Time: Wed Sep 24 17:25:02 1997 by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA18082; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:47:41 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:47:21 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Paper Terrorism (fwd) <snip> > >Kim, > >Thank you your excellent response to Karen Schmidt. > >Harold Thomas >http://www.halcyon.com/harold/ > >> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 22:28:57 -0400 > >> Dear Karen Schmidt, >> >> Your article on "Paper Terrorism" was recently posted on the internet >> and I read this with complete fascination. Surely you can't be THAT >> clueless in regards to why there is a "noticeable increase in the >> number of people across the country who have joined and continue to >> participate in the anti-government movement." >> >> You state that you believe that "seminars and recruitment meetings" >> fuel the trends in the anti-government movement. In your article >> you seem AMAZED that people view themselves as "systematically >> oppressed by an illegal, totalitarian government" and also AMAZED >> that people "believe the time for traditional political reform has >> passed." >> >> Actually, the anti-government movement is not a movement against >> government, but a movement back to the Constitution of the United States >> and the laws of the land. If you had done any real research behind >> your statements, you would have found this to be fact. >> >> I think from this point on, I will refer to this movement as the >> Constitutionalist movement. I consider myself to be a Constitutional >> conservative. You are right about the fact that Biblical passages are >> often used in our discussions. This is because the Constitutional >> movement is based on Biblical principles. These principles are at >> the very foundation of our core beliefs. >> >> For instance, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill >> of Rights, state that these rights are "God given" rights. These are >> not "permissions" of our government. These are rights given to us >> by our God, and the government cannot infringe on these rights. >> >> When the Constitutionalist movement state that it opposes the UN >> movement, this is because the Charter of the UN lists basically the >> same rights, but proclaims the rights are given by "permission" from >> the governing body (not God). For instance, if you consider the >> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18, >> 3rd paragraph, it states: >> >> "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs >> may be subject only to such limitations as are >> prescribed by law and are necessary to protect >> public safety, order, health, or morals or the >> fundamental rights and freedoms of others." >> >> So, it states that the freedom of religion is subject to limitations >> prescribed by law to protect "morals". Morals? Huh? Our Constitution >> states that the freedom of religion is a God given right. Not a right >> given by "permission" of the governing body. >> >> Now turn to Article 19, paragraph 2. This article states, >> >> "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of >> expression; this right shall include freedom to >> seek, receive and impart information and ideas >> of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either >> orally, in writing or in print...." >> >> But then later states: >> >> "...these shall only be such as are provided >> by law..." >> >> Our Constitution states that we shall have the right of freedom >> of speech, freedom of press, etc., and these freedoms are given >> by God, not "permissions" given by a governing body. >> >> Belief in God, and the fact that our rights are God given is at the >> core of the Constitutionalist movement. >> >> On other note, is it any wonder that the Constitutionalist movement >> believes our government is an oppressive, illegal, totalitarian regime? >> I will provide you with some examples which can be backed up by fact >> should you take the time to research these events. Please take the >> time to research these to verify for yourself their validity. It would >> be quite an eye-opener for you. >> >> A current example of an oppressive government even can be found at: >> http://www.qui-tam.com >> This is a story of a family who have experienced and are still >> experiencing much oppression at the hands of our government. A short >> summary of their story goes like this: >> >> The Sweeneys inherited a rather large piece of property from their >> relatives, and their family has been generally wealthy for many >> generations. The Sweeneys, though, were not generally wealthy >> and have to provide for themselves by actually working like "normal" >> people. They had a lot of bills accumulated, and decided that in >> order to pay off these bills, it would be good to sell off some of >> this land after placing some large, rather expensive homes on them. >> They went to a bank called ComFed and explained their indebtedness >> and showed them their plan to subdivide their property, build houses >> on it, then sell the property and homes, then pay off their bills >> and the loan they were presently seeking. >> >> Comfed basically agreed that this was a good plan, gave the Sweeneys >> a loan, and made them sign an agreement that the Sweeneys would not try >> to get a construction loan from any other bank (huge penalties if they >> did). The Sweeneys then got the re-zoning done and subdivided the >> property. They then came back to ComFed to request their construction >> loan to begin building the homes. ComFed then refused to give them a >> construction loan. The Sweeneys could not get a construction loan >> anywhere >> else, as they had already accumulated the previous bills and the present >> subdividing loan to pay off, on top of the penalty of getting a >> construc- >> tion loan somewhere else. Basically, ComFed set them up for failure in >> order to acquire their property. >> >> The Sweeneys took ComFed to court and Judge Izzo saw many irregularities >> regarding the way that ComFed did business, and in particular how they >> handled the Sweeney situation and awarded the Sweeneys approx $4 million >> for fraudulent practices by ComFed. See the court documents on the >> web page above and read the reasoning of Judge Izzo why she made the >> judgment for the Sweeneys and against ComFed. The Sweeneys still had >> to pay back the $1.6 million of the original loan amount (I believe with >> interest), as this is only fair. So, basically ComFed owed the Sweeneys >> ~$4 M - $1.6 M = $2.4 Million. >> >> Then ComFed went bankrupt (I assume so they would not have to pay the >> Sweeneys the $2.4 Million), never paying the Sweeneys their judgment. >> The FDIC/RTC took receivership of the failed ComFed bank. The FDIC >> now basically says the judgment by Judge Izzo is obsolete, and that >> the Sweeneys owe them $1.6 million dollars. The FDIC asserts that >> the judgment rendered by Judge Izzo was too late, in that the FDIC >> acquired this "receivership" before the judgement and renders it totally >> obsolete. This is not true, as the judgement came before the RTC/FDIC >> took over. Also, what's really interesting is that ComFed really didn't >> go bankrupt!!! From what I understand, ComFed Mortgage is still alive >> and well, and the judgment by Judge Izzo was toward ComFed Bank and >> ComFed Mortgage. See the web page for all the details. It goes on and >> on and on. >> >> Well, the Sweeneys have appealed to their Senators, Congressmen, etc., >> but to no avail. They have appealed to the FDIC/RTC to look into the >> judgment by Judge Izzo. They refuse to believe Judge Izzo's ruling, >> probably because this would be a huge land grab for the FDIC/RTC, and >> they could sell this off at a huge profit to them, especially if they >> take the time to build homes on the property. They would stand to make >> a killing! They have supposedly agreed to a mediator to settle this >> dispute, but the FDIC has post-poned this meeting three times. Could >> it be they are attempting to bribe the mediator? Could it be they are >> desperately searching for a loophole? Whatever the case, I'm sure it >> is not in the Sweeney's best interest to prolong this. Years go by. >> They're (the Sweeneys are) trying resolve things peacefully, but the >> FDIC has called upon the US Marshalls to evict them. The Sweeneys are >> afraid to leave their home. >> >> Any wonder why people don't want to seek traditional means to settle >> their disputes? No quick justice. Sometimes no justice at all... >> >> Another example of an oppressive totalitarian government is the Ruby >> Ridge example. Randy Weaver's son and a friend are walking along a >> path by their house with their dog. The US Marshall fires and kills >> the dog. They are in camoflage and hidden, and the boys do not know >> who is firing, does not know who killed their dog. They fire and turn >> to run home. Randy's son gets shot in the back and in the arm, >> instantly >> killing him. The other boy, Kevin Harris, turns and fires again and >> continues to run back to safety within the cabin. When running into >> the cabin, the government sniper fires at him and hits Randy's wife >> dead on. She dies holding her baby in her arms. All this over a sawed >> off shotgun! All this over a missed court hearing--in which case they >> sent out the wrong date on the subpeona! Isn't this just a little bit >> oppressive? Did any government official get fired/prosecuted over >> the deaths of Randy's wife and son? Did Randy's wife and son commit >> the crime? Did the level of force fit the crime? Give me a break! >> Yes, I know, Lon Horiuchi is being tried for "manslaughter" in Idaho >> (because our federal government didn't think he did anything wrong). >> Kevin Harris faced a federal trial for murder and was acquitted, but >> now is going to be prosecuted again in Idaho for the same crime (isn't >> this double jeopardy?). >> >> Another example of an oppressive, totalitarian example is the crime at >> Waco. Our government basically killed over 80 innocent men, women, and >> children. Our government thought Koresh had illegal weapons. Why not >> approach Koresh at the door and give him the search warrant? He had >> been investigated before and had cooperated peacefully. He had no >> history of violence. From what I have been able to find out, there >> was a person who was involved with the church who was a gun collector. >> Gun collectors are legally able to have illegal weapons as long as they >> pay the $200 tax. From what I have been able to gather, the tax was >> not paid and this is why the BATF came upon them. Why did the search >> warrant state that they believed an amphetamine lab was located on the >> property when they had sent in an informant and he knew that was not >> the case? Because they wanted to violate the Posse Comitatus Act >> (US Code Title 18, Section 1385) and use military weapons against the >> Branch Davidians. Our government said that no weapons were fired down >> from the helicopters--NOT TRUE. Our government said that the Branch >> Davidians fired first--NOT TRUE--the federal agents again shot the dogs >> first. Our government said that CS gas is not flammable--NOT TRUE (A >> note in the Manual for Civil Disturbance Operations, Army Institute >> for Professional Development states, "Do not fire a dispenser indoors >> when using dry riot control agents (CS gas). Open flame or a spark >> can cause a dust explosion." Since the power was turned off at Mt. >> Carmel, they knew they were using lanterns. There is more and more >> and more to this episode, but you would have to do your own research >> to find out the amazing truth! This is most assuredly an example >> of our government at its worst! >> >> Other items to indicate our government's oppressive, totalitarian >> characteristics is the fact that it passed the Electronic Communications >> Act, which basically states the FBI can monitor communications if they >> believe a circumstance is an emergency situation. No where does it >> state that the FBI has to PROVE there is an emergency. They can monitor >> for 48 hours without a warrant, disregarding the Constitution of the >> United States and various state Constitutions which require a warrant >> first (probable cause). Since no one will know when they begin the >> monitoring, how will they know that the agents monitored for only 48 >> hours? Why couldn't they start and stop over and over again (if >> necessary) to keep monitoring longer? This is totally against the >> 4th Amendment. >> >> Note: This is totally against the Pennsylvania Constitution >> also, as our Constitution states that a warrant is required >> before any search and seizure can take place. I wrote our >> Attorney General and asked if he would prosecute should he >> find the FBI (or anyone else for that matter) wiretapping >> without a warrant. Their response to me was that they >> could not give out legal opinions. Right! :\ >> >> I could go on and on, but I think I will stop here as this is probably >> boring you to death! Basically what the American people are beginning >> to see is that our government is completely unaccountable to anyone >> for their acts against our Constitution and other laws such as: >> >> 1. Illegally seizing assets and property, i.e., FDIC against >> the Sweeneys, probably some IRS examples too. >> 2. Illegally serving search warrants. Warrants don't exist, >> are signed by judges outside of the jurisdiction, warrants >> aren't signed at all, warrants based on facts they know to >> be untrue, i.e., Waco. >> 3. Illegal wiretapping without a warrant. >> 4. Committing heinous crimes without accountability, i.e., >> killing Branch Davidians, killing Randy Weaver's wife and >> son. >> 5. Breaking the law if it serves their purpose, i.e., campaign >> finance solicitation on government property, selling the >> Lincoln bedroom and arranging appointments with the President >> for a price. Soliciting funds from foreign governments. >> Obstruction of justice in not allowing the Parks Police >> into Vince Foster's office after his suicide/murder. Possible >> Whitewater involvement, since basically all their friends >> and acquaintances surrounding this deal have been convicted >> of crimes. >> 6. Using government agencies for their own political goals, i.e., >> IRS investigating Paul Jones and the FBI files to find out >> dirt regarding the opposition. >> >> I probably have missed some things, but if you total it all up it >> stinks, and the American public is becoming aware of it in spite of >> our mainstream media dancing around these crimes as if they are >> "nothing". >> Our justice system is based on if you commit the crime, you do the time. >> BUT NO ONE IS PROSECUTING. INVESTIGATIONS/HEARINGS ARE A SHAM. Reports >> are untrue. >> >> We've had Whitewater hearings, hearings over Vince Foster, Campaign >> Finance hearings, Waco hearings, Ruby Ridge hearings, FBI file hearings, >> etc., etc. Is it no wonder that the American public are starting to >> think that the time for the standard approach, the "traditional >> political >> reform" has passed, since it doesn't matter who is in office? The same >> shenanigans continue. >> >> Next time, before you write an article, try to understand what/whom you >> are writing about. A little research would do you good. >> >> Best regards, >> >> --Kim Martin ======================================================================== 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