Time: Fri Jul 25 19:19:24 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA18009;
	Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:42:57 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 21:42:16 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: "DOJ's game is to break you."

>	Every once in a while we read something coming 
>from Capitol Hill that actually sounds like a good idea.  
>That is, it sounds good until we study it for a while.
>	This week, AP reports that a "you lose, you pay" 
>penalty was amended to a spending bill approved by the 
>House Appropriations Committee.  The amendment was tucked 
>into a bill providing funding for the Commerce, Justice 
>and State departments.
>	"We're sending a message to the Justice 
>Department," said Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), who spearheaded 
>the amendment.  "You've got the whole Justice Department 
>(working) against you.  This way, at least if you're 
>acquitted ... you can get reimbursed."
>	Now, we have never personally been bothered by 
>a prosecutor.  Still, this sounded only fair.  Any 
>prosecutor filing charges against a citizen without first 
>having conclusive proof of wrongdoing should themselves 
>be prosecuted and have to make the citizen "whole" again.  
>Otherwise, prosecutors could charge people they didn't 
>like with whatever they wished, just to cause them 
>	Rep. Joseph McDade, (R-PA) said the "game on 
>the part of the Justice Department is to break you.  They 
>use any method they can to achieve that end and at the 
>end of the day they walk away.  They can charge you with 
>	Strong words, coming from a member of Congress.  
>Perhaps the Members of Congress will remember that as 
>their law factory churns out thousands of pages of new 
>law every month.
>	It is true, federal prosecutors have entirely 
>too much power and are poorly supervised.  A vindictive 
>prosecutor, or one trying to make a name for himself, can 
>ruin a person's life.  Worse, a citizen has zero 
>recourse.  There is absolutely nothing a citizen can do 
>about an out of control prosecutor coming after them.
>	But, alas, McDade will not remember his own 
>words for long.  You see folks, the provision would only 
>apply to the Lords and Ladies of Congress -- and staffers, 
>of course.  The provision would let members of Congress 
>and their legislative staff recoup legal fees if they 
>prevail in court, and the money would be deducted from 
>the Justice Department's budget.
>	American citizens -- we who pay all the bills -- 
>don't count.
>	Just as an aside here:  Anyone remember the 
>remark by Pat Buchanan last year about the "peasants with 
>pitchforks" storming Washington?  These guys are sure 
>making that thought attractive, aren't they!
>	Usually, there is so much truly outrageous 
>material available we wish we had a full sized newspaper 
>and a room full of writers.  Just on freedom of speech 
>this week there's . . . well, here's an outline of some 
>of the more interesting of what we've found.
>	The first piece that caught our interest concerned 
>our former Congresswoman from Detroit.  Anyone thinking 
>Rep. John Conyers is outrageous and fun to watch has to 
>meet the former U.S. Rep. from Detroit, Barbara-Rose 
>Collins.  Conyers is the height of politeness and decorum 
>when compared with Collins!
>	Beltway insiders may remember the flare with 
>which Collins arrived in Washington.  First, she was 
>immediately charged with campaign finance fraud (but 
>never prosecuted).  Her first week in the House she 
>repeatedly fell asleep sitting at her chair on the House 
>floor -- and snored loudly.  Turns out, she had been out 
>clothes shopping for herself, her child and her paramour 
>every afternoon and evening, using the left over campaign 
>funds, and she was tired.
>	A few weeks later, she went to Africa to be made 
>a queen of some little place.  She told them she could get 
>them foreign aid, so they made her their grand poo pa.  
>Again, the Democrat leadership of the House let her get 
>away with it.
>	Anyway, both the AP and the Detroit Free Press 
>report the queen and former Rep. has sued the Detroit 
>Free Press, saying she was defamed by a story in which 
>she was misquoted as saying she hated the white race (she 
>	On July 17, 1996, the Free Press quoted 
>Collins saying: "All white people, I don't believe, are 
>intolerant.  That's why I say I love the individuals but 
>I hate the race."
>	What Collins admits to saying was:  "All white 
>people, I don't believe, are intolerant.  That's why I 
>say I love the individuals, but I don't like the race."
>	Herschel Fink, attorney for the Free Press, said 
>the lawsuit is frivolous.  "The remark Ms. Collins admits 
>she said and the one the newspaper reported she said were 
>substantially the same," Fink said.  "We expect the court 
>to quickly dismiss the case."
>	In another matter, AP reports that the Montana 
>Supreme Court upheld  Montana's "hate crime" law and the 
>conviction of a teen-ager who distributed bumper stickers 
>aimed at the Church Universal and Triumphant.  The law is 
>neither overly broad nor unconstitutionally vague, the 
>court held unanimously, and did not violate free-speech 
>	The bumper stickers stated:  "NO I'm not a member 
>of CUT" in black  writing, with the words 'NO' and 'CUT' 
>in bold and the only words visible from a distance.
>	The defendent "points out that others in the 
>community have similar stickers affixed to their vehicles 
>or in their windows as a protest against what they 
>perceive to be objectionable practices of CUT," Justice 
>James C. Nelson wrote.  However, the defendent "fails to 
>recognize that the difference between his conduct and 
>that of others in the community is that the others he 
>referred to placed the stickers on their own property 
>while [he] placed the stickers on other people's property 
>without their permission."
>	So, malicious mischief may now be "hate speech" 
>in Montana if it involves writing.
>	In yet another matter, the Cato Institute 
>posted a very interesting briefing paper (No. 31), titled 
>"CAMPAIGN REFORM: Let's Not Give Politicians the Power to 
>Decide What We Can Say about Them."  The paper is written 
>by Douglas Johnson and Mike Beard.  Below is the summary:
>	"Lawmakers of both parties have proposed 
>'campaign reform' bills that would curtail the right of 
>corporations (including issue-oriented advocacy 
>organizations) and labor unions to communicate with the 
>public about those who hold or seek public office.  The 
>really important question for congressional supporters of 
>the various proposals is this: where in the world do you 
>think you get the authority to regulate the political 
>speech of American citizens?
>	"Those proposals violate the First Amendment, 
>which the Supreme Court has repeatedly held to provide 
>the highest degree of protection for issue advocacy, 
>including explicit commentary on the merits, positions, 
>and actions of office holders and office seekers.  The 
>right to attempt to persuade our fellow citizens of the 
>issues they should weigh in casting their votes is as 
>fundamental as the right to vote.
>	"Unfortunately, the news media have generally 
>been promoting speech-restrictive proposals rather than 
>defending the First Amendment -- the nation's paramount 
>'election law.'"
>	Some very important points are made in this 
>5,000 word paper.  And, while we may not exactly agree 
>with every conclusion made, the full text is certainly 
>worth reading.  Because, if some bills currently on fast 
>track in Congress are not killed, political speech as we 
>now know it, and as the Founding Fathers intended it, 
>will most certainly become a thing of the past.
>	The complete text can be found at:  
>	Many of us have often wondered why Members of 
>Congress do not always study the bills on which they are 
>expected to vote.  "They don't have time," is a reply we 
>have received more than a few times from hill rats.  
>"They are often too busy to read more than the summaries."
>	We also often wondered what would happen 
>if members of other professions -- say, medical 
>professionals, for example -- used that excuse.  For 
>instance, what would happen if a surgeon were to say, 
>"Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't know that was in there," as 
>many in Congress used as their excuse to their 
>constituents when confronted about the Kohl and 
>Lautenberg amendments passing last year?
>	Or, how about if your physician told you, after 
>unsuccessfully treating you for a few weeks, that he 
>really had no time to study that problem, but that choice 
>of drug sounded good when the salesman told him about 
>it.  And that was after you noticed that he always seemed 
>to have time to hit the golf course every afternoon.
>	Not good, huh?
>	Members of Congress like to think of themselves 
>as professional law makers.  And, like physicians, their 
>work certainly can affect our lives.  Why then, do we 
>hold members of government to a different standard?  And 
>by the way, are there any standards at all for acceptable 
>performance in government?
>	Everyone in the federal government is paid for 
>full time employment, so an article by Jock Friedly and 
>Robert Schlesinger in "The Hill" attracted our attention 
>last week.  It was titled simply: "Members took 1,053 
>trips in '96."  The piece opened with the paragraph:
>	"More than three-fifths of the members of 
>Congress (and staffs) took more than a thousand expense-
>paid junkets and other 'fact-finding' trips in 1996, 
>ranging from summer sojourns in Italy to winter weekends 
>in Bermuda.  Some 319 members jetted around the country 
>and across the globe to attend seminars or give keynote 
>addresses, according to an analysis by The Hill of 
>financial disclosure forms and travel records filed with 
>the House and Senate.  These trips were financed by 
>corporations, non-profit organizations, foreign 
>governments and other interest groups."
>	Contrast their performance with our local State 
>Senator.  I called him at home on a beautiful Sunday 
>afternoon a few weeks back.  He was busy reading 
>regulations.  Turns out, he is now on the committee to 
>review all State regulations.  He received a stack of new 
>regulations over two feet high ten days before the first 
>committee meeting was scheduled, and he felt duty bound 
>to read each and every one of them.
>	Now a little more from "The Hill" newspaper:  
>"Topping the list of congressional frequent fliers was 
>Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who managed 23 separate 
>trips, including winter jaunts to Jamaica, Antigua, 
>Bermuda, Hawaii and the Bahamas, where her husband Sidney 
>Williams has served as ambassador since 1994.  Waters' 
>trips were sponsored by a variety of organizations, 
>ranging from the Selma (Ala.) Civil Rights Museum to the 
>Caribbean Banana Exporters Association, with most 
>involving African-American themes.  In two instances, 
>Waters spent personal time in the locale beyond what the 
>official itinerary demanded.  According to her travel 
>disclosures, Waters vacationed in New Orleans and 
>	"The Hill" reports that Bill Hogan, director of 
>investigative projects at the Center for Public Integrity, 
>is among those who are concerned about the proliferation 
>of congressional travel.
>	"At the very basic level, almost all of them 
>are unnecessary," said Hogan.  "They represent people on 
>the public payroll taking trips on somebody else's 
>dime. ...  If you take a trip and a corporation pays for 
>it ... [and] they then call you up and need a favor, 
>you're going to be inclined to do it for them because 
>they've done a favor for you.  And that's the basic harm 
>in this relationship."
>	Yeah, and it's called bribes on this side of the 
>Beltway.  Congress is very well paid.  If they want to go 
>someplace, they should pay for it just like the rest of 
>us.  "The Hill" reports that the most common foreign 
>destination was Taiwan, with most of the trips sponsored 
>by a Republic of China (Taiwan) business consortium.
>	Sure.  And if there are ever full investigations 
>on that money infiltrating our election process, Capitol 
>Hill is going to have some very lonely hallways!
>	Other destinations included Hong Kong, Paris, 
>London, Stuttgart, Bangkok, Beijing, Mexico City, 
>Leningrad, Ankara, Slovenia, Havana, Delhi and Zurich.  
>In other words, no places Members of our Congress (or 
>their staffs and spouses) needed to be officially.
>	So, when we ask why they do not always read 
>the bills they're voting on, probably we'll have to agree 
>with staff.  Many of them have no time.
>	Professional ethics personified.
>	Here are a couple very interesting web pages 
>many readers will be interested in.  The first is new.  
>The second has been around for a while but has recently 
>made some very impressive additions.
>	Most of us have seen Larry Klayman, Chairman 
>of Judicial Watch, on television programs such as CNN's 
>Crossfire, ABC's Prime Time Live, and FOX television.  
>He's usually speaking on ethics and the need for honest 
>government.  Currently (we are told) Klayman is providing 
>legal commentary on the Thompson campaign finance 
>hearings for National Empowerment Television (NET).
>	Judicial Watch reports it has nine on-going 
>cases to expose government corruption in the Clinton 
>Administration.  These cases include:  Representing those 
>citizens whose FBI files were wrongly accessed -- possibly 
>for political espionage purposes -- by Hillary Clinton, 
>Bernard Nussbaum, Anthony Marceca, and Craig Livingstone.  
>Filing FOI requests to uncover the Department of 
>Commerce's practice of selecting companies for trade 
>missions in exchange for donations to the Democratic 
>National Committee.  And a class action derivative suit 
>on behalf of the policyholders of State Farm Insurance 
>Company against State Farm and its top executives for 
>improperly paying Bill Clinton's legal fees and expenses 
>in the Paula Jones lawsuit.
>	Other matters in which the group is involved 
>include such things as why the Los Angeles Airport 
>Authority paid Webster Hubbell for legal fees when he was 
>under investigation, the political motivations behind 
>Attorney General Janet Reno's refusal to appoint an 
>independent counsel to investigate campaign finance 
>related matters, and ways to reform our legal system to 
>make it more responsive and less expensive for the 
>average citizen.
>	The Judicial Watch e-mail address is:  
>jwatch@erols.com  But, better yet, last week they started 
>posting press releases and other information on the 
>Internet.  Visit them at:  www.judicialwatch.org  
>	For those of us looking for some excellent 
>Constitutional information, most of which is written by 
>the original Founding Fathers, we have only to visit the 
>Constitution Society's Home Page at: www.constitution.org/
>	Jon Roland is doing such a bang up job there 
>that, for Constitutionalists, the site deserves a visit 
>at least once a week just to see what is new.  For 
>instance, here's part of what we found on their "What's 
>New" page on July 24:
>	"Commentaries on the Constitution of the United 
>States," by Joseph Story (1833) was recently posted.  
>This is an authoritative commentary by an early Supreme 
>Court justice who helped shape the interpretation of the 
>Constitution for the next century.  The complete 3-volume 
>work is being converted.
>	"The St. George Tucker annotated version of 
>Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England," was 
>also recently posted.  Blackstone's Commentaries, by Sir 
>William Blackstone, was the codification of the Common 
>Law -- the (three volume) law book of our country before 
>the Constitution.
>	Blackstone's Commentaries needed to be adapted 
>to reflect the new American Constitution.  Professor of 
>Law St. George Tucker annotated the Commentaries in 1803, 
>making this version the first truly American law book.  
>The complete 5-volume work is being converted.
>	James Madison's Notes on the Debates in the 
>Federal Convention of 1787 are also posted.  These are 
>the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention held in 
>Philadelphia, and are an essential guide to interpreting 
>the intent of the Framers.
>	One of the many other interesting recent 
>additions is a paper titled "Let's Revive Private 
>Prosecutions;" by Jon Roland.  Roland proposes the use 
>of private prosecutors in cases of public corruption and 
>abuse where public prosecutors are unwilling to prosecute.
>	The problem with Jon Roland's Constitution 
>Society web site is that there is so much good material 
>there we sometimes get sidetracked with interesting 
>things we did not plan to study at the time.
>	Hopefully, the Judicial Watch web page will 
>soon be almost as prolific.  For instance, they have an 
>up coming deposition of Hillary Clinton that would look 
>very good posted on the Internet. . . .
>	Democrats thought they would nail some Barbour 
>butt to the old barn wall.  But Haley's country boy charm 
>was backed up by some cold, hard facts.  And those facts 
>were related with a rapid-fire delivery that kept the 
>attention of everyone in the room.
>	"I was born at night, senators.  But it wasn't 
>last night." was an extremely effective shot across the 
>bow of the impending minority attack.  He knew Democrats 
>were gunning for him, and he was ready.
>	Haley Barbour was prepared with an excellent 
>working knowledge of the political finances of both 
>parties.  And along with that knowledge, he brought along 
>a willingness to fire back with everything in the 
>backgrounds of each Democrat senator.  They learned that 
>	Consequently, the Republicans, not the 
>Democrats, asked most of the hard questions in this 
>round.  With a 1 to 10 rating system, we would score it 
>Haley 9, Republican Senators 1, Democrats 0.
>	CNN even ran part of the hearings while Barbour 
>was there.  And "part" is the correct word here, too.  
>CNN intentionally tried to cut to commentary and/or break 
>whenever Haley was making a good point.
>	Again, the hearings were boycotted by the four 
>major television networks.  This time it was in favor of 
>the "great manhunt" story.  It didn't even matter that 
>the perpetrator was already dead, either.  The major 
>networks made it an important news item anyway.
>	Perhaps a note to some "news" sponsors is 
>appropriate.  Because, if they are censoring hearing 
>news, we can't help but wonder what else they think us 
>not worthy of seeing.
>	Meanwhile, if you would like to drop the networks 
>a line and let them know what you think about their "news" 
>delivery, here's a few addresses:
>        ABC Good Morning America -- gma@abc.com 
>        ABC Nightline -- NTline@aol.com 
>        ABC Primetime Live -- PTLive@aol.com 
>        CBS News producer -- dcp@cbsnews.com
>        Fox News -- foxnet@delphi.com 
>        NBC Dateline -- dateline@news.nbc.com
>        NBC Meet the Press -- mtp@news.nbc.com 
>        NBC Nightly News -- nightly@news.nbc.com 
>        NBC Today Show -- today@news.nbc.com 
>			-- End --

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