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.
悅秔 R_9507 秔秤
+++秔秔� r_950703 秔秔�+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (612)
To: All 1 Jul 95 01:38:10
Subject: WANT TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT
—
* 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950705 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950709 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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: <The Wishing Well> 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950710 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950711 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950716 秔秔�+++ — *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 <city/area> from <date> to
SS> <date>” (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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950719 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950720 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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 * [email protected]
— 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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950721 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950722 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950723 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950727 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950729 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950730 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
+++秔秔� r_950731 秔秔�+++ — *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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
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
涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?涓祚?
