Time: Sat Aug 16 15:47:32 1997
	by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA26211;
	Sat, 16 Aug 1997 08:04:05 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 08:02:54 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Heads Up (fwd)

>		         Heads Up
>   A Weekly edition of News from around our country
>		  August 15, 1997   #48
>	  by:  Doug Fiedor    fiedor19@eos.net
>  Previous Editions at:  http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
>	When an old friend, who is a career federal 
>bureaucrat above the "GS" level, called one afternoon 
>last week to chit-chat, I should have realized there may 
>have also been an ulterior motive.  He was, after all, 
>calling from work.  About ten minutes into the 
>conversation he asked why this publication is so hard on 
>the people working for the federal regulatory agencies.
>	'Because they are there, and should not be,' 
>I wanted to answer.  But I did not.  Instead, I played 
>the game, began my own opening gambit, and turned it 
>around so he was on the defensive.
>	"How many search warrants did your agency 
>serve these past few weeks?" I eventually asked.
>	"A few," he reluctantly answered.
>	"How many with guns drawn and agents looking 
>and acting like a SWAT team?" I then inquired.
>	"That is for the protection of  the agents. . . . . ." 
>he tried to jive me.
>	Uh huh.  Sure.
>	Lately, even FEMA and EPA started doing that.  
>Where once, regulators came in dressed in normal business 
>attire, now they bring a "team" wearing bullet proof 
>vests and brandishing military-style guns.
>	Reports are that a FEMA team "raided" a county 
>flood management office recently, vested and guns at the 
>ready.  They even brought along a search warrant.  Except 
>that the only thing on the warrant was the judges 
>signature and the word "sealed."  They confiscated box-
>loads of public documents -- documents that were always 
>available for anyone in the world to walk in and read.  
>And, of course, they terrified (or is it terrorized?) the 
>staff working the office in the process.
>	Same with the EPA.  Nowadays, if they visit a 
>business suspected of spilling hazardous materials, they 
>often bring along a SWAT team and act like they're going 
>after a gang of armed bank robbers.  Just a few years 
>ago, that type of thing was handled by one man carrying 
>nothing more ominous than a notebook.
>	This is called lack of respect.  It's the "them" 
>against "us" mentality.  Each year, the federal government 
>ramps-up the aggression level.  Today, many federal 
>regulators act like they have absolutely no respect for 
>the American public.  Sure, they are not all like that -- 
>yet.  But, how many of these reports do we need before 
>we voters start putting pressure on elected officials to 
>get them stopped?
>	IRS used a SWAT team to "take over" a day care 
>center, kids and all.  FDA brought along a SWAT team 
>to "raid" a vitamin store.  The BLM brought an armed 
>posse to confront two hunters.  Fish and Wildlife 
>delivered a SWAT team by armed military choppers.  Yet, 
>in none of these cases was any wrongdoing ever proven.
>	The problem is, neither was any of these agencies 
>punished for use of excessive force (or stupidity!).  
>Clearly, these people are out of control.
>	It's our fault, too.  These are, after all, public 
>servants.  Therefore, we can, with a little effort, have 
>them fired.  Federal agencies like FEMA, EPA, BLM and 
>OSHA do not need guns.  There are only a few real federal 
>police agencies:  Marshals, DEA, FBI and BATF immediately 
>come to mind.  These other agencies are only regulatory 
>and tax collection agencies.
>	Worse yet, for the most part, these armed 
>regulators are people with no firearms training.  Police 
>academies last at least ten or twelve weeks.  Many of the 
>armed federal bureaucrats confronting American citizens 
>do not even have ten or twelve minutes firearms or police 
>training.  In fact, some of them never even had a firearms 
>safety course.  Yet, in some cases, they're carrying fully 
>automatic weapons.  This is not good!
>	For the safety of the American public, all federal 
>regulatory agencies should be completely disarmed.
>	Words mean things, as Rush Limbaugh likes to 
>say on his national radio program.  And lawyers, so they 
>would have us believe, are the legal word merchants of the 
>United States.  So it is with great interest when we 
>notice that the rooms full of lawyers working in the White 
>House, Department of Justice and FBI all seem to be having 
>a definite problem understanding some of the simplest 
>words in the English language:  "Shall Not."
>	For instance, the Fourth Amendment to the 
>United States Constitution clearly states that: "The 
>right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 
>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and 
>seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall 
>issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or 
>affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be 
>searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
>	Notice the words "shall not be violated"?
>	Recently, the Supreme Court said that in all 
>but a very few circumstances, officers serving a search 
>warrant must knock, announce their reason for being there 
>and wait to be let in.  No "dynamic entries" are allowed 
>unless the police are going after known killers, or some 
>such demonstrably dangerous perpetrators.
>	American citizens are to be informed of what 
>is to be searched, and what police are looking for, BEFORE 
>the search begins.  Police are to show the person to be 
>searched the warrant, and allow them to read it, before 
>the search takes place.
>	The right to be secure against government 
>intrusion in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" 
>would also include a ban against pat-downs on the street; 
>looking through medical and financial records; reading of 
>mail; recording private conversations; reading computer 
>e-mail; and listening to telephone conversations.
>	Police may stop you and ask questions.  But a 
>free citizen need not answer if they do not wish.  And, 
>unless the officer indicates that you are being detained, 
>a free citizen may leave the presence of the officer at 
>any time.  In other words, except during the performance 
>of a criminal investigation (and civil citations), or in 
>an emergency, a police officer has no special powers over 
>and above any other citizen.
>	Yet, the Department of Justice and the FBI 
>cannot understand "shall not."  Rather, they have plans 
>to monitor thousands of American citizen's telephone calls 
>simultaneously.  They are also gearing up to monitor many 
>American citizen's e-mail every day.  And, all this, they 
>hope, without the necessity of a court approved search 
>	The Fourth Amendment words "shall not," of 
>course, bar these federal government activities.  But, 
>federal law enforcement does not seem to feel that the 
>Constitution applies to their functions.  Neither do two 
>members of the Senate (McCain and Kerry), as evidenced 
>by S. 909, which would allow federal agents access to all 
>computer correspondence, without the necessity of first 
>obtaining a court approved search warrant.
>	We, of course, have some recourse in this 
>matter.  First, we should do all we can to insure that 
>S. 909 and other such bills do not pass Congress.  Second, 
>we should start randomly encrypting some of our e-mail 
>	Recently, Qualcomm, Inc. announced that they 
>have mated PGP with their very popular e-mail software, 
>Eudora Light and Eudora Pro.  We have not seen it yet, 
>but were told that it is very easy to use.
>	Regardless, we should all make an attempt to 
>tell the federal government that we will resist any and 
>all intrusions into our personal privacy.  We would never 
>consider giving government agents the keys to our house 
>and car, just in case they may want to snoop through our 
>stuff someday.  We shouldn't give them our encryption 
>keys so they can intercept our communications, either.
>	This Internet, made up of web pages, newsgroups, 
>e-mail "lists," and what have you, is an effective public 
>forum.  And generally, it is also an uncontrolled public 
>	To say the least, this is very disconcerting to 
>the political powers and the "establishment" media.  On 
>one hand, many politicians and their sycophants in the 
>media want strict controls placed on the flow of 
>information over the Internet.  On the other hand are the 
>courts, which for the moment support the free flow of 
>ideas found here.  Free speech, it's called.
>	Often, the Internet "scoops" the major media 
>on important news items by a day or two.  And sometimes, 
>a great deal of important information can be found here 
>that is not related by any major media source.
>	The problem is that a lot of "information" available 
>via the Internet is not sourced.  It cannot be verified.  
>Some is hear-say information, and sometimes it is just 
>obvious misinformation placed to cause unnecessary 
>concern.  So, unless you trust the sender, the rule should 
>always be 'reader beware.'
>	The courts struck down a law censoring information 
>on the Internet as a violation of free speech.  But the 
>courts did not say that anything goes here.  As with any 
>public forum, there are limits imposed by society.
>	One limit is that of slander, defamation of 
>character, and whatever else it may be called by the 
>legal-eagles.  In a public forum, it is necessary for one 
>to be somewhat careful about things we say about others.  
>It is very doubtful that the courts will allow defamation 
>of character to pass as free speech -- especially for 
>those who, at the press of a button, can instantly 
>transmit a message to a couple thousand people.
>	Normally, one can get away with saying a great 
>deal about public officials, especially if it has some 
>basis for truth.  For instance, we have called public 
>officials socialists, un-American, stupid, drunks, and a 
>few other rather unflattering things.  Those are all 
>public attributes -- mixed with a bit of opinion.
>	We do not, however, delve into the private 
>characteristics of public people.  For instance, we have 
>never written that Governor Clinton did some of his 
>shopping for sex at the local university.  That wouldn't 
>even be news, anyway.  Nor would we list the twenty-some 
>known drug abusers, the numerous gays, or those who go 
>off on alcoholic binges, working in the administration.
>	All that is their own personal problem, not 
>ours.  Our problem, our interest, is what they are doing 
>that affects normal American citizens, not how they 
>choose to categorize or abuse themselves in private.
>	So when we saw the Drudge Report saying Sidney 
>Blumenthal -- that Clinton media apologist who recently 
>turned White House aide -- has a spousal abuse past, we 
>	It is true that Blumenthal is a public figure, and 
>therefore open to most any ridicule in the press.  But, 
>was this pushing the envelope a little too far?  Probably 
>not, but it may be.  The problem is that you never really 
>know until you spend the money to get it to court.
>	The political-media cabal in Washington would 
>like nothing better than to stymie the flow of information 
>on the Internet.  Blumenthal is both political and media.  
>Therefore, he will be receiving encouragement from both 
>groups to pursue this case and put the Drudge Report out 
>of business.
>	To them, silencing the popular Matt Drudge 
>will provide the perfect "example" for the rest of us.  
>If they stop the Drudge Report, you can be sure other 
>lawsuits will follow.
>	Therefore, we must not let that happen.
>	The Occupational Safety and Health 
>Administration, -- the federal agency that demands long 
>warning labels (that no one ever reads) be affixed on 
>anything that looks like it may be used as a tool of some 
>sort -- does not follow its own rules and regulations.
>	OSHA is legendary for writing up businesses 
>for violation of all kinds of stupid regulations that 
>mean nothing to anyone with a little common sense.  
>They'll fine a business for silliness like a stairway 
>railing being one inch too low or water being on the 
>floor in a butcher shop.  OSHA has hundreds of rules, 
>regulations and standards they regularly bother businesses 
>with.  Most of them are nonsense, but they all come with 
>big fines attached.
>	Evidently though, they do not enforce serious 
>violations in their own buildings.  We know this because 
>the OSHA offices in West Virginia were closed for a few 
>days this week.  According to UPI, OSHA officials were 
>forced to send their workers home and shut down the 
>building because of harmful bacteria found in the office's 
>cooling system.
>	Whoops!  Poor maintenance and inspection 
>practices, resulting in bacteria growing in the office 
>cooling system.  Yup, Legionnaire's disease at the OSHA 
>	Wanna bet that no fines were imposed? 
>	Also this week came a message from FEMA.  
>Apparently, FEMA is picking up the slack for OSHA, 
>because the FEMA message informed us that: "The fire 
>safety features required by the Hotel and Motel Fire 
>Safety Act of 1990 can apply to colleges and universities."
>	The FEMA memo warned that:  "In a recent 
>opinion, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 
>General Counsel confirmed this policy.  The opinion 
>stated any establishment not owned by the federal 
>government used for activities funded fully or partially 
>with federal monies must have meeting facilities, rooms 
>and services that meet the fire prevention and control 
>guidelines under the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act."
>	As it turns out, FEMA is quietly getting so 
>large it now has its own agencies.  One is the U.S. Fire 
>Administration (USFA).  And, Administrator Carrye Brown, 
>the head of the USFA, writes that, "This law encourages 
>the lodging industry to improve the fire safety features 
>of its properties.  It limits federal government travelers 
>to stays in places of public accommodation that comply 
>with the law.  The federal government is also required to 
>only hold meetings in complying facilities.  Our General 
>Counsel has made it clear that for colleges and 
>universities this includes any dormitories or other 
>buildings used to house federal attendees at meetings, 
>conferences, or other activities."
>	She also said that they will be compiling a 
>list of complying universities and whatever, which will 
>be published at a later date.  Oh yeah . . . and she also 
>noted that regulatory changes will be published in the 
>Federal Register for comment.  Yup, we'll bet you can 
>count on that one to happen!
>	Now remember folks, this was from FEMA, not 
>OSHA.  Obviously, FEMA is branching out some.
>	There was some news from the Post Office, too.  
>Well, actually this time the news is coming from the 
>office of the Post Office's Inspector General.
>	The IG reports that a Marjorie Brown was 
>installed as postmaster last Jan. 10, in a ceremony held 
>in the Atlanta City Council chamber.  She is the first 
>woman to hold the Atlanta post, which oversees 45 post 
>offices and 2,400 employees.  So . . . they had a little 
>party to celebrate.  A $45,593 party!
>	First, they spent $21,348 to produce a video 
>about Ms. Brown's life, the IG report said.  An additional 
>$9,911 was spent on air fare for out-of-town postal 
>workers who attended -- and, of course, for the limousines 
>necessary to drive the guests to and from the party.
>	Then there was another $4,738 charge for a 
>photographer, audio-visual support and postage.  The 
>postage was necessary for the $2,405 worth of programs, 
>invitations and thank-you cards.  Rounding it off was the 
>$4,800 for the buffet lunch to feed the 300 attending the 
>party, and for the breakfast for 30.
>	The House subcommittee on the Postal Service 
>originally asked for the accounting.
>	This could give new meaning to the term "going postal."
>	By this time, most readers know that significant 
>action is being taken to fight the UNESCO and U.S. Man and 
>the Biosphere land grab program.  UNESCO already formed 
>two "International" biosphere reserves here in Kentucky, 
>and they are ultimately planning on grabbing about one-
>quarter of the State's land mass.  UNESCO has similar 
>plans for most states.
>	When we published this information over a year 
>ago, few people cared.  In fact, we were flamed by 
>international lawyers, college professors and assorted 
>liberals from around the world for about three weeks 
>straight.  Apparently, even though we write the truth, we 
>were wrong -- err, not politically correct -- for 
>mentioning the program.  That was supposed to be their 
>little leftist-liberal secret, and we went and blabbed to 
>the world.
>	What changed this year?  Well, first, a very 
>influential Kentucky State Senator noticed that his 
>family's 600 acre farm was smack dab in the middle of a 
>proposed biosphere. . .   Yeah, that helped some. . . .  
>	A resolution against the Bio-Diversity Treaty 
>(mandating hundreds of large biospheres in the United 
>States) and the UNESCO and U.S. Man and the Biosphere 
>Program sailed right through the Kentucky State Senate at 
>warp speed, without so much as one word of dissent!  You 
>see, when other State Senators started looking at that 
>UNESCO biosphere map, they did not like what they saw 
>	And, that's good news.  So last June, we took 
>the plunge and wrote about the subject again.  This time, 
>we received hundreds of letters of encouragement, and not 
>one flame.  We also helped Lance Crowe of the American 
>Constitutional Campaign Committee send out a very strong 
>press release, which was published in dozens of newspapers 
>around the country.
>	Then, a lot of you called Congress.  A LOT of 
>you contacted Congress!  Which, we should add, made a 
>difference.  Because, Congress added an amendment to 
>quite a few agency appropriations bills declaring that, 
>starting next year, no money may be funneled into the Man 
>and the Biosphere Program.
>	Your calls and letters put Congress on notice.  
>They got part of the job done last month.  Now, we want 
>them to finish the deal.  Oh, and incidentally, we also 
>want them to punish the wrongdoers in government -- and 
>there are quite a few.  Here's a quick wrap-up of why:
>	In the 1970's, the United States (Carter) joined 
>into limited agreements with UNESCO.  Part of that was to 
>form a few small biosphere reserves in the center of 
>national parks.  Thirteen federal regulatory agencies and 
>the State Department formed the U.S. and UNESCO Man and 
>the Biosphere Committee for that purpose.
>	By 1984, the Reagan administration noticed that 
>UNESCO was ripping American taxpayers off for hundreds of 
>millions of dollars annually, and we were getting nothing 
>in return.  So, we backed out of everything.  All 
>agreements were off.  All programs were canceled.  It was 
>all over.
>	However, that U.S. and UNESCO Man in the 
>Biosphere (MAB) Committee didn't see it that way.  They 
>just kept right on with the UNESCO plan, making biospheres 
>wherever they could get away with it.  Today, we have 94 
>biosphere reserves in the U.S., which have a total 
>combined land area (at least) the size of the State of 
>Colorado.  That is land which is no longer able to be 
>used by American citizens -- for any purpose.
>	Not only that, but they created buffer and 
>cooperation zones around the biospheres and placed strict 
>land-use regulations on the people living there.  All this 
>with no authority.  Remember, the MAB Committee should 
>not have even existed after 1984, let alone bothered 
>American citizens with all those land-use regulations.
>	Of course, the MAB Committee never bothered to 
>ask Congress if they could use federal land as biosphere 
>reserves.  Nor did they ever have authorization to spend 
>taxpayer funds on the project.  The fact is, the MAB 
>Committee misappropriated both the land and the money.  
>They had no authority.  And, as anyone who has ever been 
>in the military or worked for government knows, they broke 
>the law.
>	Kentucky State Senator Dick Roeding (whose 
>district is not affected by any existing or proposed 
>biospheres) noticed that misappropriation point even 
>before we presented all of the information to him.  He 
>volunteered to tell his colleagues at this week's annual 
>American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Convention.  
>And, since there will be about 2,500 state legislators 
>from around the country there, we expect there might be a 
>little action forthcoming.
>	ALEC, for those of you who don't know, is a 
>national, Tenth Amendment, Jeffersonnian type group of 
>State legislators.  They are very interested in this type 
>of thing.  So . . . when Senator Roeding called to see if 
>he could get on the agenda to present this, he got a "yes" 
>back within about five minutes.  It was presented to the 
>Task Force on Property Rights yesterday.  If they approve, 
>it goes before the group as a whole.  If the group as a 
>whole approves, they collectively "inform" Congress.
>	In that case, they will inform Congress that 
>the U.S. and UNESCO Man in the Biosphere Program 
>must end now.  They will also call for a Congressional 
>Investigation into why this unauthorized MAB Committee 
>was allowed to function for thirteen years, and harass 
>American people.
>	And maybe, just maybe, the misappropriation 
>angle will also be approved.  Regardless, we voters can 
>push that aspect of the problem.  Because, once an 
>investigation starts, they will have to ask where all the 
>money was coming from all these years.  Everyone in 
>Congress already knows, of course.  But, by actually 
>admitting under oath that they diverted unauthorized 
>funds into an unauthorized program, they will have 
>admitted to a federal crime.
>	That should put a lot of federal bureaucrats -- 
>regulators, one and all -- out of work at once.  It may 
>even lead to a few going to prison.
>	We might also add at this time that there are 
>30 to 40 other such frauds perpetrated by the far left on 
>the American public via the federal regulatory 
>bureaucracy.  This biosphere business is just the most 
>visible of the unauthorized programs at the moment.  A 
>win by the American people on this matter will have a very 
>interesting domino effect on the others.
>	So, if your legislator suddenly starts looking 
>like he or she wants to lead this "dump the biosphere" 
>parade, please encourage them.  In fact, line up behind 
>them and make sure they don't stop till you're sure that 
>it's all over.
>	Next week, it will be time to get cards and 
>letters to Congress ready.  A simple handwritten postcard 
>to your three Members of Congress is all that will be 
>necessary.  This is important, too.  It looks like we can 
>see the end on this one, folks.  One or two more big pushes 
>and it looks like we're there.
>			-- End --
>Lance R. Crowe, Chairman
>American Constitutional Campaign Committee
>5300 Scottsville Road
>P.O. Box 51851
>Bowling Green KY 42102-6851
>Visit our web site at:

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