Time: Mon Dec 15 05:52:00 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA09416
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:45:45 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA26895;
	Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:34:56 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd026810; Sun Dec 14 20:34:34 1997
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:34:20 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "Coverup and Coercion," Washington Weekly
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<snip>
>
>Wow.  This is quite long, but well worth the time.
>
>The Washington Weekly
>December 15, 1997
>
>COVERUP AND COERCION--Things The Media Would Rather Not Tell Us
>
>By Edward Zehr 
>
>Did Lt. Col. Cogswell of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology mention
>that embarrassing hole in the head of the late Ron Brown? At the time of
>his death, Brown was Clinton's Secretary of Commerce and up to his ears
>in criminal investigations that were potentially disastrous to the
>administration. And did the colonel even go so far as to suggest that
>the hole looked rather like a bullet wound? 
>
>Never mind, the bureaucracy have ways of handling such awkward
>situations. Exhume the body? Perform an autopsy and determine what
>actually caused the wound? No need for that -- that would be doing it
>the hard way. All the bureaucrats really need to do is silence Cogswell,
>search his home and seize any evidence he might have that would support
>his allegations. That way, if citizens should be so gauche as to ask
>inconvenient questions they can be told, without fear of contradiction,
>that Cogswell can't prove a thing. 
>
>Did James Sanders obtain samples of fabric from the seats on TWA-800 and
>have them analyzed, showing that the residue found on them contained the
>ingredients one might expect to find in rocket fuel? No problem -- just
>wait until Sanders gives his remaining samples to CBS "News" -- they'll
>be off in a shot to hand it all over to the FBI and tattle anything
>Sanders may have told them. It's not as though they had the slightest
>curiosity about what was in the residue. What do you think they are,
>reporters? The government will tell them anything they need to know. And
>even if they fail to tell us about it, they will only be misleading us
>for our own good. The shills at CBS have the old three-monkey drill down
>to perfection, but then they've been practicing it for a very long time
>-- remember Camelot? 
>
>Of course, journalists such as Sanders can be quite a nuisance. They
>distract the public's attention from the work of mainstream reporters
>who adhere to the correct procedure -- sitting up on their haunches,
>with their front paws primly folded in a mendicant posture, like
>faithful little puppy dogs, and waiting patiently for table scraps to be
>thrown them by the bureaucracy. Why -- what do you expect them to do --
>the difficult work of a reporter? These are college grads, I'll have you
>know. They cannot be expected to do menial labor. 
>
>There are ways of handling troublemakers such as Sanders. For example,
>he can be arrested on trumped-up charges of "stealing" evidence, and,
>for good measure, the guy's wife can be arrested as well. The prospect
>of a stiff 10- year stretch in the slam ought to soften them up a bit.
>The Gestapo found such methods to be quite effective. It goes without
>saying that anyone with so much as half a brain will realize that they
>are being punished for attempting to learn the truth, but don't worry,
>the prevailing public attitude -- so what, who cares? -- will carry the
>day. 
>
>Mind you, one must be wary of uppity jurors who have the temerity to use
>their minds instead of just blindly obeying the rules. A recalcitrant
>jury recently refused to convict Carol Howe, after the feds had gone to
>a great deal of trouble trumping up evidence against her for telling
>tales out of school about how they had blown (so to speak) the big sting
>operation in Oklahoma. And then ABC went and put her on "Prime Time
>Live." What's gotten into those guys at ABC? Just the previous week they
>did a special on Seymour Hersh's scandalous revelations about JFK. Is
>nothing sacred? Where are the Keepers of the Flame now that we need
>them? Roone Arledge, call your office. 
>
>THE BUDDY SYSTEM 
>
>As though that were not enough, Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's
>"media critic," weighed in last week with a piece on the "Demise of a
>Buddy System." The reference is to what Kurtz described as a "cozy
>culture in which writers were not embarrassed to ingratiate themselves
>with the president." 
>
>Do tell. What I find noteworthy in this is not the revelation that there
>was fraternization between the press and the prez. That was, after all,
>just a step beyond the far side of screamingly obvious to anyone who
>viewed the political tableau with aught else than the rose colored specs
>thoughtfully provided by the mainstream media. No, what has me bemused
>is, why a nice media critic like Howie Kurtz is telling us all this a
>scant 30 years or so after the fact. Why, the dust has scarcely had time
>to settle. 
>
>Perhaps the most telling comment in Kurtz's piece is a quotation from a
>book by Michael Beschloss, titled "Taking Charge," of a statement made
>by Marshall McNeil, a reporter for Scripps Howard Newspapers, to Lyndon
>Johnson, who was at the time the President of the United States: "I
>thought you were just cuter than a pig on that television last night....
>I get prouder of you -- damn your ornery hide, Mr. President -- day by
>day." 
>
>What's missing from this statement? Is it the respectful distance that
>one expects a journalist to maintain when addressing a national leader
>who also happens to be the object of the reporter's professional
>evaluation, or is it perhaps the cutthroat adversarial relationship that
>mainstream journalists have always assured us they maintain with respect
>to all government officials? 
>
>"The conversation," Kurtz informs us, "was not atypical of the
>pre-Watergate era, when relations between the White House and the Fourth
>Estate were far less adversarial." 
>
>I don't mean to be contentious, but what about the female reporter who
>is said to have been sleeping with the current occupant of the Oval
>Office? That doesn't sound very "adversarial" to me. Wait, don't tell me
>-- I am prescient about such things. This is just another of those
>unfounded rumors that seem to stick to this president the way crazy glue
>sticks to velcro, right? I suspected as much. I won't give it another
>thought -- until the next time it turns up on the Net. 
>
>Or consider this encomium, delivered by Joseph Alsop who had advised LBJ
>on how to handle his endorsement of a commission to investigate the
>death of his predecessor, Kennedy: "You've already made a marvelous
>start. You haven't put a damned foot one quarter of an inch wrong, and
>I've never seen anything like it." 
>
>Given the atmosphere of adulation exuded by the national press, it is
>hardly surprising that they neglected to inform us of a few tacky little
>details about LBJ, such as the fact that he had been getting payoffs
>from the Carlos Marcello organization, which was at that time the Gulf
>coast branch of the Mafia. According to David Scheim ("Contract on
>America"), mob payoffs to Johnson have been confirmed by at least two
>witnesses. Dallas gangster Jack Halfen gave incriminating information on
>Johnson to U.S. Marshal J. Neal Matthews in 1956. Halfen disclosed that
>a gambling network controlled by organized crime "had given $500,000 in
>cash and campaign contributions to Johnson over a ten year period while
>Johnson was in the Senate," according to Scheim. 
>
>What did Johnson have to do for that kind of money? Not much, really.
>When anti-racketeering legislation came up in the Senate, he used his
>position as Majority Leader to have it killed. And if that could not be
>arranged, he saw to it that the bill was watered down. He also diverted
>congressional investigations into organized crime. The Kefauver
>committee, which investigated the Mob during the '50s, never made it to
>Dallas. For that matter, they also bypassed Bill Clinton's home town,
>Hot Springs, Arkansas (for which the Mob can thank the late Sen.
>McClellan). 
>
>Jack Sullivan, once an administrative assistant to Sen. Daniel Brewster
>of Maryland also testified that Johnson had taken payoffs from the Mob.
>Brewster was indicted by a Baltimore grand jury in 1969 for corruption,
>and convicted. 
>
>Robert Caro, author of "The Years of Lyndon Johnson," a monumental
>biography of the former president, two volumes of which have been
>published thus far, wrote in the Atlantic Monthly: 
>
>"For years, men came into Lyndon Johnson's office and handed him
>envelopes stuffed with cash. They didn't stop coming even when the
>office in which he sat was the office of the Vice President of the
>United States. Fifty thousand dollars (in hundred-dollar bills in sealed
>envelopes) was what one lobbyist -- for one oil company -- testified
>that he brought to Johnson's office during his term as Vice President." 
>
>Johnson's position became perilous when his secretary Bobby Baker was
>forced to resign after being charged with corruption. Baker stonewalled
>it during Senate hearings, taking the Fifth rather than rat out his
>former chief, LBJ. The damage Baker might have done to Johnson was
>suggested in a book, "The Washington Payoff" by former Washington
>lobbyist Robert Winter-Berger, who happened to witness the following
>tirade by Johnson while visiting the office of House Speaker John
>McCormack. Johnson stormed into McCormack's office and, without seeming
>to notice Winter-Berger, bellowed: 
>
>"John, that [obscene reference to Baker deleted] is going to ruin me. If
>that [expletive deleted] talks, I'm gonna land in jail... I practically
>raised that [expletive deleted], and now he's gonna make me the first
>President of the United States to spend the last days of his life behind
>bars." 
>
>This little speech was noted by National Review at the time the book was
>published and ignored by practically every other media outlet in the
>country. Johnson was later to be opposed for reelection by Barry
>Goldwater, a man the media loved to hate. It seems the Mafia is not the
>only organization that observes the law of omerta (silence). Apparently
>the mainstream media would rather be ruled by the Mob than governed by a
>conservative. 
>
>There is a little more involved in the media's behavior towards Lyndon
>Johnson than the shameless toadying portrayed by Kurtz. They were
>helping to cover up the massive corruption of the Johnson administration
>-- and they're still at it. Although mainstream media publications such
>as The Washington Post were instrumental in exposing the Bobby Baker
>scandal, they were careful to keep Johnson insulated from any hint of
>corruption. No doubt they would have us believe that they really didn't
>know about all that at the time. But that doesn't explain why they still
>refuse to talk about it. When the second volume of Caro's book was
>published, which hardly reveals more than the tip of the iceberg, it was
>savagely attacked by columnists at the Post. Because LBJ's agenda was
>politically correct they apparently expect us to overlook the fact that
>Johnson took envelopes full of cash from the Mafia. 
>
>Ah, but they've changed -- or so Mr. Kurtz would have us believe. Notice
>the implication of his statement: 
>
>"The conversation was not atypical of the pre-Watergate era, when
>relations between the White House and the Fourth Estate were far less
>adversarial." 
>
>But the press have turned over a new leaf, Kurtz would have us know: 
>
>"Once the Vietnam War began to turn sour, so did Johnson's relations
>with many journalists. And White House coverage was never again so
>chummy after the Nixon presidency." 
>
>Get it? They were willing to lie and dissemble for the ornery critter so
>long as his policies were in line with their own deeply felt prejudice,
>but Vietnam changed all that. What reason is there to believe that
>people who are so profoundly dishonest and lacking in personal integrity
>are capable of changing? These people have no incentive to change --
>their intellectual iniquity has been richly rewarded. The only thing
>that might bring about change in their deceitful behavior would be a
>reassertion of their own standards of personal integrity, but they have
>repeatedly and resoundingly demonstrated that they do not have any such
>standards. 
>
>Isn't that why, when Seymour Hersh's book appeared, the mainstream press
>immediately took out after Hersh, pointing out that a few of the
>documents he had originally used as background information were obvious
>forgeries? The part of the story that sort of dropped down through the
>cracks is the fact that Hersh himself withdrew the material from his
>manuscript when he learned that the documents were false -- all of this
>took place before publication. 
>
>Old habits die hard. It is obvious that the kneejerk response of the
>mainstream press continues to be a swift kick aimed at anyone who dares
>to look askance at one of their icons. The fact remains that our vaunted
>"free" press lied brazenly to us about the Kennedy administration and,
>even after 34 years have passed, they refuse to make a credible effort
>to set the record straight regarding the fantasy of Camelot which they
>created, in collusion with the Kennedy machine. The recent documentary
>aired by ABC is a laudable exception to the continuing mendacity of the
>mainstream media on this issue. 
>
>So, what is all of this leading up to? Howie seems to have set the stage
>for the main topic of his piece by implying that whereas the mainstream
>press have lied like dogs in the past, we can now trust them implicitly.
>It would seem that the object of this all too brief visit to the
>confessional was to lighten the burden of past sins as a way of getting
>ready for Ruddy. Investigative reporter Christopher Ruddy seems to evoke
>deep- seated guilt feelings in the flinty hearts of mainstream
>journalists, if only because he continues to do the job they are unable
>or afraid to do. Obviously the man has become a nuisance and must be
>made to atone for the inconvenience he has caused his professional
>inferiors. 
>
>READY FOR RUDDY? 
>
>Under the rubric of "Ruddy Redux," Mr. Kurtz begins by telling us: 
>
>"For those who might be depressed about the fading conspiracy theories
>involving the death of Vincent Foster, take heart. Now a conservative
>newspaper is raising questions about the death of Ron Brown." 
>
>There is a wealth of innuendo in that opening sentence. First there is
>the insinuation that anyone who does not accept the preposterous notions
>advanced in the official version of Vincent Foster's death is, at the
>very least, neurotic. (Perhaps this is intended to mask the fact that
>Kurtz has not been man enough to even discuss the Foster case in public,
>preferring to make his points, such as they are, with snide, hit-and-run
>insults such as this one). Then there is the assertion that the
>controversy over Foster's death is fading. By what criteria? Talk radio
>has been inundated recently with interviews of Ruddy and Patrick
>Knowlton, whose lawsuit against the government is still pending. The
>Internet has been clogged with messages regarding the Foster case and
>Ruddy's book appears to be headed for the best seller list. This does
>not even take account of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's new book which deals
>extensively with the Foster case, or the book that investigative
>reporter Dan Moldea is said to be writing about Foster's death. 
>
>But those who work the one-way street of the mainstream media do not
>have to worry too much about back-sass. If the relevant facts prove
>uncongenial to Kurtz's thesis he is at liberty to ignore them. He
>couldn't get away with that on Internet, but print media journalists
>have the option of creating their own cozy fantasy world when the real
>world proves a bit too harsh to accommodate their limited reasoning
>ability. If Kurtz prefers to believe that the folks at the Pittsburgh
>Tribune-Review are the only ones interested in the irregularities
>surrounding the death of Ron Brown he is free to do so in his
>solipsistic fantasy world. Of course this does not square too well with
>the fact that both the Associated Press and United Press International
>carried the story last week, but since when are print journalists
>required to make sense? 
>
>After ringing the obligatory bells and tooting the traditional whistles
>regarding "conspiracy theories" and "the media food chain," Kurtz gets
>around to telling us that, "Outlandish as it sounds," the story is not
>based on anonymous sources, but derives from Ruddy's interview with Lt.
>Col. Steve Cogswell, a deputy medical examiner with the Armed Forces
>Institute of Pathology. 
>
>Just as a matter of curiosity, why does the story sound so "outlandish"
>to Kurtz? I would think that such stories were becoming quite
>commonplace inside the Beltway. First Vince Foster turns up in the
>shrubbery with a hole in his head, then Admiral Boorda "shoots himself"
>because Newsweek didn't like the way he wore his medals, then a Commerce
>Department employee, Barbara Wise, is found dead in her office amidst
>rumors that she shared a suite of offices (and a shredding machine) with
>John Huang, and now it turns out that her boss, Ron Brown, who was
>ostensibly killed in an air crash while under investigation for
>corruption, also has a hole in his head that some say resembles a bullet
>wound. 
>
>The biggest mystery of all is why Mr. Kurtz would find it outlandish
>that anyone should find this, well -- outlandish. One would think that
>it were a matter of routine for Commerce Department employees to find a
>corpse or two in the office when they arrive for work in the morning --
>especially after a long week-end. And, as for admirals, best that you
>not stare too fixedly at the medals they are wearing -- you know how
>sensitive they are. This particular admiral had cited deep differences
>he had with the Clinton administration in a conversation with a
>colleague, who admonished him not to resign. It seems that by acceding
>too readily to Clinton's politically correct agenda and sacrificing the
>careers of key officers for the sake of political expediency, Boorda had
>forfeited the respect of his fellow officers. I don't suppose that could
>have had anything to do... Naah -- must have been the medals. 
>
>Noting that Col. Cogswell said the "circular hole" in Brown's head
>resembled a .45 caliber gunshot wound, Kurtz was quick to identify "one
>problem" with the story: "Cogswell never actually examined the body." 
>
>Kurtz goes on to cite Col. William Gormley (he's the one wearing the
>white hat), who maintained that Brown died from injuries sustained in
>the air crash and dismissed the possibility of a gunshot wound because
>he had not noticed an exit wound. Of course Gormley was the officer
>responsible for concluding that Brown's death was accidental. I wonder
>if Kurtz has any inkling of the "merde-orage" (pardon my French) that
>would ensue if Gormley now reversed himself and allowed that, come to
>think of it, the hole in Brown's skull probably is a bullet-wound after
>all? I have to assume that Kurtz was never in the military, otherwise it
>surely would have occurred to him that Gormley is anything but an
>objective, disinterested party at this stage of the game. 
>
>And then, as if to settle the matter once and for all, Kurtz produced
>the statement of "an Army spokesman" who said with a definitive air of
>finality, "this is a closed case." Excuse me, but one other little
>problem has cropped up quite recently. I quote from a UPI story dated
>December 9." 
>
>"A published report says a second Armed Forces medical examiner says the
>corpse of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown seemed to have a bullet hole in
>the top of the head." 
>
>Oops -- this could prove downright embarrassing. According to the
>report, U.S. Army Lt. Col. David Hause told the Pittsburgh
>Tribune-Review that he saw what appeared to be a bullet wound in Brown's
>head, "supporting the account of forensic pathologist examiner Air Force
>Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell." 
>
>Hause told reporter Chris Ruddy that several of the allegations made by
>Cogswell and reported in a previous Tribune-Review article are true. He
>also criticized the military for its treatment of Cogswell following
>publication of the article. 
>
>While it is true that Cogswell was not present when the wound in Brown's
>head was examined, Hause was there -- his examination table was two
>tables away from the one where Brown's body lay. According to Hause,
>somebody said, "Gee, this looks like a gunshot wound," causing a
>"commotion." At that point Hause walked over to the table on which Brown
>was laid out and examined the wound. 
>
>Hause said that the wound "looked like a punched-out .45-caliber
>entrance hole." He recalls saying to those crowding around the table,
>"Sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." Hause told
>Ruddy that he did not discuss the wound with Col. Gormley. 
>
>Neither Hause nor Cogswell, who has been involved in over 100 aircraft
>accident investigations, could recall seeing such a wound in the head of
>a plane crash victim prior to this incident. Hause has five years
>experience with AFIP and is considered one of their foremost experts on
>gunshot wounds. Both agreed that it was possible for parts of the
>aircraft to pierce the skull, but said that such an object would likely
>leave a jagged or irregular hole after exiting the wound. 
>
>Gormley maintains that since Brown was a civilian, he had no authority
>to order an autopsy, absent the suspicion of foul play. Cogswell
>disputes this, saying that the nature of the wound should have triggered
>an autopsy in view of the implication that Brown's death may have been a
>homicide. As a cabinet officer, Brown is covered by the Presidential
>Assassination Statute. 
>
>While agreeing that professional standards dictate that an autopsy be
>performed in such circumstances, Hause told Ruddy that he understood
>"political and administrative" factors made this difficult. Hause
>characterized Gormley as a competent pathologist, but described his
>experience as being more in the area of airplane crashes than gunshot
>wounds. Hause, on the other hand, has both professional and personal
>experience with this type of wound, having received the Purple Heart in
>Vietnam. He subsequently became a pathologist and has been involved in
>autopsy procedures since 1972. He served for a time as the Army's
>regional medical examiner in Germany. 
>
>The crux of the argument seems to hinge upon the severity of the wound.
>Gormley asserted that the hole had "no open communication with the
>inside of the head," that is, the hole did not penetrate the skull --
>the punched out bone had simply been depressed into the skull, covering
>the brain. Had the hole penetrated the skull all the way to the brain,
>Gormley told the Tribune- Review, that would have raised suspicion. 
>
>Both Cogswell and Hause contradict Gormley on this point. "What was
>immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't
>remember seeing skull," Hause told the Tribune-Review. Cogswell said
>that an X-ray, taken from the side, shows the "bone plug" displaced into
>the brain. This was confirmed by another expert consulted by the paper. 
>
>Cogswell also told of seeing an X-ray that showed tiny metallic
>fragments imbedded within Brown's head, which he characterized as a
>"lead snowstorm" such as might be produced by a disintegrating bullet.
>That X-ray is now missing, according to Cogswell, however, he has a
>photographic image of the X-ray, and so does the Tribune-Review. 
>
>As a matter of fact, according to Cogswell, all of the X-rays of Brown's
>head have disappeared. Hause confirms this, noting that when he and a
>colleague were asked to review Brown's file, they went through all of
>the X-rays, and found that there were none of Brown's head. Sound
>familiar? All the X-rays of Vince Foster were missing as well (as were
>most of the crime scene photos). The reason given was that the medical
>examiner's X-ray machine was broken, so he did not take any. But
>maintenance records do not support this explanation. Furthermore, the
>medical examiner had indicated X-rays were taken in the official
>document he filled out. 
>
>But why make the originals disappear if photos of the X-rays exist? The
>official explanation of the "lead storm" in Brown's head is that it is
>an illusion "caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassette,"
>according to the Air Force. Without the original X-ray negatives, there
>is no way to check this contention. It has become, more or less,
>standard procedure to explain inconvenient images that show up on
>photographs as "scratches" or "defects" in the film. The FBI used the
>same "explanation" in the TWA-800 investigation. One can but wonder why
>such "defects" keep showing up at strategic locations in the very photos
>that the authorities find most awkward to explain. 
>
>Hause does not believe that the AFIP has reacted in an appropriate
>manner to the questions raised by Cogswell. "It looks like the AFIP is
>starting its usual procedure of, upon receiving bad news, immediately
>shooting the messenger," he told Ruddy, referring to the repressive
>action the Air Force has taken against Cogswell since the story broke. 
>
>A little more than a week ago, Cogswell was given written orders that
>forbad him to discuss Brown's death with the press. He was informed at
>the time that he was the subject of a "command investigation" conducted
>by the Air Force. Later the same day, military police arrived at
>Cogswell's office to escort him to his home, which they methodically
>tore apart in their search for additional evidence that might prove
>detrimental to the coverup. It goes without saying they did not have a
>warrant. 
>
>Cogswell is presently restricted, while on duty, to the floor on which
>his office is located. He is not even allowed to leave for lunch without
>permission. According to a source within the AFIP, the punitive measures
>taken against Cogswell are "unheard of for a ranking military officer." 
>
>In effect, Cogswell has been placed under house arrest for daring to
>tell the truth about what must seem to him to be the possible coverup of
>a homicide involving a member of Clinton's cabinet. It would seem that
>Cogswell has a measure of personal integrity and civil courage that his
>immediate superiors clearly lack. That is disturbing. If military
>officers are prepared to send men to their deaths in combat, shouldn't
>they be equally ready to put their careers on the line rather than
>dishonor themselves by participating in an obstruction of justice? 
>
>As for the mainstream press, the concepts of honor and personal
>integrity are so foreign to their nature it seems idle to invoke them.
>We are talking about an entire "profession" whose spokesmen looked us
>squarely in the eye thirty years ago and assured us, with an expression
>of utmost sincerity, of their complete objectivity and absolute devotion
>to reporting the truth, when all the while they were playing footsie
>under the table with a man who was possibly the most corrupt politician
>ever to desecrate the Oval Office. 
>
>Pseudo-sophisticates such as Kurtz no doubt find this amusing and
>clever, but there is a price to be paid when a society so completely
>loses its moral orientation that scoundrels who lie and cheat and
>dissemble are rewarded and advanced, while those who display evidence of
>personal integrity and civil courage are punished and degraded. I happen
>to know this because I lived for almost a decade in Germany, and talked
>to people who had to pay the price.
>
>Published in the Dec. 15, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly
>Copyright  1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com). 
>Reposting permitted with this message intact.
>
<snip>

===========================================================================
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