Time: Sat Oct 18 09:19:27 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA29141;
	Sat, 18 Oct 1997 09:17:45 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA23259;
	Sat, 18 Oct 1997 09:14:32 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd023256; Sat Oct 18 09:14:14 1997
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 09:15:06 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Concentration Camps Part 2 (fwd)

>     Psycho-politics is the art and science of asserting and of
>     maintaining a dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of
>     individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses, and the effecting
>     of the conquest of enemy nations through mental healing. You
>     must work... until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or
>     knowingly teaching only communistic doctrine under the guise
>     of psychology.
>If you look at the Russian manual of instruction of psycho-
>political warfare, we see in chapter 9;
>     Psycho-political operations should at all times be alert to
>     the opportunities to organize for the betterment of the
>     community mental health centers.
>Now, under the new national Mental Health program at this moment
>there are more than 600 of these community mental health centers
>across the United States. The whole thing was promoted by Dr.
>Stanley F. Yoles (phonetic spelling), who was the director of the
>National Institute of Mental Health in 1969. And he stated back
>then, that the newest trend in treating mental illness is care at
>local health care centers where the patient is not isolated from
>his (or her) family and friends. They have been working on this
>program for 46 years publicly. Now across the U.S through your tax
>dollars you have 603 centers (to be exact); Community Health
>Centers that are all part of this program.
>And this is how they are part of the program (it has already
>happened): In the mid-1950s, there were set into motion an
>interesting chain of events. About 1956 the Alaska Mental Health
>Bill was proposed and later passed. It granted approximately 12
>million dollars, and 1 million acres of public land to Alaska so
>that it could develop its own mental health program. Now this was
>a little abnormal since Alaska only had a little over 400 people
>who were classified as mentally ill!
>After the bill was passed, Alaska passed its own enabling
>legislation to get into the mental health business. They started by
>adopting the essential elements of the Public Health Service Draft
>Act on the hospitalization of the mentally ill in the old
>"Interstate Compact on Mental Health", now called the Uniform
>Mental Health Act. There were no provisions for jury trial in it or
>anything else. You would just be picked up and taken to the
>Alaskan-Siberian Asylum incommunicado and the state would also
>confiscate all of your personal and real property! And they
>actually tried to do it in 1954 in the case of Ford vs. Milinak
>(phonetic spelling), which declared the act as adopted in another
>state (Missouri) as unconstitutional.
>But the act itself still exists, modified, but essentially in the
>same form, the Uniform Mental Health Act to which approximately 6
>states subscribe. And in passing most State Constitutions, if you
>will check them from the period of 1935, made a part of their
>constitution the practice of having a person submit to a 90-day
>mental examination to determine his (or her) sanity, without any
>provisions for a trial by jury. This was part of the national
>program at that time.
>In this act, the governor could have anyone picked up and sent to
>the Mental Health Institution in Alaska or elsewhere. The result as
>rumors back in the '50s, were that there was in fact a sinister,
>Frankenstein-type mental health prison in Alaska. I wrote to Alaska
>(the officials that is) and asked them for a description of the
>land of 1 million acres that they were eligible to receive, under
>the Alaska Mental Health Act, were. And I also asked them for a
>copy of the inventory they ran for their facilities back at that
>same time. Well, so far no answer. And probably, I will never
>receive an answer without a court order.
>But through the years, there was a spot in Alaska that was
>continually referred to: Southeast of Fairbanks; southwest of
>Fairbanks; northwest of Fairbanks; somewhere near Fairbanks. Then
>I received information that a pilot had flown over the area once
>and had his license revoked. And so, for $1.85 each, I ordered the
>low-level navigation maps from the federal government for Alaska
>and located the Alaska-Siberian Asylum for the treatment of enemies
>of the United States. It's right where rumor over the past 20 years
>had placed it: Southwest of Fairbanks. It stands out like a sore
>thumb! It's the only one of that geometric configuration within the
>sate of Alaska, and you will note a black line running up through
>Fairbanks and down over near that area of the map. That is the
>railroad that the Department of Transportation would take the
>emergency operation of, under the Executive Order, if the Executive
>Order went into effect. And H.E.W. would be responsible for making
>a determination of whether or not you were mentally disturbed
>because of your nationalistic tendencies, your love for the United
>States, or your adherence to any political or religious doctrine.
>But let's look a little further into the type of program that the
>L.E.A.A. is paying for through the Department of Justice. The
>Federal Bureau of Prisons, located in the backwoods of North
>Carolina, near a tiny village called Butner, is constructing a
>mammoth 42 acre research complex for prisoners from throughout the
>East. Who will be sent for experiments to test new behavioral
>programs and techniques? Target date for completion of the entire
>system is ironically 1984.
>And so, they're using right now, under the L.E.A.A. program,
>something called anectine (Phonetic spelling). Punishment for
>troublesome behavior within the prison is being done by drugs and
>shock, likely to be the most selected examples of programs that
>have made use of anectine, a derivative of South American curare.
>Anectine was originally used as a beginning factor to electro-
>convulsive shock. Such shocks applied to the bead are so strong
>they can break and graze bones under the strain of resulting muscle
>contractions. Since anectine paralyzed the muscles without
>dampening consciousness or the ability to feel pain, by first
>injecting the inmates with it, researchers can turn up the voltage
>as high as they want without cracking the inmates' skeleton when
>his body is thrown into convulsions by the jolt.
>What the anectine does, in short, is to simulate death within 30 to
>40 seconds of injection. It brings on paralysis first with the
>small rapidly moving muscles in the nose, fingers and eyes, and
>then in the diaphragm and the cardiovascular system. As a result,
>the patient cannot move or breathe and yet remains fully conscious,
>as though drowning and dying. This is from the 1974 publication,
>'Human Behavior'.            
>The federal government answered my suit in June (1976) by filing an
>unsworn general denial of everything that I had alleged. I spoke
>with the assistant U.S. Attorney in charge of the case and asked
>him if he had gone to the trouble to call any of the parties
>mentioned in the suits. since I had provided not only the
>addresses, but their telephone numbers to provide a faster means of
>investigation. He said he had not. He had not even done a minimal
>amount of investigation of the case, but yet he filed a denial of
>my allegations.
>I filed a motion in the meantime to take the deposition of the
>person who writes the training programs for the concentration camp
>guards, Mr. Richard Burrage, the 75th Maneuver Air Command at Army
>Reserve Center at Houston, Texas, stating that in light of all the
>recent activity of government agents, one of the agencies involved
>might attempt to murder this key witness, the author of the
>training camp program. The federal Judge denied my motion, stating
>that I had not quoted enough cases to him justifying my request.
>However, he was also aware as that there were no cases existing on
>this set of facts, but as you will see as I go along with this
>report, he chose to ignore it.
>I then made an agreement with the assistant U.S. Attorney to take
>the deposition to Mr. Burrage. After I'd made the arrangements, the
>U.S. Attorney refused to voluntarily go along with taking the
>deposition. It is very difficult to find justice in our system of
>Law is usually practiced by the "buddy system", hence the court
>rules are overlooked or not followed.
>On July 20, a hearing was held at the magistrates of Norman Black
>U.S. District Court in Houston. The courtroom was completely filled
>with spectators. And although the news media had been contacted, no
>representatives of the press were there. There is a news media
>blackout on this matter here in Houston.
>Brief oral arguments were presented. The U.S. Attorney explained
>that I was not the proper person to bring the suit because, although
>the free exercise of my constitutional rights was threatened by the
>concentration camp program as alleged, it did not constitute my
>injury. The magistrate was impressed with the information I had
>thus far collected and stated that he would bring it to the
>attention of the federal judge. The U.S. Attorney tried to have my
>investigation of the case halted, but the magistrate would not go
>along that far with a pre-arranged decision.
>As an additional indication of what I was up against, the original
>hearing was scheduled for 10:30 in the morning. However, the U.S.
>Attorney had secretly had the time changed to 2:30 in the
>afternoon. The magistrate gave the U.S. Attorney permission to file
>for motion to dismiss because he felt that the concentration camp
>program, to be used for persons who exercise their freedom of
>speech, did not present any injury.
>Now, on July 23 I had placed in the 'Houston Post' and in the
>'Houston Chronicle' newspapers the following advertisement in the
>legal section. Quote: "Solicitation for witnesses in Civil Action
>78-H-667, Federal District Court of Houston, People extemporal
>William Pabst vs. Gerald Ford et al. The action titled:
>     Complaint Against the Concentration Camp Program of the Dept.
>     of Defense. Attention: If you have participated in Operation
>     Garden Plot, Operation Cable Splicer, the 300th Military
>     Police Prisoner of War Command, or the Army Reserve Civil
>     Affairs group, you may be involved in a program that needs to
>     be deposed for this suit. To give your testimony call or
>     write; (and here I placed my name address and telephone number).
>As I previously mentioned, there is a news media blackout on the
>story here in Houston. Both newspapers refused to carry the ad.
>First at the 'Houston Post'; I had to threaten them with a law suit
>to carry out the ad, even though I was paying for it. And then at
>the 'Chronicle'; I had to meet with the president and various vice
>presidents because a refusal from that paper had come up from their
>own lawyers. Both newspapers finally carried it, but only after two
>days of complaining. The initial response of both papers was; "We
>don't carry stories like that", and; "Don't you think that the
>people planning the concentration camps have our best interests in
>mind?" As you will hear for yourselves, the policies definitely do
>not reflect our best interests.
>The next event that occurred was that the U.S. Attorney filed a
>"Statement of Authority", showing the reasons that he could find
>why I should not be allowed to take depositions to get more
>information from the person who was writing the concentration camp
>guard training program. However, his brief was completely filled
>with misquotes of the law from many cases. He'd mention the case
>and then invent whatever the case should say. In my brief to the
>court at this point, I notified the judge of the violation of the
>law requiring honesty in such matters. But the notification was
>ignored by the judge, who apparently sanctioned this most dishonest
>of acts commonly known as "quoting out of context".                 
>My brief filed on August 27. On August 31, formal arguments were
>set. The new courtroom of the magistrate was almost filled again.
>However, no one from the news media showed up for this hearing
>either. The few who were contacted had been told not to go; they
>would lose their jobs.
>At the hearing I introduced evidence that heretofore had never been
>introduced in any court of law in the U.S. The U.S. Attorney had
>denied, you will remember, everything in my suit without so much as
>even a tiny investigation. So I introduced him to evidence the
>following letter from the Department of the Army, Office of the
>Deputy Chief of Staff of Personnel, signed by; I.B. Sergeant,
>Colonel G.S., Acting Director of Human Resources Development.
>     On behalf of President Ford, I am replying to your letter 27
>     May, 1976, regarding a news article in the Dallas Morning
>     News. As much as he would like to, the president cannot reply
>     personally to every communication he receives. Therefore, he
>     has asked the departments and agencies of the federal
>     government in those instances where they have special
>     knowledge or special authority under law.
>     For this reason your communication was forwarded to officials
>     of the Dept. of Defense. Within the Dept. of Defense, the Army
>     is responsible for custody and treatment of enemy prisoners of
>     war and civilian internees as defined under terms of the
>     Geneva Convention of 1949. Therefore, the Army is prepared to
>     detain prisoners of war and detainees as defined in Article IV
>     of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of
>     prisoners of war and protection of civilian persons.
>     It is U.S. policy that its Armed Forces adhere to the
>     provisions of international law to set the example for other
>     countries of the world to follow and respecting the right and
>     dignity of those who become victim of international conflict.
>     It should be noted that the Army program is designed for
>     implementation during conditions of war between the U.S. and
>     one or more foreign countries. The Army had no plans nor does
>     it maintain detention camps to imprison American citizens
>     during domestic crises.
>The problem with this letter is that it's not true, and that's what
>I'm going to discuss at this point. First of all, in verifying the
>authenticity of the claims in the letter, I checked the Geneva text
>and there is no article in the Geneva Convention entitled as the
>letter states. There is, however, on each of the classifications;
>"Protection of War Victims/Civilian Persons" and a separate article
>on "Prisoners of War". That was the first discrepancy. Then I
>turned to Article IV of the Geneva Convention. That article did not
>set up any requirements or authorizations for military units of any
>type and does not even suggest it. Hence, the second discrepancy.
>The next problem with the letter from President Ford's
>representative is that it states that he prisoner of war guard
>program is set up for the implementation for "conditions of war
>between the U.S. and one or more (foreign) countries." However,
>Article III of the Geneva Convention reads that the treaty applies
>to (and I am quoting): "In case of an armed conflict not of an
>international character, occurring within the territory of one of
>the high contracting parties." Obviously and armed conflict
>occurring within one's own territory did not mean between one or
>more of the parties to the treaty, especially if only one is
>involved. Now, the examples of this type of conflict are: civil
>war, armed insurgency and guerrilla activities. In other words,
>they're speaking of a domestic conflict.
>An even more shocking item is found in the last pages of the 1949
>Geneva Convention under "Protection of War Victims/Civilian
>Persons". You will find the index card, the identification card,
>forms to be used for writing your family, and everything necessary
>for the administration of a concentration camp is contained in this
>treaty that the U.S. signed and ratified. Further, if there is a
>conflict in the U.S. involving only the U.S. this convention or
>treaty can go into operation; which includes the procedures for
>setting up the concentration camps.
>Article LXVIII of the Convention states (and I paraphrase): If you
>commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the occupying
>power, not harming the life or limb of members of the occupying
>power, but merely talking against such a force, such as the Martial
>Law situation, you can be imprisoned provided that the duration of
>such imprisonment is proportional to he offense committed. Well,
>President Dwight Eisenhower didn't feel that provision was strong
>enough. So he had the following additions placed in the treaty,
>which states: "The U.S. reserves the right to impose the death
>penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article LXVIII without
>regard to whether the offenses referred to therein are punishable
>by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the
>occupation begins."
>So not only can you be imprisoned for having exercised freedom of
>speech; you can be put to death under the provisions of the Geneva
>Convention in 1949 for having exercised, or attempting to exercise,
>freedom of speech.
>The next item that I introduced into evidence was a field manual;
>FM 41-10, "Civil Affairs Operation". You will remember at the
>outset that I mentioned Civil Affairs groups. Let me quote to you
>from that manual what one of the functions of the Civil Affairs
>activities includes:
>     Item 4. Assumption of full or partial executive, legislative
>     and judicial authority over a country or area.
>So let's see what a "country or area" is defined as in the same
>manual. It includes:
>     small towns and rural areas, municipalities of various
>     population sizes, districts, counties, provinces or states,
>     regions of national government.
>Nowhere in the manual does it exclude this program from being put
>into effect right here in the United States. As a matter of fact in
>Kearny, New Jersey, the Civil Affairs group went into that area and
>practiced taking over that governmental unit. And yet the Army in
>its letter of June 16-states that these programs are not for us.
>Yet they are practiced here in the United States under conditions
>that can only occur here at home.
>The study outline of field manual, FM 41-10 on page j-24 under
>"Penal Institutions 1-B", you see there is a program on
>concentration camps and labor camps-number, location and capacity.
>It is important to note that a concentration camp and a labor camp
>are always located near each other, for obvious reasons.
>Again on page d-4 of the same manual you'll find a sample receipt
>for seized property; a sample receipt written in English and
>containing terminology applicable to only U.S. territory.
>On page 8-2 of the same manual, under the heading "Tables of
>Organization and Equipment", we find that there are 3 other
>organizations that would be working along with the Civil Affairs
>operation: The Chemical Service Organization, the Composite Service
>Organization, and the Psychological Operations Organization, along
>with the various Civil Affairs organizations.
>In July of that year (1976), the following Civil Affairs groups met
>with the following airborne groups at a staging area in Fort
>Chaffee, Arkansas. A staging area is where military units meet
>before they go into action. They met with the 82nd Airborne and
>part of the 101st Airborne; the 32nd Civil Affairs group of San
>Antonio, Texas headquarters; the 362nd Civil Affairs brigade from
>Dallas, Texas; the 431st Civil Affairs company from Little Rock
>Arkansas headquarters; the 306th Civil Affairs group, U.S. Army
>Reserves, Fayetteville, Arkansas commanded by Lt. Colonel N.
>McQuire (phonetic spelling) and William Highland. The 486th Civil
>Affairs company from Tulsa, Oklahoma; the 418th Civil Affairs
>company from Kansas City, MO.; the 307th Civil Affairs group from
>St. Louis, MO.; the 490th Civil Affairs group from Abilene, Tex.;
>the 413th company from Hanlin, La; the 12th S.S. group, 2nd
>Battalion (headquarters unknown).
>They're ready to go into action. The problem is as it appears they
>were ready to take over the entire government of the United States
>as their mission sets out. One man who attended this staging area
>talked to a Civil Affairs sergeant and asked him what his job was.
>The sergeant explained that the civilians of this country will
>really be surprised some day when the Civil Affairs groups begin to
>operate the government.
>Now the Dept. of the Army still maintains that all this is not for
>the United States, yet this training continues here for us. The
>evidence is overwhelming; the plan exists for the imprisonment of
>millions of U.S. citizens. And even through all this information
>was presented to the federal magistrate, he still felt that no one
>was injured by such a plot.
>On the 2nd day of September, 1976, the magistrate recommended to
>the federal judge that the case be dismissed. And the sole basis
>for his reasoning to dismiss was that we have to be actually
>physically injured before we can maintain a law suit of this type.
>He did not feel that although all this active planing, preparation
>and training was going on, that any U.S. citizen had been injured
>even though the citizen may fear exercising his or her freedom for
>fear of being detained and imprisoned in a concentration camp at a
>later date.               
>The case of Tatum B. Laird, heard before the Supreme Court in 1974,
>is a case in point. It involved the Army intelligence collecting
>apparatus, which was developing a list of names of persons who the
>Army felt were troublesome. The Supreme Court held that the making
>of lists of this type did not of and by itself present any
>injuries. The minority opinion in that case was that the injury in
>the case with a program such as this made people afraid to use
>their freedom of speech for fear of being sent to jail for it. But
>the majority did not buy that argument.
>The difference between that case and this case although we also
>have the computer program, is that we have something much further
>past that point; the concentration camp guard program and the Civil
>Affairs program for the taking over of all functions of our
>government. In light of that the federal judge said that this is
>not an injury. As a matter of fact the U.S. Attorney alleged that
>even if people were placed in concentration camps, if they were all
>treated the same they would still not have the right to go to
>federal court.
>On the 20th day of September, I filed a memorandum to notify the
>magistrate and the federal judge that I had discovered that the
>federal government had a program for a number of years to suspend
>our constitutional right of the writ of habeas corpus. This
>information substantiated the complaint. Habeas corpus is the name
>of that legal instrument utilized to bring someone before a judge
>when that person is being illegally imprisoned or detained so that
>he (or she) may obtain his (or her) freedom. The Constitution
>states that the writ of habeas corpus shall never be suspended.
>I found the disturbing information in a report; 94-755, 94th
>Congress, 2nd Session Senate, April 26th, 1976, entitled
>"Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans Book II". On
>page 17-d, entitled "First Amendment Rights", the report states
>that more importantly "the government surveillance activities in
>the aggregate, whether expressly intended to do so, to deter the
>exercise of First Amendment rights by American citizens who become
>aware of the government's domestic intelligence program."
>Beginning on page 54 it is stated that, beginning in 1946, four
>years before the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 was passed, the
>FBI advised the Attorney General that it had secretly compiled a
>secret index of potentially dangerous persons. The Justice Dept.
>then made tentative plans for emergency detention based on
>suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
>Department officials deliberately avoided going to Congress. When
>the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 was passed, it did not
>authorize the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. But shortly
>after passage of that act according to a bureau document, Attorney
>General J.R. McGraft told the FBI to disregard it and to proceed
>with the program as previously outlined.
>A few sentences later on page 55 it states, "With the security
>index, use broader standards to determine potential dangerousness
>than those described in the statute." And unlike the act,
>Department plans provided for issuing a master search warrant and
>a master arrest warrant. This is the center importance: It is the
>same thing that I am alleging in federal court, yet the magistrate
>chose to ignore these facts also.
>We have government officials not only ignoring the will of
>Congress, but doing the opposite of what the Constitution provides
>by planning illegally for the suspension of the writ of habeas
>corpus. In addition, as mentioned before, the master search warrant
>and the master arrest warrant are forms fed into the computer,
>which print the names and addresses on them from the tapes
>previously prepared by the intelligence-gathering program.
>As you are arrested, your home will be searched and anything found
>there may be confiscated. This program has existed since 1946 up to
>and including 1973, and without proper access to judicial discovery
>techniques, it can't be determined whether the same plan now exists
>under the same name or under another name right now.
>This memorandum was filed on September 28 to make the court aware
>of the danger that our rights of freedom of speech and lawful
>assembly are in. But the court, on September 30, after this
>notification was received, dismissed the case. However, in keeping
>with the practice of federal courts in Houston of actively
>participating in the obstruction of justice, I was not notified of
>the dismissal until the 6th of October, which gave me just 2
>working days to submit any further motion in a 10-day period before
>time starts running for the appeal.
>What I have just said regarding the federal courts in Houston is
>not only my opinion; the 'Houston Chronicle', surprisingly,
>published an extensive document severely criticizing the federal
>court in Houston for making up their own rules as they go along
>with the proceeding, as well as commenting on the communist-like
>Supreme Court attitude of the judges and court personnel. My
>experience here has been that the court has returned to me almost
>every document I filed. Then after a big argument they reaccept the
>document, stating that they just made a mistake. In reality, the
>Power structure doesn't want these type of cases in any federal
>On the 8th of October, I had submitted a request for finding the
>facts in the filing which had been established by the evidence
>     1) The 300th Military Police POW Command is located at
>     Livonia, Mich.
>     2) The Dept. of the Army has stated that said Command exists
>     per se the Geneva Convention of 1949, a treaty of the U.S.,
>     Article IV thereof under the title relative to the treatment
>     of prisoners of war and protection of civilian persons.
>     3) No such title exists in the Geneva Convention per se.
>     4) There are separate titles, one which is;
>          a. Multilateral Protection of War Victims/Prisoners of
>          War;
>          b. Multilateral Protection of War Victim/Civilian
>          Persons.
>     5) Nevertheless, Article IV of both titles does not provide
>     for the creation of any military programs for concentration
>     camps.
>     6) Whether Mr. Fenren of the 300th Military Police POW Command
>     has stated that the purpose of the Command is for the
>     detention of foreign prisoners of war and enemies of the
>     United States.
>     7) Further, Article III, concerning civilian persons, makes
>     the treaty applicable to conflicts occurring solely within the
>     territory of the United States that are not of an
>     international character, which is capable of including any
>     type of conflict in its description whether it be civil war or
>     guerrilla activity or anything else. The text states:
>     In case of armed conflict not of an international character
>     occurring in the territory of one of the high contracting
>     parties, each party to a conflict shall be bound to apply to
>     the minimum of the following provisions.
>     8) Dept. of the Army field manual FM41-10, Civil Affairs
>     Operations of Civil Affairs Organization, lists as one of its
>     functions the assumption of full or partial executive,
>     legislative and judicial authority over a count or an area and
>     there is no specific exclusion of the United States as such a
>     country or area.
>     9) Said manual defines country along certain geographical
>     population basis, county, state regions and national
>     government.
>     10) Said organization has in fact conducted practiced
>     takeovers of local and state governments in the continental
>     United States, including but not limited to the state of New
>     Jersey.
>     11) Said organization includes in its study outline on page
>     j-24 a section on concentration camps and labor camps.
>     12) Said organization includes in it operations composite
>     service operations and psychological operations organizations.
>     13) Said psychological operation is working with the U.S.
>     Public Health Service, are prepared to operate any and\or all
>     mental health facilities in the United States as tools of
>     repression against outspoken but nonviolent political conduct
>     of the United States citizens in conjunction with all the
>     above, which is to be used for the same purpose.
>     14) Further, the Dept. of Justice, in conjunction with this
>     program, has had plans for the suspension of writ of habeas
>     corpus since the year of 1946; has planned depriving persons
>     being detained under this total program any means for
>     protection against tyrannical political repression.
>The plaintiff requested that the court make findings of fact and
>draw conclusions of law, consistent therewith as shown by the
>evidence on record before the court. The effect of this request is
>that the case must go back to the district judge for further
>consideration. I mentioned that it appeared that all this planning
>for concentration camps was to be directed against anyone
>regardless of his political persuasion or his ideology who
>exercised freedom of speech against the established power structure
>of international bankers and multinational corporations. But with
>Proposition B-type movements threatening to reduce taxes throughout
>our nation, I foresee an activation of emergency programs so that
>the parasites on the federal take will continue to receive their
>In the same Senate document, on intelligence activities on the
>right of Americans referred to on pages 166 and 167, you will find
>that the federal government has targeted its intelligence
>activities against one group of Americans. On page 166 the first
>classification listed is rightists and anti-Communist groups. The
>first group on Page 167 on Army surveillance lists the John Birch
>Society as number 1 and the Young Americans for Freedom as the
>number 2 target. Therefore, the groups of U.S. American citizens
>considered to be the biggest enemy of the United States by the
>federal government at this is the conservative patriot.
>Although this information has been available since April of this
>year (1979), no one has mentioned this incredible discovery that
>the federal government considers the patriotic conservative as its
>greatest enemy. I have received all kinds of information regarding
>this case from all across the United States.                  
>I obtained the 1945 report of the O.S.S. (office of Strategic
>Services), the precursor of the C.I.A., 7th. Army, William W.
>Quinn, Colonel G.F.C.A.C. of the G2, on the liberation of Dachau,
>a concentration camp during the liberation in Germany. It contains
>many groups of information, but the relevant portion of the report
>concerns itself with the section on the townspeople. Quoting from
>his report, on why the people of this little town didn't complain
>or didn't overthrow oppressors, but just continued to go along and
>get along even though they lost their freedom in the process. I
>     These words crop up and up again. They are the rationalization
>     of a man who admits that he was a member of the Nazi party. "I
>     was forced to do so by business reasons", they state. We were
>     lied to in every respect but they admit they knew the camp
>     existed. But they saw the work detail to the inmates passing
>     through the streets under guard, and in some instances the
>     S.S. behaved brutally even towards the townspeople.
>     When asked if they realized that within the last 3 months
>     before the liberation 13,000 men lost their lives within
>     stone's throw of where the people lived, they claimed they
>     were shocked and surprised.
>     When asked if they never saw transports of dead and dying pass
>     through he streets along the railway, they referred only to
>     the last one. They insist that most of the trains came in at
>     night and that they were sealed cars.
>     Did they never ask what was in the endless procession of cars
>     that came in full and always went out empty? A typical reply
>     was, "We were told it was all army material and booty from
>     France."
>     It is established that anyone who stated that he saw only one
>     train come in the daytime was telling a flat lie. There are
>     quite a few such people in Dachau.
>The analysis of the anti-Nazi element of the town:
>     1) The people knew what was going on in the camp, even ten
>     years prior to liberation;
>     2) The town did a thriving business from the concentration
>     camp guard;
>     3) Ninety percent are guilty and have dabbed themselves with
>     the blood of innocent human beings;
>     4) The people are to blame for their cowardice; they were all
>     too cowardly. They didn't want to risk anything. And that was
>     the way it was in all of Germany.
>The conclusion of this report written on Dachau written in 1945 on
>the liberation of the concentration camp applies today. The
>conclusion is as follows:
>     If one is to attempt tremendous task and accept the terrible
>     responsibility of judging a whole town, assessing it in mass
>     as to collect a guilt of innocence of all its inhabitants for
>     their complicity in committing this most heinous of crimes,
>     one would do well to remember the fearsome shadow that hangs
>     over everyone in this state in which crime has been
>     incorporated and called the government.
>So you can see how the whole program is related here. My lawsuit
>was against one single aspect of the total program: The enforcement
>arm of the conspiracy. The people who make up the cadre that is
>going to occupy the concentration camps where enemies of the United
>States will be placed.
>Remember Solzhenitsyn's words in the 'Gulag Archipelago':
>     Resistance should have began right there but it did not begin.
>     You aren't gagged, you really can and you really ought to cry
>     out that arrests are being made on the strength of false
>     accusations. If many such outcries had been heard all over the
>     city would arrests have no longer have been so easy.
>They, the tyrants, can't work in the public eye. Those people who
>were so apathetic, hoping that nothing was really wrong, that
>nothing would happen to their persons and property, sat back and
>watched. The anarchists, financed by multinational interests,
>looted and pillaged their country.
>If you think that all that is necessary is to pay your house notes,
>to pay your TV notes, to go vote when there is an election, and to
>stand back during the rest of the year and watch as your country
>and way of life are replaced by a system in which you will be a
>slave in a concentration camp, you -- not the conspirators -- are
>guilty because you, by silent acquiescence, invite tyranny and
>And when you have to steal food to eat because our production is
>for foreign use because the Dept. of Commerce, through Executive
>Order 11490 and its predecessors, is responsible for international
>distribution of our commodities, don't sit in the culvert hiding
>and eating and wondering what happened: You made it all possible.
>When your family is split up and spread across the United States to
>do slave labor and you never see your loved ones again, it will be
>your fault: You did nothing to prevent it. Once we lose our freedom
>we are never going to regain it. That is why we must stand together
>to prevent the loss of our freedom as citizens of the United
>Thank you very much.
>                  (Conclusion of taped report.)
>                             --oOo--

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail