The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/giwer.matt/1995/giwer_debate_9507


««■■ R_9507 ■■»»
+++■■■■■ r_950703 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (612)
To:      All                                     1 Jul 95 01:38:10
Subject: WANT TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT              

     Just in case anyone else wishes to run for president, you 
need only cite the Supreme Court decision that only the criteria 
in the US Constitution apply and inform the state election 
commission to put your name on the ballot.  They no longer have 
any right to use any other state criteria.

     It should cost you about $20.00 at most including postage.  
You too can be a former presidential candidate.

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Religious Right:Their votes are attractive,they are a nuisan
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950705 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (667)
To:      Greg Swarens                            1 Jul 95 16:00:10
Subject: 2ND AMENDMENT/USCON                    

GS> MG>       False as expected.  The constitution does not limit 
GS> MG>  government, it CREATES government, period.  End of the 
GS> MG>  Constitution as written.  No further comment needed.

GS>  Perhaps I have understated my position.  I think I should 
GS>  clarify my remarks.  I didn't necessarily mean the 
GS>  consitution as a whole, granted rights to individuals, but 
GS>  rather the bill of rights.  My mistake.  I will be more 
GS>  careful in my wording in the future.

     Still false.  The Bill of Rights PROTECTS specific rights.  
It does not grant any rights.  You can see that by carefully 
reading the wording.  

GS> MG>       It is every place in the constitution if you would 
GS> MG>       read it.  What is the point?  What is, is the way it 
GS> MG>       is, regardless of the origin.

GS>  Perhaps you could recite the philosophical frame our 
GS>  constitution was taken from?  Hmmm...  could it be you do 
GS>  not know?  My reason for asking Lester was simple, to infer 
GS>  if Lester understood from what period our political 
GS>  philosophy was born.

     Is this a pop quiz?  (You picked the right time for this.  
Well done.)

                 IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

                        A DECLARATION
                By the REPRESENTATIVES of the
                  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                In GENERAL CONGRESS assembled

             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 
                                         11111111111111111111
Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just 
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form 
of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right 
of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to instituted new 
Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and 
organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most 
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  Prudence, indeed, 
will dictate that Governments long established should not be 
changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all 
Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, 
while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by 
abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a 
long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the 
same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute 
Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such 
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. 
Such as has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and 
such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their 
former Systems of Government.  The History of the present King of 
Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, 
all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute 
Tyranny over these States.  To prove this, let Facts be submitted 
to a candid World.

GS> MG>       Shirley, you are wrong.  Governments have no more 
GS> MG>  powers than the people.  The people can grant no more 
GS> MG>  powers than they have individually.

GS>  Your point being what?  I didn't say government had more 
GS>  power than the people.  I said the bill of rights grants 
GS>  specific rights to individuals.

     See the 1ed above.  For example, government did not create 
property rights, government protects property rights.  Government 
does not create free speech, government protects free speech.  
The problem is there are so many people like you around who imbue 
ultimate powers to government when they think it is on their 
side.

GS> MG>       Then please evince some comprehension of the basis for 
GS> MG>  the constitution so that you can be answered.  When you 
GS> MG>  demonstrate complete ignorance it is difficult to know 
GS> MG>  where to start.

GS>  O.K.  if you insist.  The genesis of the constitution begins 
GS>  with the articles of Confederation ratified in 1781.  (with 
GS>  me so far?)

     I just posted a copy on Night Shit CP.  

GS>  What resulted, or the balance they sought was a compromise 
GS>  between a monarchy and democracy as they knew them.

     What resulted was a republic as they intended, despising 
both monarchy and democracy.

GS>  And, the constitutino was ratified by the required 9 states 
GS>  was achieved on June 231, 1788, followed by all thirteen in 
GS>  1790.  Of course the Anti Federalists had strong objections 
GS>  to this steming from a fear that a strong central 
GS>  government would threaten individual rights and local 
GS>  interests, thus the creation of the Bill of Rights.

     Rather the specific prohibitions included in the BOR were a 
condition of the four states that withheld ratification.

GS>  So, what you may wonder, is the meat of all this?  Simple.  
GS>  The founding fathers realized their existed a lack of 
GS>  central control, lack of a strong central government.  As a 
GS>  result they sought to create a form of goverment with 
GS>  separation of powers so all the control would not be 
GS>  situated in the hands of one person.

     Rather it was recognized there was a lack of a central 
government that had sufficient authority that the states could 
act together in world affairs.  The objective was that they all 
prosper together and not be susceptible to a divide and conquer 
strategy by any other nation.  There was no direct desire of 
strength or control by a central government, only as much as 
needed to accomplish those objectives and no more.

GS>  I do not argue that people created government.(even YOU 
GS>  must realize this is a given, unless you feel the 
GS>  constitution is a living, breathing organism.  What I will 
GS>  argue with is the absurd notion the Bill of Rights does not 
GS>  grant the people certain, individual rights.

     In what manner does "Congress shall make no law" grant a 
right?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "The government should fear the people."  Thomas Jefferson
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (668)
To:      All                                     2 Jul 95 04:41:10
Subject: BEARING ARMS                           

JJ> MR> Well, if you want to be a mindless majoritarian, that's 
JJ> MR> fine, but consider the following:
JJ> MR> 
JJ> MR> 1) The insurrection could truly oppose the majority --- a 
JJ> MR> Jewish revolt in Nazi Germany might have been in this 
JJ> MR> position.  It STILL would have been justified.

JJ>       There is no doubt in my mind that a Jewish revolt in 
JJ>  Nazi Germany would have been morally justifiable, just as I 
JJ>  think that civil disobedience in the context of the civil 
JJ>  rights movement was morally justifiable.  It does not 
JJ>  follow from either that it is advisable to misinterpret the 
JJ>  constitution of this great republic as providing legal 
JJ>  protection for people arming themselves for the eventuality 
JJ>  of such a revolt.

     Then what would have been the justification for arming 
against the new democracy in Germany?  Would that not have been 
challenging it before it had a chance to flourish?  

     Or are you saying that you can see moral justification only 
in hindsight?

JJ> MR> 2) The insurrection could oppose the minority in power, and 
JJ> MR> the majority could be uncommitted or unwilling to fight on 
JJ> MR> either side.

JJ>       If a minority is in power, we have many peaceful means 
JJ>  at our disposal to challenge that minority -- through the 
JJ>  many levels and branches of government and the many 
JJ>  opportunities we have to elect and even recall officials, 
JJ>  through  the judiciary, through a free press, through 
JJ>  collective economic action.  None of these is perfect, but 
JJ>  all of them, IMO, are both more effective and more 
JJ>  civilized than armed insurrection.

     I am certain all the dead Davidians are comforted by their 
ability to work within the system to change the system.  

     It does not work that way.  When what is in need of changing 
causes the death of people then an immediate response with deadly 
force is necessary.  To accept on death in the name of the 
political process is to condone murder.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson strikes fear in the heart of liberals.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (669)
To:      Sam Smith                               2 Jul 95 22:56:10
Subject: AMMO DEPOSIT                           

SS>  NG>  Are you trying to tell me you actually think criminals 
SS>  NG>  steal ammo from individuals?  We are talking very small 
SS>  NG>  percentages here.  Criminals steal guns and ammo by breaking 
SS>  NG>  into gun stores.
SS>  NG> 
SS>  NG>  Criminals steal guns and ammo off shipments.  Criminals buy 
SS>  NG>  guns and ammo off the black market.  This is big business.  
SS>  NG>  Where have you been??

SS>  Reading studies and reports of thefts of guns and 
SS>  ammunition in the United States.  You might find the figures 
SS>  regarding the thefts of guns and ammunition rather 
SS>  informative given your obvious ignorance of the facts as 
SS>  indicated in the above mentioned reports.  As I said before, 
SS>  the majority of gun and ammunition thefts are from 
SS>  individuals.  Look it up for yourself.

     What study of ammunition theft?  Give me a title to look up 
and a suggestion as to where to find it.  Do not strain yourself, 
simply post the study(s) you read to come to this conclusion.

     And if you do not please have the courtesy to admit you made 
it up.

SS>  NG>  So, I have the right to have a gun in my home for self 
SS>  NG>  defense if I choose, but it probably won't have any bullets 
SS>  NG>  in it "for the majority of the year".  Gee...  swell..

SS> Yes. You are far less likely to shoot anyone in that situation.

     The FBI Uniform Crime Report disagrees.  You found another 
study?

SS>  NG>  "When they weren't needed?"  When would that be exactly? 
SS>  NG>  What if I decided I need them on hand 24 hrs a day?

SS>  Then you would attempt to so demonstrate to the law 
SS>  enforcement officials responsible for licensing and if you 
SS>  could convince them that you had a valid need for bullets 
SS>  24 hours a day then they would give you the appropriate 
SS>  license.  If you could not so convince them then you would 
SS>  be SOOL.

     And of course dead when the cops arbitrarily refuse as in 
NYC.  

     Try it this way.  No one with a gun is going to die because 
of such a requirement.  That means from the criminals or the 
criminal confiscators.  Intelligent people do not obey stupid 
laws.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The OKC bombing would be very complex if OJ were charged.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (670)
To:      Michael Pilon                           2 Jul 95 23:13:10
Subject: BLACK/WHITE TWINS !!!                  

MP>      Tony DiVitto and Arnold Swartzennegger had a hit with 
MP>  twins; but, a Dutch couple who had invitro fertilization 
MP>  may have come up with a new twist.  It seems several ovae 
MP>  from the mother were fertilized in vitro with the sperm of 
MP>  the father.  But the technician did not use sterilized 
MP>  pipettes.  So a few stray sperm were around.  The result was 
MP>  a matching set of twins, one black and one white.

MP>      The Dutch are a liberal people but the couple have gone 
MP>  public in order to try to explain the children.  Another 
MP>  concern is the background of the spare sperm .

     It will be interesting to see who gets the Nobel prize for 
explaining how this bit of impossible genetics occurred.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One finger is all a real American needs.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (671)
To:      Steve Dubuc                             2 Jul 95 23:25:10
Subject: GUN CONFISCATION !!!!                  

SD>  SD> It is legal in the US.  Fully automatic weapons have been 
SD>  SD> illegal for private ownership in the US since 1933.

SD>  DR> NOT SO!!!

SD> You are correct.  I made a typo.  It should have been 1934.

SD>  And, aside from a few people with the money and "pull" to 
SD>  get a collectors license, automatic weapons are illegal for 
SD>  a private citizen to own since 1934...

     1936 actually.  A law was passed under the revenue raising 
provision of the Constitution making it a violation of the law 
without having paid the $200 transfer tax.  In other words, 
possession without payment is tax evasion and nothing more.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, Hatemongering McCartyite.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (672)
To:      All                                     3 Jul 95 01:11:10
Subject: TAKE THE 4TH 1                         

                 IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

                        A DECLARATION

                By the REPRESENTATIVES of the

                  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                In GENERAL CONGRESS assembled

             When in the Course of human Events, it becomes
necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which
have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers
of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of
Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the
Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the Separation.

             We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these
Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right
of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to instituted new
Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and
organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all
Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a
long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Such as has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and
such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their
former Systems of Government.  The History of the present King of
Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations,
all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States.  To prove this, let Facts be submitted
to a candid World.

             He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most
wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

             He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of
immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their
Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so
suspended, he utterly neglected to attend to them.

             He has refused to pass other Laws for the
Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People
should relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature,
a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

             He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places
unusual, uncomfortable, an distant from the Depository of their
Public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into
Compliance with his Measures.

             He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly,
for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasion of the Rights of
the People.

             He has refused for a long Time, after such
Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the
Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to
the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in
the mean time to the Dangers of Invasion from without, and
Convulsions within.

             He has endevoured to prevent the Population of these
States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization
of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their
Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new
Appropriations of Lands.

             He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by
refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

             He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for
the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and payment of their
Salaries.

             He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent
hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their
Substance.

             He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing
Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

             He has affected to render the Military independent
of, and superior to the Civil Power.

             He has combined with others to subject us to a
Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by
our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended
Legislation:

             For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among
us:

             For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from
Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the
Inhabitants of these States:

             For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the
World:

             For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

             For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of
Trial by Jury:

             For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for
pretended Offenses:

             For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a
neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary
Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at
once and Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same
absolute Rule into these Colonies:

             For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most
valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of of our
Governments:

             For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring
themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases
whatsoever.

             He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us
out of his Protection and waging War against us.

             He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt
our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *                      EYE 4 NEWT
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (673)
To:      All                                     3 Jul 95 01:12:10
Subject: TAKE THE 4TH 2                         

             He is at this time, transporting large Armies of
foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of Death, Desolation,
and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and
Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the barbarous Ages, and totally
unworthy of the Head of a civilized Nation.

             He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive
on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become
the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall
themselves by their Hands.

             He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us,
and has endevoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers,
the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an
undistinguished Destruction of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

             In every state of these Oppressions we have
Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated
Petitions have been answered only as repeated Injury.  A Prince,
whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a
Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

             Nor have we been wanting in the Attentions to our
British Brethren.  We have warned them from Time to Time of
Attempts by our Legislature to extend an unwarrantable
Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances
of our Emigration and Settlement here.  We have appealed to their
native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the
Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which,
would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence.
They to have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and Consanguinity.
We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces
our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind,
Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

             We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to
he Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our
Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good
People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That
these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and
Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to
the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them
and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally
dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have
full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances,
establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which
Independent States may of right do.  And for support to this
declaration, with a firm Reliance of the Protection of divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our
Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
                            
                                      John Hancock, President

        attest.
        Charles Thomson, Secretary.

[alphabetically]

        John Adams, Samuel Adams, Josiah Bartlett, Carter
Braxton, Charles of Carrollton Carroll, Samuel Chase, Abraham
Clark, George Clymer, William Ellery, William Floyd, Benjamin
Franklin, Elbridge Gerry, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, John
Hancock, Benjamin Harrison, John Hart, Joseph Hewes, Thomas
Heyward Jr., William Hooper, Stephen Hopkins, Francis Hopkinson,
Samuel Huntington, Thomas Jefferson, Francis Lightfoot Lee,
Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lewis, Philip Livingston, Thomas Lynch
Jr., Thomas KcKean, Arthur Middleton, Lewis Morris, Robert
Morris, John Morton, Thomas Nelson Jr., William Paca, Robert
Treat Paine, John Penn, George Read, Ceasar Rodney, George Ross,
Benjamin Rush, Edward Rutledge, Robert Sherman, James Smith,
Richard Stockton, Thomas Stone, George Taylor, Matthew Thornton,
George Walton, William Whipple, William Williams, James Wilson,
John Witherspoon, Oliver Wolcott, George Wythe



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Put taggants in bullshit now.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950709 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (646)
To:      All                                     5 Jul 95 20:56:10
Subject: MOVIE ON CLINTON                       

     Oliver Stone has announced he is working on a movie of 
Clinton's term in office.  The working title is to be, "Honey, I 
Shrunk the Party."

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals don't want to be caught in the crossfire.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (647)
To:      Bob Klahn                               6 Jul 95 00:58:10
Subject: HATEFUL BIGOTS!                        

BK>  PC>  Affirmative Action: Racism and sexism, to combat racism and 
BK>  PC>  sexism.  Heh, I've never figured the logic of that.

BK>   Hmmm....  let me look up Homeopathic Medicine in my 
BK>   dictionary.  Yep, that's what I thought.  Look it up.

     Thanks.  It never made any sense why AA hung on.  Now that 
you point out that similar idiocies as homeopathic medicine hang 
on it do not make this particular stupidity look so isolated.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Income tax illegal?Trying to overthrow the government I see.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (672)
To:      Bob Klahn                               7 Jul 95 04:04:10
Subject: 2ND AMENDMENT/USCON                    

BK> GS>> MG>        False as expected.  The constitution does not limit 
BK> GS>> MG>   government, it CREATES government, period.  End of the 
BK> GS>> MG>   Constitution as written.  No further comment needed.

BK>  It does both.

     Then perhaps you will be willing to take the time to 
explain your position?

BK>  MG>       Still false.  The Bill of Rights PROTECTS specific 
BK>  MG>  rights.  It does not grant any rights.  You can see that by 
BK>  MG>  carefully reading the wording.

BK>   If I say I am a republican, but always vote with the 
BK>   democrats, am I really a republican.  If you protect rights 
BK>   that didn't exist before, you are creating them.  God given 
BK>   rights are only God given if you believe in God.

     The rights are a priori assumed to exist by the constitution 
itself.  Further it comes from a very simple principle, the 
people can not give to a government more powers than the people 
have themselves.

     If you like a better statement from Napoleon, god is on the 
side of the largest guns.  We, the armed people, say we have 
these powers and rights.  If you folks do not like it, take away 
our power to defend these rights.  A government can not do it.  
Only an armed people can do it.  

     You do not appear to recognize the hard facts.  If people 
with guns say they have the right to have guns, you have a fight 
on your hands to impose another viewpoint.  That is exactly where 
you stand.

BK>  MG>       See the 1ed above.  For example, government did not 
BK>  MG>  create property rights, government protects property 
BK>  MG>  rights.  Government

BK>   It really did, since you have no rights unless someone 
BK>   agrees to their existance, and to defend them.  Again, 
BK>   unless you believe in God, and can show where God has 
BK>   granted those rights.

     You have a very primitive idea of government.  It has been 
said better than I can say it.

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among 
Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, 

     And in this statement is the basis for government.  Not only 
completely and totally derived from men but also to secure the 
rights those men are willing to kill to preserve.

BK>  MG>  The problem is there are so many people like you around who 
BK>  MG>  imbue ultimate powers to government when they think it is 
BK>  MG>  on their side.

BK>   Which accounts for about 98% of the people, including the 
BK>   vast majority of those who call themselves Libertarian.

     I have never found a Libertarian who imbues any ultimate 
power to any government.  Your experience may vary.  Perhaps you 
could describe your experience.

BK> GS>>   What resulted, or the balance they sought was a compromise 
BK> GS>>   between a monarchy and democracy as they knew them.

BK>  MG>       What resulted was a republic as they intended, 
BK>  MG>  despising both monarchy and democracy.

BK>   What resulted was a mixture.  

     Not in our country.  Your country may vary.

I doubt anyone who dispised 
BK>   democracy would have included so much of it.  

     I can not give you a quick course in the subject.  I can 
only suggest you study the subject and get back to me.

And 
BK>   practically every government larger than a small tribe is 
BK>   some sort of republic.  So claiming to be a republic is not 
BK>   such a big deal.

     You need to get beyond high school civics in your 
understanding of government.  Deriving their powers from the 
governed is the substance of government.  That power devolves to 
the lowest enforceable unit.  When a unit is gun owners and it can 
not be enforced against them without greater harm the government 
must back off else it is the cause of social harm and not the 
people insisting upon the right.  The kicker in this one is that 
armed people must disarm the armed people.  It simply does not 
work.
     
     You appear to view government as a gentlemanly agreement 
among voters.  It is not.  It is a constant contention between 
the government and the people.  And a balance will be reached.  
     
     A constitutional republic recognizes the limitations of 
government.  Those limitations are what the people will accept, 
not by majority rule, but in fact.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One BATF, one militia.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (718)
To:      All                                     3 Jul 95 03:36:00
Subject: REAL LAWS IN AMERICA                   

                   The Real Laws in the US, 2
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <7/3>

     About a month ago I wrote an article on the real laws in
America given that everything that happened at Waco was legal and
the legality evidenced by the lack of either criminal or
administrative sanctions.  The few disagreements I received
proposed that was in the past and was a one time aberration.
Then comes an incident in a suburb of Cleveland just last month.
     I have an internet report from a person in Cleveland and an
article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.  This incident involves
our favorite jack-booted thugs, the BATF.  There are several
points to the story, some amusing such as the man apparently
walked out the back door while the BATF put the house under siege
all night.  The crucial item is that the BATF knocked on the door
and requested to search the house for illegal weapons.  One way
or another the person refused.  Both version of the story agree
the agents who knocked did not have a warrant, the difference
being "with them" or "obtained after the refusal."
     Both versions agree that as a result of the refusal to
permit a warrantless search, the BATF called in a SWAT team and
put the house under siege, shut off power to entire neighborhood
and prohibited press coverage of the event.  Lets try this again,
refuse a warrantless search and you will be surrounded by a SWAT
team.  I hope I am not typing to fast for anyone.
     This is clear from both accounts.  The refusal to permit a
warrantless search is now a cause for the Federal Government to
order in a SWAT team and lay siege to your home.  That is the
law.
     That is what I said was the law as a result of Waco but
there was always the chance that was a one time happening.  Now
we have exactly that same federal law showing up again in
Cleveland more than two years after Waco.
     Let me be the first to agree they did not start blasting
away immediately as in Waco.  As the BATF spokesman is reported to
have said

    Its kind of damned if you do and damned if you
    don't.  Berarducci said.  If you kick in the door at
    night and have to shoot someone, then where are you
    at?

     So for the "crime" of not permitting a warrantless search,
then, when they finally do get a warrant and AFTER they have a
SWAT team in place and after the neighborhood is evacuated then
they contemplate kicking in the door because the person will not
respond to bullhorns and a phone line where he can only talk to
them, his own phone to call for help having been cut off.
     This is our BATF in action.  But the good news is the man
had simply walked out the back door.  They had no arrest warrant
so he is not wanted.  The story they planted that he was holding
his parents hostage was quietly forgotten when they returned home
and gave the BATF the keys to the house.
     And in the morning they did walk up to the door, use the key
and find the place empty.  Perhaps they have learned a touch of
civility.  The fact remains that under some provision of federal
law, the failure to permit a warrantless search is punishable.
     SWAT teams are not called in to negotiate.  They are called
in when the person is considered dangerous.  They are there to
kill.  So keep in mind, refuse a warrantless search by the BATF
and you will be considered armed and dangerous and an immediate
threat to the lives of others, even your own parents.
     That is what happens when you refuse a warrantless search by
the United States Government.  I have no idea what law permits
this.  I would like to find out so I can work to have it
repealed.  This is not my America but it will be again.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

     To save long distance calls.  One time permission to
reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions.
All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification
is requested.  If you Xpost everything, one notification will do.
     1)   You send a proof copy if printed media to the address
below.
     2)   The byline and address below is included.
     3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling
and grammar corrections.
     4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived
directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to
recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of
judgement proof people.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Imagine if OJ had waived his right to a speedy trial.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (719)
To:      Gary Warren                             3 Jul 95 19:09:00
Subject: ANOTHER AFTERWORD TO "LAC              

GW>  Bill, it's not that amazing or even curious--just plain 
GW>  unfortunate!  What I should've added in my original "Lack 
GW>  of disability coverage post" to my reasons for this 
GW>  situation is that in-depth investigation of my SSI/Marriage 
GW>  problem, accessible/affordable housing, attendant care, 
GW>  etc.  is just NOT in the interests of either the mainstream 
GW>  media OR the nation's leaders (i.e.  Clinton, the Congress 
GW>  and most state legislatures).  

     Can you blame them?  The mood of the country is to end all 
payment, whether "needy" or not.  There isn't much market for 
stories about beggars making demands these days.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * hypocricy, guns against arabs, tear gas against jews
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (720)
To:      All                                     3 Jul 95 23:36:00
Subject: KNOWING AND WACO                       

GL>  There is no PROOF, as for the only PROOF, if one already 
GL>  became a dictator.  There can be only reasonable suspicion.  
GL>  Which no matter how much would I present to you, you would 
GL>  never accept it.  For you liberalism and liberals in high 
GL>  position, is a matter of faith, kind of a "religion." Logic 
GL>  and reason can not penetrate it.

     If I may invoke a word of wisdom, The whisper of the 
President is louder than the cries of the mob.

     That is why there is so much attention upon every word of 
the president.  Were I to take conspiracies seriously, I would 
note that everyone in my lifetime has been involved in one and 
many before that if I consider scatologic references.  And then I 
consider that if they all were, I have nothing to worry about as 
none of them succeeded.
     
     Rather look at the more prosaic explanation.  The sum and 
substance of the grand scheme is the promotion of the party.  The 
objective is to find a way to impose party members upon society, 
not for their ideals of which they have few and are secondary, 
but rather the political influence that imposition yields which 
is primary.
     
     It was less importance to have created social security than 
to have created a social security administration with all of its 
appointments and hirings and all the rest.  An ex-president that 
creates many new things gets the highest acclamations from them.  
A professor from some university as an appointee starts a federal 
agency, hires half the graduating class and all his ex-students 
from that university and guess what, the University gives the 
ex-president its highest honorarium, its greatest acclaim, its 
most meaningless and ephemeral of praises.

     I would suggest we adopt a Roman custom.  When walking down 
Pennsylvania Avenue a new president is following by a man in rags 
reminding him that he is mortal.  It is vanity that the cause of 
our failings.

     When the president was there to do the job in Article II we 
did not have this problem.  The Article I folks were so diverse 
that their humanity was regularly driven home to them.  But the 
Cold War elevated the commander in chief to the office of 
President not vice verse. 

     And now with the end of the Cold War, the emphasis is back 
on Congress and the country hardly realizes it.  Now it is back 
where it belongs with the Congress as the voice of the people and 
lacking the CINC of the Cold War being the leader of his party.

     If I have it right, the following prediction will be 
correct.  In four years the conspiracies of government will be 
masterminded by members of Congress.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Cybersex - 101 more disgusting things to do with your modem.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (721)
To:      All                                     3 Jul 95 17:52:00
Subject: THE SPECTER OF THE MILITI              

    - Area:    AEN NEWS
    Msg#:    101S3    Local    Date:    06-18-95  18:42
    From:    Norm Olson        Read: Yes    Replied: No
    To:    All        Mark:
    Subj:    Anything to Please the Senator

    IMPORTANT    IMPORTANT    IMPORTANT
***PLEASE X-POST TO ALL NETS, BBSs, SERVICES***

TO ALL MILITIA:


In the Subcommittee hearings, Arlen Specter asked Ken Adams to 
provide information on the Militia in America. He seeks to know 
how many we are, where we are, and such like.

I am going to assist Mr. Ken Adams in every way to provide that 
information to Senator Specter.

I am asking everyone to

PLEASE COMPLY WITH THE SENATOR'S REQUEST.

Please show Senator Specter that we have nothing to hide and we 
want him to know exactly who we are and where we live...  Please 
provide the good Senator with the name, address, and phone number 
of all known militia in your area.

To provide that list, I am asking that everyone everywhere in 
America mail a PHONE BOOK book to:

Senator Arlen Specter
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC 20510-6275

with the following note:


Sir,  You asked to see a list of the people in the militia. I am 
pleased to comply with your request by sending my telephone 
directory.

P.S.    Please exclude politicans




Thank you for your support.

Kind Regards,


Norman E. Olson
Michigan Militia Corps
cedo nulli


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Gerry Adams--Timothy McVeigh--invite both to the White House
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (722)
To:      All                                     4 Jul 95 02:59:00
Subject: TRUST THE GOVERNMENT?                  

     Here is the course of every government case, valid or not.

     There is an arrest.  The government gives it reasons for the 
arrest without being under oath.  

     These are usually found to be lies, tales told by the public 
relations type not by the people doing the dirty work.

     Then person in custody denies the allegation.

     Finally the government declines comment as the case is in 
progress and speculation continues to the benefit of the 
government.

     Which means, not the OKC bombing case, that is the course of 
events.  Did McVeigh have a gun?  No, a knife.  Did McVeigh give 
only name, rank, and serial number?  No.  

     Maybe yes, but then it is one person's word against another 
and the FBI is a demonstrated liar from the report of the Justice 
Department on Waco.  

     Who do you trust and why?  IF you and THEN please include 
why.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Justice investigated Waco.Like Liddy investigating Watergate
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (723)
To:      Beetle Maniac                           4 Jul 95 03:47:00
Subject: GIWER'S HAT IN THE R                   

BM> MG>       As the Supreme Court has determined the only 
BM> MG>  requirements upon candidacy for Federal office are those in 
BM> MG>  the Constitution, I hereby declare my candidacy for the 
BM> MG>  office of President of United States of America.  I hereby 
BM> MG>  declare I satisfy all the requirements of the US 
BM> MG>  Constitution.

BM>      There are only two of which I am aware: that one be a 
BM>      natural-born citizen (naturalized citizens need not 
BM>      apply) and 35 years of age or older.

     If you really do not have a copy of the Constitution I will 
send you one.  There are a few more than than but there is 
nothing prohibiting my candidacy.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Give up your guns when the Secret Service gives up theirs.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (724)
To:      All                                     4 Jul 95 04:19:00
Subject: TESTIFY MY ASS                         

     This is a first start on VOLUNTARY Congressional testimony.

     It has to be one on one.  There is no elevated and 
encircling or greater than setting.

     The rules of ARE NOT those of Congress but are a matter of 
separate agreement.

     C-SPAN must give equal time or split screen or be shut off.
     
=====

     This should be good enough.  The very idea that Congress 
would permit testimony and not stack the deck in its favor is the 
belief of a child.  

=====

     This is a generic condemnation.  I do not care what 
constitutes the testimony or the subject, be it abortion or 
militias.

     Testify, fine.  No more elevated status for the members of 
congress.  No controls over who gets the microphone.  It is a 
facing off of equals.  If Congress wishes to issue a supeona 
fine, but that is not voluntary.  

     In a pig's ass ...

     Call me to testify?  Fine.  It will be at a round table and 
nothing more.  NO ONE has control of the TV coverage, not even 
the arrogant honorable bastard from the state of ...

=====

     Voluntary is stupid when Congress stacks the deck.

     Stop it!    


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "The government should fear the people."  Thomas Jefferson
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (725)
To:      All                                     4 Jul 95 21:30:00
Subject: FOR EVER SEPER FI.     01              

 *************  Original From: DON ALLEN
 *  stolen   *             To: ALL
 *   post    *    Date/Number: 07/01/95
 *************             On: GIFFER - 0110 - Night Shift C
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 * Forwarded from "DISASTERS"
 * Originally by Fernando Quinones
 * Originally to All
 * Originally dated 25 Jun 1995, 14:30



                        FOR EVER "SEMPER FIDELIS"
                        by, CWO-2 Robert C. Jenks

  HQMC- Time stiill seems suspended across the heartland as a stunned nation
  stands paralized by the face of domestic terror. For rescuers in Oklahoma
  city who continue to claw at crumbled concrete, time lacks importance. The
  search for hope has slipped quietly beyond reach as efforts there shift now
  to the recovery of bombing victim remains. And dead children.

  Buried beneath  the surface of shock, rest hundreds  of humbling stories of
  simple men, one unknown to the other, who are bonded in a common, virtuous
  struggle spawned by an evil act.

  April 19 was a very bad day for America.

  For Marines, the bombing of the Albert J. Murrah Building strikes a painfull
  nerve. The Corps mourns two lost Marines while nursing four others injured
  by the blast. When television first broadcast the images of the catastrophic
  explosion, one could hear the Corps gasp.

  "It looks just like the embassy in Beirut!" was the common comment,
referring  to the April 18, 1983, terrorist car bomb detonation in Lebanon.
This  was only a prologue for the disaster that would claim 245 Marine,
soldier  and sailor lives in the barracks that October.

  As in Lebanon, the allways faithful ethos of the Marines is alive in
  Oklahoma City.

  It's difficult for Michael S. Curtain, a New York City police officer,
  to remember exactly what happened.
  He and several hundred others activated under the Federal Emergency Manage-
  ment Agency Task Force 1, which organized police, firemen and emergency
  medical service specialist for the tragedy, where near physical and
  emotional exhaustion. The psychological trauma of the explosion, still
  to be felt by most of the rescuers, had to be set aside in order for them
  to tackle the ordeal of rescuing those who may have still been alive
  beneath the rubble.

  For the first 40 hours, there was no rest.

  Sometime the morning of April 21, Curtain, almost spent of energy and only
  using adrenaline to keep moving and save lives, came upon a familiar sight.

  Deliriously scrambling across and through the wreckage of the federal
  building, Curtain saw a body covered by the rubble. He recognized the
  material of the trousers.
  The trousers were deep blue with a broad red stripe-the Corps. is a blood
  stripe. It was a Marine.

  Police Officer Curtain knew immediately. He too, is a Marine. A Marine
  reserve first sergeant.

  "It was like i was driven," said Curtain, who has been reservist for
  five years after serving on active duty for 14 years.

  "somehow, i new what i had to do," he said.

  After the first sergeant found the dress blue trousers, he cut away part
  of the fabric and saw that the man was white. He knew then that it had to be
  Capt. Randolph L. Guzman, the recruiting station executive officer.
  The other Marine who was still unaccounted for was sgt. Benjamin L. Davis,
  and Davis was known to have been of Asian heritage and had darker skin.

  "When i found the captain, i started asking around to see who among the
  rescuers was a Marine," Curtain said. "I found the former Marines who were
  part of the rescue effort."

  Curtain found Manny Hernandez and Juan Garcia, both New York policemen
  but Cutain needed a another man to complete the team.

  Ray Bonner, a paramedic, stepped foward. 1stsgt. Curtain now had a fireteam.

  Because the inherent danger involved with the unstable structure, most
  recovery efforts were focused in other areas of the building at the time
  However, Curtain approached the FEMA chain of command and told them he
  and a team of former Marines were taking a special interest in the
  recovery of Guzman's remains.

  Permission was granted to the Marines to accomplish this special mission
  but they only had a four-hour window of time to work.

  "it was something i had to do," said Hernandez, a vietnam veteran who has
  been a police officer for 22 years. "I had a squad under me in Nam and
  whenever we lost a Marine, he was never left. We have this tradition.
  We take care of our own."

  The excavation took five hours and according to situation reports, involved
  a great deal of risk. The team was operating on the sub ground level,
  with a lot of concrete and steel debris. There were apparently two major
  structural columns, one vertical and one horizontal, which were the primary
  obstacles to their recovery. However, removal was not possible because
  the beams were the only support for the heavy debris above and around
  the Marines.

  "We had to use an electric jackhammer to chip the concrete away from the
  captain," Curtain said. During this effort, the columns dangerosly shifted
  twice before they were able to get Guzman free.

  Kneeling beside the captain, former Cpl. Hernandez covered Guzman's face
  with his hand.

**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (726)
To:      All                                     4 Jul 95 18:19:00
Subject: GINGRICH AND CLINTON ON C              

BB>    ATLANTA (AP) -- House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged President
BB> Clinton on Friday to a debate on crime, calling the administration's
BB> recent proclamations of being tough on criminals "nuts."

BB>    Gingrich, speaking at a dinner at the Young Republicans National
BB> Federation's biennial convention, attacked Clinton's positions on
BB> assault weapons and so-called "cop-killer" bullets, and berated TV
BB> ads touting Clinton as a crime-fighter.

BB>    "The idea of taking this administration, with their pathetic
BB> record fighting crime and their even worse record of fighting drugs,
BB> and deciding they want to come and play and debate about who is
BB> prepared to lock up the criminals and execute the murderers, clean
BB> up the streets and stop the drug dealers -- This is nuts," Gingrich
BB> said.

BB>    Referring to a joint town hall-type appearance Clinton and
BB> Gingrich made earlier this month, Gingrich said, "New Hampshire was
BB> fun. But I'll be glad to meet the president and debate crime and
BB> debate drugs anywhere in America that he wants to go, any time."

BB>    White House spokesman Jim Fetig said there would be no comment
BB>    Friday night.

BB>    Gingrich assailed Democrats who want to ban cop-killer bullets,
BB> saying criminals always will be able to kill police officers.

BB>    Clinton unveiled a plan Friday that would tighten existing laws
BB> barring the sale of armor-piercing ammunition for handguns. Current
BB> law bases bans on the material ammunition is made from, not its
BB> armor-piercing capability.

BB> --- DB 1.58/004358
BB>  * Origin: -=[MAGNA CARTA NEWS SERVICE]=- (1:147/113)

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One BATF, one militia.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (727)
To:      All                                     4 Jul 95 20:57:00
Subject: MAYBE THE MILITIAS HAV 01              

 *************  Original From: DON ALLEN
 *  stolen   *             To: ALL
 *   post    *    Date/Number: 07/01/95
 *************             On: GIFFER - 0110 - Night Shift C
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 * Forwarded from "POLITICS"
 * Originally by Tim of Angle
 * Originally to All
 * Originally dated 30 Jun 1995, 18:31

        RUBY RIDGE: THE JUSTICE REPORT
        by James Bovard (WSJ 6/30/96)

    The 1992 confrontation between federal agents and the Randy Weaver family
in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has become one of the most controversial and widely
discussed examples of the abuse of federal power. The Justice Department
completed a 542-page investigation on the case last year but has not yet made
the report public. However, the report was acquired by Legal Times newspaper,
which this week placed the text on the Internet. [] The report reveals that
federal officials may have acted worse than even some of their harshest
criticsimagined.
    This case began after Randy Weaver was entrapped, as an Idaho jury
concluded, by an undercover Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent to
sell him sawed-off shotguns.
    While federal officials have claimed that the violent confrontation
betweenthe Weavers and the government began when the Weavers ambushed federal
marshals, the report tells a very different story. A team of six U.S.
marshals,split into two groups, trespassed onto Mr. Weaver's land on August
21, 1992.One of the marshals threw rocks at the Weavers' cabin to see how much
noise wasrequired to agitate the Weavers' dogs. A few minutes later, Randy
Weaver, KevinHarris, and 13-year-old Sammy Weaver came out of the cabin and
began followingtheir dogs. Three U.S. marshals were soon tearing through the
woods.    At one point, U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper "told the others that it was
['expletive deleted'] for them to continue running and that he did not want to
'run down the trail and get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up
defensive positions. The others agreed.... William Degan ... took a position
behind a stump...."
    As Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris came upon the marshals, gunfire erupted.
Sammy was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene
(probably by Marshal Cooper, according to the report), and Marshal Degan was
killed by Mr. Harris. The jury concluded that Mr. Harris' action was
legitimateself-defense; the Justice report concluded it was impossible to know
who shotfirst.
    Several places in the report deal with the possibility of a government
coverup. After the firefight between the marshals and the Weavers and Mr.
Harris, the surviving marshals were taken away to rest and recuperate. The
report observed, "We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals together at
the condominium for several hours, while awaiting interviews with the FBI.
Isolating them in that manner created the appearance and generated allegations
that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover up the true
circumstances of the shootings."
    After the death of the U.S. marshal, The FBI was called in. A sources of
continuing fierce debate across America is: Did the FBI set out to apprehend
and arrest Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris -- or simply to kill them?
Unfortunately, the evidence from the Justice Department report is damning in
the extreme on this count.
    The report noted, "We have been told by observers on the scene that law
enforcement personnel made statements that the matter would be handled quickly
and that the situation would be 'taken down hard and fast.'" The FBI issued
Rules of Engagement that declared that its snipers "can and should" use deadly
force against armed males outside the cabin. The report noted that a member of
an FBI SWAT team from Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you
see'em, shoot 'em.'" The task force report noted, "since those Rules which
contained 'should' remained in force at the crisis scene for days after the
August 22 shooting, it is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained
ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement during the entire
period."
    The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridge
flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The Constitution allows no person
to become 'fair game' for deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the
threat that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the evaluation must be
made in a split second." The report portrays the rules of engagement as
practically a license to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on
whetherto use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules attempted to
usurp thisresponsibility."
    FBI headquarters rejected an initial operation plan because there was no
provision to even attempt to negotiate the surrender of the suspects. The plan
was revised to include a negotiation provision -- but subsequent FBI action
made that provision a nullity. FBI snipers took their positions around the
Weaver cabin a few minutes after 5 p.m. on Aug. 22. Within an hour, every
adultin the cabin was either dead or severely wounded -- even though they had
notfired a shot at any FBI agent.
    Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and 16-year-old Sara Weaver stepped out of the
cabid a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go to the shed where Sammy's body lay.
FBIsniper Ron Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back. As Randy Weaver, Mr.
Harrisand Sara Weaver struggled to get back into the cabin, Vicki Weaver stood
in thecabin doorway holding a baby. Agent Horiuchi fired again; his bullet
passedthrough a window in the door, hit Vicki Weaver in the head, killing her
instantly, and then hit Mr. Harris in the chest.
    A the subsequent trial, the government claimed that Messrs. Weaver and
Harris were shot because they had threatened to shoot at a helicopter
containing FBI officials. Because of insufficient evidence, the federal judge
threw out the charge that Messrs. Weaver and Harris threatened the helicopter.
The Justice report noted, "The SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations
Center at FBI headquarters] Log indicates that shots were fired during the
events of Aug. 22.... We have found no evidence during this inquiry that shots
fired at any helicopter during the Ruby Ridge crisis. The erroneous entry was
never corrected." (The Idaho jury found Messrs. Weaver and Harris innocent on
almost all charges.)
    The Justice Department task force expressed grave doubts about the wisdom
of the FBI strategy: "From information received at the Marshals Service, FBI
management had reason to believe that the Weaver/Harris group would respond to
a helicopter in the vicinity of the cabin by coming outside with firearms.
Notwithstanding this knowledge, they placed sniper/observers on the adjacent
mountainside with instructions that they could and shoot armed members of the
group, if they came out of the cabin. Their use of the helicopter near the
cabin invited an accusation that the helicopter was intentionally used to draw
the Weaver group out of the cabin."
    The task force was extremely critical of Agent Horiuchi's second shot:
"Since the exchange of gunfire [the previous day], no one at the cabin had
fired a shot. Indeed, they had not even returned fire in response to
Horiuchi'sfirst shot. Furthermore, at the time of the second shot, Harris and
othersoutside the cabin were retreating, not attacking. They were not
retreating to**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (728)
To:      All                                     4 Jul 95 18:34:00
Subject: RUBY RIDGE            1/2              

RC> Subject: FW: Ruby Ridge

RC> Judging from recent postings, there appears to be some uncertainty
RC> regarding the Weaver situation and who did what.  As has been reported,
RC> that "wacko-para-military-rascist-kook-religious-fascist-modern day
RC> Rambo," Bo Gritz was there.  The following is what Gritz recently said
RC> about Ruby Ridge:

RC> It was taken verbatim (any typos are mine) from his Center For Action
RC> Monthly Newsletter Vol. 4 No. 6 January 1995 pages 6 & 7.  The address on
RC> the front is: Center for Action Monthly Newsletter c/o HC 11 Box 307,
RC> Kamiah, Idaho PZ83536  (208)935-2918.

RC> No Excessive Force in Weaver Murders-Not

RC> Deval Patrick, head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, ruled Friday, 9
RC> December, that the FBI did not intentionally use any excessive force in
RC> the murder of Sammy and Vicki weaver.  This "decision" is contrary to
RC> the recommendation of the FBI's internal investigation recommendation.
RC> The fact is that sniper Lon Horiuchi did not shoot Randall Weaver as
RC> stated, and then "accidently hit Vicki as he was trying to get a second
RC> shot off as Randall ran into the cabin."  The truth is:  The Hostage
RC> Resuce Team went up the mountain with the pledge: "None of them (Weavers
RC> and Kevin Harris) are coming down alive!"  A senior member of the Red
RC> Cross support team told me that he was standing directly behind HRT
RC> agents as they loaded machine guns and heard the commitments to kill
RC> Randall, Vicki, Sara, Rachel, Elisheba, and Kevin Harris.  When I
RC> arrived, Randall yelled to me from the cabin that the FBI had murdered
RC> his wife and were keeping it a secret.  Dick Rogers, HRT leader, told me
RC> that FBI shrinks had profiled Vicki as the "maternal head who would kill
RC> the children before they would allow a surrender."  He said they had
RC> orders to "Shoot to kill on sight."

RC> Every sniper team has three elements: C-cube (Rogers) Command, Control,
RC> Communications gives the final clearance and authority to fire; number 2
RC> is security and communications for the sniper.  This person is armed
RC> with a pistol and M-16 rifle firing .223 caliber ammunition.  His job is
RC> to insure that nothing interfers with the sniper in engaging his target.
RC> He relays clearance for the kill from C-cube; number 1, the sniper, is
RC> armed with a Remington 700 rifle firing 7.62 mm Match ammunition from a
RC> prone sand-bagged, or bipod, rest position using a 10 power USMC scope.
RC> Horiuchi's position was beside a large pine 150 meters from the out
RC> building beside the cabin.

RC> Little Sammy was shot in the back by Arthur Roderick using an M-16 on 21
RC> August 1992.  Three U.S. Marshals including William Degan, most
RC> decorated agent in the 206 years history of the service.  Marshall Larry
RC> Cooper was equipped with a Colt 9 mm silenced submachine gun for the
RC> specific purpose of killing Striker, Sammy's Yellow Lab.  The Marshall's
RC> prepared ambush positions near the "Y" ( a road split not far from the
RC> Weaver cabin). After months of electronic monitoring and high altitude
RC> photos using RF-4 recon aircraft, they knew that Striker would alert on
RC> deer and elk near the cabin.  Weavers would typically grab hunting
RC> rifles and run after the dog to bag the game.  The Marshalls spooked
RC> Striker and he started chasing them down the hill toward the prepared
RC> positions.  Cooper was afraid and failed to fire at Striker.  He said
RC> Lil Sammy was too close.  Roderick shot the dog as Degan opened up on
RC> Kevin Harris.  Randall was delayed and heard the firing from the cabin.
RC> He yelled:  "Sammy come home!"  Sammy's last words were, "Dad, I'm
RC> coming!"  Roderick shot him in the back as he ran up the trail.  Sammy
RC> died instantly.

RC> Cooper tesitified: "I aimed my weapon and pulled the trigger.  My target
RC> fell like a sack of potatoes."  Kevin Harris was not shot that day.  He
RC> fled into the woods and worked his way back up to the home-site.  Degan,
RC> trying to get a better shot at Kevin ran firing in front of Cooper's
RC> position.  Not able to hear the silenced Colt, he was killed.  The
RC> Marshalls then withdrew.  Vicki, upon hearing what had happened to
RC> Sammy, instantly went down the hill to see about her son in the company
RC> of Kevin and Randall.  They retrieved his body and placed the body in a
RC> small out-building next to the cabin.  The Marshalls told the FBI they
RC> had been pinned down by vicious fire from the entire family - Degan had
RC> been killed by Weaver.

RC> The next day, Randall, Kevin and Sara went outside to check on Sammy.
RC> As Weaver stood with his back to Horiuchi and lifted his right arm to
RC> unhook the latch he was shot without warning in the right upper back by
RC> a .223 projectile.  The bullet exited out of his right arm pit.  Randall
RC> turned to run for the cabin.  Vicki, holding 10 month old Elisheba in
RC> her left arm, stood holding the door open with her right arm.  Kevin
RC> Harris was the first in, followed by 16 year old Sara and then Randall.
RC> Vicki was shot square in the face just in front of the right jaw just
RC> below the ear with a 7.62 round which exited the left side of her face
RC> slightly below the jaw severing her jugular vein.  Horiuchi testified
RC> that Vicki fell to her knees screaming for several minutes until she
RC> died from loss of blood - still clutching baby Elisheba to her breast.
RC> Kevin Harris was hit in the left upper arm and chest as he entered the
RC> cabin.  The family barricaded themselves until my arrival.  The HRT
RC> surrounded the cabin while the FBI Headquarters in the valley put up a
RC> sign proclaiming their position, "Camp Vicki."  This is a clear cut case
RC> of premeditated murder.  Federal rules of engagement prevent firing at a
RC> fleeing felon not endangering the lives of others.  Weavers never fired
RC> a single shot from the cabin throughout the seige.


RC> (Continued to next message)
RC> ---
RC>  * QMPro 1.52 * Where's the "Welfare State Closure Commission" meeting?

RC> --- DB 1.58/004358
RC>  * Origin: -=[MAGNA CARTA NEWS SERVICE]=- (1:147/113)

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *                      EYE 4 NEWT
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (729)
To:      All                                     4 Jul 95 18:35:00
Subject: RUBY RIDGE            2/2              

RC> (Continued from previous message)

RC> FBI negotiators did their best to initimidate Weaver into a shoot out.
RC> They positioned a 750 pound robot, nicknamed by them "ZOGBOT" blocking
RC> the door by Vicki's body.  The robot was armed with a 12 guage shotgun
RC> and a claw clutching a black box wrapped with wire.  Over the robot loud
RC> speaker the FBI shouted provocations to the family about the dead mom.
RC> The day I arrived the FBI positioned a helicopter over the cabin with a
RC> fuel cell. Jack, a logger, and Randall's sometime boss, and a TV
RC> camerman on an adjacent hill started waving and jumping up and down.
RC> The pilot spotted the pair and notified the commander that they were
RC> under surveillance. The bird aborted the mission and landed back at the
RC> valley Hqs.  I asked Rogers about the chopper.  He admitted that it had
RC> a suspended fuel cell, but said it was to resupply the HRT base.  He had
RC> no comment when I asked him why, if it was just an innocent resupply,
RC> did the craft abort when observed by Jack and the camerman.

RC> Some day there will be a day of reckoning where judges won't be robed in
RC> black.  Those guilty of the murder of Vicki and Sammy will be tried, as
RC> will those who covered up this heinous crime.  "Vengeance is mine,"
RC> saith the Lord!  Lon Horiuchi lives in Woodbridge, VA near the Quantico
RC> Marine Base and FBI Academy.  Current reports state that Horiuchi has
RC> been given 24 hour security and has had to move from his previous home.
RC> Butch Reno has until March to respond to the wrongful death suit filed
RC> by Gerry Spence on behalf of the Weaver survivors.  Justice may yet be
RC> partially served in this Civil Trial.  The suit is for $50 million per
RC> living family member.
RC> ---
RC>  * QMPro 1.52 * Where's the "Welfare State Closure Commission" meeting?

RC> --- DB 1.58/004358
RC>  * Origin: -=[MAGNA CARTA NEWS SERVICE]=- (1:147/113)

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.Jefferson
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (754)
To:      Lester Garrett                          5 Jul 95 15:06:00
Subject: JN                                     

LG>  Did you get either of the messages I sent your regarding 
LG>  the LAW Echo's JN and the fact that, by his own admission, 
LG>  he has not yet completed his paralegal studies?

     No.  Thank you.  I will appreciate your sending them again.  

     I have posted this.

     Requirements

Lawyer -- 4 year degree
          3 year law school
          bar optional depending upon court practice

Paralegal -- breathing
             heavy optional depending upon telephone style

=====

Doctor -- 4 year degree
          6 years medical school
          1 year internship optional
          licensing optional

          (options depending upon research or practice on 
people.)

RN   -- 4 years college level education
        OJT
        Licensing

LPN  -- 2 years college or community college level education
        OJT
        Licensing




---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals don't want to be caught in the crossfire.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin:  Port Alberni, B.C. Canada  (1:3410/240.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3410/1 120 240
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950710 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (702)
To:      All                                     7 Jul 95 14:11:10
Subject: Klinton                                

 *************  Original From: RIC DUNCAN
 *  stolen   *             To: ALL
 *   post    *    Date/Number: 06/27/95
 *************             On: GIFFER - 0043 - Rights_Rongs
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Clinton on Government

Copied without permission from The Wall Street Journal:

Reading President Clinton's pointed attack on citizen militias at
Michigan State University last Friday, we were struck by one potent
line in particular: "I say to you, all of you, the members of the Class
of 1995," said Mr. Clinton, "there is nothing patriotic about hating
your country or pretending that you can love your country but despise
your government."

Where had we heard that last part about despising government before?
Sure enough, from Mr. Clinton himself, in his now famous letter from
Oxford to Col. Eugene Holmes, his Arkansas ROTC director, on Dec. 3,
1969. Here are some excerpts from that letter's very strong
anti-government sentiment:

"As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor position on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the
salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every
day against a war I opposed and despised.... "I have written and
spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of
the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine. After I left Arkansas
last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters
of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans here for
demonstrations Oct. 15 and Nov. 16. ... "From my work I came to
believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government
really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power
to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose.
..  "One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under
indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the
bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they
know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity. ..."I am
writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to
understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find
themselves still loving their country but loathing the military. ..."
While we recognize those were the passionate thoughts of
a young man, Mr. Clinton has always stood by them. Regarding Vietnam,
he has recently said Robert McNamara's book makes him feel
"vindicated." Mr. Clinton praises his draft resisting friends as
patriots though they "despised" their government and even "loathed"
their military. So is despising a government at war better than
despising a government for its gun laws? If breaking gun or tax laws is
"wrong" now, as he rightly insists, then why was breaking the draft
laws brave and noble then?

In his Michigan State speech, Mr. Clinton referred once to the 1960s,
saying that while "many good things happened," the "Weathermen of the
radical left who resorted to violence" were "wrong." The President is
eager to distinguish between his own anti-government positions during
the 1960s and those who used such anti-government themes to justify
violence. Yet regarding militias and others who are anti-government
today, he paints with a broad moral sweep that ties their sentiment to
the evil bombers of Oklahoma City.

We agree with President Clinton that America could use a discussion
over the obligations of citizenship. But we suspect he'd speak with
greater moral authority to more Americans if he made a few more
critical distinctions, starting with the contradictions in his own
past.

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If OJ had destroyed federal property while killing ...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (703)
To:      All                                     7 Jul 95 17:30:10
Subject: Militia conference?                    

     Is there interest in having and participating in a Fido 
backbone conference specifically to discuss militia issues?  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, Hatemongering McCartyite.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950711 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (710)
To:      All                                     8 Jul 95 03:27:10
Subject: OJ Defense Summation                   

     OJ defense attorney delivering summation to the jury.  
(forgive the lack of true attorney bluster)

     Ladies and Gentlemen, you have heard a massive amount of 
evidence that the prosecution says points to the guilt of OJ.  
Let me point out a line of thought that was not investigated by 
the prosecution.

     All of the evidence that has been presented points equally 
to Kato "the human" Kaelin as having committed these murders and 
planted the evidence in OJ's home.  He has testified to being 
with OJ and driving past the house that night.  Did he see his 
lover cheating on him with Nicole Simpson?  

     He has said he had no access to OJ's house but after a year 
of living with and pal'ing with OJ, was there truly not 
opportunity to make a copy of the key to his house?  Did he never 
"watch the place" even once while OJ was out of town?  [Insert 
reference to OJ saying Kaelin had such access here.]

     We know the police did not disturb Kaelin until 8 hours 
after the prosecution alleges the murders occurred.  We know he 
had free access to the property.  The police did not investigate 
the guest house in which Kaelin lived.

     We are asked to believe OJ would leave one glove at the 
murder scene and take the other with him.  We are asked to 
believe he would leave large and clearly visible blood smears in 
his car.  We are asked to believe he was able to dispose of all 
other clothing and the murder weapon so that they could not be 
found.  

     We are asked to believe that rather than plead a headache OJ 
flew to Chicago instead of covering up the rest of the evidence.  
That he did not make the glove and shoes disappear along with all 
the rest.  

     You have heard evidence that OJ was regularly at the murder 
scene, a fact confirmed by the police 911 tapes.  Is there any 
surprise the hairs and fibers found on the body were similar to 
his?  Is he to be found guilty based upon presumptions of MS 
Simpson's house keeping standards?

     And yet a man with similar connections to both locations and 
the people involved [insert inference of any sort here] was not 
investigated in the least.  You have heard the obsequious little 
beast for yourself.  Is there a person who will say anything not 
also do anything?

     Even though he is a crackerass wimp there is no question he 
could overpowered MS Simpson.  Certainly he could have done the 
same to whatisname [noting the lack of evidence about his size 
and largely unaddressed.]  

     And we contend the murders occurred later than the 
prosecution, after OJ was on the way to the airport.  That was 
when Kaelin had access to the Bronco as easily as to the house 
after living there so long.  

     Consider this.  He enters OJ home and puts on some of his 
clothes [noting the only serious problem being Kaelin's shoe size 
which is not a matter of testimony.]  Thus OJ's fibers and hair 
and gloves are transmitted to the murder site.  Nicole lets him 
in [noting no sign of forced entry] as she has nothing to fear 
from this wimp.  He his her while helping her put on a necklace.

     Whatisname hears this, is taken puts up a poor defense [as 
he is bisexual and puts up only half a fight.]  Kaelin leaves one 
glove, returns to the Bronco and puts a big smear on the lower 
dashboard where no one would have normally touched just to be 
sure and returns to OJ's place.  Inside he leaves the shoes and 
the other glove.  

     He locks up OJ's place and takes his own car with OJ's 
obviously bloody clothes and the knife and disposes of them at a 
7-11 dumpster six miles away where they are never discovered.  He 
returns home and goes to sleep until awakened by the police at 
6am where he is very, very groggy from so little sleep.

=====

     Reasonable doubt?  A classic Perry Mason case of implicating 
another person that very, very rarely happens but then if it 
happens on television it is believable.  OJ's story?  Ain't it 
the truth that everything goes wrong when you are getting ready 
for a business trip?  

     Is it not a better truth that the prosecution spent no time 
eliminating Kato "the human" Kaelin from consideration as a 
suspect?  Motivation can be implied.  There was clearly credible 
opportunity.  Nothing was done to discount him.

     It would all hinge on the man being smarter than he appears 
and that is simple, he was smart enough to mislead the 
prosecution so he was smart enough to commit the crime, circular 
of course but this is a jury.

     And there you have reasonable doubt in the defense summation 
argument that can not be rebutted by the prosecution.

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * A sufficiently advanced person will appear to be god.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950716 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (774)
To:      Sam Smith                              14 Jul 95 04:57:00
Subject: AMMO DEPOSIT                           

SS>  MG>  What study of ammunition theft?  Give me a title to look up 
SS>  MG>  and a suggestion as to where to find it.  Do not strain 
SS>  MG>  yourself, simply post the study(s) you read to come to this 
SS>  MG>  conclusion.

SS>  Thanks for your concern.  I shall take you at your word.  
SS>  Every police department keeps statistics relating to what 
SS>  thefts are reported to them.  These reports are made 
SS>  available to interested parties who gather them into large 
SS>  volumes found at university libraries called (something 
SS>  like) "Crime Statistics for  from  to 
SS>  " (you figure out the name).
SS> 
SS>  There, I hardly feel strained at all.  Thanks.

     No problem.  And to follow up, USF does not appear to have 
such a document under this description.  Can you provide the 
author/source of it so I may proceed further?
     

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               The People are the Militia.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (775)
To:      Lester Garrett                         14 Jul 95 04:59:00
Subject: FIJA                                   

LG>  MG>  Isn't this entire discussion of whether or not a jury can 
LG>  MG>  judge the law rather academic?

LG> No, it is not.

LG>  MG>  The issue only comes up when there is an acquittal.  
LG>  MG>  Acquittals can not be overturned save in extraordinary 
LG>  MG>  cases such as evidence of jury tampering.
LG>  MG> 
LG>  MG>  One might as well argue against the power of the jury to 
LG>  MG>  acquit in the first place.  Why a jury acquits is its 
LG>  MG>  business and not open to review.

LG>  You have missed the point.  Jury nullification is 
LG>  legitimate explicit defense.  Some time back I posted a 
LG>  message about a specific trial in which the *_ONLY_ defense 
LG>  which was offered, and offered explicitly, was Jury 
LG>  Nullification.  That is why it is _NOT_ "academic" as you 
LG>  suggest.  I.e., Nullification can be offered as the 
LG>  explicit and only defense to the charge.

     You are going to have to go much further than this.  The 
power of nullification is not a defense.  That the law covers a 
de facto case beyond the intention of the law is a case.  That can 
be expressed in dozens of ways.  

     Please go further.  What we have here is a failure to 
communicate.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Let God sort out the BATF.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (776)
To:      Lester Garrett                         14 Jul 95 05:03:00
Subject: JN                                     

LG>      LG>  Did you get either of the messages I sent your regarding 
LG>      LG>  the LAW Echo's JN and the fact that, by his own admission, 
LG>      LG>  he has not yet completed his paralegal studies?

LG>  MG> No.  Thank you.  I will appreciate your sending them again.

LG>  No need since they did no more than advise that, by his own 
LG>  recent admission, he is still a Paralegal student and is 
LG>  not yet a paralegal.  Whereas, you keep referring to him as 
LG>  a Paralegal.

     What I still have not found is what constitutes paralegal 
training or education or whatever.  With the Licensed Practical 
Nurse example at least there are two years, OJT and licensing and 
still the joke is they are taught enough to do the job and not 
enough to testify against the doctor.  Just what does this 
entail?  

     The last time I saw TV ads for paralegal training they were 
jumping into their Corvette and six months later signing a 
consent decree to refrain from false and misleading advertising.  

     Any suggestions as to the education?

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One BATF, one militia.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (777)
To:      Lester Garrett                         14 Jul 95 05:10:00
Subject: MAYBE THE MILITIAS HAV                 

LG>  MG> RUBY RIDGE: THE JUSTICE REPORT
LG>  MG> by James Bovard (WSJ 6/30/96)  . . .

LG>  MG> Continued in the next message...

LG>  Yup, no additional part(s) made it here.  Can you repost 
LG>   the subsequent part(s)?

     Better.  Contact Bill Bauer, moderator of Rites_rongs in 
Oklahoma and get his BBS number to download RUBY.ZIP and you 
post the hundred part message.  For whatever the problem is, I 
can't seem to solve it but then I seen others not local give you 
the second part before I do.  

     There appears to be some major standardization problem in 
Fido.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * It's not nice to pick on monsters smaller than you.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (778)
To:      Bob Klahn                              14 Jul 95 05:15:00
Subject: USCONSTITUTION                         

BK> BK>>  MG>       What resulted was a republic as they intended,
BK> BK>>  MG>  despising both monarchy and democracy.

BK> BK>>   What resulted was a mixture.

BK>  MG>      Not in our country.  Your country may vary.

BK>   Let me see, the people elect representatives.  That's a 
BK>   democratic republic by most reckoning I've ever heard of.

     That is a republic that uses the vote to determine 
representatives.

BK>  MG> I doubt anyone who dispised
BK> BK>>   democracy would have included so much of it.

BK>  MG>       I can not give you a quick course in the subject.  I 
BK>  MG>  can only suggest you study the subject and get back to me.

BK>   If I felt you were qualified to give a course in the 
BK>   subject, I might be interested.
BK> 
BK>   My American Heritage dictionary defines democracy as rule 
BK>   by the people, either directly or through elected 
BK>   representatives.

     Then I would suggest you find a better source for the form 
of government of the US.  This is a Constitutionally limited 
Republic using now and not for the first 100 years or so 
representation by popular vote.  The Constitution comes first.  
If the elected representatives do not like it, there is a process 
for change right there in the Constitution.

BK>  MG> And
BK> BK>>    practically every government larger than a small tribe is 
BK> BK>>    some sort of republic.  So claiming to be a republic is 
BK> BK>>    not such a big deal.

BK>  MG>       You need to get beyond high school civics in your 
BK>  MG>  understanding of government.  Deriving their powers from 
BK>  MG>  the

BK>  As you need to get beyond high school debate tactics.

     Sir, learn something more than you were taught in public 
school.

BK>  MG>  governed is the substance of government.  That power 
BK>  MG>  devolves to

BK>   Just powers.  Lots of governments ruled without any concern 
BK>   for the consent of the governed.

     Ours is not one of them.  

BK>  MG>  the lowest enforceable unit.  When a unit is gun owners and 
BK>  MG>  it can not be enforced against them without greater harm 
BK>  MG>  the government

BK>  This is the day to day events, not the basis of government.

     The day to day actions of the government define the 
government.

BK>  MG> must back off else it is the cause of social harm and not the

BK>   Which could happen whether the individuals involved are 
BK>   law abiding citizens or criminals.

     Save that everything is a such a confrontation.  Consider 
the links of organized crime to the FBI and the CIA.  
Organization is everything.

BK>  MG>  people insisting upon the right.  The kicker in this one is 
BK>  MG>  that armed people must disarm the armed people.  It simply 
BK>  MG>  does not work.

BK>  Sorry, it does not make sense either.

     There is no way to disarm people without causing an armed 
confrontation.  Is that more clear?

BK>  MG>       You appear to view government as a gentlemanly 
BK>  MG>  agreement among voters.  It is not.  It is a constant 
BK>  MG>  contention between

BK>  No possible way to derive this from my statements.

     Then what is your position?  

BK>  MG> the government and the people.  And a balance will be reached.

BK>  Nothing is ever perfectly balanced.

     platitudes are useless.

BK>  MG>       A constitutional republic recognizes the limitations 
BK>  MG>  of government.  Those limitations are what the people will 
BK>  MG>  accept, not by majority rule, but in fact.

BK>  Your point being?

     That the government can not exceed the constitutionally 
delegated powers without expecting the people to respond with 
force -- and no legalisms have merit.

BK>   BTW, a constitutional monarchy could meet the same 
BK>   standards, as could a direct democracy.  For that matter, I 
BK>   could well concieve of a constitutional republic that does 
BK>   not recognize limitations.

     Then you will have to describe your conception in detail 
before you can expect me to accept that you can do so.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * It's not the end of the world, just an intermission.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950719 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (758)
To:      All                                    17 Jul 95 01:22:00
Subject: Giwer Platform, 1st part               

          Matt Giwer Presidential Platform, Part One

     Now that I am officially a candidate for President of the 
United States in 1996 it is time to provide the first round of my 
platform.

     Every effort to eliminate laws against guns and drugs and 
while working for that the exercise every discretionary 
presidential power to minimize the enforcement of such laws.

     The Department of Justice will be directed to prioritize all 
law enforcement activities such that such that gun and drug 
crimes that involve the commission of other crimes have the 
highest priority and those restricted to gun and drug crimes only 
will receive the lowest priority.  Thus a drug crime involving 
only distribution and sale will have the lowest priority.  Murder 
in the course of a drug transaction will have the highest 
priority.  And in the latter category those cases in which the 
victim is innocent will receive the highest priority.

     The Treasury Department will directed the BATF to cease 
consideration in any and all performance appraisals, promotion 
consideration or other areas that may benefit the agent, any 
enforcement actions that were not the result of clear and known 
criminal proceeding their action.  A similar order will be given 
to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

     In both guns and drugs the responsible [sic] agencies will 
be directed to seek prosecutions solely upon evasion of taxes and 
administrative matters unless there are additional related 
crimes as above.

     In all gun cases the Justice Department will be order to err 
on the side of the living victim.

     As soon as possible after taking office I will retract all 
presidential orders affecting all aspects of guns and drugs 
consistent with the above policy.

     I will appoint like thinking people who will extend these 
policies as far as possible within the law.

     I will veto any law extending the present gun and drug laws 
and any new laws save repeal of these laws.

     I will immediately direct the Justice Department to cease 
seeking civil forfeiture and where possible that all previously 
forfeited property be returned to the rightful owner without 
delay.  

     In all civil forfeiture cases where there is a negotiated 
split between federal, state and local authorities, I will 
declare them null and void and that all such property reverts the 
federal government so that it can be returned to the rightful 
owners.

     Should the IRS still exist as we know it, it will be 
directed to assist filers in achieving the greatest deductions 
available to them and that all career decisions will be based 
upon the amount of taxes they have saved taxpayers.

     All Federal Law Enforcement Agencies using criminal profiles 
will be directed to make them public immediately and to cease 
their use as secret trial evidence.

     In addition to the drug policy changes Justice will be 
ordered to cease all efforts to in favor of or against abortion 
including all participation any lawsuits for or against any 
group.  Actions in the matter of abortion is a power not found in 
the US Constitution.

     I will direct a study of all powers of government not 
clearly granted to the Federal government and recommend repealing 
legislation to Congress.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *                 Welcome to Chiba City

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950720 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (868)
To:      Michael Pilon                          17 Jul 95 22:25:00
Subject: AMMO DEPOSIT                           

MP>  MP> ... For a good time call (613) 737-1111 ...I'm not making this up !

MP>  CB> I thought Canadian dentists weren't allowed to advertise online!

MP>  It's PizzaPizza ;).  If they don't deliver in 30 minutes the 
MP>  Pizza is free ;).

MP> Mike Pepperonni

     Considering the way this thread is going, I am surprised it 
is not Mike Sausage.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Beware a Falwell To Arms.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (869)
To:      Micheal Stas                           17 Jul 95 22:15:00
Subject: AMMO DEPOSIT                           

MS> ->  Oh, I knew you were "funnin' " but most aren't and I can't 
MS> ->  see what their hang up is.  A single, straight male hires a 
MS> ->  single, straight hooker.  What is their problem with that

MS>  The problem is, sex shouldn't be for sale in the first 
MS>  place.  Sex is something you should NEVER be able to buy, 
MS>  like a pair of shoes, or a rug.
MS> 
MS>  Prostitution is immoral!
MS> 
MS>  By supporting that British actor, you are supporting a 
MS>  sick, immoral business.

     You mean he should have bought her dinner, taken her to a 
movie and dancing to get sex instead?  The only problem with 
prostitution is that it is cheaper than the barter system 
competition.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The Whisper of the President is louder than the shouting mob

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (870)
To:      Linda Terrell                          17 Jul 95 22:20:00
Subject: AMMO DEPOSIT                           

LT> MS>  The problem is, sex shouldn't be for sale in the first 
LT> MS>  place.  Sex is something you should NEVER be able to buy, 
LT> MS>  like a pair of shoes, or a rug.  Prostitution is immoral! By 
LT> MS>  supporting that British actor, you are supporting a sick, 
LT> MS>  immoral business.

LT>     I am supporting a business that has been with mankind 
LT>  since there have been men and women.  I find nothing sick 
LT>  or immoral about prostitution.

     Consider Yahweh God was the first procurer the condemnation 
rings hollow.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Tinkerbelle roasting on an open fire, Peter nipping at her t

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (871)
To:      Chris Baugh                            17 Jul 95 22:26:00
Subject: ammo mfr.                              

CB>  LG> I used to reload my own 30-30 shells while I was living in NYC

CB>  I guess everyone needs a hobby.  If I was in NYC I'd 
CB>  probably be too busy out at museums, parks, movies and 
CB>  concerts to have enough time left for some target practice.  
CB>  On the other hand if I was in other parts of NYC I'd 
CB>  probably stay inside and order extra supplies!

     So was Paul Kersey.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Religious Right:Their votes are attractive,they are a nuisan

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (872)
To:      Mike Lyons                             17 Jul 95 22:30:00
Subject: CDN GUN BILL                           

ML>  I am compiling a list of people opposed to the Canadian Gun 
ML>  Bill that has been passed through parliament and now sits 
ML>  with the senate.  If you wish to add your name to this list 
ML>  please send me your name, address to:

ML> P.O. Box 114
ML> Brights Grove, Ontario
ML> N0N-1C0
ML> Please add $1 to help me cover my costs.

     Why not post the list here and save everyone some money?  
There must be a few other appropriate networks and conferences 
around to carry the list.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Laws without moral force have no standing.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (873)
To:      All                                    18 Jul 95 04:36:00
Subject: Crime Maxim                            

     Don't fight crime, fight criminals.

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson strikes fear in the heart of liberals.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (874)
To:      Simon Ewins                            17 Jul 95 23:00:00
Subject: guns                                   

SE>  TB>  Denial of ammunition is a denial of the right to keep and 
SE>  TB>  bear arms.

SE>  And if one is armed with a club or a knife then what would 
SE>  the ammunition that cannot be denied entail?

     Only an idiot would consider using a club or knife against a 
gun.

SE>  Where does the constitution indicate that the arms referred 
SE>  to are not swords, sabres, clubs, knives and other arms 
SE>  that do not require ammunition?

     When are you going to learn the comprehension of written 
english?

SE>  Where does it indicate that the arms are to include 
SE>  AK-47s?

     Perhaps the same place it says, "shall not be infringed"?

SE>  TB>  It would be the same as giving 18 year olds the right to 
SE>  TB>  vote, but not allowing them access to ballots or having a 
SE>  TB>  free press, but outlawing ink.

SE> No it wouldn't.

SE>  Perhaps the only ammunition that should be granted is that 
SE>  which matches the arms that would have been available when 
SE>  the words were written down.  

     As every from of modern weapon short of nuclear had been 
experimented with at the time, that would include all of those 
that exist today.  Yes, that includes machine guns and 
cartridges and all the rest.

Or did the founding fathers 
SE>  envision mental defectives running around waving Uzis in 
SE>  the air and wished to protect their 'right' to deprive 
SE>  others of their right to live in a safe society?

     Does anyone mentally defective gun grabbers actually see 
people running around waving Uzis?  Of course not.  Only the 
delusional see such things.  

     Since you think you know what you are talking about, what 
makes a 9mm round from an Uzi more dangerous a Berretta?  Please, 
do not make something up.  Give a truthful answer, such as that 
you know there is no difference and you have an Uzi fixation.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Coprolalia is not curable.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (875)
To:      Simon Ewins                            17 Jul 95 23:08:00
Subject: guns                                   

wished to protect their 'right' to deprive 
SE>  others of their right to live in a safe society?

     People have no right to a safe society, particularly when 
they treat criminals they way they are treated in this society.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * It's not the end of the world, just an intermission.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (876)
To:      Lester Garrett                         17 Jul 95 17:06:00
Subject: JN                                     

 #############  Original From: JOSEPH NAGARYA
 #  stolen   #             To: MATT GIWER
 #   post    #    Date/Number: 07/16/95
 #############             On: DOC'S - 0306 - Law
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 MG> LG> Did you get either of the messages I sent your regarding  
 MG> LG> the LAW Echo's JN and the fact that, by his own admission, 
 MG> LG> he has not yet completed his paralegal studies?

Actually, that's false.  And I note the claim isn't substantiated.
 
 MG> No.  Thank you.  I will appreciate your sending them again.  

 MG> No need since they did no more than advise that, by his own 
 MG> recent admission, he is still a Paralegal student and is not yet a 
 MG> paralegal.  Whereas, you keep referring to him as a Paralegal.

I suggest you post the alleged admission, or cease your efforts to
defame me.


... Reality-ometer:  [\........]  Hmmph!  Thought so . . .
--- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 [NR]
 * Origin: Kids And Cops * Lynn, MA * [617] 599-2499 * (1:101/290)
                                                                               
                                          

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Paralegal is to lawyer as practical nurse is to doctor.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (877)
To:      Forrest Lamont                         17 Jul 95 23:49:00
Subject: Juvie_Privacy!                         

FL>  AH>  Mandatory drug testing of middle and high school students 
FL>  AH>  who want to try out for athletic teams ISN'T an invasion of 
FL>  AH>  privacy?

FL>  The answer is of course YES, it's an invasion of privacy.  
FL>  The ISSUE is whether or not a JUVINILE has a protected 
FL>  right of privacy in regards to drug useage and 
FL>  participation in organized school sports.
FL> 
FL>  Does the vested interest of public schools in protecting 
FL>  the student population from exposure to drug useage 
FL>  outweigh the right of personal privacy of an individual 
FL>  student?

     Wrong question.  Does the vested interest of public schools 
in protecting the student against himself outweigh personal 
privacy?  The only way yours would apply is if the subject were 
"dealers" not being permitted to play sports.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If they come with a warrant, let them in.  G. Gordon Liddy

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (878)
To:      Lester Garrett                         17 Jul 95 23:56:00
Subject: Kyl/Leahy Anti-Hacker Bil              

     Something is missing here.

LG>       FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                   CONTACT:  Liz 
LG>       Hickey Wednesday, June 21, 1995                          
LG>       (202) 224-4521
LG> 
LG>                   KYL AND LEAHY TO INTRODUCE ANTI-HACKER 
LG>                   BILL
LG> 
LG> 
LG>          (Washington, D.C.) -- Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and 
LG>       Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)  will introduce a bill 
LG>       next week that responds to the rapidly increasing 
LG>       sophistication of computer crime by criminalizing and 
LG>       toughening penalties for a host of computer security 
LG>       violations.
LG> 
LG>           The bill makes it a felony for a hacker to inflict 
LG>       reckless damage on a computer system.  It also makes it 
LG>       a felony for an authorized user to inflict intentional 
LG>       damage on a computer system.  And it criminalizes cases 
LG>       where individuals threaten to crash a computer system 
LG>       unless access and an account are granted.

     This is simple damage and extortion which should always be 
criminal.

LG>           "The system administrator in these cases must 
LG>       spend time, money, and resources to restore security," 
LG>       Kyl said.  "We can no longer accept trespassing into 
LG>       computers and viewing information as incidental just 
LG>       because the information isn't stolen or damaged."

     This refers to trespass which is still the gray area and not 
the same as the above.

y

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * MGiwer@efu.com

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (879)
To:      Michael Pilon                          17 Jul 95 21:32:00
Subject: TRAITORS                               

MP>  To>  Did you know that General Benedict Arnold was a heroic war 
MP>  To>  veteran?

MP>  yes he lead an attack on Quebec city if I am not mistaken.  
MP>  After he was repulsed he saw the light and joined the 
MP>  Loyalist Forces.  Fine man, great hero in British history 

     Who was permitted to die in poverty in a flat in London as a 
reward for his heroism.  Rather it is an example of what people 
think of traitors no matter which side they are on.  If he had 
stayed loyal from the beginning it might have been a different 
story.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * 1996 -- We gave 'em hell and we can do it again.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (880)
To:      Geraden                                17 Jul 95 21:51:00
Subject: You want believe it                    

GG> >   The question I have is why are your sources credible and 
GG> >   no one's on the other side is? Your bias.  If I were to 
GG> >   name what _I_ believe to be a credible source, naturally 
GG> >   you'd dismiss it, so what's the point?

GG>  The CDC and the AMA have long been recognized my nearly all 
GG>  educated people as credible sources.  

     On the subject of medicine and disease of course.  

I have read enough of 
GG>  the data and methods used to provide their evidence to be 
GG>  quite satisfied.  You seem to think they aren't credible.  I 
GG>  ask you to provide sound reasons why they are not.  

        Initial Evaluation of University of Maryland/CDC
              Study of State Right to Carry Laws(1)
                   by Paul H. Blackman, Ph.D.
                        (March 17, 1995)

     This study is being rushed into the public debate before 
publication in a "peer reviewed" journal(2) in an effort to 
influence decision making.  The title is misleading:  Since 
Florida's homicide rate has been falling dramatically since 
adopting right-to-carry legislation, the study looks only at 
three counties within the state, at one county in Mississippi, 
and at three counties in Oregon.(3)

     The study is by the same research group which studied a 
handgun ban in Washington,(4) D.C., and pretended they had shown 
a dramatic decrease in homicide, even as Washington's homicide 
rate first inched upward, declined slightly in response to a 
mandatory penalty provision, and finally skyrocketed to set 
national records for big-city homicide rates.  That study estab- 
lished the researchers' anti-gun bona fides for the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is thus funding this 
study.  It uses the same discredited(5) methodology employed in 
their earlier study, one which is unable to isolate or test 
various other factors which might lead to changes in homicide 
trends (demographic changes, sentencing and other legislative 
changes, trends in drug trafficking, etc.).  Having proven to 
their own and the CDC's satisfaction that D.C.'s handgun ban 
reduced homicide even as the homicide rate tripled, the same 
authors now assert that right-to- carry legislation increases 
homicide even though the states adopting it have homicide rates 
which are defying the dramatic national murder-rate increase.

     The only thing that the methodology used in this research
can show is whether there was a temporary or permanent, sharp or
gradual, change in a measured item -- in this case, homicide, as
all other violent crime is ignored -- at a given point in time;
testing different points of time will often lead to various other
time frames similarly indicating changes, whether there was any
explanation for the change or not.  The methodology cannot, how-
ever, explain why a change occurred, or which of a variety of
factors explained it; it is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc even
though there may have been nothing happening to prompt the change.

     By averaging homicides or homicide rates for a long period
of time -- nearly 15 years for two Florida counties and over that
for the Mississippi and Oregon counties -- prior to adoption of
the law, impacts of the carry reform are disguised by relatively
low homicide rates in the early '70s and the early '80s; worse,
the authors changed the time frame used for Miami  -- adopting a
1983 rather than an 1973 starting point.  If they used the same
time frame, it would have appeared that Miami's homicide rate had
declined sharply,(6) using the pre-law averaging method they like
to report.  They thus excluded some high homicide rate years
which would make the post-law period seem a decline.  The use of
long pre-law time periods can obscure high homicide rates in
years immediately before right-to-carry reform.  The study used
only three Florida counties, representing one-fourth of the
state's population, one Mississippi county, representing one-
tenth of the population, and three Oregon counties, representing
over 40% of the state's population and where even their study
showed a decline in homicide.  The authors noted a 21% homicide
rate decline in Florida by 1992, the end-point for their research.(7)

     The research uses National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS) data on "homicide" instead of FBI data on "murder and
non-negligent manslaughter."  The major difference is that some
civilian justifiable/self-defense homicides are excluded from FBI
data but self-defense and justifiable homicides by civilians are
normally included in NCHS data.  In D.C., the difference was
enough so that applying their methodology to FBI data failed to
show the pretended decline the NCHS data showed, hinting that
only non-criminal homicides were prevented by the handgun ban.
Similar use of the wrong data here could disguise more defensive
gun homicides.

     More importantly, the study utterly ignores the fact that
the law affects only carrying of handguns in public, not posses-
sion.  There were no data reported on homicides involving persons
with carry permits -- presumably because there were no such
criminal homicides.  The authors hypothesized that criminals
might increase unlawful carrying where law-abiding people are
allowed to carry, but presented no data or citation to any other
study to support the hypothesis.  The study also ignored the
location of homicides.  In a previous study of Detroit in which
the same authors were involved,(8) the authors at least acknow-
ledged that one would have to look at circumstances where car-
rying was involved in order to evaluate the change -- and in that
study nearly half of the homicides were indoors, where carrying
either with or without a permit was largely irrelevant.

     The authors separated gun-related from non-gun-related homi-
cides, ignoring the distinction between handguns, subject to
liberalized carry laws, and other firearms, and found greater
increase in gun than non-gun homicide, just as their D.C. study
found a greater decrease in gun than non-gun homicides. Criminol-
ogically, firearms crime leads homicide trends, either upward or
downward, since such fluctuations are normally indications of
crime trends among active criminals, who are more apt to use
firearms.  Thus, unsurprisingly, the sharp drop in Florida's
homicide rate since adopting its right-to-carry law was faster
for gun - than for non-gun-related homicides.

     Disingenuously, the lead author has asserted that a possible
reason for Portland's decline in homicide is that, while adopting
right-to-carry, it also toughened its waiting period provision.
But Prof. McDowall has, using the same methodology, concluded
that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides
or gun suicides."(9)

     Incredibly, the authors suggest that laws against carrying
in public are "easy to enforce and they do not inconvenience most
gun owners." Easy enforcement may be relatively true of laws
regulating licensed firearms manufacturers, importers, dealers,
and distributors, and enforcement of carrying in public may be
easier than enforcement of possession bans in the home.  But
concealed carry laws are very difficult to enforce without
violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable
search and seizure.(10)



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Militias and Clinton.  Even paranoids have enemies.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (881)
To:      Geraden                                17 Jul 95 21:58:00
Subject: You want believe it 2                  

     In short, the study ignores that lawful carrying is
apparently involved in none of the criminal homicides reported,
it uses unrepresentative and small segments of three states'
populations, it uses carefully selected time frames, it uses a
discredited methodology which makes it impossible to isolate
possible causal factors for trends, it uses data which counts
criminal and self- defense homicides as equally bad, and it
sloughs over the fact that the homicide trend nationally was
increasing while dropping in two of the three states allegedly
studied, and rising minimally in Mississippi.(11)   END

(1) David McDowall, Colin Loftin, and Brian Wiersema.  Easing
Conceal Firearm Laws:  Effects on Homicide in Three States.
Violence Research Group Discussion Paper 15.  College Park, Md.:
University of Maryland, January 1995.

(2) The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology is to publish the
study this summer, in a symposium of "gun control" papers edited
by David McDowall, lead author of the paper.

(3) Indeed, they only wanted to look at one county, Multnomah,
containing Portland, but found too few homicides and so expanded
to three counties, all described to the news media as "Portland."

(4) Colin Loftin, et al.  Effects of Restrictive Licensing of
Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia.
New England Journal of Medicine 325:1615-1620 (1991).

(5) Gary Kleck, Chester L. Britt, and David J. Bordua.  The
Emperor Has No Clothes:  Using Interrupted Time Series Design to
Evaluate Social Policy Impact.  Paper delivered at the annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, 1993.

(6) "Except in Miami, we studied the period between January 1973
and December 1992 (240 months).  Miami homicides increased
sharply in May 1980, following an influx of refugees from Cuba.
Miami's monthly homicide totals appeared to stabilize by late
1982, and we thus analyzed the period from January 1983 through
December 1992 (120 months)."

(7) Through 1993, the handgun-related homicide rate in Florida
had fallen some 29% in Florida while rising 50% nationally.

(8) Patrick O'Carroll, et al.  Preventing Homicide:  An
Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Detroit Gun Ordinance.  American
Journal of Public Health 81:576-581 (1991).

(9) David McDowall.  Preventive Effects of Firearm Regulations on
Injury Mortality.  Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the
American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, Arizona, 1993.

(10) Paul Bendis and Steven Balkin.  A Look at Gun Control
Enforcement.  Journal of Police Science and Administration 7:439-
448 (1979); and J. Star.  Why the gun law doesn't work.  Chicago
27:128-131+ (February 1978).

(11) FBI Uniform Crime Reports.  Crime in the United States,
1987, 1989, 1990, and 1993.  Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1994.




---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * It's not the end of the world, just an intermission.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950721 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (833)
To:      All                                    19 Jul 95 04:49:00
Subject: On 19 April                            

                         without comment

                           On This Date

     April 19, 1993 -- the fire in Waco

     April 19, 1994 -- Clinton reveals he wears briefs on MTV

     April 19, 1995 -- the OKC bombing


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Citing authority is a fallacy, not thinking.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950722 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (734)
To:      Lester Garrett                         19 Jul 95 15:45:00
Subject: Jury Nullification                     

LG>   MG>  An action of the jury such as nullification or acquittal is 
LG>   MG>  can not be a defense.

LG>  ???  Of course it can, which is why I cited the specific 
LG>  case (above).  In that case, as I believe I've noted before, 
LG>  the accused admitted to the facts which were a violation of 
LG>  law and the only defense offered, and offered explicitly, 
LG>  was jury nullification.  This trial was the subject of a 
LG>  one hour Frontline show on PBS.

     Yes but ... The case you cite reads on the lines that 
ignorance of the law is an excuse which I fully support else 
judged misapplying the law, even in legitimate error, need spend 
time behind bars.  Is this the issue?

LG>   MG>  The person may contend that the law even though violated 
LG>   MG>  was not intended to apply to his case.

LG>  That's one variation.  Another is that the law itself is 
LG>  improper -- as for example in the Peter Zenger case.

     I don't see the law as being improper, rather that inability 
to understand is common and should be a legitimate plea.  What 
the jury does with that plea is their business.

LG>   MG>  That is a statement of the inapplicability of the law.  I 
LG>   MG>  can see that as a plea as self defense is a plea -- right 
LG>   MG>  law, wrong application.
LG>   MG> 
LG>   MG>  I do not see how a jury action can be a defense any more 
LG>   MG>  than can be a request for an acquittal.

LG>  ???  I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here.

     By analogy, I go into a store and want to buy an item.  I do 
so by reminding the clerk it is within their power to sell it to 
me.  How am I making a purchase by that reminder?

     How do I enter the plea, "You do not have to convict"?

LG>  The point here is that juries have the right to find a 
LG>  defendant innocent despite his admission that he broke the 
LG>  law.  They may do so because they believe applying the law 
LG>  to the case before them would be an injustice (the 
LG>  Frontline case), or because they believe the law itself is 
LG>  improper (Zenger).

     Or because they do not want to turn another black over to 
white man's justice.  (I don't have the cite but I heard the 
interview with the foreman of the jury.)


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Do you now or did you ever know the way to San Jose? Clinton

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (735)
To:      All                                    20 Jul 95 03:42:00
Subject: People are Sovereign,  01              

 #############  Original From: JOHN FREEMAN
 #  stolen   #             To: ALL
 #   post    #    Date/Number: 07/15/95
 #############             On: DOC'S - 0131 - Civlib
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi All,

                            PEOPLE / SOVEREIGN

1.   Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the
     author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are
     delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with
     the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the
     law is the definition and limitation of power.

     For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the
     means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of
     life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any
     country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.
     See:
          Yick Wo v. Hopkins, U.S. 356 (1886).

2.   "He is not to substitute even his jester will for theirs; otherwise it
     would not be the 'common will' which prevails, and to that extent, the
     people would not govern."
     See:
          Speech by Judge Learned Hand at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington,
          D.C. May 11, 1919, entitled, "Is there a Common Will?"

3.   ". . . The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to
     override itself as thus declared."
     See:
          Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).

4.   "In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act
     through the organs established by the Constitution."
     See:
          Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471;
          Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93;
          McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405;
          Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370.

5.   "We the people . . . do ordain and establish the Constitution for the
     United States of America."
     See:
          Preamble to the U.S. Constitution (1789).

6.   "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
     construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
     See:
          Article IX, U.S. Constitution.

7.   "As men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the
     words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intent to
     convey; the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution and the
     people who adopted it must be understood to have employed the words in
     their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said."
     See:
          Gibbons v. Ogden, 27 U.S. 1

8.   No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals.
     The people themselves cannot do it, mush less their servants.
     See:
          New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., __ U.S. 650, 667.

9.   For it can never be maintained in any tribunal in this country that the
     people of a State, in the exercise of the powers of sovereignty, can be
     restrained within narrower limits than that fixed by the Constitution of
     the United States . . . the people of a State may, by the form of
     government they adopt, confer on their public servants and
     representatives all the power and rights of sovereignty which they
     themselves possess; or may restrict them within such limits as may be
     deemed best and safest for the public interest.
     See:
          Ohio Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Debolt, 16 How 415, 428-9.

10.  The phrase as used in the constitution does not mean a statute passed
     for the purpose of working the wrong. That construction would render the
     restriction absolutely nugatory. The people would be made to say to the
     houses, 'You shall be vested with the legislative power of the state,
     but no one shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or
     privileges of a citizen, unless you shall not do the wrong unless you
     choose to do it.'
     See:
          Per Bronson, J., In Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill (N.Y.) 140, 40 AM, Dec
          274.

11.  People are supreme, not the state.
     See:
          Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93.

12.  Strictly speaking, in our republican form of government, the absolute
     sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; and the
     residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public
     functionaries, is in the people of the state.
     See:
          2 Dall. 471;
          Bouv. Law Dict. (1870).

13.  I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of
     the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than
     by violent and sudden usurpations.
     See:
          James Madison.

14.  The theory of the American political system is that the ultimate
     sovereignty is in the people, from whom all legitimate authority
     springs, and the people collectively, acting through the medium of
     constitutions, create such governmental agencies, endow them with such
     powers, and subject them to such limitations as in their wisdom will
     best promote the common good.
     See:
          First Trust Co. v. Smith, 134 Neb. ___; 277 SW 762.

15.  What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the
     mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of
     fundamental laws are established."
     See:
          Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall 304.

16.  A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act
     of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation
     direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a
     statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to
     limitations prescribed by the superior authority.
     See:
          Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; 99 NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed.
          206; 34 S. Ct. 92;
          Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.

17.  The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but
     what powers, in fact, have been given by the people. . . . The federal
     union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are
. 
Continued in the next message...

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (736)
To:      All                                    20 Jul 95 04:05:00
Subject: Ruby Ridge  upd 07/14                  

DA>  * Forwarded from "POLITICS"
DA>  * Originally by Thomas Yoha
DA>  * Originally to All
DA>  * Originally dated 14 Jul 1995, 16:04


DA>                            Potts Demoted

DA>        WASHINGTON (Reuter) -07/14/95- FBI chief Louis Freeh 
DA>    Friday removed Larry Potts from the number two post at 
DA>    the law enforcement agency because of controversy 
DA>    stemming from his role in a 1992 FBI siege in Ruby Ridge, 
DA>    Idaho.
DA> 
DA>        ``I believe that Mr.  Potts is unable to effectively 
DA>    perform his duties as deputy director due to controversy 
DA>    surrounding the Ruby Ridge matter,'' Freeh said in a 
DA>    statement.
DA> 
DA>        Freeh said Potts was being transferred, effective 
DA>    immediately, to a position in the FBI training unit.  He 
DA>    said Potts fully supports the transfer.
DA> 
DA>        Potts, who previously headed the FBI's criminal 
DA>    section, had been in charge of the controversial raids in 
DA>    Idaho and in 1993 at the Branch Davidian compound in 
DA>    Waco, Texas.  In his current job, he supervised the 
DA>    Oklahoma City bombing probe.
DA> 
DA>        Controversy over his role in the Idaho siege, in 
DA>    which the wife of white separatist Randy Weaver was 
DA>    killed by an FBI sharpshooter, escalated this week after 
DA>    an FBI official was suspended for allegedly destroying a 
DA>    document that contradicted Potts' version of the events.

DA> ---

DA>      Comments?

     It is important to remember that according to Civil Service 
rules a demotion does not result in a reduction in pay for two 
years and in that time the person can find a job in a previous 
pay scale.  Further, he has first call upon all vacancies at a 
higher level to get him back to that pay scale even without 
applying.

     In other words, give me the same money for less 
responsibility.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * What the little President saw and heard on his travels-Grimm

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (737)
To:      Bob Klahn                              19 Jul 95 13:44:00
Subject: USCONSTITUTION                         

BK> BK>>   Let me see, the people elect representatives.  That's a
BK> BK>>   democratic republic by most reckoning I've ever heard of.

BK>  MG>      That is a republic that uses the vote to determine
BK>  MG> representatives.

BK>   That could be the Roman Empire, which has little in common 
BK>   with this country, or, for that matter, the Soviet Union.  
BK>   They fully qualified under that definition.

     Quite correct.  The means of selective representatives in a 
Republic can be by lottery.  We started with the vote of 
propertied men, then free men and later included women.  Any 
"definition" has to include all three conditions as our form of 
government did not change over that same period.

BK> BK>>    If I felt you were qualified to give a course in the 
BK> BK>>    subject, I might be interested.
BK> BK>> 
BK> BK>>    My American Heritage dictionary defines democracy as rule 
BK> BK>>    by the people, either directly or through elected 
BK> BK>>    representatives.

BK>  MG>      Then I would suggest you find a better source for the form
BK>  MG> of government of the US.  This is a Constitutionally limited

BK>   Let's see, I have the words from the constitution, and the 
BK>   definition from my dictionary.  Sounds good to me.

     Would you like to earn more money?  Look up the definition 
of doctor and start practicing medicine as you will then know all 
there is to know about the subject.

     Perhaps you can answer another question.  Where in the world 
do people come from who believe a dictionary definition can do 
what the experts take thick volumes to discuss?

BK>  MG> Republic using now and not for the first 100 years or so
BK>  MG> representation by popular vote.  The Constitution comes first.

BK>  Yep, that's what I said.

BK>  MG>  If the elected representatives do not like it, there is a 
BK>  MG>  process for change right there in the Constitution.

BK>   I think they like our constitutionally established 
BK>   democratic republic.  

     WHERE?  Please cite the part of the original Constitution 
the guaranteed any person's right to vote.  The only voting I can 
think of is the procedures for the Electoral College.

At least they must not dislike it 
BK>   enough to try to get away with changing it.  Which has 
BK>   little to do with the topic.  We were discussing what kind 
BK>   of govt.  we have, not how to change it.

     I thought the subject was that it could suddenly mean 
something new without changing the words.

BK> BK>>  MG>  the lowest enforceable unit.  When a unit is gun owners and

BK> BK>>  This is the day to day events, not the basis of government.

BK>  MG>      The day to day actions of the government define the
BK>  MG> government.

BK>  Gee, and I thought you said it was the constitution.

     The actions of the government are presumed, for the purposes 
of this discussion, in accord with the constitution.

BK>  *********************
BK>   Much deleted having nothing to do with the question of 
BK>   whether or not this is a democracy.
BK>  *********************

     The point was the limitations on a democracy.  Changes in 
the constitution or in the meaning can not be made based upon 
popular vote.

BK>  Which has what to do with the original question of democracy?

     As below.

BK>  ...
BK> BK>>   could well concieve of a constitutional republic that does
BK> BK>>   not recognize limitations.

BK>  MG>       Then you will have to describe your conception in 
BK>  MG>  detail before you can expect me to accept that you can do 
BK>  MG>  so.

BK>   The constitution is only the written basis for the 
BK>   government.  Just write a constitution that says the govt 
BK>   can do anything.  

     At which point a constitution is a mere formality.  Be that 
as it may it is contrary to the form we have regardless of the 
vote.

OTOH, the Soviet Union had a constitution 
BK>   also.

     Which was not violated either.  The CPSU had the final say 
over the actions of the Supreme Soviet much as Congress has the 
final say over the DC City Council.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Don't fight crime, fight criminals.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950723 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (735)
To:      All                                    20 Jul 95 19:18:00
Subject: Bomb the Serbs?                        

     The Serbs don't look like the Vietnamese.  Why bomb them?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Cybersex - 101 more disgusting things to do with your modem.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (736)
To:      All                                    21 Jul 95 05:22:00
Subject: Clinton Time                           

 #############  Original From: DON KIMBERLIN
 #  stolen   #             To: ALL
 #   post    #    Date/Number: 07/17/95
 #############             On: DOC'S - 0131 - Civlib
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: What historic event occurred when Bill Clinton fired Dee Dee Myers?

A: It was the first time he ever gave a woman a pink slip without
asking her to model it for him.


cc: ALL in 0149 on PETEXCH
    ALL in 0000 on PETEXCH
    ALL in 0010 on BGBBS

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *                 Welcome to Chiba City

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950727 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (854)
To:      Micheal Stas                           24 Jul 95 16:59:00
Subject: AMMO DEPOSIT                           

MS> -> MS>  By supporting that British actor, you are supporting a
MS> -> MS>  sick, immoral business.

MS> ->    You mean he should have bought her dinner, taken her to a
MS> -> movie and dancing to get sex instead?  The only problem with
MS> -> prostitution is that it is cheaper than the barter system
MS> -> competition.

MS>  He should have just stayed in his hotel room and called his 
MS>  fiance on the phone.

     Is she good at phone sex and how do you know?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               The People are the Militia.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (855)
To:      Michael Pilon                          24 Jul 95 17:01:00
Subject: CRIME MAXIM                            

MP>  -=> Quoting Matt Giwer to All <=-

MP>  MG> Don't fight crime, fight criminals.

MP> Matt all your posts today were in duplicate ;)
MP> Matt all your posts today were in duplicate ;0

     Perhaps that is because he is Quitzat Haderack.  

     They get bounced by the dupe checker on my side.  What 
happened to your pointers on your end?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson strikes fear in the heart of liberals.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (856)
To:      Bill Morgan                            24 Jul 95 17:03:00
Subject: Ruby Ridge  upd 07/14                  

BM> MG*>      It is important to remember that according to Civil 
BM> MG*> Service rules a demotion does not result in a reduction in 
BM> MG*> pay for two years and in that time the person can find a job 
BM> MG*> in a previous pay scale.  Further, he has first call upon 
BM> MG*> all vacancies at a higher level to get him back to that pay 
BM> MG*> scale even without applying.
BM> MG*> 
BM> MG*>      In other words, give me the same money for less 
BM> MG*> responsibility.

BM> -=-=-=-=-=-=

BM>  I believe the Deputy Director position is paid under the 
BM>  Executive Salary Schedule and not under the GS (General 
BM>  Schedule) where those rules apply.  

     Presumably true, that he is an FES under the supergrade pay 
scale.  But in 18 in CS and in a place to see it, not once did I 
ever see those promoted from the ranks (vice true political 
appointees) being treated that way.  The worst than can happen to 
them is a demotion to GS 16, step 9.  I have always seen them 
moved back up.  

Potts should have been 
BM>  reinstated in his former grade in this transfer, but if 
BM>  there is any justice in this world he will be indicted 
BM>  along with Reno, clinton and about a half-dozen others on 
BM>  more than 80 counts of murder--or at the very least, 
BM>  federal civil rights violations--and will be fired from 
BM>  federal service for felony conviction!

     And then we get nasty with them, yes.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               The People are the Militia.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (857)
To:      Michael Pilon                          24 Jul 95 17:11:00
Subject: TRAITORS                               

MP>  MG>  Who was permitted to die in poverty in a flat in London as 
MP>  MG>  a reward for his heroism.  Rather it is an example of what 
MP>  MG>  people  think of traitors no matter which side they are on.  
MP>  MG>  If he had  stayed loyal from the beginning it might have 
MP>  MG>  been a different  story.

MP>  Yes like the guy who was hanged ( I forget his name) and 
MP>  regretted he could only do it once ???

     When they can only hang you once you might as well get it 
off your chest.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Liberalium, element, twice as dense as lead.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950729 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (768)
To:      All                                    26 Jul 95 21:26:00
Subject: to paraphrase an expert                

     Attorney Jack Zimmerman (Colonel, USMCR) testifying before 
Congress on Waco.  (paraphrased)

     In the Marines, whenever there is the loss of even a single 
life there is a full board of inquiry.  In Waco there are orders 
from the Justice Department to cease even the preliminary 
investigation.  It doesn't matter if there is a pending civil 
case.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The OKC bombing would be very complex if OJ were charged.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (769)
To:      Bob Klahn                              26 Jul 95 15:32:00
Subject: USCONSTITUTION                         

BK>  MG>       Quite correct.  The means of selective representatives 
BK>  MG>  in a Republic can be by lottery.  We started with the vote 
BK>  MG>  of

BK>   Which would not be a democracy, as I see it, and is not 
BK>   what we have.

     And that is the point, we are not a democracy.

BK>  MG>  propertied men, then free men and later included women.  

BK>   Yes, we were not as democratic then, but have become more 
BK>   so.

     And it is your contention that when the voting age is 
reduced to sixteen (or six) years of age we will be even more 
democratic?  Are you suggesting we are as "democratic" as 
possible at the moment?  From where comes "degrees" of democracy?

BK>  MG>  "definition" has to include all three conditions as our 
BK>  MG>  form of government did not change over that same period.

BK>   If you are looking for perfection, maybe, I recognize the 
BK>   system was not perfect.

     And now it is perfect?  If not, what is the description of 
the perfect electorate?

BK> BK>>    Let's see, I have the words from the constitution, and 
BK> BK>>    the definition from my dictionary.  Sounds good to me.

BK>  MG>       Would you like to earn more money?  Look up the 
BK>  MG>  definition of doctor and start practicing medicine as you 
BK>  MG>  will then know all there is to know about the subject.

BK>   I would know what a doctor is, we weren't talking about 
BK>   running the government, only what kind of government it 
BK>   is.

BK>   The experts take thick volmumes to try to avoid doing what 
BK>   the simple definition requires, and to examine every 
BK>   detail to form the system in the shape they want it.
BK> 
BK>    And when you are qualified to write one of those thick 
BK>   volumes, please let me know.  Until then my dictionary 
BK>   definition will be good enough to tell me what form of 
BK>   government we have.

     If I had said this about you I would get a warning from the 
moderator.

BK>  MG>       WHERE?  Please cite the part of the original 
BK>  MG>  Constitution the guaranteed any person's right to vote.  
BK>  MG>  The only voting I can think of is the procedures for the 
BK>  MG>  Electoral College.

BK>   Like I said, it wasn't perfect, and the constitution did 
BK>   not try to set every detail of our government.  It has 
BK>   gotten more democratic.  And our government has changed 
BK>   since then.  As you said yourself, above.

     You are saying that the critical issue to your case was to 
them was a detail of less importance than what is mentioned.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * At Salem, people confessed to being witches, proving ...?

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950730 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (754)
To:      All                                    28 Jul 95 01:38:00
Subject: new MILITIA conference                 

     As of today, 1:3603/140 carries the MILITIA echo.

     It is for the purpose of discussing issues of the citizen 
militias that exist around the country.  You need not be a member 
to participate in this conference.  

     NEC is Wayne Fusco, 1:3603/20050.

     If you are interested please request your SYSOP to request 
this conference be backboned.  

     Rules?  I am working on them.  Nothing seriously 
restrictive, simply stick to the subject and "put up or shut up."  
IOW, don't say citizen militias are illegal without citing the 
law making them illegal.  Without a law, nothing is illegal.
     


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton now has a shot at the Chancelorship.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (755)
To:      Lester Garrett                         28 Jul 95 03:02:00
Subject: People are Sovereign,  02              

LG> In a message to All, dated 20 Jul 95, Matt Giwer wrote:
LG>  MG> Continued from the previous message...

LG>  Win a few, lose many.  God knows why, but in this instance 
LG>  both parts made it here.

     Point well taken.

     Now you explain what I can do to make that happen.

     Am I right it not being explainable by mortal men?

     And if not, you explain it.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Diogenes was disappointed in Little Rock.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (756)
To:      All                                    28 Jul 95 02:53:00
Subject: Waco and CS                            

     I guess this is a great one from today's (Thursday's) Waco 
hearings.  Including Wednesday's also for that matter.

     There is no question the gas used was toxic to the point of 
lethal.

     All the disagreement is over the amount used, that is, the 
concentration.

     What is the debate?  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Don't fight crime, fight criminals.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_950731 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (777)
To:      Michael Pilon                          28 Jul 95 21:21:00
Subject: CRIME MAXIM                            

MP>  MG> They get bounced by the dupe checker on my side.  What
MP>  MG> happened to your pointers on your end?

MP>  Not sure what you mean here.  I imagine there must be 
MP>  something to dump dupes.  I don't have one or at least am 
MP>  not activating it.  I will look into it

     Most all BBSs have a function that generates a single 64 bit 
number for each message.  If the number of a new message matches 
that of the old, it is rejected.  For example when I broadcast a 
message to many conferences I do not bother with deleting the 
conference I am in from the distribution list as the BBS catches 
and rejects the duplicate.

     I don't know of an OLR that has dupe checking.

     On your end, in your download packet you have a file that 
looks like BBSNAME.PTR.  That is a list of the last message you 
read in each conference.  That is what you upload when a .QWK is 
corrupted.  The BBS also keeps a copy of that and at least one 
day old copy (maybe more days) so that when you call it knows the 
last message you down loaded.  If the most recent copy died then 
the next most recent copy is used, thus duplicates.

     And something like this system is used when boards talk to 
each other for moving the mail.  If the board I use lost the most 
recent pointers and used the next set then everyone posting from 
this board would be duplicated.

     In any event since only my mail was duped on your board that 
day, it appears the problem was only with the board I use.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If superman flew in a closed room people could see the wires

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (778)
To:      All                                    28 Jul 95 23:40:00
Subject: QURAN                                  

     Hey you ice crazed canucks!  Any background on this story?

 #############  Original From: DAN CEPPA
 #  stolen   #             To: SHABIER KHAN
 #   post    #    Date/Number: 07/27/95
 #############             On: DOC'S - 0259 - Holysmoke
               PLEASE address responses to ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


 SK>      I have never seen or heard of women being beaten up by their 
 SK> husbands or their might be a very small percentage in countries where 
 SK> Islam is the way of life. Much to the contrary I have heard and seen 
 SK> much of the women in the west beaten up by their drunken husbands. Try 
 SK> and correct first what goes on in your own backyard before you have 
 SK> something to say about others.

Hey, SHABO!   I guess you never heard of the Quebec case, eh?   Some
MOSLEM guy RAPED his young daughter, and used as his defence that he
shouldn't be punished,  because  he  only butt-fucked her,  and thus
preserved her virginity, making everything okele-dokely.

Unfortunately,  the dipshit judge went along with this,  in the name
of "religious tolerance" and let the Creep for Allah off scot-free.

The man was a PIG,  Shabo,  and he used YOUR QURAN  to  justify  his
actions. 

What  do you have to say about this?   Or are you still ignoring all
mail from women who DARE speak against you?  Your own ACTIONS belie
how Islam thinks of women, if you think we have nothing of value to
say.  You, like the man mentioned above, are pigshit for your
mysogyny.  Even Brother Jimmy is one up on you.

--Wolfie

Sorry for the big forward here, Styx, but I figgered 
Shabby Can would not read the original from Sue...  
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Ten Forward BBS, The Olympic Peninsula.  (1:350/401.0)
                                                                               
             

---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If Aristole was straight,why'd he write Posterior Analytics?

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (779)
To:      Michael Pilon                          28 Jul 95 21:43:00
Subject: TRAITORS                               

MP>  MP>  Yes like the guy who was hanged ( I forget his name) and
MP>  MP>  regretted he could only do it once ???

MP>  MG>  When they can only hang you once you might as well get it 
MP>  MG>  off your chest.

MP>  Big grin, if I am ever so unfortunate to be in such a 
MP>  position I will have to come up with something ;).  

     And with that respite, Nathan Hale.  Charged with treason, 
spying, but I have never heard if he really did.  I have read 
questions as to whether he said anything like that (I regret I 
have but one life to give for my country.)  He might have been 
innocent.  

     The British Army was rather loose on charges and convictions 
during the war.  That is why our constitution requires two 
witnesses to each act of treason (and why we have never had a 
treason conviction) and a prohibition against civilians being 
tried under martial law except when in military service.

     It is one thing to make up stories about the Brits.  It is 
another to include the corrections to those stories in your own 
constitution.

By the 
MP>  way I looked into Mr B.  Arnold.  He was given $10000 or was 
MP>  that Lbs by the Briuts to pay his debts.  

     Just like the Brits to pay him in Continentals.  It 
certainly was the latter.

He did die of 
MP>  depression according to the encyclopaedia but they did not 
MP>  mention poverty.

     It isn't the sort of thing I have references on but I keep 
an eye open for it.     


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Want my gun?  Make my day.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (780)
To:      All                                    29 Jul 95 03:29:00
Subject: Waco hearings not partisa              

     In light of the claims that the Waco hearings are 
conservative or Republican or in some manner right wing oriented, 
would someone please explain this statement by a democrat before 
the election?

             House Chairman Attacks Federal Gun Agency

    WASHINGTON (Reuter) -10/06/94- The chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee Thursday said Congress should curb the power 
of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to take 
guns away from Americans.

    ``Time has run out on a runaway agency," Texas Democrat Jack 
Brooks told a news conference. ``We need to coordinate this 
run-amok agency."

    Brooks said he would hold hearings next year on several cases 
where he believed the ATF had violated the constitutional right 
of citizens to own guns and the protection against unreasonable 
searches and seizures.

    ``I guess the Bill of Rights is not part of their reading 
material," he said.

    As an example of what he said were ATF's abuses, Brooks 
introduced Louis and Kimberly Katona of Bucyrus, Ohio, who 
described an ATF raid on their House in 1992 to seize more than 
$100,000 worth of weapons they had collected.

    Kimberly Katona said she suffered a miscarriage after she was 
shoved during the raid and her husband was indicted on 19 federal 
firearms violations. A federal judge dismissed the charges and 
ordered the weapons returned.

    ``It's been 2 1/2 years of hell," Louis Katona said. He said 
he is suing the agency.

    Brooks is a strong opponent of gun control legislation who 
failed this year to keep Congress from banning 19 types of 
semi-automatic assault weapons as part of the crime bill. He said 
legislation he might introduce next year included a bill to 
require that Congress approve any additional weapons the ATF 
wanted to ban.

    The ATF was strongly criticized last year for its raid on the 
Branch Davidian religious sect near Waco, Texas, when four agents 
and six cult members were killed in a shootout.

    The FBI took over the siege at the compound that ended 51 
days later when the building was set on fire by cult members 
after agents fired tear gas into it. At least 80 people died in 
the blaze including cult leader David Koresh. 

REUTER 


Transmitted:  94-10-06 17:56:39 EDT 



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Afraid of the UN?  So was your old man.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
 * Origin: Doc's. All The Fido! 813-822-4637  (1:3603/140.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 834 396/1 3603/140 3615/50
SEEN-BY: 3615/51


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»


Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.