    countrymen", to join us in SAYING "NO" TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER.





                              WHAT "NEW WORLD" ??



    Man's desire to rule the world is as old as his presence on the earth.

    The "New" World Order is actually the same old plan for world dominion.

    Biblical history itself shows this to be true. The tower of Babel was

    one such futile attempt by men to set up a ONE WORLD SOCIETY without

    God. And God Himself crushed it. Satan tempted even Jesus, promising

    Him world dominion as His reward. This same promise has been given to

    scores of other men over the ages. History tells of many who have ac-

    cepted the Great Deceiver's terms. This diabolical quest has continued

    on through the 19th Century and into the 20th with national and world

    figures each successively making plans for world rule. Listed here are

    but a few of such statements from many past decades up to the present.



                               HOW SHALL WE KNOW?



    Some among us ask, "How shall we know when tyranny has come to

    America's door?" There are very few answers that our Founding Fathers

    failed to leave us regarding the proper and improper role of govern-

    ment. Here is the answer to the question of how we shall recognize

    tyranny:



    "SINGLE ACTS OF TYRANNY MAY BE ASCRIBED TO THE ACCIDENTAL OPINION OF A

    DAY; BUT A SERIES OF OPPRESSIONS, BEGUN AT A DISTINGUISHED PERIOD, AND

    PURSUED UNALTERABLY THROUGH EVERY CHANGE OF MINISTERS (ADMINISTRATIONS)

    TOO PLAINLY PROVES A DELIBERATE, SYSTEMATIC PLAN OF REDUCING US TO

    SLAVERY." - Thomas Jefferson. (Has tyranny come to America?)



    Another of our Founders said - "WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FEARS THE PEOPLE

    THERE IS LIBERTY; WHEN THE PEOPLE FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THERE IS TYRAN-

    NY". (There is no question at this time in our history that Americans

    fear their government.)





                           FAMOUS AND INFAMOUS QUOTES



    Like the legendary Vampire Dracula lays claim to his victims, the

    Globalist slowly drains the essence of life and liberty from our Land.

    While it may be surprising to some, we will begin this overview of U.S.

    treason and debauchery with America's current, number one proponent of

    world conquest, President George Bush:



    GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, President of U.S., CFR Director, Trilater-

    alist, "Lip-reader", CIA Director. Bush, one moonlit night in 1948 at

    Yale University, crawled naked into a coffin. With 15 brother "Bones-

    men" (as they call one another) encircling him, he told personal tales

    of debauchery, took an occult oath, was raised ("born-again") as a

    MAN-GOD, jumped into a pile of mud, thus joining the occult, elitist

    Skull & Bones Society. He, indeed, is still a "Boner" today.



    Bush spoke before Congress on Sept. 11, 1990, delivering a speech which

    he entitled "Toward a New World Order". Addressing the subject of his

    Gulf War, he made his first public utterance of his, and his rich cron-

    ies' plans for a world imperialism in stating that the war in Iraq was

    "...a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of coopera-

    tion. Out of these troubled times...a new world order can emerge."



    Let us take a moment to compare the statements of the "Father of our

    Republic" with those of Internationalist George "Boner" Bush:



    "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in

    extending our commercial relations to have as little political connect-

    ion as possible." "...Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any

    part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of Eur-

    opean ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?" "...It is our

    true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of

    the foreign world." - George Washington, September 19, 1796. (Which

    George should we follow?)



    Bush has given his New World Order (NWO) pep talks at least 20 times

    over the last two years for various groups around the world. Space does

    not allow us to list all of these treasonous discourses; however, sev-

    eral more are listed further on in this report.



    NOTE: DON'T MISTAKE THIS "BUSH BASHING" AS ANTI-REPUBLICANISM!



    Many of our Officers are deeply involved in either the Socialist Repub-

    lican Party or the Socialist Democratic Party. Both parties have played

    a large part in setting America on the course toward 3rd World Nation

    status. Bill Clinton's goals are identical to Bush's -- A New World

    Order Imperialism. Perot's ideas for government are also pro-globalism.



    We can give Bush credit that his recent unabashed utterances of his

    dream of a New World Order served to awaken at least a few slumbering

    Americans. These Americans now understand that, what was long planned

    and covertly implemented, is well on its way to fruition. Some will

    remember historical accounts of other megalomaniacs of the past who

    acted upon similar global ambitions. Several of the following are

    relatively recent examples:



    ADAM WISEHOPHF, Professor at Germany's Ingolstadt University, founded

    The Order of the Illuminati on May 1, 1776. This man designed the very

    plan of world domination that is still in use today to enslave the

    world's masses. Here, upon establishing his "Order of the Illuminati",

    he smugly reflects on his "conning" the gullible Christians of his day,

    saying:



    "The most wonderful thing of all is that the distinguished Lutheran and

    Calvinist theologians who belong to our order really believe that they

    see in it (Illuminati) the true and genuine sense of Christian Relig-

    ion. Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe?"



    Evidently not! And a high percentage of Christians today are still be-

    ing conned in the same way. One prime example of this are the millions

    of Christians, and most church denominations, who have fallen for the

    NWO plan of a "One World RELIGION", being spearheaded by the United

    Nations' National and World Counsel of Churches, behind the battle cry

    of ecumenicalism.



    Watch the future and we will see only small groups of spiritual Ameri-

    cans, who will resist following the millions of "religious" lambs to

    the slaughter. The Lord of the Bible always warned His people to never

    follow the MULTITUDE.





                    WORLD AND NATIONAL LEADERS POINT THE WAY



    Let us continue with statements from those who over the last few gener-

    ations have recognized the One World conspiracy.



    BENJAMIN DISRAELI, Prime Minister of England, was attributed with this

    statement in 1844: "The world is governed by very different personages

    from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."



    WINSTON CHURCHILL, Prime Minister of England, stated to the London

    Press in 1922: "From the days of Sparticus Wisehophf, Karl Marx,

    Trotski, Belacoon, Rosa Luxenburg, and Ema Goldman, this world conspir-

    acy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recog-

    nizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It has been the

    mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th Century. And

    now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the under-

    world of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the

    Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undis-

    puted masters of that enormous empire."



    JUSTICE FELIX FRANKFURTER, U.S. Supreme Court Justice: "The real rulers

    in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes."



    JOHN F. HYLAN, Mayor of New York 1918 - 1925, said "The real menace of

    our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus

    sprawls its slimy legs over our cities states and nation."



    FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, U.S. President, in a letter written Nov. 21,

    1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House, Roosevelt states: "The real truth of

    the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large

    centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew

    Jackson." (History points to the last truly honorable and incorruptible

    American president as Andrew Jackson "Old Hickory".)



    ROWAN GAITHER, President of the Ford Foundation, in 1954 lends proof to

    what we know to be fact today, namely that many of our Presidents have

    been a knowing part of this World Conquest plot. Mr. Gaither stated to

    Congressional Reese Commission investigator Norman Dodd: "We operate

    here under directives which emulate from the White House...The sub-

    stance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use

    our grant making power to alter life in the United states so that we

    can comfortably be merged with the Soviet Union." (Ike was President at

    the time.)



    CARROLL QUIGLEY, Professor of History at Georgetown University, member

    of the CFR (one of the U.S. Organizations dedicated to World Govern-

    ment) stated in his book "Tragedy & Hope": "The Council on Foreign Re-

    lations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in

    England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated

    and one-world rule established." (Professor Quigley, according to his

    book, was totally dedicated to the One World Government program. Hun-

    dreds of our City, State and National politicians are members of this

    and other NWO groups. Governor Clinton, for example, attended George-

    town U. and stated that his mentor, Professor Q., taught him so many

    wonderful things. Since Gov. Clinton and his wife are totally dedica-

    ted, International Socialists amd NWO promoters, perhaps Prof. Q. did

    have a great affect!)



    BARRY GOLDWATER, U.S. Senator (Arizona) in his book "WITH NO APOLOGIES"

    stated this about another Globalist group: "The Trilateralist Commiss-

    ion is international...(and)...is intended to be the vehicle for multi-

    national consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seiz-

    ing control of the political government of the United States. The Tri-

    lateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to

    seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - POLITICAL,

    MONETARY, INTELLECTUAL, and ECCLESIASTICAL."



    PETER HOAGLAND, Nebraska State Senator and Humanist, speaking on radio

    in 1983 with the great American Pastor and Patriot Everett Sileven

    said: "Fundamental, Bible believing people do not have the right to in-

    doctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the

    state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part

    of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in."



    DAVID ROCKEFELLER, International billionaire, Humanist, CFR kingpin,

    founder of the Trilateralist Commission, World Order Godfather (and in

    all probability the High School graduate voted "Most Likely to Be Hang-

    ed for Treason"), voiced his praise of the controlled U.S. media for

    keeping their oath not to divulge the Globalist plans to the public.

    Speaking to his fellow conspirators at a meeting, June1991 in Baden

    Baden, Germany, of yet one more infamous World Order group, the Bilder-

    bergers, Mr. Rockefeller said:



    "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Mag-

    azine and other great publications whose directors have attended our

    meetings and respected their promises of descretion for almost forty

    years."



    He went on to explain:



    "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world

    if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.

    But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards

    a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual

    elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodeter-

    mination practiced in past centuries."



    (It is not reported if the attendees kissed his ring - or anything else

    - after their leader bestowed his blessing on those in attendance).

    Actually, we could ask Governor Clinton or Dan Quayle, both of whom

    were there. Bush and Clinton are Bilderbergers, Internationalists, and

    their goals are exactly the same for America.



    Let us repeat ... CLINTON'S, BUSH'S, AND PEROT'S, PLANS FOR AMERICA ARE

    VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL. The Republicans and Democrats goals for America

    are virtually identical. They both are taking our nation into global

    government.



    Globalist Mr. Dan Quayle was there at the June 91 meeting being sized

    up as a possible Bilderberger U.S. Presidential contender for 1996. The

    major media's job is to convince Americans that the Republicans and

    Democrats are on opposite sides and fighting each other.



    JAMES PAUL WARBURG, Foreign Agent of the Rothschild Dynasty, major

    player in the Federal Reserve Act scam: on February 17, 1950, while

    speaking before the United States Senate, this pompous Internationalist

    boasted confidently, "We shall have World Government, whether or not we

    like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved

    by conquest or consent."



    ROBERT KENNEDY, former U.S. Attorney General of the U.S.: "All of us

    will ultimately be judged on the effort we have contributed to building

    a NEW WORLD ORDER." - 1967 (We can all agree with Robert on one thing:

    All traitors who participate in the NWO WILL be judged one day!)





                             THE WORLD MONEY POWERS



    The Global MONEY Vampires are in control of the finances of most of the

    world. Here are some statements of those who, past and present, have

    been aware of that control:



    GEORGE W. MALLONE, U.S. Senator (Nevada), speaking before Congress in

    1957, alluded to the families that secretly own the "Federal" Reserve

    Bank and control the finances of the U.S.. He stated:



    "I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what

    Congress has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on

    Washington; they would not wait for an election.... It adds up to a

    preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of

    the United States!"



    THOMAS JEFFERSON, U.S. President: "I believe that banking institutions

    are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they

    have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at de-

    fiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored

    to the people to whom it properly belongs."



    JAMES A. GARFIELD, U.S. President: "Whoever controls the volume of

    money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."



    HENRY FORD, Founder of Ford Motor Company, commented on the privately

    owned "Federal" Reserve System scam: "It is well enough that people of

    the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if

    they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow

    morning."



    LEWIS MCFADDIN, U.S. Congressman, said this about those same interna-

    tional financial conspirators, during the very time they were taking

    over the monetary control of America: "We have in this country one of

    the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the

    Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called

    the FED. They are not government institutions. They are private monop-

    olies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit

    of themselves and their foreign customers..."



    AMERICAN MERCURY MAGAZINE, December 1957, pg. 92. "The invisible Money

    Power is working to control and enslave mankind. It financed Communism,

    Facism, Marxism, Zionism and Socialism. All of these are directed to

    making the United States a member of World Government..."



    (With very little study one can easily prove the above is 100% correct)



    MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER, (alias Rothschild/Head Bloodsucker) The Godfather

    of the Rothschild Banking Cartel of Europe stated, "Give me control of

    a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."



    (Our Congress gave him and fellow international Bankers complete con-

    trol of the U.S. monetary system through passage of the "Federal Re-

    serve Act, the Income Tax Act, and the 17th Amendment in 1913.)



    ROTHSCHILD BROTHERS OF LONDON. In a letter discussing their new banking

    scheme with fellow conspirators, June 25, 1863, they stated:



    "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its

    profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition

    from that class. The great body of people, mentally incapable of com-

    prehending the tremendous advantages will bear its burden without com-

    plaint".



    (This was long before their takeover of the U.S. banking system).



    RUSSELL MUNK, Assistant General Counsel, Dept. of the Treasury, in a

    1977 letter admitted: "Federal Reserve Notes Are Not Dollars."



    (Then what is that paper stuff in your wallet?)



    ONE LAST WORD ON THE MONEY VAMPIRES: Do we wonder why so many Americans

    are being sucked dry and are losing their homes, farms and businesses

    each week? Is it just "cyclical (temporary) economic downturn" as the

    Establishment "Experts" and controlled media tell us? That is a fabri-

    cation to the 10th power. If any Officer doubts this after reading the

    preceding statements by the money parasites, it would be wise to con-

    sider this secret communique circulated among the leading U.S. Bankers

    only, way back in 1934, entitled,





                             THE BANKERS' MANIFESTO



    "Capital must protect itself in every way ... Debts must be collected

    and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a

    process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be

    more tractable and more easily governed by the STRONG ARM OF THE LAW

    (Cops) applied by the central power of leading financiers. People with-

    out homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among

    our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism

    to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend

    their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except

    as TEACHERS OF THE COMMON HERD." (Taken from the Civil Servants' Year

    Book, "The Organizer" Jan. 1934.)



    When, fellow "Strong-Arms-of-the-Law", Americans are now losing 4,000

    homes, 2,000 farms, 2,500 businesses per week to the Money Vampires who

    made the prior statement. Is it just a coincidence? How many homes,

    businesses and farms have you helped to take away from good Americans

    for the IRS/Banksters? For those Officers who still do not know it,

    "YES, THE IRS IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE WORLD ORDER PLAN TO DIVEST

    AMERICANS OF THEIR WEALTH, AND MAKE THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES PAY FOR THEIR

    OWN NATIONAL DESTRUCTION."



    The above should make every Officer stop and think before assisting the

    bankers or "their" IRS government revenue agents.



    It happens a thousand times a day across this land that our fellow

    Officers are unknowingly made a party to fraud and theft. And if you

    are one such Officer, then YOU unknowingly become the "executioners"

    for the men behind this diabolical system. Take heart, Officer. You can

    learn, as many others have, how to be a VAMPIRE KILLER, uphold your

    oath to protect the American People, and at the same time stay within

    the law.





                           MEDIA BLACKS OUT THE FACTS



   "BUT SURELY, IF THIS WORLD CONSPIRACY WERE TRUE I WOULD HAVE HEARD ABOUT

                             IT IN THE DAILY NEWS!"



   As in all investigations, it always comes down to, "How can we prove our

   case?" We personally feel it's hard to top the proof coming from the

   mouths of the very ones involved in this treacherous unAmerican program.

   Here's one terrific example. John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for

   the New York Times, was one of America's best loved newspapermen. Called

   by his peers "The Dean of his Profession", John was asked in 1953 to

   give a toast before the New York Press Club, and in so doing made a

   monumentally important and revealing statement. He is quoted as follows:



   "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America

   as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of

   you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know

   beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for

   keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others

   of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who

   would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the

   streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to

   appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation

   would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth;

   to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon,

   and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it

   and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We

   are the tools and vassals pf rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping

   jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibili-

   ties and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellec-

   tual prostitutes."



   Hard to believe? If there is any doubt -- read on.



   RICHARD M. COHAN, Senior Producer of CBS political news said: "We are

   going to impose OUR AGENDA on the coverage by dealing with the issues

   and subjects WE choose to deal with."



   RICHARD SALANT, former President of CBS News stated: "Our job is to give

   people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have."



   And what is their "agenda"? What do they believe we, the American people

   THE COMMON HERD, "...ought to have"? Here is the answer:





                A U.S. COMMUNIST SAYS "LIBERALISM IS SOCIALISM"



    NORMAN THOMAS, For many years the U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate

    proclaimed:



    "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under

    the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the Social-

    ist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without

    knowing how it happened."



    (How sadly true his words. He (Thomas) and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist

    Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Repub-

    lican and Democratic parties by 1970 had adopted every plank on the

    Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform

    on which to run.)



    Following are some statements made by a few of America's top news per-

    sonalities, but altered just slightly. In honor of Socialist President-

    ial candidate Thomas, following each use of the word "liberal" let's

    place also the word "socialist". This may help us gain some insight

    into why America, after 70-plus years of continual "liberal" indoctrin-

    ation (Brain-washing) on every media, educational, and political front,

    has drawn "Socialism/Communism" and the New World Order to her bosom.



    HERMAN DISMORE, foreign editor of the N.Y. Times from 1950 to 1960:

    "The New York Times is deliberately pitched to the liberal (Socialist)

    point of view."



    WALTER CRONKITE: "News reporters are certainly liberal (Socialists) and

    left of center."



    BARBARA WALTERS: "The news media in general are liberals (socialists)."



    We could go on, but I believe we get their point!





                   WORLD GOVERNMENT UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS



    Just what is this "wonderful" global organization all about?



    DR. KURK E. KOCH, Professor, Lectured at 100 Universities in 65 coun-

    tries on 5 continents. Subjects of expertise: New World Order, Occult-

    ism, Extreme Movements, Parapsychology. His accessment of the coming

    NWO under the United Nations is that it will reduce everything to one

    common denominator:



    "The system will be made up of a single currency, single centrally

    financed government, single tax system, single language, single politi-

    cal system, single world court of justice, single head (one individual

    leader), single state religion."



    He further states: "Each person will have a registered number, without

    which he will not be allowed to buy or sell; and there will be one uni-

    versal world church. Anyone who refuses to take part in this universal

    system will have no right to exist."



    We should ask the following question of those fellow Officers who may

    doubt that they will be asked to enforce such a system on the American

    people, "Whom do they think will enforce all of this? Who will make the

    masses "fit-in"? Who will "remove" those who do not fit-in? Will it be

    the auto mechanics, bankers, school teachers, bakers, or candlestick

    makers??? Or, is it more likely to be Enforcement Officers?



    JOHN E. RANKIN, U.S. Congressman: "The United Nations is the greatest

    fraud in all History. Its purpose is to destroy the United States."



    GEORGE BUSH, New York 1991, "My vision of a NEW WORLD ORDER foresees a

    United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function."



    And one more classic quote from our traitor President: "It is the

    SACRED principles enschrined in the UN Charter to which we will hence-

    forth pledge our allegiance." - UN Building, February 1, 1992.



    UNBELIEVABLE! That ought to FRY THE GRITS OF EVERY LAWMAN AND TRUE

    AMERICAN THAT READS THIS QUOTE. Brother and sister Officers, how many

    of you are going to take a "sacred" oath of allegiance to the U. N.

    World Government?



    Imagine, there will still be a few of our fellow Officers who will read

    this treasonous claptrap and not believe that they will soon be ENFOR-

    CERS in a totalitarian world government.



    There is no question that Bush, Clinton and Perot want Officers to join

    them in swearing allegiance to such as the following:



    UNITED NATIONS' WORLD CONSTITUTION: "...The age of nations must end...

    The governments of the nations have decided to order their separate

    sovereignties into one government to which they surrender their arms."



    NEED WE SAY MORE?



    We must, with great haste, awaken our fellow officers and ask them,

    "Will you pledge your allegiance to this NEW SLAVE STATE as your

    traitor President or his fellow Internationalist Slick Willie Clinton

    and H. Ross Perot believe you will??



    ZBIGNIEW BREZHINSKY, National Security Advisor to Pres. Jimmy Carter

    and advisor to 4 other presidents, Exec. Dir. of Trilateral Comm.

    Marxist and proud of it! Here he speaks about what a New World Order

    will be like: "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of

    a more controlled society. Such a society would  be dominated by an

    elite, unrestrained by traditional values."



    WE MUST MAKE OFFICERS LISTEN! Whom do we think will "dominate" the

    masses in this UN-controlled society of "non-traditional" (unGodly)

    values?



    ZBIGNIEW continues: "Soon it will be possible to assert almost

    continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date

    complete files containing even the most personal information about the

    citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the

    authorities." - From Zbig's book, BETWEEN TWO AGES.



    ADLAI STEVENSON, Council on Foreign Relations member and promoter of

    U. N. "Salvation": "The U.S. program (UN program) calls for total elim-

    ination of national capacity to make international war." (Take comfort

    in the fact that the U.N. promises to protect us.)



    WALT RUSTOW, Council on Foreign Relations member and U.N. spokesmen:

    "It is in the American interest to put an end to Nationhood." (Sure it

    is, Walter!)



    HUMANIST MANIFESTO, Article 12: "We deplore the division of humankind

    on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human

    history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national

    sovereignty and to move towards the building of a world community. We

    look toward the development of a system of world law, world order,

    based upon transnational government." (Humanists propose that the

    United Nations care for and control all peoples of the earth.)



    LT. COL. JAMES "BO" GRITZ (RET), U.S. Presidential Candidate 1992, Most

    decorated Green Beret Commander in American history. Commander, U.S.

    Army Special Forces, Latin America. Chief, Delta force. This great

    American hero explains the conspiracy within the U.S. government as

    follows: "...A spider web of "patriots for profit," operating from the

    highest positions of special trust and confidence, have successfully

    circumvented our constitutional system in pursuit of a New World Order.

    They have infused America with drugs in order to fund covert operations

    while sealing the fate of our servicemen left in communist prisons.



    Hiding behind a mask of official righteousness, this secret combination

    seeks to impose its own concept of geopolitical navigation, nullifying

    liberty as the hard won birthright of all Americans".





                 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER



    DAVID SPANGLER, Director of PLANETARY INITIATIVE, (a United

    Nations World government group): "No one will enter the New

    World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship

    Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a

    Luciferian Initiation."



    RALPH NADER: "Is there a number or mark planned for the hand

    or forehead in a new cashless society? YES, and I have seen

    the machines that are now ready to put it into operation."



    (Does this sound familiar - hand and forehead???) This "mark-

    ing" may be another job for our U.S. Police Officers/Guards-

    men, soon to be U.N. Enforcers, who have taken the U.N. oath

    of allegiance which "Boner" Bush mentioned earlier.)



                         FRENCH TRAVEL POSTER



    A 1992 French "New World Order" Color Poster: Depicts people

    as robots, constructing a new Tower of Babel inside the old

    tower that God had destroyed. These robotic people are trying

    to reach their god who is depicted with the sign of Lucifer

    (The Goat of Mendez five pointed star) above the newly built

    tower. The caption reads:



                    EUROPE: MANY TONGUES, ONE VOICE



    As students of the scriptures know, the building of the Tower

    of Babel was man's first attempt to set up a World Order. God

    Himself destroyed this abomination and punished the people.

    This poster is most revealing. A copy in the right hands can

    assist in pointing out to our colleagues that many of those

    who are in leadership in establishing this new order are

    truly religious, not atheist, as we are led to believe. But,

    whom do they worship? The poster clearly shows their god is

    Lucifer and they are proud of it. The picture on the poster

    points out that the New World Order promoters know the Scrip-

    tures and they are determined to once again defy the One True

    God.



    We are presently in the process of trying to get several hun-

    dred of these French New World Order Posters. It looks like

    we may be successful and some of you may wish to have one. If

    you are interested here is the deal: The donations/proceeds

    from the sales of this color poster will be used as a fund-

    raiser to reach and educate more of our colleagues in Law

    Enforcement. Order through Aid & Abet Police Newsletter for

    $6 single, $10 for 2, $4 for 3-5. $3 P&H for protective tube

    container. (If we get them in, it will have to be "first

    come, first served".)





                NEW-AGE PROFESSORS TEACH OUR CHILDREN'S TEACHERS



    Turning now to education, let's quote a few of the top U.S. spokesmen

    and professors in that field, to see the over-all philosophy used to

    train our teachers, who then go on to prepare our children for the New

    World Order.



    DR. CHESTER PIERCE, Harvard University Professor, Humanist, New World

    Order Guru. This professor instructs teachers and those students who

    aspire to become teachers of our children as follows:



    "Every child in America who enters school at the age of five is mental-

    ly ill, because he comes to school with an allegiance to our institu-

    tions, toward the preservation of this form of government that we have.

    Patriotism, nationalism, and sovereignty, all that proves that children

    are sick because a truly well individual is one who has rejected all of

    those things, and is truly the international child of the future."



    DR. PAUL BRANDWEIN, Leading U.S. child psychologist. This man also in-

    structs teachers on how to recognize mental disability in our school

    children. He states: "Every child who believes in God is mentally ill."

    (All government schools have a psychologist.)



    DR. SIDNEY SIMON, Lecturer, Educator who some say specializes in en-

    couraging immoral and criminal activities in youths. He instructs

    teachers as follows:



    "We do not need any more preaching about right or wrong. The old 'thou

    shall nots' simply are not relevant." Further he says, "Values clarifi-

    cation is a method for teachers to change the values of children with-

    out getting caught."



    HUMANIST CURRICULUM: Along with thes "Humanist Wackos" training our

    nation's teachers to be "change agents" for their New World Order,

    there is the matter of the literature that they have for teachers to

    use to instruct American children. One such book entitled "Weep for Our

    Children", might explain to Police Officers a great deal about why the

    crime rates in school age children are skyrocketing. Consider this one

    passage touting the humanistic "Values Clarification/Situation Ethics"

    program:



    "It's OK to lie. It's OK to steal. It's OK to have premarital sex. It's

    OK to cheat or to kill if these things are part of your value system,

    and you clarified these values for yourself. The important thing is not

    what values you choose, but that you have chosen them for yourself and

    without coercion of parents, spouse, priest, friends, ministers or

    social pressure of any kind."



    This type of values/moral code (or lack thereof!) is all to evident in

    American Schools today, as many Police Officers know. Many officers

    write expressing alarm at seeing this type of unholy "Situation Ethics"

    instruction so wide-spread in our nation's schools.





                           PSYCHIATRISTS LEAD THE WAY



    For decades, it has been the job of those within the psychology field

    to introduce to the American Public the idea that those who believe in

    God are sick and must be "enlightened" or eliminated, and that "immor-

    ality" is the only path to the NEW AGE. And indeed it is. The several

    quotes below will drive home this well planned scenario.



    BERTRAND RUSSELL, philosopher, educator and atheist: "I think the sub-

    ject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology.

    ... It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of

    modern methods of propaganda ... Although this science will be dili-

    gently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class

    (Elite). The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions

    were generated."



    One of the great Psychiatric Gurus of Mental Health speaks:



    DR. G. BROCK CHISHOLM, First head of the World Federation of Mental

    Health (A NWO group.) "What basic psychological distortion can be found

    in every civilization of which we know anything? The only psychological

    force capable of producing these perversions is morality - the concept

    of right and wrong. The re-interpretation and eventual eradication of

    the concept of right and wrong are the belated objectives of nearly all

    of psychotherapy."



    "The pretence is made that to do away with right and wrong would pro-

    duce uncivilized people, immorality, lawlessness, and social chaos. The

    fact is that most psychiatrists and psychologists and other respected

    people have escaped from moral chains and are able to think freely." -

    Taken from the updated book, NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON, by J.A. Stormer



    Police Officers have been among the first to notice that such teachings

    have produced exactly the results he (the good Doctor) said they would

    not produce. He lied. There is no greater promoter of change than FEAR,

    and no greater creator of fear than chaos and lawlessness throughout a

    nation. The enemy of our system knows that immorality breeds chaos and

    lawlessness. Chaos and lawlessness breads fear in the people and when

    fearful enough the people will accept any solution. Guess what the

    solution is?



    We agree with Dr. Chisholm, that most of these minions of "psycho-bab

    ble" have truly "escaped" from any and all moral foundation in their

    lives. Anything their patients dream up is perfectly O.K. and encour-

    aged by most such "professionals". This "there is no right or wrong"

    psyco-babble is what is being drilled into the heads of those American

    school children whose parents have unfortunately placed them in Govern-

    ment Indoctrination Centers which we erroneously call our "educational"

    system.



    In case any officer reading this publication thinks that this change in

    the morals of our nation is accidental, he or she must read the book,

    "THE SOVIET ART OF BRAINWASHING - A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook

    on Psychopolitics", written by Kenneth Goff. In this book, Goff, a one

    time dues-paying member of the Communist Party, writes: "During my

    training I was trained in Psychopolitics. This was the art of capturing

    the minds of a nation through brainwashing and fake mental health."



    Kenneth Goff paid a high price for his efforts to alert the American

    people. After attempting to inform America of Marxist-trained Psycho-

    logists being placed inside the U.S. to change the morals and beleifs

    of our nation, he mysteriously died from poisoning in 1943. His fare-

    well in his book says: "This manual of the Communist Party should be in

    the hands of every loyal American, that they may be alerted to the fact

    that it is not always by armies and guns that a nation is conquered."

    In this book is found an address by Beria, the Head of the Lenin School

    of Psychopolitics. His 1933 address to a group of American/Marxist

    Psychology students is most revealing.



    Speaking to this group who would be returning to ply their treachery in

    the U.S. he says:



    "A psychopolitician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the

    fields of 'mental healing.' You must work until every teacher of psy-

    chology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under

    the guise of 'psychology.' You must labor until every doctor and psy-

    chiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to

    our aims. You must labor until we have dominion of the minds and bodies

    of every important person in your nation (America). You must work until

    suicide arising from mental imbalance is common and calls forth no gen-

    eral investigation or remark. ... You must dominate as respected men

    the fields of psychiaty and psychology. You must dominate the hospitals

    and universities... You can come and take your instructions as worship-

    pers of Freud ... Psychopolitics is a solemn charge. With it you can

    erase our enemies as insects. You (psychologists) can change their

    (leaders) loyalties by psychopolitics. Given a short time with a psy-

    chopolitician you can alter forever the loyalty of a soldier in our

    hands or a statesman or a leader in his own country, or you can des-

    troy his mind.



    Use the courts, use the judges, use the Constitution of the country,

    use its medical societies and its laws to further our ends ... By

    psychopolitics create chaos. Leave a nation leaderless. Kill our

    enemies. And bring to Earth, through Communism, the greatest peace man

    has ever known. Thank you."



    (This is only part of Beria's speech to the visiting American psycho-

    logy students.)



    NOTE: Everything he asked these students to accomplish when they re-

    turned to practice their "art" in our nation has occurred. And now we

    can look forward to that "peace" he promised under the U.N. New World

    Order.





                      WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED "@EE" ?



    JOSEPH STALIN stated that after Communism succeeds " ... then, there

    will come a peace across the earth."



    KARL MARX said " ... the meaning of peace is the absence of opposition

    to Socialism."



    THE LORD GOD said, "... they have seduced my people, saying PEACE; and

    there was NO PEACE." (Ezekiel 13:10)



    St. PAUL said, "For when they shall say, 'PEACE and SAFETY', then sud-

    den destruction comes upon them, as travail upon a women with child;

    and they shall not escape." (I Thes. 5:3)



    We should note that the Globalists' main tactic and motivation to en-

    tice the world's people into their United Nations trap is ultimate

    "PEACE and SAFETY".





               FOUNDING FATHERS' RECIPE FOR SUCCESSFUL GOVERNMENT



    This affords a good chance to show the contrast between the kind of

    government our great leaders of the past gave us as a nation, and the

    immoral cesspool that is in place today. Using the memorable quotes

    that follow, compare and see if you can figure out why today our gov-

    ernment, our families, and individual lives by the millions are fall-

    ing apart.



    JAMES MADISON: "We have staked the whole future of American civiliza-

    tion, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the

    future ... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves,

    to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God."

    (Question: Do we still govern and sustain ourselves by the Ten Command-

    ments today?)



    JOHN ADAMS: "Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral

    people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

    (Question: Are Americans still a religious and moral people?)



    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "Man will ultimately be governed by GOD or by ty-

    rants." (Question: Which is it that governs us today?)



    ANDREW JACKSON: "The BIBLE is the rock on which our Republic rests."



    (Two Questions: - 1) When is the last time you have heard a public

    official honestly and accurately call America a Republic?2) On the

    other hand, can a democracy rest on the BIBLE?



    DANIEL WEBSTER: "If we abide by the principles taught in the BIBLE, our

    country will go on prospering." (Question: Why is our nation not pros-

    pering?)



    ALEXIS DE TOQUEVILLE. Upon visiting America in the early 19th Century,

    this French historian observed: "America is great because America is

    GOOD. If America ever ceases to be good it will cease to be great."



    * QUESTION: Based on the above quotes, "Why did America become the

    greatest nation in history?"



    * QUESTION: Did the Founding Fathers place the concept of Separation

    of Church and State in our Constitution? Answer: NO. It is found in the

    Communist Constitution.



    * QUESTION: If one wanted to destroy a nation like America, would he

    not look to what the Founders said was the cornerstone (Laws of God)

    upon which our Republic was built, and then ATTACK THAT VERY FOUNDA-

    TION?





                           GOALS OF AMERICA'S ENEMIES



    KARL MARX: "My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capital-

    ism." (Question: Has he succeeded?)



    LEV DAVIDOVICH TROTSKY: "Religions are illogical primitive ignorance.

    There is nothing as ridiculous and tragic as a religious government."



    ANOTHER QUESTION: Is Trotsky's or Marx's plan any different than the

    Humanist Movement's plan? Check below.



    AMERICAN HUMANIST MOVEMENT, Doctrinal statement:



    "We are humanists ... We are not for God ... We are for socialism."



    HUMANIST MAGAZINE, 1983 Jan-Feb. issue. Humanist John J. Dunphy: "I am

    convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won

    in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive

    their role as proselytizers of a new faith which will replace the rot-

    ting corpse of Christianity."





                        HAVE THEY REACHED THEIR GOALS?

                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



                        COMMUNIST RULES FOR REVOLUTION

            (Captured at Dusseldorf in May 1919 by Allied Forces)



    1. Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested

    in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.



    2. By specious argument cause the breakdown of old moral virtues; hon-

    esty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.



    3. Encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on

    the part of government toward such disorders. (L.A. riots were just a

    coincidence?!....Of course!)



    4. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on con-

    troversial matters of no importance. (Racial differences?)



    5. Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention

    on athletics, sexy books, plays, and other trivialities.



    6. Get control of all means of publicity. (Media)



    7. Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders by holding the

    latter up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy (disgrace).



    8. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view

    to confiscation and leaving the population helpless.



    This is only a partial list. It was secured and stamped with the seal

    of Florida State Attorney, George A. Broutigam. This material testimony

    was taken from someone he terms "a known member of the Communist Par-

    ty". According to this Communist's testimony this strategy is still

    part of the Communist plan to overthrow free societies such as the

    United States.





                                  IN CONTRAST



    Thomas Jefferson says, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the pro-

    pagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

    (Indeed it is!)



    Most officers don't realize it but their federal and state governments

    are funding programs that were created by anti-American/New World Order

    proponents for the express purpose of lowering America's economic,

    spiritual and moral standards. (The North American Free Trade Agreement

    another destructive device being foisted on gullible Americans.)





                             PLAN WORKING PERFECTLY



    So far we have put the spotlight on a good many New World Order BLOOD

    SUCKERS - - obvious spies, seditionists, traitors, - some of them

    Americans, some foreign. There is an important, underlying factor in

    all this that must not be missed: The Global conspirators, along with

    thousands of their world government "conrades" in the U.S. have been

    deliberately whipping the American public into a fearful frenzy.



    With just the "right" manipulations, they have been successfully con-

    ditioning our people to see all our societal systems - governmental,

    political, educational, penal, ecological, etc. - as completely out of

    control. This is not true.



    Let us not be fooled. All of these areas are completely under their

    control and have been for decades.



    They are functioning just as well as the enemy wishes them to function.

    Remember a;sp what Rowan Gaither, head of Ford Foundation said (in the

    "Famous and Infamous Quotes" section of this publication), the task is

    to "covertly lower the standard of living, the whole social structure,

    of America so that we can be MERGED with all other nations."



    FACT: Their parasitic PLAN to cause this total (controlled) breakdown

    is "right on course". The American system is collapsing "on time", and

    just as programmed. Remember what FDR said, "In politics nothing hap-

    pens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way."



    The plan of these globalists is that when America, the last "holdout",

    is brought to its knees, the American "sheep" will beg their new god

    (GOVERNMENT) to save them! The "salvation" they are being tricked into

    demanding will be the merging together of all nations under that great

    "bastian of peace and freedom", the United Nations.



  OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER 2000 A U.S. POLICE ACTION





                            TRAITORS' GRAND FINALES

                            (MARTIAL LAW THE GOAL)



                               * * * PLAN A * * *

                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     RACE WARS: We will see the fanning of the flames of their planned RACE

     WAR program in the months ahead as government, through some of their

     covert national organizations, promotes "whites hating people of

     color" and vice-versa. Aided by their controlled media, and NWO gov-

     ernment-paid agitators/"leaders" on both sides, the goal is to fright-

     en Americans, of all colors, into accepting Martial Law.



     These elitists actually have no love for "minorities" or "commoners"

     of any race. Those who have studied these imperialists will notice

     that there is continual intermarriage among these superrich Internat-

     ionalists' families. NEVER do they participate in the mixing of blood

     other than BLUE BLOOD.



     The race mixing program was created for their "subjects" - i.e. the

     world's common people of all races. Some of these Internationalists

     have stated over the years, "... when all other humans are of one

     color, (brown), then they will be more easily managed."





                      KEEP THE RACES FROM JOINING TOGETHER



    Racial strife is one of their most important NWO tools and they mean to

    keep it going. It has worked well for promoting the globalist cause in

    the recent past. HATE must be kept flowing to prevent the various races

    in America from finding out the truth. If they find out who is destroy-

    ing their freedoms and economic future, they might find some way to

    work together to overthrow their COMMON ENEMY.





                        WHO ARE THE AGENT PROVOCATEURS?



    Our problem is in identifying these NWO lackeys (agent/provocateurs).

    Incoming intelligence over the years has informed us that these pro-

    vocateurs are ofall racial mixes. Yes, whites, blacks, hispanic etc.

    are involved in promoting planned racial hate incidents and tensions to

    assist in causing the masses to accept Martial Law and serve the NWO

    gang. Although these employee/provocateurs have been promised a posi-

    tion of power in this "utopian" Socialist society, it is a shame that

    they are not smart enough to know that they are to be "eliminated" when

    their usefulness has run out. (As has been the practice of every Marx-

    ist/Socialist conquering army after taking power.)



    There is sound logic in this "execution of your agent/provocateurs",

    after you're in power. The logic is: "If these agents will spy and turn

    against their own people, then their is no way you can trust them to

    not turn on you." VERY TRUE! The other shame is that no tears will be

    shed for these traitors to their own people.





                               * * * PLAN B * * *

                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The globalists, along with their controlled media, are well along in

    the promotion of their PLAN B program. Here it is: With the threat of

    nuclear war supposedly subsiding, the American people "must have" a new

    Boogie Man!



    ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE: This phase involves the fraud of the "imminent

    ecological collapse of the world". This phase is being promoted by

    those who were not able to completely destroy America with Marxism.

    These NWO Marxists have therefore started, or taken over, the various

    GREEN (environmentalist) parties.



    Many of these environmentalists are rightfully labeled the "Watermelons

    of the world". That is to say, green on the outside, but RED (Marxist)

    on the inside. Many wonderful, good, well-intentioned Americans are be-

    ing duped into assisting with this fraud. Sadly, some are our families

    and friends.





                               * * * PLAN C * * *

                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    VISITORS FROM FAR: This phase makes certain that few Americans escape

    the NWO program. How? By creating TOTAL PANIC. This is accomplished

    with 3 choices being offered to the gullible. The Globalists have

    "suddenly" brought to light their long planned and well established

    "UFO-Little-Devils-from-Outer-Space" CON, to strike utter fear in the

    hearts of all the people of the earth.



    * The first choice: The subtle message to us, "the masses", is that, if

    we don't go willingly and gently into global government, we will be

    "eaten", "raped", or become the experimental guinea pigs for some far-

    out evil "SPACE CADETS". And of course, you can't ask for assistance

    and protection from your own country's government because as we all

    have been told, "no individual nation could possibly stand a chance in

    defence against this obviously 'superior' Race from space. AH, but

    isn't it wonderful that "salvation" is only a one-world government

    away?!?



    * A second twist to this planned scenario is: These "cute little space

    things" are our BOSOM BUDDIES; they bring tidings of good will, and

    come "conveniently" to SAVE our world from the brink of total destruc-

    tion! "Isn't that precious?!"



    In other words, this particualar plan is to convince gullible Americans

    that anyone or anything (but that Jesus Christ "guy"), WILL SAVE OUR

    WORLD!



    Quite "coincidentally", these same "funny little fellows" are also here

    to set up a UTOPIAN GLOBAL SOCIETY! Surprised?



    * And the newest twist to the CON (to grab religious Americans that did

    not fall for the first two) is that Christ Himself has sent these

    wonderful little "UFO things", in HIS place, to save us. (Suggesting,

    we suppose, that Jesus Christ got busy and had to "delegate". And as

    soon as these "wonderful" Space "Disciples of Christ" get us all to-

    gether in a New World Society, He (Christ) will be along to take over.

    Think of them as God's Secret Service advance team!) Believe it or not.



    Is there something there? ... "OUT THERE"? Absolutely! But, are THEY

    truly coming from "out-there"? We are not to be told, at this time, the

    truth about what these entities are, or who has absolute control over

    them. If we were told the truth we would never fall for their New World

    Order UFO con.



    It is sad to see coming true what the Scriptures foretold, namely, that

    some of the most spiritual and intelligent people in our world are be-

    ing completely deceived by our government and "spiritually enlightened"

    con men ... (and women).



    As foretold, it's happening before our eyes. SHAME!



    In all seriousness, for anyone that does not believe that the UFO scare

    is a contrived fraud, it should be agreed that the wise position to

    take is on the side of caution. Consider it possible that those who

    promote the NWO plan are presently involved in a "trial run" of all

    three of the above described UFO scenarios. Such plans are being pro-

    moted by the Globalists, among those whom they consider to be the

    "Wacko", "Radical", "Extremist", Nationalist, Pro-American organiza-

    tions, in order to test which scenario is more acceptable. For exam-

    ple, pick any one of the three scenarios below:



    (1) The evil little devils from outer space, who will dissect, destroy

    or devour us all.



    (2) The sweet, funny, little COSMIC critters who, like our government,

    are only "HERE TO HELP YOU!"



    And lastly, for the gullible religious masses:



    (3) The Space "Diciples of God" bringing salvation to earthlings.



    Indeed the Globalists care not which we choose. For they all lead to

    their NEW WORLD ORDER. Tell our brothers and sisters to just - think

    about it!



    (Some of the above information has come from those on the "inside" and

    some from "outside" our government. It's nice to have our own agents

    inside their anti-American, anti-God cliques. What is that French word

    - TOUCHE'?)



    THE GREAT DELUSION - Will you be caught?



    Called America's greatest female writer, Ellen G. White said it like

    this:



    "The last great delusion is soon to open before us. Antichrist is to

    perform his marvelous works in our sight. So closely will the counter-

    feit resemble the true that it will be impossible to distinguish be-

    tween them except by the Holy Scriptures." (The Great Controversy,

    1888). And so it is.





             LISTEN CAREFULLY: THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS PUBLICATION



    Some may say that this is not the type of publication that should go

    into "religion". We agree, to a point, However, if religion is being

    used by the enemy of America to attack Americans, then like it or not,

    we must address it. It is the enemy of our nation that is using

    "spiritualism" to trick millions of religious fellow officers, and

    private citizens into falling for their NEW AGE/NEW WORLD ORDER fraud.

    One wise tip: Leviticus 19:31 says, "Regard not them that have a fami-

    liar spirits; neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them; I am

    the Lord your God."



    FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS IMPORTANT SUJECT:



    Other Biblical scriptures to check to see if you are being tricked:

    Lev. 20:6; Deut. 18:10-12; I Sam. 28:3-9; II Kings 21:6, 23:24;

    I Chron.10:13; II Chron. 33:6; Isa 8:19, 19:3, 29:4; Acts 16:16; Rev.

    9:21, 18:23; Kings 23:24; Jer. 27:9-10; Exodus 22:18.



    If this is not enough, one of the best sources on the "spiritualism"

    fraud against the American people is Dr. Cathy Burns' writings on these

    subjects. Write to SHARING - 212 F. 7th. St., MT. Carmel, PA. 17851.

    This wonderful "brainy" lady is one of the best. Another very good

    source on this "religious" NWO con-job is Tex Marrs' FLASHPOINT News-

    letter. Write to Living Truth Ministries, 8103 Shiloh Court, Austin,

    Texas 78745.





                      COMMUNISM GONE? DON'T TAKE ANY BETS!



    V.I. LENIN: "It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that

    concessions mean PEACE. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing

    but a new form of war."



    DMITRI MANUALSKY, Soviet Diplomat (1947) revealed the Communists' in-

    tention to brainwash the American public: "We will offer the Christian

    world unheard of peace overtures, and these nations, stupid and decad-

    ent, will leap at the chance to be our friends; they will willingly co-

    operate in their own destruction. Then, when their guard is down, and

    they have gone to sleep, we will smash them with our clenched fist."



    Many gullible Americans, and the controlled U.S. media, will gush, "The

    above statement was uttered a long time ago and things have truly chan-

    ged in the new Commonwealth of "Independent" States (CIS)." Is that so?

    Read on!



    MIKHAIL GORBACHEV's speech at the 70th anniversary of the Bolshevik

    Revolution (1987): "...In October 1917, we parted with the old world,

    rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, a

    world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road."



    And from his speech to the Soviet Politburo, November 1987:



    "Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about

    Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are

    primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant inter-

    nal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our

    purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep. We want to

    accomplish three things:



    One, we want the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe.



    Two, we want them to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe.



    Three, we want the Americans to stop proceeding with Strategic Defence

    Initiative." (And alas, that is what has been done!)



    GENERAL SIR WALTER WALKER, Former NATO Commander-in-chief, following

    the phoney Soviet coup, said: "I consider it my duty to tell you of the

    extremely dangerous threats that lie ahead. I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that we

    are now in a period of the greatest strategic deception, perhaps in all

    history ... The Cold War is NOT over, only in the state of remission

    ... The Soviet Union is not truly 'on the verge of collapse'. Western

    defence, on the other hand, is."



    Many of our readers are Intelligence Officers or former Intelligence

    Officers. We thank those readers who are members of the Intelligence

    community for providing the following FACTS which back up Gorbie and

    Sir Walter Walker's words:



    FACT: Russian intelligence agencies are working as hard as ever at

    espionage in the U.S.. Both the DCI Robert Gates and FBI Director

    William Sessions have spoken out on the high level of Russian Intel-

    ligence collection efforts in recent months, now known by its Russian

    acronym SVR. Senior FBI counterintelligence official, Wayne Gilbert

    states the same thing, "There has been no apparent reduction in covert

    intelligence gathering here by the Russians." In contrast, Chief of the

    SVR, Yevgeny Primakov, said during a recent visit to Sweden, "I can

    tell you we no longer have cloak and dagger spies in the traditional

    sense, agents who meddle in other countries' internal affairs." -

    (Newsletter of the Assoc. of Former Intelligence Officers, Vol.XVII,

    No. 6, 1992.)



    FACT: The KGB is still in control. As America's Global Elite purposely

    cut back on U.S. Intelligence activities, they know that the KGB is

    functioning more effectively than before the alleged breakup of the

    Soviet Union. It is housed under the new Russian Ministry of Security.

    It has been greatly strengthened by Yelsin and is involved in more es-

    pionage activities against the West than ever before. As has happened

    four times in the past, after we (the West) once again rebuild the Com-

    munist infrastructure, the same old KGB with a new face, will step from

    its behind the scenes control of the CIS to OUTWARDLY reclaim control

    of the "New", revitalized, rearmed, and more powerful Soviet Union.



    FACT: America and Canada are disarming unilaterally.



    FACT: Unknown to the masses, each of the nations that have split off

    from the "defunct" Soviet Union is presently covertly led by hard line

    Communists.



    FACT: The "defunct" Soviet military is presently building more offen-

    sive weapons of all types, than at any time in its history. Production

    rate:



    * 1 Tank division per month.



    * 700 new fighter aircraft (approx. 58 per month) in 1991 and 1992.



    * 1 Nuclear Submarine every two months



    * Numerous Tactical nuke bombs and mobile launchers (actual number

      unknown).



    (This intel update is per Intelligence sources 6/92.)



    (As with the last 4 times this CON JOB of a "Communist collapse" was

    perpetrated, all of this rearming and dramatic increase in espionage is

    being accomplished while the Communist's economy "CRASHES".



    We must understand that the military build-up can occur only as long as

    tax dollars continue to feed the Commonwealth of "Independent" States

    people. And that is part of the NWO plan. What is it "Boner Bush" and

    other NWO nations are sending them? - $25 billion to begin with?)



    Obviously, this has been an unbelievable CON JOB that started in 1917,

    when fellow Parasites, Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, Prescott

    Bush, Max M. Warburg, and a few other traitors sent Leon Trotsky, with

    his 300 New York trained private army of street thugs, to Russia with

    $20,000,000 in gold to finance Lenin and start the Bolshevik Revolu-

    tion. These men started Communism for one reason: to promote the take-

    over of our nation of free people by Socialists so Americans would not

    be able to stand in the way of their New World Order plans. There was

    no way they could do this if America remained free, strong, and had no

    real threats to her security. For this reason, they built America an

    enemy! (There is not space here for a big history lesson regardless of

    the importance. For more of an honest review of our historic record

    read THE WORLD ORDER by Eustace Mullins. It can be obtained from Ezra

    Pound Institute of Civilization, P.O. Box 1105, Staunton, VA. 24401.





                     AMERICANS WON'T NEED GUNS IN "UTOPIA"



    Police Officers must remember what the renowned H.L. Mencken said,



    "To die for an idea: it is unquestionable noble. But how much nobler it

    would be if men died for ideas that were true."



    Officers are told the reason the guns have to be removed from the

    American People is to stop crime and the killing of the innocent. This

    is a fabrication. Truthfully, the only reason the guns must be removed

    is to stop any chance of our countrymen raising up and throwing off the

    "wonderful" programs that their "philanthropic" government leaders have

    planned for them.



    It is time to seriously consider what each of us will do when these

    Global elitists in our government instruct OFFICERS and NATIONAL

    GUARDSMEN to go forth and take the guns away from the armed, good

    people of your city or town ... "FOR THEIR OWN GOOD". Most Officers

    know the day will come when they will have to make that very hard

    decision on this gun removal issue. The evidence is all around us that

    this day is near.



    Consider the imperialist NWO position. For the World Elite to truly en-

    joy their "utopian" Socialist Society, the subject masses must not have

    the a means to protect themselves against more "voluntary compliance".

    When one grasps this logical position, there is no longer any question

    about it: THE GUNS WILL HAVE TO GO.



    IF THERE ARE ANY Officers who still doubt this, we are about to prove

    this planned scenario to you. Keep in mind that the second part of the

    three-part plan of the NWO Regional Government program (which precedes

    the One World Government) is that Canada, USA, Mexico and South and

    Central America are to be combined into one Region. Hence, the North

    American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is on FAST-TRACK with the backing

    of our notorious NWO President, NWO Congressmen, Senators and Gover-

    nors. The other 2 parts presently in the works are: First part - the

    uniting of the European Nations (Common Market), and #3 - the uniting

    of the Asian Nations. These make up the "TRI" [3] parts of the Tri-lat-

    eral One World Government.



    Understanding this well planned program will make the following "PER-

    SONAL PROTECTION" proclamation more clear to any doubting bobbies.



    The following is a recent declaration from the government of Australia,

    which is a member of the British commonwealth. The Canadians, our soon

    to be northern countrymen, are also a British Commonwealth. Question:

    When we are merged with the British Commonwealth by the Elitist NWO

    Parasites will we assume these British Socialist anti-gun laws or will

    they assume ours?



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

    | |

    | LEGAL NOTICE |

    | |

    | PERSONAL PROTECTION |

    | IS NO REASON |

    | TO HAVE A GUN |

    | |

    | If you own a gun which you keep to protect yourself, your |

    | family, or your property, you must dispose of it legally. |

    | Under the latest gun laws, personal and property protection |

    | are no longer considered acceptable reasons to possess any type |

    | of firearm, or to get a licence. |

    | If you wish to possess any gun, you must have a licence and |

    | meet the new requirements for safe storage of the weapon and its |

    | ammunition. When your current licence expires you must reapply if |

    | you want to continue to possess or use a gun. Be warned, making |

    | a false or misleading statement on your licence application could |

    | earn you ten years in prison. |

    | Act quickly, if you haven't got a licence, now is the time to |

    | either apply for one, or legally dispose of your gun. One way you |

    | can do this is at your local police station. Possession and use of |

    | any firearm for personal or property protection is illegal and will |

    | attract severe penalties. No exceptions, no excuses. |

    | |

    | NSW POLICE SERVICE |

    | |

    | RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP |

    | |

    | The new South Wales Government |

    | Putting people first by managing better |

    | |

    | 96 - SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, JUNE 14, 1992 - 96 |

    | |

    | LEGAL NOTICE |

    | |

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





    Realizing that the plan is to merge us Americans, Latin Americans, and

    Canadians, into one Region, you already know whose gun policies we are

    to adopt. (Mexico has the very same limited gun rights as Canada and

    Australia.)



    DON'T WORRY. BE HAPPY, OFFICER!



    Officers should not worry. There is a "good" plan to get the guns away

    from your fellow Americans. Should Officers be concerned - just because

    this "good" plan calls for them to go get 200,000,000 firearms (BATF

    figures are very low) away from 250,000,000 very "peaceful and coopera-

    tive" citizens? What do you think?



    SOME "AN EASY MARK"



    Some guns will be easily removed. Many unsuspecting (and very naive)

    Americans will turn in their "liberty teeth" (means of personal protec-

    tion when told to do so. Every officer knows such people in the commun-

    ity, i.e. those "good" citizens who are too scared to oppose anything

    their government tells them to do.



    Yes, even if they know it's wrong, they will go along or just keep

    their mouths shut. Every captive nation has a large percentage of such

    people. These are the "production units" (PU's) that will fit very well

    into the New World Order. They are ready made slaves.



    As strange as it may seem, many of these "sheep" still believe that

    they can trust and believe in our government to SAVE THEM from anarchy.

    This is amusing to some of our government officials and Police Offi-

    cers. It amazes them that these people are so unaware of what is

    happening and continue trusting the same government that has planned

    and promoted the anarchy in the streets in the first place - precise-

    ly to scare them into submission. (See Aid & Abet Police Newsletter

    2-2.)



    L.A. RIOTS - AN ORCHESTRATION.



    A prime example was the recent L.A. riots. The beating of King was not

    part of the plan, but it offered a grand opportunity to accomplish

    three important things for the Globalists.



    1) Get rid of Chief Gates, who for years had stood in the way of

    Socialist -NWO gang member, Tom Bradley and others involved in trying

    to get the L.A. Police Dept. into the coming national police force.

    (See soon to be released book, THE CENTRALIZATION OF U.S. POLICE

    POWERS, available from U.S. Federal Law Research Center, P.O. Box 8712,

    Phx. AZ. 85066.)



    2) Further convince the People that their only salvation from crime and

    evil in society will be found in the "protection" provided by a global

    government.



    3) A grand opportunity for Globalists George, Pete and Tom to practice

    FEMA style Martial Law. It matters little that some among the masses

    have to die. Remember, the new government philosophy is the same as

    that of the Communist, "THE END DOES INDEED JUSTIFY THE MEANS."



    Once again, the masses were to think that everything was out of con-

    trol. It was not (the riots were planned). But it was a good enough

    reason that in a matter of hours, 2,000 U.S. Marines were on the

    streets of an American city. This was a very important test. A most

    severe breach of Constitutional law was brought to bear; and more

    importantly, the people said nothing. The masses complained only that

    the government should have acted sooner and in greater strength. For,

    when there is anarchy in the streets the "sheep" do not care who saves

    them. This planned Martial Law scenario actually worked out better than

    the NWO social planners ever expected.



    DETECTIVE BROWN SPEAKS OUT



    Los Angeles County Sheriff's Detective Larry Brown speaking in Phoenix,

    Arizona August 1992 stated that there was more behind the riots than

    the public knows. He revealed that known agitators from the Revolution-

    ary Communist Party (RCP), Socialist Worker's Party (SWP), Progressive

    Labor Party (PLP) Socialist Organizing Network (SON), were there to

    press for a riot before it started and some members of these organiza-

    tionsparticipated in the rioting, looting, and arson.



    He said that Mayor Bradley gave a very inflammatory statement that was

    broadcast on L.A. T.V. before the riots. He states, what many Police

    Officers already know, that Mayor Bradley has strongly supported the

    Communist Party USA since he first ran for mayor. Also, he received

    support from the ACLU, and National Lawyers Guild (Both pro-Communist

    groups.) In his 1969 bid to become mayor his political manager was

    Communist Party functionary Don Rothenberg. Gus Hall, the Director of

    the Communist Party U.S.A. came to L.A. to tell the Communists to help

    elect Bradley.



    Some of our fellow Officers in Southern California believe, after eval-

    uation of the evidence and results, that the outcome of the trial was

    planned by certain government officials and carried out with precision

    by the judge and prosecutor. We believe they are right. How did they

    manipulate the jury? (Read Aid & Abet Police Newsletter Vol.1 Num. 10,

    that addresses the science of how this is accomplished.) There is no

    doubt that it was understood what a NOT GUILTY verdict would accomp-

    lish. But, that's another story. (See Aid & Abet Vol.2, Num. 1 and Num.

    2., which covers other parts of this incredible well-laid plan for cre-

    ating anarchy in the streets and TERROR in the hearts of U.S. citizens.

    The goal: To get the citizens to give up their Bill of Rights so that

    their government can make the streets "safe again" through global gov-

    ernment.)



    BACK TO "GETTING THEM GUNS!"



    Officers should keep in mind that some of the guns are not going to be

    easily removed. For instance, those owned by true patriots - those

    freedom-loving Americans who know, without a doubt, what's coming next

    if they give up their guns. It should not be a surprise to Police

    Officers that many good Americans will not walk meekly into NEW WORLD

    ORDER slavery. And there are few Officers who would want it any other

    way.



    So the question each Officer individually must face is a very difficult

    but realistic one: "Which way will your own gun face when the orders

    are issued?" Will you protect the people you have sworn to protect? Or,

    will you do what other patriotic officers from other countries have

    done to their countrymen, "obediently just follow orders"?



    Every Police Officer/Military soldier in every enslaved nation on earth

    has had to face this same question. Certainly, it's an individual de-

    cision whether or not to take lethal action against fellow countrymen

    when ordered to take their weapons (and with them their liberty). But,

    each Officer will make that decision.



    OFFICER, WILL YOU KILL FELLOW COUNTRYMEN WHEN ORDERED TO TAKE THEIR

    WEAPONS? Perhaps it will help that you will be told by superiors, "It's

    for the national good", and/or, "It's for the good of society." (His-

    tory proves that the nations' Enforcers can expect some such motiva-

    tional indoctrination such as this.)



    Could there be such a police action, taken against the public, if the

    police were told the truth, i.e. "that officers should take the guns

    and liberties from the masses so that the Controlling Elite of the

    nation can enslave them"? We think not.



    Why not? Because national Police Enforcers are not mercenaries; they

    are always highly patriotic and would not do such a thing as enslaving

    their countrymen, unless in some manner they were totally convinced

    that it was the only thing to do to save the country, "the patriotic"

    thing to do... "FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY" don't you know!



    "CRIMINALS" EVERY ONE



    Actually, it may not be a difficult decision for some Police Officers

    and National Guardsmen, because before it comes time to take the guns,

    all these terrible, "radical RESISTERS with those nasty guns" will have

    been branded as "CRIMINALS OF THE STATE". And as you and I know, we

    have been trained that there is little wrong with killing an armed and

    resisting "criminal". RIDICULOUS? Have you ever wondered exactly how

    governments throughout recent history have gotten local and state

    Police Officers in other enslaved nations to participate in executing

    their own citizens. This is accomplished by labeling them "criminals".

    (Piece of Cake!)



    It is not a figment of someone's imagination that thousands of unarmed

    fathers, mothers and children have been shot to death by their local

    police, while attempting to run or climb to freedom. It is through a

    process of indoctrination that the very best Officers - highly patri-

    otic Officers - are brought to the point mentally where they can be

    counted on to do such things. Remember, it is always accomplished by

    convincing the best officers: "It is a necessary and patriotic thing to

    do."



    PATRIOTIC AMERICANS WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH



    Police officers would do well not to see the above title as only part

    of the script out of a John Wayne movie.



    We should consider, with utmost seriousness, that if good Americans

    (including internal protectors) allow this plan of the Globalists to

    get this far, it can be expected that casualties among Police Officers,

    National Guardsmen, and armed "criminal" patriotic citizens will be

    very high before the gun removal process can be successfully completed.

    (If indeed it can be completed.) But, with Police Officers and Guards-

    men serving as the "cannon fodder" to enforce the Globalist plan, these

    deaths will be merely "acceptable loses" to those giving the orders

    and looking down from their safe and secure Ivory Towers.



    It is therefore entirely relevant that our brothers and sisters decide

    very soon which side they will serve in the setting up of this "Uto-

    pian" Global Society. They must not be fooled by government officials

    that tell that that all men and women with American blood running

    through their veins will walk gently into lifelong servitude.



    It cannot be contradicted that a great many out there on the other end

    of those half-billion "liberty teeth" (guns) still underscore the

    statement of J.J. Rousseau:



    "I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery."



    INTELLIGENT Americans read and study history. On the other hand, the

    vast majority of government "leaders", "educators" and media persons

    apparently don't! Concerning the 2nd Amendment, for example, they try

    to tell us that the Founding Fathers meant for only the Organized

    Militia (National Guard) to have weapons. Please read the quotes

    given below and decide: Could these countrymen have spoken any more

    plainly?



    "NO FREE MAN SHALL EVER BE DE-BARRED THE USE OF ARMS. THE STRONGEST

    REASON FOR THE PEOPLE TO RETAIN THEIR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS AS

    A LAST RESORT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST TYRANNY IN GOVERNMENT." -

    THOMAS JEFFERSON



    "THE SAID CONSTITUTION SHALL NEVER BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE CONGRESS

    TO PREVENT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS

    FORM KEEPING THEIR OWN ARMS." - SAM ADAMS



    "THE GREAT OBJECT IS THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED. EVERYONE WHO IS ABLE MAY

    HAVE A GUN." PATRICK HENRY



    "AMERICANS NEED NEVER FEAR THEIR GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF THE ADVANTAGE OF

    BEING ARMED, WHICH THE AMERICANS POSSESS OVER THE PEOPLE OF ALMOST

    EVERY OTHER NATION." - JAMES MADISON



    Well now, those statements are really ambiguous aren't they?! Don't you

    wish our Founders would have stated clearly what was on their minds?



    Why are our school children lied to by Establishment educators about

    this? You know the answer, don't you? Good NWO slaves will not need

    guns. And that is exactly what our children will have to look forward

    to if American Police Officers and National Guardsmen  don't say "NO" TO

    THE NEW WORLD ORDER.



    Here are several othe statements about the importance of guns in the

    hands of the masses:



    VLADIMIR I. LENIN: "...one of the basic conditions for the victory of

    socialism is the arming of the workers (Communist) and the disarming of

    the bourgeoisie (the middle class)."



    GEORGE KEENAN, 1964: "Popular revolt against a ruthless, experienced

    modern dictatorship, which enjoys a MONOPOLY OVER WEAPONS and COMMUNI-

    CATIONS, ... is simply not a possibility in the modern age." (U.S. con-

    spirators already control the major communications sources, now they

    have to - GET THE GUNS!)



    LEO TOLSTOY, 1893: "Governments need armies to protect them against

    their enslaved and oppressed subjects."



    And one of our own:



    PROFESSOR DEAN MORRIS, Government employee, Director of Law Enforce-

    ment Assistance Administration (LEAA), in testimony to Congress stated:

    "I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expe-

    ditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and

    security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ... no one

    should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."



    His government LEAA administration would later publish, "There can be

    no right of privacy in regard to armament ... We seek a disarmed

    populace."



    Our government now tells us that they "disbanded" LEAA.



    FACT: They removed the name and address, but every tenant of the LEAA

    program is still in place and the goal and time table is precisely on

    course. (See book, U.S. Centralization of Police Powers.)



    Who was it that said these words?



    "If the opposition (citizen) disarms, well and good. If it refuses to

    disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." All those Officers who answered,

    "Pete Wilson", "George Bush", "Willie Clinton", or "Ross Perot", you

    are wrong. It was actually JOSEF STALIN. A simple mistake!



    Perhaps as a last HURRAH in closing this section on U.S. citizens re-

    taining their guns, we should heed the cry of a recent victim of anti-

    gun legislation. In 1990, a female student from Beijing, Red China,

    described her parents last words to her:



    "Tell the American people never to lose their guns. As long as they

    keep their guns in their hands, what happened here will never happen

    there." (Amen!)





         BEFORE YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS WRONG, YOU MUST KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT



         Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without

         learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights, ...

                                           Dr. Benjamin Rush - 1786:





    We should recall, from the section entitled "New Age Professors", what

    DR. CHESTER PIERCE, Harvard University Professor, Humanist, New World

    Order Guru instructs teachers and those students who aspire to become

    teachers of our children, namely:



        "Every child in America who enters school at the age of five

        is mentally ill, because he comes to school with an allegi-

        ance to our institutions, toward the preservation of this form

        of government that we have. Patriotism, nationalism, and sov-

        ereignty, all that proves that children are sick because a

        truly well individual is one who has rejected all of those

        things, and is truly the international child of the future."





    Once we gain an understanding of the "money issue", it is not difficult

    to understand how NWO promoters gained control of our institutions of

    higher learning where public school teachers, who taught us and are now

    teaching our children, got their training.



    I can assure you that we, and our children, did not reject "allegiance

    to our institutions ... Patriotism, nationalism, and sovereignty." But

    we were never taught the doctrines of the freedom principles upon which

    this nation was founded. Instead, we were indoctrinated with Socialist

    doctrines, reinforced by a controlled media. Most of our teachers did

    not do this consciously. The teachers themselves did not determine what

    was to be taught to our children, they just went along to get along.

    [Like many of us are still doing.] And, those few who had enough in-

    sight to protest were quietly removed from the school system.



    Fortunately, we can quickly remedy that situation. There is now avail-

    able an IBM compatible computer program published by THE CONSTITUTIONAL

    COMMON LAW LIBRARY which contains all the documents necessary:



         "THAT THE GREAT, GENERAL, AND ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF

             LIBERTY AND FREE GOVERNMENT MAY BE RECOGNIZED ..."



    Our founders left us the tools we need, not only to learn to recognize

    the "ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND FREE GOVERNMENT", but they

    also left us the legal tools to reclaim those liberties and freedoms.

    We only need to learn what those tools are and how to use them.



    Volume 1 of the CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW LIBRARY contains the full

    text of the Bill of Rights of ALL 50 STATES, the full text of the U.S.

    Constitution, The Declaration of Causes and the Necessity of Taking up

    Arms, The Declaration of Independence, The Declaration of Rights, The

    Northwest Ordinance, The Articles of Confederation and more ...





               UNDERSTANDING THE VALUE OF THESE DOCUMENTS



    In a very real sense, most of the documents contained within the

    CCLL program can be considered suppressed simply because they

    were not, until now, readily available to citizens. Consequent-

    ly, not one citizen in ten thousand has ever read his own States

    constitution or it's Bill of Rights. The irony is that the

    documents themselves state that their primary purpose is "THAT

    THE GREAT, GENERAL, AND ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND FREE

    GOVERNMENT MAY BE RECOGNIZED AND ESTABLISHED ..."



    Many of these documents explicitly state that their specific in-

    tention is that ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES BE RECOGNIZED. The Founding

    Fathers recognized that, without learning these essential princi-

    ples, citizens would be unable to maintain their liberty and free

    government could not be maintained. We repeat:



        Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without

        learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights, ...

                                          Dr. Benjamin Rush - 1786:



    To truly understand and appreciate the value of these documents,

    we need to study them not merely with respect to the information

    they contain but more specifically to the purpose they intended

    to serve for it is the intent of the lawmaker that constitutes

    the law.



    As one writer put it, "These documents are the Scriptures of our

    American Heritage of liberty and freedom." Starting with the

    Declaration of Independence, we learn their source and purpose.

    They are the laws derived from the "Laws of Nature and Nature's

    God" that circumscribe the limitations of power and authority

    entrusted to the men in government. As such, they are the legal

    basis by which America citizens, as individuals, are to judge

    whether or not those bounds have been exceeded or if Government

    has become destructive of the ends for which it was instituted.



    First, there is natural law which stands as an eternal rule to

    all men, and which is to govern even the government itself. The

    laws of nature are called the laws of God because they are de-

    rived from the same source. It is called the Common Law because

    it is Common to all men, at all times, and in all places. It sets

    the bounds of all men including the men in government who possess

    no powers not delegated by the people themselves. And the people

    can not delegate powers they themselves do not possess. There-

    fore, if an individual cannot perform an act without commiting a

    crime, trespass or tort; then he cannot delegate that authority

    to his representatives in government. It is this which sets the

    bounds of government.



    Second, government power is only a fiduciary power which has been

    established by the people only to act for certain ends. Yet,

    there remains in the people a supreme power to remove the men in

    government and alter the government itself when they find that

    they are acting contrary to the trust reposed in them.



    These are the basic principles which are concisely stated in the

    Declaration of Independence, and which inform us of the ends for

    which our governments and constitutions were established.



          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all

          men are created equal, that they are endowed by

          their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that

          among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of

          Happiness.



          That to secure these rights, Governments are insti-

          tuted among Men, ...



          That whenever any Form of Government becomes destruc-

          tive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to

          alter or to abolish it, ...

                                 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE



    The Declaration of Independence tells us that the sole and exclu-

    sive purpose for which government was established was to secure

    the God given birth rights of every American citizen. This pur-

    pose is restated and elaborated on in the Constitution of the

    State of Alabama:



          That the sole object and only legitimate end of

          government is to protect the citizen in the enjoy-

          ment of life, liberty, and property, and when the

          government assumes other functions it is usurpation

          and oppression.

                             ALABAMA, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

                             ARTICLE I. Section 35.



    The founding of America was truly a political miracle. It was the

    only Government the world has ever seen that was founded upon the

    "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and instituted for the sole

    and exclusive purpose of securing and protecting God Given

    inalienable rights. The Constitution was purposely designed to

    place strict limitations upon Government to insure that it did

    not stray from this purpose and become like all the other

    Governments the world has known. It was not instituted to grant

    rights and privileges, to regulate the lives and rule over its

    citizens. It was not empowered to pass and enforce any law it

    deemed good. No power was given to make any law that would

    abolish, abrogate, diminish, or restrict any right. Nor was any

    power granted that would allow the men in Government to amend the

    Constitution by any process not authorized by the Constitution

    itself. These powers were expressly prohibited. Many of these

    rights are spelled out in these documents which are Supreme Law

    and are applicable in all 50 states.



          This Constitution, ... shall be the supreme Law of

          the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be

          bound thereby, ...

                               U.S. Constitution, Article VI.



          The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all

          Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several

          States.

                       U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Sec. 2.



    Under these provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the rights

    enumerated in one State's Bill of Rights are as valid in the

    courts of the other 49 States as they are in the State where

    they are listed.



    In addition, the rights spelled out in the Northwest Ordinance

    are equally protected and applicable in the courts of all 50

    States by the following provision:



          All ... Engagements entered into, before the

          Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid

          against the United States under this Constitution

          as under the Confederation.

                                U.S. Constitution, Article VI.



    Those Americans who place a high value on the freedom we

    inherited from our ancestors will find these documents to be a

    real gold mine with extremely valuable nuggets scattered

    throughout them. While a great deal of this material may seem

    repetitious, a slight change in wording in one document can give

    a whole new understanding and appreciation of the intent of a

    given provision.



    These documents are not simply electronically recorded words,

    they are, as the writer mentioned above put it, "the Scriptures

    of our American Heritage the study of which is sacredly oblig-

    atory on all." In any case, they are Supreme Law and mighty wea-

    pons in the armory of educated warriors who value their freedom

    and are determined to preserve and restore the God given freedoms

    guaranteed and secured by these Supreme Laws.



    Those of us who are concerned with preserving and restoring the

    freedoms we inherited from our ancestors are often asked, Where

    in the Constitution does it say that you have this or that right;

    Or, we are accused of being "Constitutionalists" or "Constitu-

    tional purists"; Or, have been told that the Constitution is a

    "living or elastic document" (meaning it is subject to changing

    interpretations, expansions and contractions, by the men in

    government, to keep step with changing times and conditions).



    Such questions, accusations and statements are signs of abysmal

    ignorance of very basic and fundamental freedom principles. Such

    apathetic ignorance and complacency stems from strong, yet com-

    fortable, delusions of freedom and security that is a reflection

    of America's past greatness but that has little or nothing to do

    with present day reality. And, coming from public officials who

    have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against

    all enemies foreign and domestic; they are ominous signs that

    America is in great danger of passing into history as an exper-

    iment in freedom and self-government that has failed.



    To demonstrate the value of these documents, we can use them to

    answer all of the above.



          The rights enumerated in this Bill of Rights shall

          not be construed to limit other rights of the people

          not therein expressed.

                           Virginia Declaration of Rights



    You will find similar provisions in more than 20 States Bills of

    Rights. It would have been impossible for our Founding Fathers

    to enumerate all of our God-given rights, they are limited only

    by the rights of others. Under the "Laws of Nature and of

    Nature's God", "all men are created equal" and no individual and

    no group of individuals calling themselves a "democracy" or

    "government" have a moral or legal right to invade another's

    rights to life, liberty and property - either themselves or

    through their representatives.





           Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and

           property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not

           even in the largest majority.

                                   Wyoming Declaration of Rights

                                   Art. I, Sec. 7



    This identically worded provision can also be found in the

    Kentucky Declaration of Rights - Art. I, Sec. 2. This provision

    goes much deeper than it appears on the surface and is worthy of

    careful reflection.



    As to both the accusation of being a "Constitutional Purist" and

    the Statement that the Constitution is a "Living or elastic

    document," we can let the following answer for us:



          In the words of the Father of his Country, we declare

          that ... "the constitution which at any time exists,

          till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the

          whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

                            Rhode Island Declaration of Rights

                                          Article I, Section I



    If we study these documents in the light of this provision of

    the Rhode Island Declaration of Rights, we will begin to see

    just how far America has strayed from the basic and fundamental

    freedom principles upon which it was founded. We will find that

    a great deal in our constitutions that has never been changed by

    "an explicit and authentic act of the whole people" is totally

    ignored today. The question we should ask is, by what authority

    were they changed?



    I would strongly suggest that as we study these documents, we

    keep the following key words uppermost in mind: "Supreme Law"

    and "Sacredly Obligatory". We should also make a special effort

    to fully understand the following provision that will be found

    in many other State Constitutions.



          That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles,

          ... are absolutely necessary to preserve the bless-

          ings of liberty, and (to) keep government free; the

          people ... have a right, in a legal way, to exact a

          due and constant regard to them, from their Legisla-

          tors and magistrates, in making and executing ...

          ... laws ...

                                 Vermont Declaration of Rights

                                  Article 18th.



    Carefully note the words "absolutely necessary". The question

    becomes, how can we possibly "preserve the blessings of liberty,

    and keep government free" and "exact a due and constant regard to

    them (fundamental principles) from ... legislators and magis-

    trates ..." if we are apathetically ignorant of what those

    principles are? The answer, of course, is that we can't. From

    this, we can see the priceless value of these documents and the

    urgent need to study and distribute them to others.



    This brings up another critically important topic relative to

    these documents. Modern propaganda and legal practice has it

    that you must be a Licensed Lawyer before you are qualified to

    understand the "legal meaning" or "interpretation" of our laws

    and, therefore, the provisions in these documents which are the

    foundation of all of our laws; and, thereby to, demand a due

    observation and constant regard of them by our legislators,

    magistrates and other public officials.



    Some of us have even been accused of the "crime" of practicing

    law without a licence when we have attempted to help others

    defend their rights. This is a throw back to the Dark Ages where

    the layman could have no intercourse with God's laws save through

    the intermediary of priests who were qualified members of the

    clergy in good standing with the hierarchy. Today, the only

    difference is that those "intermediaries" between citizen

    "laymen" and the "Laws" are called lawyers and their "superiors

    in Black Robes" are called judges, and their courts of Chancery

    are pretending to be courts of law.



    I can assure you that the great majority of the founding stock of

    this nation who demanded and insisted that Bills of Rights be

    attached to their Constitutions were not lawyers and that they

    fully understood the limits of the powers they were entrusting to

    the men in government. In fact, in many Colonies, lawyers were

    considered vermin and parasites, and were even banished in some

    of them.



    This is such a critically important topic that we should in-

    quire further into the thought of the Revolutionary generation.

    In effect, John Locke who was considered the ideological

    progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the

    most often non-biblical writer quoted by our Founding Fathers

    said - any single man must judge for himself whether circum-

    stances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the

    civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally

    obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political

    judgement, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like

    self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgement that

    men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the

    first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can

    preserve no other.



    To this idea, that has been propagated by the legal profession

    for so many years now that only lawyers and judges are qualified

    to understand and interpret the "legal meaning" of our laws,

    let's examine the statement of one of this nation's ideological

    Founding Fathers:



          To say that subjects in general are not proper

          judges (of the law) when their governors oppress

          them and play the tyrant, and when they defend their

          rights ... is as great a treason as ever a man

          uttered. Tis treason not against one single man, but

          against the state - against the whole body politic;

          tis treason against mankind; tis treason against

          Common sense; tis treason against God; And this

          impious principle lays the foundation for justifying

          all the tyranny and oppression that ever any prince

          was guilty of. The people know for what end they set

          up and maintain their governors, and they are the

          proper judges when governors execute their trust as

          they ought to do it.

                                           -Johnathan Mayhew



    It is clear that this "impious principle" perpetrated by a self

    serving legal profession is not recognized by Americans because

    they have never learned the essential principles of liberty and

    free government. The implementation of this principle has created

    an Aristocratic form of government contrary to the Constitution.

    Under the pretence of a merger of law and equity, "law" has been

    replaced by "equity" administered by self-appointed "Aristocrats"

    who are the only ones qualified to judge the law. Jurors are not

    lawyers. So, they are told they can only determine the facts in a

    case but are required to accept the law as the judge (aristocrat)

    gives it to them even if it violates their own conscience.



         ... the jury in all criminal cases, shall be the judges of

         the law and the facts.

                                     Georgia, Declaration of Rights,

                                       Art.I, Sec.II, Para. I



    This provision appears in many of these documents. Yet, jurors,

    ignorant of freedom principles, allow judges to deny them and the

    defendant the right to have the jury determine the law. Defend-

    ants are not even allowed to argue Constitutional principles to

    the jury because they are not "qualified" to know and understand

    the "legal meaning" and "interpretation" of the law. In other

    words they are not "proper judges" of the law.



        I believe there are more instances of the abridgement

        of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroach-

        ment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurp-

        ations.

                                                   -James Madison



    "Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights ..."

    Therefore, they are incapable of recognizing these "gradual and

    silent encroachments" on their freedoms and liberties.



    It was well known during America's Revolutionary period that

    Government was not the source of rights. It wasn't just Thomas

    Jefferson who claimed that men "are endowed by their Creator with

    certain unalienable Rights," he merely restated what everyone was

    thinking.



           Kings or parliaments could not GIVE THE RIGHTS ESSEN-

           TIAL TO HAPPINESS ... We claim them from a higher source

           - from the King of Kings, and Lord of all the earth.

           They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals.

           They are created in us by the decrees of Providence.

                                            John Dickerson - 1766



    As we continue to examine these documents, we will begin to

    understand that our Founding Fathers placed the responsibility

    for the future fate of our Republic directly into the hands of

    the people as there was no other safe repository. It was left to

    the people themselves, as individuals, to preserve the integrity

    of the principles of liberty and free government.



    The duty and obligation to scrutinize the "laws of nature" and

    the laws contained herein which flowed from them for the

    knowledge requisite for preserving our legacy of freedom and

    liberty is not merely optional on our part, it is "absolutely

    necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep

    government free" as we saw in the Vermont Bill of Rights.



    America was established as a nation of laws and not of men. And

    the laws contained herein are those laws. America's traditions do

    not have a life of their own. They must be sustained by living

    commitments. People must give them life continuously or they will

    expire - especially when they are under attack as they are today.



    In summary, the problem is not that we have forgotten freedom

    principles, but that the great majority of us have never learned

    them. It is my fervent hope that this program will make a

    contribution toward rectifying that sitution.



    Volume 1 of the CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW LIBRARY puts a vast

    data base of "essential" freedom movement information at your

    fingertips, and more important, you can obtain a 100% complete

    and fully functional evaluation copy for only $2.00. Use the

    registration order form from the exit screen to obtain your copy

    today! Or write today to:





                               TED PEDEMONTI

                             18-K HARTFORD AVE.

                             ENFIELD, CT. 06082





    NOTE: This file is not in the printed version of Operation Vampire

          Killer 2000, but has been added by THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON

          LAW LIBRARY as a preview of Volume I of that library.





                      REMEMBER: IT CAN'T WORK WITHOUT YOU



    Now realize that for any plan, that would subjugate Americans, to have

    any chance to succeed, the people's protectors must go against their

    solemn oath, turn on the people, and assist other seditionists and

    traitors in such criminal acts. So we must ask our fellow Officers

    again, "Will they be like those who have used pathetic statements such

    as, 'WELL, IT'S THE LAW, SO I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ENFORCE IT.'"?



    As many Officers know, that has been the lame excuse offered by the

    People's "Protectors" in all the Marxist nations of the world during

    the last 75 years of totalitarian rule.



    Fine, dedicated, HIGHLY PATRIOTIC (and brainwashed) police officers by

    the millions UPHELD THE "LAW" in these other countries, and went on to

    round up and execute 170 million of their own countrymen because they

    were told by their leaders that "to save their nation" they must do

    these things.



    HOW COULD THEY DO THAT? Every time a nation's officers have committed

    such acts against their own people it was because of their deep

    patriotism that they were easily brainwashed into believing these types

    of activities were in their nation's best interest. (Of course, as

    mentioned earlier, these 170 million people were labeled "CRIMINALS" of

    the state.)



    "BUT I WAS ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS", has always been the most popular

    "last words" of obedient government officers. Least we forget

    Nuremberg!



    "BUT, IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE", some will say. Let me tell you that it is

    already happening here, and many officers know it. It is now well known

    that Governor Pete Wilson has just declared 500,000-plus good Americans

    to be "felons" -CRIMINALS OF THE STATE- for not obeying his

    unconstitutional gun restrictions by March 30th of 1992. The U. S.

    Congress, and some other states and cities are in the process of doing

    the same thing. REMEMBER, we already spoke about how much easier it is

    to kill armed "criminals"? AND SO IT BEGINS.



    PEOPLE'S PROTECTORS ARE AWAKENING!



    Be of good cheer! All over this nation Officers, Guardsmen and

    military personnel are awakening to this oncoming planned disaster. Many

    are beginning to take a stand against the NEW WORLD ORDER Bloodsuckers.

    They now understand that if they do not side with the people, but allow

    themselves to be used to enslave the masses, they will become the

    ENEMY, KEEPERS, and EXECUTIONERS of their own countrymen.



    WILL OUR "OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER 2000" PLAN WORK?





                                  WHO ARE YOU?

                               By A. Rick Dalton



      Fellow Officer: Have you ever considered just who you are? Do you

      realize that you are the "thin blue line" between civilized society

      and lawlessness? You have been entrusted with the collective right

      to self-protection for thousands of american citizens who depend on

      you. You and I are, in our own sphere of operations and influence,

      among the most important and powerful people on earth!



      We have had awesome given to us, and we must never forget that we

      are, first and foremost, DEFENDERS, not PUNISHERS of the people. We

      must honor and hold sacred the God-given rights of the people which

      we defend. And we must use our influence, our discretion and some-

      times our authority to protect these inalienable rights.

    ----------





    Our plan to shut down the Establishment's NWO Slave State by re-

    educating and returning the patriotic People's Servants and Protectors

    to the side of the People is working as we speak. Here is a fine

    example.



                             A PERSONAL TESTIMONY



    Let this old cop relate one of many recent, memorable meeting I've had

    with fellow patriot Police Officers and Guardsmen. I was a guest

    speaker at the Seattle, Washington Preparedness Expo in 1991, which

    drew a crowd of 5,000-plus concerned Americans. At each of my talks

    there were many fine federal, state and local police officers and

    military persons in the audience. I was privileged to meet a number of

    these good patriot Officers and to be able to speak with them after my

    speeches.



    I recall in particular two Officers who worked as partners for the

    local police department. I can't tell you how impressed I was with

    their expression of their love for their fellow Americans and their

    country. They promised me that they would go forward from the Expo,

    study and share their knowledge and concerns with their police

    colleagues. As the reader will soon see, they did exactly that. Read

    below the first published article written by these two grand American

    Police Officers, and addressed to their peers.



                              WE HAVE THE POWER



    Officers A.J. Seitz and Mike Lewis

    Puyallup Police Department, WA.



    Mike writes:



    When A.J. and I first informed people that we were going to start

    writing an article on the U. S. Constitution, we received mixed

    responses. Some of our fellow officers were sharpening their pencils

    preparing to write a rebuttal until they saw the piece (no, not A.J.'s

    HK-91. I'm talking about the article.) The article was primarily

    written as an opening statement just to get the ball rolling and

    hopefully make people probe into their beliefs and ideals.



    Several comments were made as to whether we wore white hoods when we

    wrote the article. We neither support nor condone the activities of the

    K.K.K. or any other similar organization. What we do believe in is the

    U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is something that every

    officer has sworn to protect and serve. Yet, it's amazing the number of

    people, officers included, that really don't know what the Bill of

    Rights contain and where it is applicable in the field of Law

    Enforcement. How many of you can recite the first, second, fourth,

    fifth, sixth and the eighth amendment if asked by a citizen? These

    listed are primarily used in our profession. Of course, we all have

    some idea that freedom of speech, religion and search and seizure are

    in there somewhere, but most are not exactly sure what else is in

    there. We all know that the Constitution and Bill of Rights supersedes

    all other laws. It gives the people the right to govern themselves as

    they see fit. It was our founding fathers' goal to not have a

    totalitarian state such as England. How many of us have been dismayed

    over the passage of a new law, with the knowledge that the act would

    not be practical on the street, or just does not sound quite legal? All

    we do is bitch or enforce it unquestionable. It goes no further than

    that. We as a people (especially police officers) have a great amount

    of power. Let's begin to use it! We want you only to have an open mind,

    which for some will be tough, I know. Do something for yourself. LIFE

    MAGAZINE has a special Fall edition solely based on the Bill of Rights.

    Take one home (Well, pay for it first!) and read it. You'd be surprised

    at what you find. Plus it will be great for your kids' future history

    papers. All we ask is that you search your own soul and question

    yourself if you are upholding the people's right, or are you upholding

    the Federal and State Legislative wishes.



    A. J. writes:



    As Officer Lewis said above, some people, including officers, feel that

    when a person uses the Bill of Rights as supportive material to an

    argument on a social issue, then the person must be a radical. Perhaps

    if you are pro-government control, I guess you're right. However, were

    our founding fathers radicals against the English government when they

    were fighting for our freedom? Since we are discussing the right of the

    people to govern themselves, fellow officers label us "right wing

    extremists".



    This brings us top the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights: "Congress

    shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

    prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of

    speech, or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble,

    and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This has

    been said to be the cornerstone of all other rights, yet this right

    seems to be constantly under attack by politicians who owe allegiance

    to special interest groups, as in the political correctness issue.



    This has obviously irritated the citizens of this country, which can be

    seen by the recent election across the nation, where several special

    interest politicians were voted out of office, and in our own state

    where term limitation nearly passed.



    One of the reasons that the government is in this state (excessive

    taxation, creating tighter government control, and any of the other

    topics people complain about) is that the people have little knowledge

    about the history of our government. One example is the Sedition law.

    In 1797, John Adams, a Federalist, beat Thomas Jefferson, a Republican,

    by three votes for the presidency. In 1798, Jefferson and Madison

    opposed an imminent war with France. The Federalists, who had close

    ties with the Plutocrats (rule by the wealthy) in England, passed the

    sedition law. Bouviers law dictionary defines sedition as "a revolt

    against legitimate authority, the raising of commotions and

    disturbances in the state or advocacy or suggestion by word, act, or

    writing of public disorder or resistance to the government". The idea

    behind sedition is that the government has the right to protect itself

    against disgruntled citizens. This sounds great on the surface until

    you remember that, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, Bill

    of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Government is a

    government of, for and by the PEOPLE.



    The first victim of this law was Matthew Lyons, a member of the Vermont

    Congress and reporter of a Vermont newspaper. He accused Adams of

    setting himself in a position of king of the people. Lyons soon found

    himself imprisoned, as did many other politicians, writers, and anyone

    else who dared suggest they could govern themselves of speak out

    against Adams and fellow Federalists. Jefferson labeled the law as the

    "Alien Friends Act" and persuaded Kentucky and Virginia to pass

    resolutions against the law. As the people of the New Nation began to

    see their new-found freedoms slip away at the hands of another King

    George, they began to rally against Adams, the Federalist and the

    sedition law. In 1800, Jefferson won election to the presidency by a

    landslide and Federalists slowly left, apparently in name only.$`jhe

    citizens now lived in freedom once again, but only for a short period

    of time.



    In the 1940's, a group called the American Firsters began to oppose

    President Roosevelt, the New Deal, the government ties with the Soviet

    Union, and in particular, going to war with Germany. The FDR

    administration, with help from a reporter from the Washington Post,

    entrapped 28 people. Using an alias, the reporter ordered books,

    pamphlets, etc. and had them sent to Washington D.C.. The 28 defendants

    were indicted, arrested and taken to Washing D.C. on sedition charges.

    After four years Chief Justice Laws states, "This is a travesty upon

    justice, ... case dismissed." Although the government did not win the

    case, they did succeed in ruining the defendants financially and in

    scaring anyone else who would oppose the current administration.



    On Feb. 16, 1988 at Fort Smith, Arkansas, the government again indicted

    14 individuals on sedition charges. After 110 witnesses for the state,

    1200 pieces of visual evidence, and 8 weeks of trial, all defendants

    were found innocent.



    The other tool the federal government uses is "conspiracy to commit

    RICCO". The only evidence required is for someone to say that they

    discussed a commission of a crime with another, just like in Orwell

    novel, "1984". Interesting! Just think, you can be imprisoned for

    thought crimes. This is not new. It's been developing since the country

    started. If certain professional politicians had their way, they would

    control everything.



    Another example is the media. We're not saying that we support either

    of these professionals, but look at the difference in standards. During

    the Louisiana governor's race, established professional politicians,

    with a lot of help from mass media, succeeded in lambasting David

    Duke's campaign and yet the same media censored Gary Trudeau's

    editorial cartoon depicting allegations of Dan Quayle and a DEA file.

    Nothing obscene or disgusting, but an issue that the people deserve to

    hear. What happened to unbiased news???



    We realize these things are far removed from the issues we deal with on

    the street, but you have to stop and think. If the federal government

    tries to make these terror tactics and harassment seem like "the end

    justifies the means", it hasto make us justify any tactic we may use

    to make an arrest (or dare I say "A STAT") no matter what rights we may

    bend or break.



    Remember, we have the power to protect these rights that were given to

    us all, even to street cops. Those of you who have had I.S.'s should

    know best. Citizens deserve no less protection of their rights that

    what you got, or at least what you should have gotten. - End



gl#gma

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

    
    
    	Mr. bill, can you prove that quote is false? I mean, OVK2000 is a
    bit out there to be sure, but are the quotes complete falsifications?
    
    jim
    
     

    A *bit* out there?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    re: Groundless rantings again by Barbieri
    
    My attitude is based on the totally supportable proposition that things
    that are false are *FALSE*.
    
    								-mr. bill

    the freemen are fighting Thunder Muffin, Inc., it's plain
    to see.

    Don't bother arguing, Jim.  If the source is "extremist" (as defined by
    mr. bill), then it MUST be wrong. 

      Mr. Bill,
    
        You make me laugh!!
    
        I have no problem with you personally, btw, but we certainly
        do not see eye to eye!
    
    							Tony

    
    
>   <<< Note 692.491 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>       -< Why give the "alternative" media a free pass on credibility? >-
    
    	I'm not giving them a free pass on anything...I'm asking if you can
    prove that the quote is a fabrication.
    
    
    jim

    Can you prove the following Jack McLamb quote is a fabrication....
    
    In 1994, he said interracial marriage is a "violation of God's plan."
    
    								-mr. bill

    But the source of the quote a few decades ago is indeed the John Birch
    Society.  You find them credible, I don't.
    
    McLamb picked it up and "published" it again in recent times in
    OVK2000.
    
    Now the nutters are spreading it widely.  (Even the EFF....)
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 692.498 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
    
    	
>    But the source of the quote a few decades ago is indeed the John Birch
>    Society.  You find them credible, I don't.
    
    	Whether I find the JBS credible or not is not the quesiton here. I
    was asking if you had proof that the quote was a lie. I'm sure that you
    could easily verify or disprove it....
    
>      -< Can I prove "Protocols of Zion" is a lie to your satisfaction? >-
    
    	Why is it you insist that I am anti-semetic? I work side by side
    with jews, I've been employed at a jewish cemetary and I've attended
    jewish services in the temple. I am not anti-semetic nor have I ever
    been and I don't believe in a jewish conspiracy to take over the world
    no matter how much you wish to ascribe such beliefs to me.
    
    jim

    
    I have not and am not accusing you of being anti-semitic.
    
    I have been hoping (without cause, evidently) that if I point out the
    anti-semitism of your sources, that you might pause....
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    But since it does seem so fruitless, I am going to continue to point
    out the odor of your sources.
    
    I believe more than a few boxers will not believe lies.
    
    								-mr. bill

    It sounds a little like a B-movie, IMO.
    
    						lunchbox
    

    
    Don't laugh this crap off!  This is deadly serious stuff.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	Honestly, I don't know anything substantial about Jack McLamb. I do
    realise that some of the groups I've quoted from has espoused some
    jewish conspiracy garbage. However, I have not reproduced anything that
    I considered to have an anti-jewish slant to it. 
    
    	I do pause when I read something and I make sure that I don't find
    any racist remarks or inferences contained within. I am one of those
    strange people that believes that EVERYONE may have something of value
    to say. I've worked with people who were extremely prejudiced yet were
    very knowledgable/talented in certain areas. Do their prejudices
    somehow invalidate their knowledge or their honesty? 
    
    	jim

    
    
    
    .504 duh yes.
    

    
    
    	I don't believe in OKV2000, if that's what you're getting at. I
    mean, anyone who could accept that entire document at face value is a
    little loose. However, there were some interesting quotes in there and
    that's what I extracted from it....nothing more.
    
    	Let's face it, from CBS on down to the alternative rags, they've
    all twisted the facts on more than one occasion.
    
    jim

    
    
    re: .505
    
    	so someone who is prejudice is less intelligent/honest than someone
    who is not? 
    
    jim

|   However, I have not reproduced anything that I considered to have an
|   anti-jewish slant to it. 
    
    So when you paused and read .489 and then you reproduced it, you are
    saying you don't consider it to have any anti-jewish slant to it?
    
    Let me pause and think about that for a moment.
    
    								-mr. bill

	Yes, Jim. :-)

    
    He's still pausing.
    
    

    
    The invisible Money Power is working to control and enslave mankind. 
    It financed Communism, Facism, Zionism and Socialism.  All of these are
    directected to making the United States a member of World
    Government...
    
    These elitists actually have no love for "minorities" or "commoners" of
    any race. Those who have studied these imperialists will notice that
    there is continual intermarriage among these superrich Internat-
    ionalists' families. NEVER do they participate in the mixing of blood
    other than BLUE BLOOD.

    The race mixing program was created for their "subjects" - i.e. the
    world's common people of all races. Some of these Internationalists
    have stated over the years, "... when all other humans are of one
    color, (brown), then they will be more easily managed."
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    A *bit* out there?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    Glad I ordered my subscription to The New American last week!!
    

    
    
>   <<< Note 692.508 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>                                 -< re: .504 >-
    
>    So when you paused and read .489 and then you reproduced it, you are
>    saying you don't consider it to have any anti-jewish slant to it?
    
    	{sigh} pay attention mr. bill. You asked me if I knew where the
    source of the quotes came from, I said "sure!" and posted the source
    (that I have *never* posted anywhere before TYVM). The *only* reason I
    reproduced it here was to show the source. That's it. No other reason.
    Read into it what you will.
    
    	And BTW, I don't believe that you have never tried to accuse me of
    being anti-semitic. Your bs story about trying to get me to "pause" is
    pure garbage. You have convinced yourself that I am some sort of
    neo-nazi, anti-semitic racist and you insist on shouting that from the
    rooftops. I know I am none of those things. Someday, hopefully, you
    will see that and stop trying to see things that just aren't there.
    
    jim

><< Note 692.514 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>

>   You have convinced yourself that I am some sort of
    neo-nazi, anti-semitic racist and you insist on shouting that from the
    rooftops. 
    
    
    fwiw, i haven't gotten the impression that that's what mr. bill
    thinks of you.

    
    
    	re: Lady Di
    
    	I'm glad you don't see that! :) It's just my perception....YMMV.
    
    
    jim

    
    Lady Di wasn't defending you.  She was defending me.
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 692.517 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
    
    	I know she was defending you.....I didn't mean to infer she was
    defending me. All I was trying to say was I was happy that others
    don't perceive the nastiness I do. I try to believe people have the
    best intentions at heart and Lady Di's comments made me think that
    maybe I'm taking your comments wrongly. 
    
>                     -< Take your dreck and shove it.... >-
     
    	You first...:)
    
    jim

    
    Jim,
    
    	You might find that the "pain" decreases when you stop banging your
    	head against the wall.
    
    							Hank

    
    
    	re: hank
    
    	and I ask you, where is the fun in that? ;*)
    
    
    jim

      I fail to see how a document with some 'far out' parts in it
      (I thought the UFO stuff was out there) invalidates other
      parts.
    
      The many quotes of persons in power who just happen to say
      some ominous things (much of it in related)...and the rational 
      tack is to invalidate all of it because other parts are strange?
    
      Is that your logic Mr. Bill?  Was Churchill wrong?  Was
      Rockefeller just having fun?
    
      On what basis do you cast off (as insignificant) so many
      of those quotes?
    
      I don't understand your reasoning!   Do you claim the quotes
      were never made?
    
    						Tony

    
|     I fail to see how a document with some 'far out' parts in it
|     (I thought the UFO stuff was out there) invalidates other
|     parts.
    
    Gosh, the "KEEP THE RACES FROM JOINING TOGETHER" didn't raise any alarm
    bells at all?
    
    								-mr. bill

    mr. bill -
    
    Typical bs from you...
    
    attack McLamb, ufo's, JBS, Operation Vampire Killer, separatists, 
    extremists, racists....
    
    WAS THE F-ING QUOTE MADE OR NOT?  Do not reference everyone else
    even remotely related to mentioning the quote, and then attacking it.
    Did the fellow make the quote or not?
    
    I don't even see how VK2000 or McLamb got into this discussion other
    than by YOU putting it in here. 
    
    MadMike

    Here's a recent example of the reliabity of "The New American" (March
    18, 1996, recent F-ING history, also known as CURRENT EVENTS) as a source.
    
    American Jewish Committee's Ideological Blinders,
    by William Norman Grigg
    
    ....
    
    Noting that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan recently received
    promises of generous financial support from Libyan dictator Mahamar
    Khaddafi, Rothenberg protests:
    
    "Where's the AJC's book about Farrakhan?  Where are the scholarly
    studies about anti-Semitism among radical black leaders.  To the
    extent that there is a problem with anti-Semtitism today, it comes
    from the radical left.  But the AJC, like The ADL, prefers to
    concentrate its fire on whatever conservative group happens to
    provoke its disfavor at any given time.  It really infuriates me."
    
    ....
    
    Rothenberg's criticisms are echoed by Paul Gottfried, a polical
    historan at Elizabethtown College in Pensylvania, who told The New
    American, "Organizations like the AJC and the ADL have redefined
    anti-Semitism to include all political ideas and opinions they don't
    like."  Gottfried reports that "there is lilttle serious anti-Semitism
    in American society today, and it is difficult to find evidence of
    serious anti-Semitism in American history.  There have been some forms
    of social discrimination directed at Jews, as well as at Catholics and
    other groups.  But any such problems have been vastly exaggerated by
    groups like the AJC and ADL to advance their political ambitions."
    
    
    								-mr. bill

Clearly Mr. Bill can't prove that something _wasn't_ said.  So it's up to
those who believe the Fearless Vampire Killers to find the original sources
of the quotes.  I suggest you contact the Vampire Killers and ask for them.
If the quotes are legit, they should be quite willing to provide sources
that anyone with access to a good library can look up.

    
    The skeptical conspirarati might be wise to check out:
    
    http://www.adl.org/ADLindex.html?farrakhan
    
    
    The rest of us know that Grigg, Rothenberg and Gottfried don't know
    what they are talking about.
    
    Oh yes, tying this into Buchanan for a moment, the man who has never
    seen evidence of anti-semitism in Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, also seems
    to have problems seeing it elsewhere.
    
    And finally, McLamb, for those who forget, is the white supremicist who
    walked down with Kevin Harris and Randy Weaver.  Twisty little maze....
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    And the fact that I've verified that the quote is false, is of course,
    evidence that it is true.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Free clue for the nutters.  When they spread their lies on the web
    they would do well to get their lies STRAIGHT.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Can we put down rabid people like we do rabid dogs???
    
    OR should this go in TTWA?
    

    
    New York Press Club, American Press Association, what's the difference?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    And extracting "straight forward quotes" from filthy propaganda is so
    much fun, isn't it?
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    New York News, New York Times, what's the difference?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    < Answer: no difference.  They're newspapers, and their business is
      selling cheap, unwanted wood fibers covered with cheap, unwanted
      ink, at 50 cents to 150 cents, depending on the market.
    
    

      So whats' your take on the Federal Reserve then.  Are you going
      to deny that it is a nongovernment body whose primary share-
      holders aren't even Americans?
    
      Ahhh, but of course, something like the above is insignificant,
      what with a largely foreign owned body printing all of our currency,
      being owed over a trillion dollars by the Federal govt., and
      having a responsibility that is entirely unConstitutional.
    
      Oh, yeah, I forget.  You have the impeccable rationale that if
      an anti-Semite might have brought up these facts at one time or
      another, the possibility of conspiracy (or of any danger even with
      no conspiracy) was just null and voided.
    
      						Tony

    
    
    	In defense of Mr. Bill(!), I have to say he appears to have done
    his homework regarding the honesty/integrity of the JBS. Just from the
    few instances he's verified here, it tends to cast quite a shadow of
    doubt over the organisation. 
    
    	While Mr. Bill could stand a few courses in communication skills
    and conflict management, I cannot fault his findings. I still intend to
    do a bit of digging on my own, just to satisfy my curiosity. 
    
    jim 

    
    
    .535 I'm impressed!
    
    	 There is so little bending in this notes file.
    
    

    So this standoff is still going. Is the lengthy standoff advantageous
    to the FBI or the Freemen? Will it mean more or less bloodshed? 
    
    To answer my own question, I think the longer this goes the better it
    is for the feds, due to supplies running out. However, it may mean
    bloodshed if the Freemen realize they've painted themselves into a
    corner and get desperate. They also could realize their cause is
    hopeless, but I'm not sure if they're too dedicated to their cause for
    that.
    
    
    lunchbox

    Branch Davidians II
    The Freemen Inferno
    
    Coming soon to CNN Headline News.

	If it comes down to an inferno, I bet they wish they were the peemen.

    or the whiz kids.

    or the tinklebells.

    Urine good company with the Freemen.

    
    You've got to be kidney.
    

    Don't let me bladder on.

    What a relief it will be when you people stop this run.
    

    
    Urethra going to have to ignore it, or play along, lunchie.
    

    I'll just wait until you flush it out of your system.

    Now I'm pissed off.

    
    Better than being...um, never mind.  Void that one.
    

    John Swinton was born at the end of 1830 in Scotland.  He emigrated to
    Canada and then the United States with his parents.  He apprenticed as
    a printer in New York City, then went to college at Easthampton, Mass.
    He wrote a few articles for The New York Times, joined the editorial
    staff, then became managing editor.  During the CIVIL war.  He was a
    strong abolitionist.  He resigned (ill-health) but later was managing
    editor for The New York Sun.  In 1883, he resigned his position from
    the Sun and published a weekly "John Swinton Paper".(1)
    
    He died in 1901.(2)
    
    								-mr. bill
    
    
    (1)The National Cyclopaedia (published 1900), Volume 8, P. 418
    (2)The Index of New York Times Obitiuaries.

    
    I'll let Special Agents Muldar and Sculley investigate the likelyhood
    of Swinton's ghost giving speeches at press groups in 1914 and/or 1953.
    
    
    And Jim, all I ask from you is that you satisfy your curiousity
    *before* you share "straight forward quotes" with us.
    
    								-mr. bill

re: .551

    <<W H A M>>

Man, this full-contact noting is the best.  Have they carried his
body off yet?

\john

    re: Note 692.535 by SUBPAC::SADIN
    
    Mr. bill is good at taking something large, finding a flaw and
    slamming the whole mess.  My take on the JBS is they are a source
    of info, an opposing viewpoint to the "mainstream" doctrine.
    
    You take the JBS, ADL, SPLC, KKK, NAACP, ..... and somewhere in the
    middle is what's going on.  I don't fault the JBS for their beliefs/
    values, just like I don't fault the NAACP or anyone else.  I may not
    LIKE what people like morris dees spout, but the thing that pisses me
    off is people like him are viewed as "credible" when others know
    differently.
    
    Not everything I personally say - is true (shock/horrors).  I don't
    intentionally lie and if I'm wrong I admit it.  That doesn't mean
    EVERYTHING I say is false.  But if I say "A", mr bill would say,
    "well, madmike said "b" back in 1992 and that's proven to be horses**t
    therefore A is false too".  That ain't the case.  
    
    I find the majority of stuff I get from the JBS to be verifyable.
    
    MadMike

    Getting back to your earlier question....
    
|   WAS THE F-ING QUOTE MADE OR NOT? 
|   Did the fellow make the quote or not?
    
    *N*O*
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: MadMike - Botton Line - you *live* for MUAFF....
    
    Methinks yer FOS.  but that's just me.
    
    }  Did the fellow make the quote or not?
    } *N*O*
    
    Very well, the past president or whoever of CBS said something in a
    speech about the crooked media.  You've proven it to be bs.
    What's this got to do with the freemen?
           
    MadMike

    
    Oh, do some more "research" and learn that this whole deal is about
    jewish control of the media, banks, and government.  These boys got
    too close to the truth, and now they are paying the price.
    
    								-mr. bill

    } Oh, do some more "research" and learn that this whole deal is about
    } jewish control of the media, banks, and government.
    
    Ah ha.  We both know that when people make blanket statements like
    "it's the jews fault", reasoning goes out the window.
    
    My research was into the history of MONEY period.  Personally, I think
    politicians bunged it up, not "jewish bankers".   Just because some
    guy who died in 1902 may or may not have said "jewish bankers are 
    doing it", or because the freemen personally are paranoid over jewish
    bankers, or marlon brando said hollywood is all effed up because of the
    jewish own the movie studios as well, or the JBS said somthing....
    
    is horsepuckey.  Don't be putting words into MY mouth.  I don't
    care if the freemen are bigots, racists, or whatever.  The underlying
    issue is the freemen are challenging the financial system.  Other
    banks CLEARED THEIR CHECKS.  
    
    Let's discuss that, not jewish bankers.  OK?  Anything remotely stupid
    will fall apart under its own weight.  The underlying issue is - 
    somethings goofed up, and the freemen exploited it.  Others are doing it
    too mr.bill, check under yer bed tonight.
    
    Take a laxative.  Sit back and relax.  Let's get to the root of the
    problem.  I ain't got time to debate about who's a bigot.
    
    MadMike

    Here's some of my research mr. bill.  I don't mention jewish banker
    in here at all.  In fact, my county tried twice to prevent me from
    doing this.  They lost.  After it was done, they also failed to
    respond.  They also defaulted.  Therefore this instrument is IN FORCE
    and was read into the public record at Dawson County Superior Court.
    I'll tell you what book/page it's in if you want to look it up.
    
    Let's start with this research.  Break this, and I will personally
    thank you.  (fwiw: this was a defensive move.  IMO The freemen
    took the concept and used it offensivly, or incorrectly and have
    made a "mistake".)
    
    
    
    
    
				 DEED

Tender Regarding lands made this 28th day of July, 1995 by GRANTEE
Michael Maciolek, Sui Juris
c/o (my location)
Dawsonville Georgia

who does hereby agree to accept, as a tender of amends from
Dawson County
Superior Court
Dawsonville, Georgia pz 30534
PREVIOUS GRANTOR

There is no consideration of $1.00 lawful money of the united States of
America needed for the purposes of this instrument, to be paid to the
Grantors in hand, nor need any such tender be made by the Grantees, at
or before the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof
is not acknowledged, and the Grantors need not be fully satisfied, but
by these presents can tender of amends, by settlement or conveyance unto
Grantees forever.

ALL that tract or parcel of land lying and being in Land Lot 308 of the
(specific description of property)

 as per plat recorded
in Plat Book 25, Page 1, Dawson County, Georgia.

Being the same lands conveyed unto Michael D. Maciolek and Laura J.
Maciolek by deed of Dawson County, etal, dated 11-15-93  and filed for record 
in the Clerks Office, Superior Court in and for Dawson County, Georgia in 
deed book 175, Page 619.

The aforesaid offer regarding a tender of amends is made to secure grantees
common law lien and give NOTICE to the world, the object of which action 
is to enable the GRANTEE to secure money damages and exercise Civil
and Constitutional Rights.  The particular property described will be
subject to prosecution to satisfy judgment(s) in this action.  The Failure,
refusal, or neglect of the Respondent to demand the Sheriff to convene
said Common Law Court within ninety (90) days from the date of filing this
instrument will be deemed to be "prima-facie" evidence of an admission of
"waiver" to all their rights to the property described hereinafter.
DEMAND is made upon all public officials under penalty not to modify or
remove this lien in any manner.  This lien is made to secure Rights
pursuant to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.

Common Law Liens at law supersede mortgages and equity liens, Drummond
Carriage Co. V. Mills, (1898) 74 N.W. 966; Hewitt v. William, 47 La. Ann.
742.17 So. 269; Carr v. Dail. 19 S.E. 235; McMahon v. Lundin. 58 N.W.,
827, and may be satisfied only when a Court of Common Law is called to
convene pursuant to order of the elected sheriff under Amendment 7 of the
Bill of Rights.
Such Common Law Court forbids the presence of any Judge or Lawyer from 
participating or presiding, or the practice of any equity law.  The ruling
of the United States supreme Court in Rich v. Braxton, 158 u.s. 375
specifically forbids Judges from invoking equity jurisdiction to remove
common law liens or similar "Clouds on Title". Further even if a preponderance
of evidence displays the lien to be void or voidable, the equity court
still may not proceed until the moving party has proven that he asks for
and comes "to equity" with "clean hands", Trice v. Constock 121 Fed.
620; West v. Washburn, 138 NY Supp. Any official who attempts to modify
or remove this common law lien is fully liable for damages.  U.S. Supreme
Ct.; Butz v. Economou, 478 US 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894; Bell v. Hood, 327 US 678;
Belknap v. Schild, 161 US 10; U.S. v. Lee, 106 US 196; Bivens v. 6 Unknown
Agents, 400 US 862.

(This lien is not dischargable for 100 years and cannot be extinguished due
to my death, whether accidentally or purposely, or by my heirs, assigns
or executors.)

NOW THEREFORE; if said lien shall be well and truly paid according to its
tenor to the lienor or rescinded by the lienor herein named, then this
control of the herein described property will remain in Full Force and 
Effect Forever to the lienor herein named or his or her heirs and/or assigns.

TOGETHER will all and singular the buildings, improvements, ways, woods,
waters, watercourses, rights, liberties, privileges, hereditaments and
appurtenances to the same belonging or in anywise appertaining; and the
reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents issues and
profits thereof, any of every part and parcel thereof; AND also all the
estate, allodial rights, title, interest, use, possession, property right,
claims and demand whatsoever, of the Grantors, in and to the premises
herein described, and every part and parcel thereof, with the
appurtenances.  TO HAVE and to HOLD all and singular, the premises herein
described, together with the appurtenances, unto the Grantees and to
Grantees' proper use and benefit forever under the protection of the
"Law of the Land".  To wit: for One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in
gold or silver coin as defined in the Coinage Act of 1792.

In all references herein to any parties, persons, entities or corporations,
the use of an particular gender or the plural or singular number is intended
to include the appropriate gender or number as the text of the within
instrument may require.

Wherever in this instrument any party shall be designated or referred to
by name or general reference, such designation is intended to and shall
have the same effect as if the words "heirs, executors, personal or legal
representatives, successors and assigns" had been inserted after each and
every such designation.

AUTHORITIES:  

It has been held to be wholly immaterial how imperfect or defective the 
writing may be, considered as a deed; if it is in writing and defines the
extent of the claim, it is a sign, semblance or claim of title.  SEE Street
v. Collier 45 S.E. 294; Mullan's Adm'r. v. Carper 16 S.E. 527; that
strictly speaking it cannot rest in parol SEE Armijo v. Armijo 4 N.M.
(Gild.) 57, 13 Pac. 92.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantees have hereunto set their hand and seal
the day and year first above written.

Signed, Sealed and Delivered:


in the presence of


Georgia State County of Dawson  s.s: BE IT REMEMBERED


that on July 28 1995, before me, the subscriber 
                 personally appeared
who, I am satisfied, is the person named in and who executed the within
instrument, and thereupon acknowledged that he signed, sealed and
delivered the same as his act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein
expressed, and that the full and actual consideration paid or to be paid
for the transfer of title to realty evidenced by the within deed.                                                      

Witness:


Witness:

    If we are to talk about the freemen, we have to talk about *their*
    theories, not your laundered "research" into the history of MONEY.
    
    (You see, when one source describes a bunch of kookie theories about
    money *AND* the "true" name of Rockefeller, and another source repeats
    the same bunch of kookie theories about money *BUT* deletes the
    reference to the "true" name of Rockefeller, there still is no
    reasoning.)
    
    
    Go ahead, share your "research" here.
    
    My favorite "true facts":
    
    A fraud who tries to defraud someone but fails is not a fraud.
    It's evidence that their victim is a fraud.
    A fraud who tries to defraud someone and succeeds is not a fraud.
    It's evidence that their victim is a fraud.
    
    								-mr. bill

    See, there you go again with the Rockefellers.  Screw them.
    
    Why is Montana creating legislation to make what the freemen did
    illegal?  Have you seen the indictment?  51 counts.  Break the 1st
    charge (the fraud) and then whole indictment falls apart.
    
    Where is the fraud?  I'll tell you what I THINK happened.  The
    freemen did what .558 does.  Someone ignored that instrument,
    correctly or incorrectly, the freemen imposed damages, and then
    collected upon the debt.  I don't know the whole story, so I can't
    say.  All I know is IN MY CASE, to do anything with my lien you must
    INVOLVE my elected sheriff.  He must call a common law court.  It's
    his duty to perform.  I know he won't, so I don't push the issue.
    Theoretically, since the county didn't get back to me after 90
    days of me filing my lien, they have no claim.  Therefore I can
    stop paying tax.  And they'll ignore my lien and foreclose on me,
    and I might as well move to justus township.  So, I pay tax, as 
    extortion, the cost of doing business.  It's cheaper to pay the
    couple hundred bucks for my land every year, as long as I get value
    for it.  Now, if your with the IRS or something, your lien get's
    BEHIND mine.  And when you force foreclosure, I GET PAID FIRST
    according to the terms of my lien.  I can file this lien because
    the property is in my POSSESSION.  I don't own it, but I possess it
    and have a vested interest in what I secured.
    
    The freemen seem to not want to involve, or demand their elected
    officials perform to their bond.  I THINK it's because if you look
    up the definition of LEGAL definishion of township, you may see that
    they had every right to create their own political subdivision and
    elect officials.  I'd say 900+ acres is a large block of land.
    
    This is what I think is going on, for whatever underlying reason they
    have.  I think they pushed a little (understatement of the year?) to
    far and can't be ignored anymore.  They either spill the beans or
    they get stomped.  Both sides are in a corner.  The freemen will
    become posterboys.  Right/wrong whatever, that's what'll happen.
    Hopefully people will get off their ass and take a look at what's
    going on around them.
    
    Now, as far as kooky theories...  you're now a publically elected
    official. crap or get off the pot.  Remove my lien.  You can't.
    And if Dawson County could, they'd have sent me a letter saying
    "get yer ass into court on such&such a date" and they would have
    showed cause for me to remove my lien.  They didn't do that.  How
    come?  Oh ya, and I NOTICED THE CLERK OF COURT HAD MY CASE SITES
    CHECKED by some of our well paid county lawyers.... they said
    "one of them references louisiana".  I said, "Well aparently you
    overlooked the U.S. Supreme Court cites ma'am.  File the lien".
    A week later it came back in the mail stamper "FILED FOR RECORD".
    
    This is what's being called friviious, obscure legal procedures.
    If it was frivilous, it's simple to remove because it's bogus.
    This isn't bogus.  you can't IGNORE a legal challenge, frivilous or
    not.  This is how you slam the IRS.  The majority of their crap is
    frivilous and a simple letter in response "clears up the problem".
    If you ignore their letter, you're screwed.  
    
    
    MadMike

    } Somebody cashing a fraudulent check is a victim.
    
    You loose, because you're whole arguement hinges upon the fact that
    the freemen committed fraud. They haven't been ajudicated as to that
    fact yet.  To my knowledge, a check is a negotiable instrument, one
    *I* don't have to negotiate, nor does a bank.  But they did.  My guess
    is the bounce came from the federal reserve.  They didn't honor the
    check.
    
    If the "money" didn't exist (like if I write a check knowing I have
    zero dollars in my checking account) and I wrote a check, that's
    fraud.  If I write a check and say, verbally, or legally say, this
    check is secured via a liquid asset, is that fraud?  What's the
    federal reserve do?  Print paper.  Backed by what?  Nothing.  A promise
    to pay.  Is that fraud?  IMO it is.  I use FRN's as such.  I know that
    eventually, someone's going to call on "us" to make good our debt, and
    we'll be screwed.  Actually, you'll be screwed, I'm all set.  You can
    see this by the value of our money.  It goes up and down in value 
    depending on what day it is.  
    
    Now, can you prove this system to be Constitutional?  I don't think
    so.  It used to be, but now it's not.  Why?  Many reasons.  Right/
    wrong?  it happened.  You want to fix it, or do you want to ignore
    the problem?  Go argue about all the money problems our early
    banking system(s) had, I'll bring it back to the bottom line.
    Is it Constitutional?  The answer is no.  So, what then are we
    dealing in.  Who's committing fraud?  
    
    MadMike              

    it's getting hot in here....

         Just checking up...I can sneak in here on Fridays. There's no one
    around and not very much to do. Where did these guys come from? They
    sound deranged. 

    
    
    	Mike's outta my league on this one. :*)
    
    
    jim

Freemen standoff taking toll in ways large and small


Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net
Copyright &copy 1996 Reuter Information Service 

JORDAN, Mont. (Apr 14, 1996 12:35 p.m. EDT) - The armed standoff
between anti-government "Freemen" and federal agents is affecting
everything from turkey hunting season to spring planting as it drags
toward a fourth week near here.

Everyone in this isolated farming town either knows or is related to
someone holed up at the Freemen ranch about 30 miles away. As one
rancher described the intricate web of relationships that bind the county,
"It's like the Hatfields and McCoys, only we're all Hatfields."

Local residents are intently watching the siege of the right-wing
Freemen, who over the past three years are alleged to have offered a $1
million bounty for the arrest of several local officials and are accused of
writing millions of dollars of phony checks and issuing bogus legal
documents.

They are also dealing with its ripple effects.

-- The spring hunting season for wild turkeys started Saturday. But
hunters who want to bag a bird on traditional hunting grounds near the
Freemen farm are in for a tough time. Their guns are not welcome at the
FBI checkpoints stationed on the dirt road that leads to the compound,
which the group calls "Justus Township."

Bow and arrow hunting will be allowed. The limit is one male turkey per
hunter.

-- FBI agents are feeling the strain of the long standoff, especially those
bunking down at the bureau's command post at the Garfield County
Fairgrounds where the dirt and mud are boot high on good days. Some
agents have been slept in sheds usually used for livestock, during frigid,
windy weather.

Asked if the accomodations are comfortable, agents give terse replies like
"sub-arctic sleeping bags" or "propane heaters." Residents say cold may
be a problem, but when the weather heats up so will the smell in the
barns. "We'll be out of there then," one agent said.

-- As the standoff drags on, the media hordes that once threatened to
take over this town of 500 are beginning to move out. The major
television networks are pooling their coverage and the newspapers and
wire services are down to a final few.

Reacting to the media onslaught the local dry goods store printed up
T-shirts asking "Have You Been Interviewed Yet?"

-- The Freemen may not recognise the validity of the government, but
they have been willing to accept federal farm subsidies. That's now a
problem for local rancher K.L. Bliss who last year bought some of
Freemen Ralph Clark's land, which had been foreclosed on by the
Agriculture Department.

Bliss said he expected to get about $50,000 in annual conservation
payments with the land, but the Agriculture Department has not
transferred them to him. Because of problems with the deed to the land,
he may miss a one-time deadline for the new federal farm programme.

"Ralph Clark got the payment for years when he was in default or even
foreclosed on," Bliss complained, but said recent media attention seemed
to be helping his cause in Washington.

Jew and Rockefeller isn't mentioned in here.  "International Bankers"
    is, so... be aware of that.
    Also, it sounds like if the freemen keep hangin out, there won't
    be anyone left to apprehend them when they come out.
    
    
From:	US3RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris Thomas" 14-APR-1996 01:38:34.63
Subj:	Montana Freemen

Thought this might be of interest to all:

Background on the Montana Standoff
Story by Thos. J. Clark (Liberty Newswire)

The Freemen in Montana have been going head to head with de facto
authorities for some time now.  As most people in the American common
law movement are aware the United States of America has been surveyed
and split up into six-mile territorial squares called townships by the
United States Congress.

If you are in real estate or have had any dealings with land titles,
etc.  You'll recall that each property description will describe the
land with in a township area.

Most state constitutions, as well as, acts of Congress have recognized
these townships as political entities both potential and actual.  Said
townships (six square miles) can appoint their own constable and
justices of the peace, as well as, establishing a township charter.
The Freemen in Montana did just this, and they also held that only men
of free character could appoint or hold office, as according to the
rule of common law.

Their township, Justus Township, located in Garfield county (organic)
of the country of Montana based its charter on the evidence that the
United States, the State of Montana, and the County of Garfield were
all corporate entities formed into a single compact contrary to the de
jure Constitution for the United States.  Based on their evidence they
declared solemn war against these usurpers and only recognize them as
the enemy occupying the land of the sovereign People.

The Freemen engaged in an ingenious strategy to stop the de facto
government's encroachment upon their God-given, common law, and de
jure Constitutional rights.  This strategy used the de facto
governments numerou s and repeated breech of oaths to sue against their
bonds.  The first step in the process is to send to the "oathbreaker" a
prepared confession in the form of a UCC Form 4, along with UCC
security agreement Forms 1,2.  Now, of course, the oathbreaker cannot
sign the confession lest he bring down the ire of the de facto
government master.  This would give the Freemen court standing in their
courts.  Yet, the "oathbreaker" could not deny the accusation because
more often than not his signature would appear on the documents (such
as a traffic ticket, foreclosure notice, etc.).  And more especially,
the "oathbreaker" could not come up with arguments that would disprove
the claim of the plaintiff, or it would reveal the source by which they
claim their authority, which these well-studied Freemen would then be
able to trounce.

This left the "oathbreaker" in a sore predicament.  He could not refute
the "confession/security agreement" with the blessing of the masters,
nor could he make the confession.  He could only ignore the instruments.
Therefore, the "oathbreaker" being a character under the
rule of the U.C.C. could be compelled to perform by rule of
acquiescence.  This is the same U.C.C. rule that says if someone sends
you a bill and you do not contest the bill, then the bill is assumed to
be valid.

The freeman would then have the clerk of the common law court enter an
action on the court's docket and send out notices to appear before
the common law court to the "oathbreakers".  To my knowledge, the
defendants would not show up or respond by affidavit to the court, and
after the evidence had been duly reviewed by the jury, a judgment was
generally made in favor of the freeman plaintiff.

With a favorable judgment then the plaintiff could complete the private
security agreement between himself and the "oathbreaker" by using the
U.C.C.  provision that allows one person to sign for another by accommodation.

At this point, the plaintiff would have a "perfected security
agreement" showing that the "oathbreaker" owed him so much money and
the instrument was backed by the "oathbreaker's" bond.  Therefore,
by the U.C.C., the Freemen could disburse debt.  In essence, what they
we're doing is passing on any debt that a Freeman might be alleged to
have to the "oathbreaker".  Since the security agreement was
perfected, banks and comptrollers, had no choice but to accept the
assignment.  The Freemen began paying off mortgages and back taxes,
etc.

This is what the mainstream press calls phony money.  But to my
research, I can see no difference between this money and the
ledger-entry created credit money of the banks.  It seems to be poetic
justice, paying off phony money debt, with phony money assignments.
Further, I have not been able to poke any holes in their work that I
have obtained.

Although, this may sound like slick and easy, I assure you that such
was not the case.  The Freemen were not 100% successful, and the
consequences before this latest standoff were numerous.  However, they
were making astonishing progress.

Consider the implications if the de facto government allowed the
Freemen to continue:  The Freemen were exporting their findings to
common law courts across the nation.  These courts we're learning the
process that brought severe penalties to "oathbreakers" and their
masters.  Every lawfully established common law court could lien up the
entire de facto system in short order.  Creating fiat wealth that would
so hyperinflate the monetary system would cripple the members of the
corporate nexus.

I foresaw that the Freemen's discovery would hasten the coming
economic collapse of America, if allowed to continue.  Yet, I saw this
as good because the common law courts all over America would have such
debt-relief capability, if only the People would stand up and enforce
these lawful judgments.  Obviously, the international bankers cannot be
expected to allow Christians to have such massive debt-relief
capabilities or they will not b e able to control America.  Thus, the
Freemen would have to be used as an example to those who defy the
international banking cartel.

The mainstream press has been paying particular attention to bounties,
warrants, and such that have been placed on the "oathbreakers" that
continued to defy lawful orders and to appear before the court.
Indeed, I have in my possession many such instruments that they produce
and they are rather fearsome in nature.  Similar, I would say, as to
what you receive from the de facto courts when they want your money,
obedience, etc.

The de facto elements have put themselves outside the rule of law,
which is to say, they have chosen to be "outlaws".  It is in this
context that bounties and warrants have been issued.  It may be useful
to note that the Freemen have no physical jurisdiction outside of their
township, so it is rather easy for the de facto government "outlaws" to
avoid arrest, etc.

So who is right, the Feds or the Freemen?  The evidence I have supports
the Freemen position.  Just like the 14th Amendment, if the Feds win it
seems it will be by duress rather than the rule of law.

Permission is hereby given to publish this article free of charge
(in full or condensed), as long as credit is given to the author and
the newswire in a by-line to read:

Story by Thos. J. Clark (Liberty Newswire) or,
Story by Thos. J. Clark (LN)

~Tom Clark [e.signature]

    
    That bit of fiction was penned by a Arthur Galloway (LN).  Tom Clark's
    contribution was to post it to a couple of lists.  In short order, with
    the help of a few nutters, a cut here a paste here, Thos. J. Clark
    takes credit.  Wonder if he's not responsible for the content, or he
    just found it interesting and wanted to share it?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Some useful definitions:
    
    "men of free character" - White Christian Men
    "common law" - The law practiced by White Christian Men
    "equity law" - The law practiced by Jews
    
    								-mr. bill

    There you go again bill.  I noticed this several nights ago on the
    news.  They slammed the freemen on their "christian identity"
    beliefs.  "What is christian identity?  Well, lets take a look..."
    Picture me screaming (not really) at the teevee...
    "WHAT ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY?  WHAT ABOUT THE FRAUD?  LET'S TALK ABOUT
    THE REAL ISSUES!!!".
    
    Same thing with David Koresh at waco.  What's the BATF got to do
    with child abuse?  NOTHING.
    
    Screw your definitions, let's look at the legal definitions:
    Common Law -  The system of jurisprudence, which origonated in
    England and was later applied in the United States, which is based on
    judicial precidence rather than legislative enactments; it is
    contrasted with civil law (the decendent of Roman Law prevalent in 
    other western [european] countries)... generally derived from
    principles rather than rules; it does not consist of fixed, absolute
    and inflexible rules, but rather the broad and comprehinsible
    principles based on justice, reason and COMMON SENSE.
    
    Equity law - Most generally, justice... a separate body of law...
    to entertain or provide a remedy for every injury... formulated in
    maxims, such as; equity suffers not a right without a remedy and
    equity follows the law.
                                                             
    Source:
    LAW DICTIONARY; Barron's Educational Series, Inc.   1975.
    

|   LET'S TALK ABOUT THE REAL ISSUES!!!!
    
    The real issues is that a bunch of people alledgedly defrauded other
    people and allededly assaulted other people.  They are alledged criminals.
    The alledged criminals will stand trial in a real court of law, no matter
    their delusional theories.
    
    Simple, huh?
    
    You don't want to talk about the real issues, you want to talk about
    "obscure law."
    
    So, let's talk about "obscure law...."
    
    To you it's just coincidence that these White Supremicists in
    Montana, starting with the first principles that "The Jews" control
    the government, banks, and media, managed to discover "obscure law"
    that you call "common law" but that they call "Christian Common Law?"
    
    
    It never occurs to you that "Christian Common Law" has been laundered
    into "Common Law?"
    
    								-mr. bill