Time: Sun Jul 13 06:45:35 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA27058;
Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:27:29 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA13046;
Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:27:20 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:27:05 -0700
To: harold@halcyon.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: William Michael Kemp (fwd)
And so, Mr. Kemp, now that you are back
to writing so beautifully, would you please
tell me, in writing, why you surrendered
to that jail without first consulting your
Counsel, and why you fell totally silent
after your Counsel, and a Habeas Corpus
expert, both busted their butts to keep you out
of jail? and why you never ever so much
as thanked either of them for all that work?
and why you have done absolutely nothing
whatsoever to pay them for that Habeas Corpus,
which you have now failed to litigate?
Will you please answer these questions,
in writing, Mr. Kemp?
Thank you. I am waiting for answers that
can only come from you.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
p.s. "Liberty in the Balance" is the name
of an excellent videotape produced about
5 years ago. You are infringing upon that
Common-Law Copyright.
At 03:50 AM 7/13/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
> by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA30447
> for <harold@mail.halcyon.com>; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 23:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
> by smtp3.nwnexus.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA23979
> for <harold@halcyon.com>; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 23:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
AAA26130 for piml-mail; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 00:43:20 -0500 (CDT)
by mars.galstar.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA26123 for
<piml@mars.galstar.com>; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 00:43:14 -0500 (CDT)
> by pimaia4w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA31348;
> Sun, 13 Jul 1997 01:40:39 -0400
BAA17906; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 01:39:15 -0400
>From: LVKR94A@prodigy.com (MR CARL D ALEXANDER)
>Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 01:39:15, -0500
>To: piml@mars.galstar.com, eplurib@megalinx.net, mlindste@clandjop.com,
> freewolf@rocketship.com, deckard@thnet.com, ewolfe@involved.com,
> tbw00@amdahl.com, charli@hopper.net, butterb@connecti.com,
> bphipp@pernet.net, dixieforme@juno.com, jerry.simmons@door.net,
> confus65@wws.net
>Subject: piml] Liberty In The Balance
>
>The following is an essay by William Michael Kemp, a graduate of Tulane
>University, and the founder of the Gadsden Minutemen.
>
>Mr. Kemp is currently a prisoner of conscience, incarcerated in the Etowah
>County Detention Center, at Gadsden, Alabama.
>
> LIBERTY IN THE BALANCE
>
> In one sense, our ancestors had a simple task - they had an arrogant,
>fatuous king; a detached legislature; and independent news outlets, which
>required their observers to read and think. Taxes were on the order of
>single percentages, and fractions thereof - any increase, deeply and
>quickly applied, fast roused the ire of the people. WE are dying the death
>of a thousand cuts, each with it's own anesthetic.
> We are living under a government operating by rules and regulations,
>not law. `Law', as the term was defined and used in `Constitutional times',
>meant the Common Law. Under `common law' it is not possible for government
>to declare a man a criminal, or accuse him as such, without a sworn
>complaint by another man - or by the government itself, if the person is
>thought to have violated import or export laws, or failed to pay an excise
>tax, or allowed livestock to run loose, or dangerously operated a motor
>vehicle, or created some other public disturbance.
> Rules and regulations are imposed by a monarch, or sovereign, upon his
>subjects. However, as confirmed by the first words of the Preamble to the
>US Constitution - "We, the people...", WE are intended to be the sovereign,
>here. WE are to instruct government, not vice-versa.
> As it so happens, I have been re-reading THE FEDERALIST, and I see a
>repeated pattern: Alexander Hamilton, known as an advocate of `National'
>rather than `Federal' government, constantly stated the impossibility of
>`limited' national government taking precedence over otherwise unlimited
>State governments, which would be jealous of their own authority.
> Hamilton delineates `national governance' in Federalist Paper #17,
>as: commerce, finance, negotiation, and war. Likewise, he sets out the
>`residuary authorities' which are "proper to leave with the States for
>local purposes", as being "...the administration of private justice between
>the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture, and of
>other concerns...proper to be provided...by local legislation." This was
>government according to `law'.
> However, in Federalist Paper #27, Hamilton `tips his hand' by stating,
>"[T]hus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates of the respective members
>{the States}, will be incorporated into the operation of the National
>Government, as far as its just and constitutional authority extends, and
>will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcment of its laws."
> In short, given a little time, federal authority will become "national"
>authority, enforced by `feudal' state governments. And since federal
>authority is to be "supreme authority", and federal judges (appointed for
>life) are to be the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes "just and
>constitutional authority", over time it is only to be expected that the
>federal worm will eat out the whole apple of State authority.
> Likewise, Hamilton notes that "...the more the citizens are accustomed
>to meet with it {national government} in the common occurrences of their
>political life, the more it is familiarized in their sight...the further it
>enters into those objects..." And further, that "by extending the authority
>of the federal head to the individual citizens of the several States, will
>enable the government to employ the ordinary magistracy of each, in the
>execution of it's laws." So, too, does `local' now become `federal'.
> And though Hamilton assures us, over and over, that State authority
>would be jealous of federal intrusion, it did not happen that way. We may
>dispute exactly when the federal `camel' got it's nose under the State
>`tents', but I will point to certain events, abrupt `lunges', which carried
>the `camel' in over it's hump.
> The pivotal year was 1913, wherein we had instituted upon us: the
>Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Reserve, and direct election of
>United States Senators. Less than twenty years later, the country was in
>the throes of the Great Depression, and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
>wanted `big guviment' to `save' us. Much of what he wanted was rejected by
>the Supreme Court, so he attempted to `pack the court' with his political
appointees.
> That attempt failed, but in 1934 he managed to extort all gold from the
>American people. Prohibition had already corrupted much of government and
>law enforcement, and with the end of Prohibition, those agents were
>transferred to the enforcement of the newly-created `National Machine Gun
>Act'. Prohibition's corruptive influence continued on in local governments,
>where alcohol flowed to the profit of bootleggers, law enforcement
>officials, and politicians.
> And the people witnessed federal government as `savior', in the form of
>Social Security, "familiarized in their sight."
> In 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson removed the last of our
>`honest' money, taking all silver coinage out of circulation. In due
>course, he declared his `War on Poverty' to go along with his Vietnamese
>War, and both were lost. But the people became ever-more accustomed to
>viewing the federal government as `savior'. How did we ever get by without
Medicare?
> However, a legacy had been left. The States were made welfare clients
>of the federal government. As taxes increased, more and more money flowed
>to Washington, D.C., inflation rolled on, and the State's ablity to
>maintain their revenues became ever more dependent on the federal
>government. The States had to dance to Washington's tune to get funding.
>This meant taking federal laws at face-value, and enforcing them as their
own.
> Due in large part to the rationales set forth by Hamilton, in
>Federalist Paper #26, standing armies have become an accomplished fact.
>However, they have rarely, if ever, been employed directly and observably
>against Americans. Kent State and Waco come to mind, but those, generally,
>are aberrations. Our `standing army' is used primarily in an adventurous
>fashion, from Suez to Vietnam to Grenada to Panama to Somalia to Bosnia
>to... Most States have military bases and facilities which pour `federal'
>money into `state' economies, thus keeping the States dependent upon
Washington.
> But it has also been used to train the one real, clear, and present
>danger to our Liberty - our domestic police forces.
> As George Washington commented, government is nothing except force.
>Mao Zse Zung said it succintly: "All political power comes from the barrel
>of a gun." And, as Ayn Rand stated, the only way to apply governmental
>power to an honest man, is to make a criminal of him.
> As the `laws' (which were and are merely rules and regulations)
>multiply, a much larger domestic police force has been required. Alcohol,
>guns, marijuana, confiscatory taxation, and plain, unadorned confiscation
>have grown into issues requiring ENFORCEMENT. And as Americans chafe at
>the expanding `rules and regulations', the `domestic military' increases,
>and are trained in military tactics and weapons.
> For government does not pass `laws' to have them obeyed; they are
>passed to be broken, so that they may then be enforced; and thereby
>demonstrate the necessity for even more `laws', and the need for ever
>more enforcement.
> I am a manufactured criminal. I have not harmed, interfered with,
>endangered, or damaged any man on earth. A jury has convicted me - and that
>shows just how far down the road we have gone. I should be thankful that
>they rejected the unvarnished lie of the felony charge for which I was
prosecuted.
> But it leaves me in the position to know that my life will never be
>sane, or normal, nor my own ever again. Our situation is beyond Churchill's
>point of an easy "win without bloodshed", beyond the point when our victory
>might be "sure and not so costly".
> I have risked my life, and had my health permanently damaged. I have
>committed my fortune, and have seen it consumed. My reputation has been
>made a public mockery by the `powers that be', and this mockery is accepted
>as truth by those whose Liberty lies in the the balance. But my sacred
>honor remains.
> Eventually, I will be released from jail, but I am one of those who
>will be watched and monitored and hounded for the remainder of my days.
> This is the price of resistance to Tyranny, this is the water required
>by the Tree of Liberty. We can be slaves at the price of our sovereign
>selves - or, we can pay the price required, in lesser coin, to retain the
>hope of Liberty.
>
> In Liberty,
>
> William Michael Kemp
>
>
========================================================================
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 3.0.3 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.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail