Time: Fri Jun 20 20:22:05 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA22319;
Fri, 20 Jun 1997 20:22:00 -0700 (MST)
id XAA20774; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:12:46 -0400 (EDT)
id XAA20748; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:12:40 -0400 (EDT)
id AA09998; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:12:39 -0400
by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA23805
for <snetnews@world.std.com>; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 20:12:32 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 20:10:59 -0700
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SNET: Heads Up: Kick-Backs are Felonies too!
-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
Don't forget the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986:
Title 41, United States Code, section 51 et seq.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 02:31 AM 6/21/97 GMT, you wrote:
>
>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>
>
>FORWARDED On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:42:09 -0400 (EDT), Doug Fiedor
><fiedor19@eos.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Heads Up
>
> A Weekly edition of News from around our country
>
> June 20, 1997 #40
>
> by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
> Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>CORRUPTION
> Here's a list of felonies you're all going to
>love. And these felonies have hardly anything to do
>with the White House, either. "Hardly," of course, is
>the Clintonesque weasel-word in that last sentence. . . .
> In this case, we have misappropriation and
>misapplication of public funds, misconduct in office and
>misfeasance. There is also an ongoing conspiracy of long
>duration to carry out the above. Any good lawyer could
>probably add a few more crimes to this list, but those
>will get us going for now.
> Oh, and just to add a little flavor to the
>story, most of the conspirators, and the majority of at
>least one House of Congress (most of them are not
>directly involved), admit this is true.
> Among the conspirators are the past and present
>Secretary of State, certain members of the Army and Air
>Force, certain employees of the EPA, and a number of
>management-level employees in at least twelve other
>federal agencies.
> Many members of government don't seem to see
>the "crime" here. Or, at least publicly they won't admit
>they do. So let's define our terms enough to show them
>that there is clear-cut wrongdoing deserving of
>prosecution.
> Our Barron's Law Dictionary defines
>misappropriation and misapplication as: "The use of
>funds or property for a purpose other than that for which
>they are intended or legally required to be used.
>Misapplication and misappropriation particularly apply to
>acts of fiduciary [one in a position of trust], including
>public servants as well as private trustees. The term
>can include the misapplication of funds intended for
>another purposes, e.g., the misapplication of public
>money. . ."
> Misconduct in Office is defined as: "Corrupt
>misbehavior by an officer in the exercise of the duties
>of the office or while acting under color of the office;
>includes any act or omission in breach of a duty of
>public concern by one who has accepted public office."
> Misfeasance is "the doing of a proper act in a
>wrongful or injurious manner; the improper performance
>of an act which might have been lawfully done."
> With that taken care of, now we can get to the
>particulars.
> Back in the Carter Administration there was a
>big international agreement which many countries signed
>onto. The United States agreed, in part. And, like
>always, the American taxpayer got stuck paying big bucks
>for something that had zero benefit for the American
>public.
> The key word there was "agreement." It was not
>an international treaty. President Carter agreed, in
>part, and implemented part of the agreement through an
>executive memoranda. The administration then secured
>minimal program funding from Congress.
> A committee was formed, made up of members of
>various federal agencies, the State Department, the Army,
>and the Air Force.
> But, Carter lost the election. Reagan became
>President. And this agreement was costing us big bucks.
>So, out it went. Funding was stopped, and the program
>was over.
> Well, on the books -- as far as Congress
>knew -- the funding was stopped, anyway. In reality,
>little changed.
> The story gets a bit foggy during the last two
>years of the Reagan Administration and throughout the
>Bush Administration. But, based on the actions of the
>committee running the program -- as you will see
>shortly -- it's obvious that they did not lack for
>funding.
> The State Department kicked in a million
>dollars a year or so to keep the project going. The Army
>and Air Force contributed big bucks most years. So did
>at least thirteen federal agencies involved in the
>project. The committee proceeded on for thirteen
>continuous years that way.
> Every year, Congress designated funds for specific
>needs of these federal agencies and departments, and every
>year, for thirteen years, bureaucrats from these different
>federal agencies and departments diverted a part of their
>funding to support a project that was legally canceled.
> Nothing ever showed up on the federal budget,
>but every year the U.S. National Committee for the Man
>and the Biosphere Program was well funded with
>misappropriated and misapplied taxpayer dollars.
> Members of the military have a shortage of fuel
>and ammunition with which to train. But still, the Army
>and the Air Force found money to help fund an illegal
>bureaucracy. Some of the ambassador's residencies around
>the world are in such disrepair that the roofs leak and
>the plumbing will not work. Yet the State Department
>poured millions of taxpayer dollars into a project that
>was legally canceled.
> Federal agencies with mandated
>duties . . . err . . . well, let's just say that they
>had no authority to spend the money that way. Actually,
>it would be to our benefit if most federal agencies were
>totally defunded -- but that's another story.
> The point is, EPA, BLA, and the rest of those
>agencies misappropriated money. And it ends up totaling
>a lot of money!
> Now comes the Man and the Biosphere Committee
>itself, and even different offenses. Because, this was
>the group -- most of whom work for federal agencies and
>know better -- that intentionally received the misapplied
>and misappropriated money thirteen years in a row.
> They knew they had no authorization to exist.
>They knew the funds they received were legally designated
>for other programs. Yet, they participated in this
>illegal program anyway.
> Now comes the opinion of the majority of Congress:
> On April 24, 1997, Rep. Coburn offered an
>amendment to the National Science Foundation budget
>stating that: "No funds appropriated pursuant to this
>Act shall be used for the United States Man and Biosphere
>Program, or related projects."
> Coburn spelled out the law for the House:
> "It is important that the people recognize that
>the Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage sites are under
>the guidance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific
>and Cultural Organization also known as UNESCO. The
>United States withdrew from that Organization in 1984
>because of gross financial mismanagement.
> "Over 68 percent of our national parks,
>preserves, and monuments have been designated as United
>Nations World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves or both.
>There are currently 47 of those sites [94 actually] in
>the United States, covering an area the size of Colorado.
>Under the relative agreements, the United States is
>promising to manage lands in accordance with international
>guidelines. Many times local governments, [and] private
>property [owners] are never consulted in these management
>plans. This is a clear violation of private property
>rights. The biosphere programs, including the United
>States Man and Biosphere Program, have never been
>authorized by any Congress, never been authorized, but
>still received [funds] this past year and this year will
>receive over $700,000 of taxpayers' money.
> "The National Science Foundation distributed
>more than $400,000 in grants to this unauthorized program
>despite the fact that the program has never had a
>consideration or vote in Congress and has never been
>approved by a body of the Congress."
> The amendment easily passed.
> That was last April. On June 5, the liberals
>responded with a correction for the problem. Reps. Brown
>and Miller, both liberal Democrats from California,
>introduced H.R. 1801: A bill "To authorize the United
>States Man and the Biosphere Program."
> But, even if that bill were to pass, it would
>not be retroactive. All biosphere reserves that exist
>today would still be illegal. So too are all those UNESCO
>signs at the entrance to many of our parks. Not even
>H.R. 1801 would authorize involvement in a UNESCO program.
> So, Mister and Misses American Citizen, now
>what do we do about those bureaucrats who misappropriated
>all that money and bothered thousands of American families
>with their totally unauthorized project?
> Quite obviously, prosecution is warranted.
> Your responsibility, then, is to tell them so.
>
>WHY NO PRESS
> "Is the fourth estate for UNESCO?" was asked
>us in one form or another nearly a dozen times these past
>three weeks. "This subject is important to people! Why
>doesn't the national press pick up on this biosphere
>story?"
> Why indeed!
> Better asked would be why doesn't the national
>media ever discuss Constitutional issues. There's a
>simple answer for that -- and it's not necessarily because
>they're all a bunch of socialists, either. All are not.
>The answer is a whole lot simpler than that.
> First, most members of the national press -- the
>political reporters, anyway -- live in Washington. And
>most of them are a bunch of party-people. They like to
>hang out at the good bars, dine at the fancy restaurants
>and attend all the good parties. Understandably, they
>want to be seen hobnobbing with the movers and shakers
>of the nation.
> And duty in Washington is a good place for
>that. Washington is a political town, to be sure. But
>intermixed with all the political stuff is what seems
>like a never ending series of cocktail parties. And these
>parties all have free food and drink, which reporters like.
> Even fund-raisers supply free food and drink
>for those attending. And all parties have politicians
>attending. Which, of course, are the very same people
>the reporters were sent to Washington to write about.
> If a reporter writes in opposition to a position
>taken by a lobbyist, that reporter might not be welcome
>at the fund-raiser parties that lobbyist throws for
>politicians. That's usually not a big deal, because
>there are numerous parties going on every week -- usually
>more than any one reporter could attend.
> But, for a reporter to anger the political
>power structure in Washington is an altogether different
>problem! That would mean no more hobnobbing with the
>powers that be. That could mean no more invitations to
>the power-elite parties. That could mean no more of those
>little leaks most politicians like to give "off the
>record" at cocktail parties.
> It could also mean that a reporter would have to
>actually dig to get a story, rather than just "report"
>verbatim from press conferences and the supplied press
>releases.
> It's much easier to be friends with elected
>officials and their staffs. That is what reporting is
>all about in Washington: Passing on the information you
>are told. Oh sure, some so called "journalists" might
>actually rewrite a line or two and add an interesting
>tidbit not offered on that particular press release. But
>if you read the reports from a number of different
>Washington reporters attending the same press conference,
>you will always see the exact same words used in all of
>the reports.
> There's a reason for that. They all write
>their "news report" from the script provided by the
>politicians. And, for the most part, they follow the
>script exactly.
> So, what if the politician is a bold faced liar
>and crazy as a loon? Well, there are a few of them in
>government, and they do not seem to have a problem
>getting their "spin" printed, no matter how preposterous
>it may be.
> And what about those Constitutional issues?
>Yeah. What about them?
> Ninety percent of the officials in Washington
>obviously have no intention of obeying the Constitution.
>If they did, the federal law books would probably all fit
>on one shelf. So, how can anybody expect a reporter with
>a permanent post in Washington and lots of political
>friends to want to rock that boat?
> Get real!
> In a nutshell, that's the problem.
> The politics of our nation's Capital is made
>up of entangling alliances. So there is no surprise to
>find a synergistic relationship between politicians and
>the reporters making up the national press corps. The
>fact is, they need each other. And simply put, the needs
>of both groups are best met when they get along with each
>other.
> But a reporter is the more expendable of the two.
>So, when reporters don't get along with the political
>types, they are usually transferred. That's because many
>politicians also know the media bosses. Therefore, it's
>little problem to have a reporter who is "rocking the
>boat" too often transferred to another city.
> Consequently, the "approval rating" of the
>national media is only slightly better than that of
>Washington politicians. Both are down around 20% in
>believability. They should be, too. Because in many
>cases, Americans would receive exactly the same news if
>politicians just e-mailed us all their press releases and
>eliminated the media people altogether.
> So when Heads Up readers ask why stories like
>the biosphere reserve scam never seem to make the major
>news . . . well, it's because all the Washington media
>does is "report" what they are told nowadays. There are
>no "journalists" covering the waste, fraud and abuse in
>government anymore. And there most certainly are not any
>"journalists" willing to report any of the thousands of
>violations of our Constitution every year.
> If they did, they wouldn't be invited to any more
>parties.
>
>BIODIVERSITY TREATY BANS HUMANS
> by: Craig M. Brown
> There was a lot of noise made recently, both in
>and out of the Senate, when the Kentucky State Senate
>voted unanimously for a resolution opposing the yet-
>unratified Biological Diversity Treaty.
> Since this has a lot to do the recent federal land
>grabs of property in Kentucky, I decided to read the
>treaty. It's not what you'd call a "fun read" for the
>kids at bedtime, but I'd recommend that you take two
>aspirin and look it over. Then ask your Congressman to
>read it. If you don't, you may find that what you can or
>can't do with your property -- or even if you can live on
>it -- will be decided by a bunch of guys who live in
>Paris. That's Paris, France, not Kentucky.
> After plowing through ten pages of legal gobbley-
>gook you will find that the Biological Diversity Treaty
>is all based on the dubious premise that the survival of
>our species is dependent on turning over the basic human
>rights that we as Americans have come to expect to a
>"contracting party." These "contracting parties" will be
>appointed by UNESCO and their decisions will directly
>affect you and me, bypassing all our federal, state and
>local governments.
> When this treaty was first submitted in 1992,
>then-President Bush didn't like it and never presented it
>to Congress for ratification. Then along came President
>Clinton. He kind of liked this one-world idea, so he
>went about signing Executive Orders and Initiatives to
>take over state lands without passing it through Congress
>for ratification.
> He didn't tell us why he bypassed Congress,
>but it's safe to assume that he was afraid that Congress,
>which is supposed to be representative of the people,
>might not agree with him. So there it stands. Forty
>seven large hunks of sovereign state land, stretching
>through all fifty states, including Kentucky, have been
>designated by the federal government to be used by
>UNESCO to study biological diversity, free from
>"contamination" by people.
> This is our sovereign land, soaked with the
>blood of patriots who centuries ago wrenched it from
>the hands of tyrants to give to a free people with a free
>will and a constitution to guide them. Now, by Executive
>Orders and an unratified treaty our land will be
>transferred back to the tyrants.
> Or will it? It's your call.
>
>THE SPIRIT OF VLAD
> The more we blab on about socialism -- and
>the decline of freedom --in the United States, the more
>politicians seem to say things that prove our point. See
>if you can guess which famous politicians these quotes
>are from.
> "Imagine an army of 100,000 young people
>restoring urban and rural communities and giving their
>labor in exchange for education and training. . . . We
>will harness the energy of our youth and attack the
>problems of our time. It literally has the potential to
>revolutionize the way young people all across America
>look at their country and feel about themselves."
> That quote, should be easy. It pertains to
>"national Service," or paid "volunteering." So now let's
>try a quote from an equally famous person. The following
>quotation will not be published in the national press for
>reasons that will become obvious momentarily.
> "We must organize all labor, no matter how
>dirty and arduous it may be, so that every [citizen] may
>regard himself as part of that great army of free
>labor. . . . The generation that is now fifteen years
>old must arrange all their tasks of education in such a
>way that every day, and in every city, the young people
>shall engage in the practical solution of the problems of
>common labor, even of the smallest, most simple kind."
> The first quotation should be easy. That's Bill
>Clinton encouraging paid volunteers -- by whatever means
>he can use to force people to do his bidding. The second
>quotation is a little harder to read because it is a
>translation. Vladimir Lenin did not intend to pay his
>"volunteers." In those days, if you did not follow
>orders you could be shot.
> We have not yet declined to the point where
>citizens will be shot for not volunteering. However, if
>the Clinton program continues, we can be sure that there
>will soon be fines, assessments and other punishments
>inflicted on those who do not "volunteer" as directed.
>
>REBEL, REVOLT, RESIST
> Yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee
>approved the McCain-Kerrey "Secure Public Networks Act"
>(S. 909). This bill would impose severe restrictions on
>the ability of Americans to protect their personal
>privacy. It is an outright threat to the privacy and
>security of Internet communications.
> In this bill, Senators McCain and Kerrey
>outwardly and intentionally violate both the intent and
>meaning of the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution.
>Although S. 909 "allows" Americans to minimally encrypt
>files transmitted over the Internet, the federal
>government is to keep the encryption keys, and a search
>warrant will not be necessary for agents to use the
>keys. The bill also calls for a whole slew of new
>criminal penalties for the use of encryption that is
>inconvenient for government agents to break.
> The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT)
>has provided a full text of the bill, along with a
>detailed analysis of S. 909, and an analysis of the
>constitutional issues raised by the key-recovery
>provisions. The text is online at: http://www.crypto.com
> We could provide a discussion of applicable
>court cases here, but CDT covers all that very nicely on
>their web page. So instead, we provide a very applicable
>story we ripped off (with permission) from the "Weekly
>Update" Internet Edition, Volume 4 Issue 20, June 9,
>1997, a publication of The Michigan Militia Corps'.
> Because folks, our position in this matter must
>be "Just say No!" It's time we told them to back off,
>shut up, and don't ever speak of that again! It is
>neither the business nor the concern of government to
>monitor what we communicate to each other.
> It is, however, our responsibility as sovereign
>American citizens to instruct our servants in government
>to cease and desist. We must be loud and clear with our
>warning that they have overstepped their Constitutional
>boundaries, and so must stop.
> Please take the time to instruct your three
>Members of Congress next week. S. 909 is a violation
>of the Fourth Amendment, and hence a violation of the
>inalienable right to privacy of all American citizens.
> And now the message from Jeff, editor of the
> "Weekly Update:"
>
> The following article was taken from a
>newsletter called "The Resistance," put out by the
>National Smokers Alliance. Although this article
>concerns smoking laws in particular, this course of
>action is probably the most effective approach to dealing
>with bad laws, and I can guarantee that when you announce
>such intentions, in advance, to those who pass such laws,
>they are absolutely dumb-founded. Since our legislators,
>local, state and federal, no longer seem to listen to the
>people or abide by Constitutional limitations, this may
>be our last resort.
>------------------------------
>Does Resistance Work?
> Just ask the people of Toronto who successfully
>defeated one of the most severe smoking laws in North
>America.
> "Bad laws should not be obeyed," advised
>Toronto Star columnist Rosie Dimanno of the bylaw that
>banned smoking in almost all restaurants and bars
>citywide as of March 3 of this year, "Rebel, revolt,
>resist." And that's just what the citizens of this
>Canadian city did.
> Faced with revenue losses of up to 30 percent,
>restaurant owners openly defied the law. Some refused
>to enforce the ban even in the face of hefty fines that
>ranged from $205 to $5,000.
> "What am I going to do when the inspectors come
>around?" said the proprietor of one Toronto cafe. "I'm
>going to say [that] I'm not complying with this law and
>you do whatever you have to do." "I've talked to a lot
>of restaurateurs in town ... and nobody's respecting it
>(the bylaw)," said the owner of a popular restaurant.
>"I've visited seven of my friends in their restaurants
>and everybody smokes. There's ashtrays everywhere.
>Nobody cares."
> "Waiters are playing a little game," commented
>a pub owner. "They tell people they are sorry there is
>no smoking and then get them a menu and an ashtray."
>Some restaurateurs, fed up with the law, put their
>establishments up for sale, while others closed their
>doors in protest. Individual smokers also resisted the
>law. Left with nowhere to go, many wound up smoking in
>sections that had once been reserved for non-smokers.
> "We used to be able to accommodate non-smokers,
>now people smoke wherever they feel like," said a saloon
>owner. "A lot of peoples' attitude is, 'Come and give me
>a ticket,'" said another. Ontario Restaurant Association
>President Paul Oliver noted that "I had a call from a 70-
>year-old woman who said she went out today and broke the
>law for the first time in her life, and she'd do it
>again. It's like the wild west out there," Oliver
>concluded.
> The resistance of citizens and business owners
>surprised city officials, who had been advised by anti-
>smoking activists in the United States that things would
>settle down within six months. "It didn't work the way
>we had hoped it would," commented Toronto Mayor Barbara
>Hall in The Globe and Mail.
> The issue was resolved within six weeks. After
>restaurant workers showed up at an April 14 city council
>meeting in T-shirts that said, "Save our jobs" and "Let
>the consumer decide" -- and began chanting, "We won't
>comply" -- the Toronto City Council backed down and voted
>to allow restaurants and bars to have smoking sections.
> "Elected officials in the United States should learn a
>lesson from our neighbors to the North," said NSA
>President Thomas Humber. "When they go too far, the
>people will resist."
>
> -- End --
>
>
>_______________________________________
>Charles L Hamilton (chasm@insync.net) Houston, TX
>
>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>-> Posted by: chasm@insync.net (Schuetzen)
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
-> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail