Time: Thu Nov 07 20:59:08 1996
To: "Robert A. (Bob) Phipps, Sr." <bphipp@pernet.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: Roger Cravens
Cc: 
Bcc: 

I am going to answer this
message point-for-point:

At 03:00 AM 11/3/96 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>Dear Mr. Phipps, Sr.,
>>
>>You have missed the whole point.
>
>I have not missed the point.  You are consumed with a crusading hatred that
>causes you to fire blindly from the hip at anything you perceive to be
>"governmental".  You generally hit the wrong target and appear to be a
>blithering fool at the same time.

I did not fire blindly.
Senator Riegle has testified
before Congress that the CDC
knew about the Gulf War Syndrome
before the conflict began.  That
was my reason for asking by what
authority employees within the
CDC spend a good portion of their
working day screening incoming
email, and reposting it to various
"patriot" lists.  Citizens are
entitled to know by what authority
government employees do what they do.


>
>>What is his authority for doing
>>what he does, using CDC resources?
>
>His use of his e-mail priviledges are between him & his employer.  Thank god
>there are people like Roger Cravens in government.

I object to this statement, because
he works for a federal lab, and he
is using federal funds to work there.


>
>>This is a reasonable question.
>
>There is nothing reasonable in your childish attack and call for "discipline".

You can use the words "childish"
and "attack" all day long, but
you are not addressing the point
here:  what is the authority?
If he has no authority, then
he should stop using public funds
to do what he is doing.  Period.
I don't care if it is politically
PERFECT.  That is not the point.
He is setting a very bad example
for the freedom movement to be
using public funds for his own
political purposes.


>
>>It does not matter one bit whether
>>his posts are "politically correct" 
>>or "politically incorrect".
>
>I have not brought up the question of political correctness, I am responding
>to an attack on a person who dispenses usefull information & who enjoys the
>well deserved respect of reasonable persons.

He does not deserve respect if he
is using public funds to do a job
for which there is no authorization
in law.  Federal funds must be
expended pursuant to Acts of Congress.
It says so in the Constitution.


>
>>That matter is entirely irrelevant
>>to the point, which is authority.
>
>??????

"authority", yes.


>
>>And so, I am prepared to disagree 
>>with you, also because the CDC has
>>now been implicated directly in 
>>the Gulf War Illnesses.  These
>>illnesses are contagious, and
>>now threaten the entire American
>>population, regardless of age,
>>sex, or race, religion, or 
>>political status/opinion. 
>
>Roger Cravens is NOT the CDC, he is a computer technician.   See answer #1.

He is employed by the CDC, is he not?


>
>>Do you now see why I am so concerned?  
>
>What I and others see is a person who has some good ideas, means well, but
>has become unable to discern the proper target for action.  You need a long
>rest and a good shrink in order to get back on track.

Your insults will get you nowhere,
so you may as well stop them 
right now.  He may be well intentioned,
but he was unable to disclose the
authority for his use of CDC resources
to be doing what he is doing.  Therefore,
I am entitled now to proceed on the
basis of the presumption, unrebutted,
that he has no authorization, lawful
or otherwise.  Moreover, ever since
the CDC was directly linked to the
Gulf War Illnesses, every last employee
of that complex now must ask themselves
if, and how, they might be connected to
premeditated murder and genocide.  This
is at least at bad as anything the
Nazis did in World War II.  The U.S.
Court of Claims amended their local 
rules years ago, in anticipation of a
rush of wrongful death suits resulting
from ... a federal innoculation program.
Did you know about this?


>
>>Let Roger do what he does on his own time,
>>from his own home, on his own computers, 
>>as so many of the rest of us do.  
>>Is this asking too much?
>
>One who appears so out of control & unable to manage himself should not try
>to manage the lives of others.  Is it too much to ask that you mind you own
>business?

Let him do it at home,
on hiw own time, as so
many of the rest of us do.



>
>>Are you not offended deeply by the
>>imminent loss of many lives, because
>>of the vaccines administered to 
>>American troops who served in Desert
>>Storm?  I am not only offended;  
>>I am horrified.  The U.S. Court of
>>Claims has proof in their local 
>>rules that they fully anticipated
>>a huge number of wrongful death
>>claims -- from innoculations of
>>Americans.
>
>There are currently about 6 conspiracy theories ranging from  innoculations,
>to experiments, to chemicals used by the Iraquis & everything in between
>floating around on this one. 

When a former U.S. Senator testifies
before Congress that the CDC knew
about these tainted vaccines before
they were administered, I would say
that we have in that testimony 
probable cause to investigate 
premeditated murder and genocide.


 They involve charges against the CIA, the
>Dept. of Defense, the CDC and a host of other possible perps.

I am speaking here to the CDC, 
not to any of these other organizations.


  So far, I
>haven't seen Roger Cravens charged in any of these conspiracies and I doubt
>we will. 

I have not charged him, I have 
only asked him a reasonable question,
namely, what is his authority to be
doing what he is doing?  I am still
waiting for an answer.


  The question is your silly and offensive attack on Roger Cravens.
>You asked for action, you're getting it.

Ad hominem arguments do not move me.
I am sorry.


>
>>Wake up, man!
>
>I am awake & functioning normally.  Try it, you might like it.

Move ad hominem.
What do you know about the
Gulf War Illnesses?

>
>>I hope you don't make a soft landing
>>on the wrong side of the fence, when
>>all the dust settles out from this
>>desert storm.  If I were you, I would
>>head to a competent doctor at once,
>>and have a serious private conference
>>with him (her) about preventative
>>measures.  
>
>Paul, I have read your postings for some time now.  You obviously are
>passionate about your beliefs & committed to righting what you perceive as
>wrongs.  I say the following in a sincere effort to help.

I must question your motives here,
after your personal and ad hominem
attacks, repeated over and over 
ad nauseam, above.  If you want
to fight, then let's have it out
right here.  If my parents come
down with GWS because I did not
get proof to them fast enough 
that this thing is contagious,
then I will have a direct cause
of action.  The last thing I want
in this world is to quarantine my
parents in their old age.  


>
>You need to take a deep breath & take stock of what you are becoming.  Look
>carefully at the preceeding statement of yours as well as several of the
>others you have made here & recently.  I & I alone decide how I will land
>and I take the consequences of my landings.  I don't allow the government or
>you to control my landings.  How I handle my health & what doctor I use is
>my decision.

Not if we are dealing with a
possible pandemic, because if you
do not take the necessary precautions
in the face of pretty damning evidence,
then you may be facing quarantine yourself,
and your community may find it necessary
to quarantine you against your will.
What do you know about epidemiology?
Have you seen the movie "Outbreak"?

 It is not yours or the governments.  You have developed the
>habit of trying to manage everyone's business which makes you as
>authoritative as the government you constantly berate.

I am an advocate against federal government
abuses, which are now running rampant.
If American soldiers were innoculated with
a tainted vaccine, and if that vaccine is
directly linked to the Gulf War Illnesses,
when the French soldiers have not contracted
it simply because they did not get injected
with the same vaccine, then the federal 
government has an awful lot of explaining
to do, particularly when evidence is not 
coming forth that this thing is horribly
contagious, causing wives become deathly ill,
and also causing serious birth defects.  
I can direct you to a nurse from the Army
Nursing Corps. who got wind of a tained
vaccine, and went to her General.  The
General told her to administer the vaccine
anyway, even after she told him that. 
Do you think may be we should subpoena
this nurse, and get her deposition?
I say yes.


>
>As I attend Mass tonight, I will give thanks that a runaway government has
>within its ranks reasonable people who are also concerned.  I will be
>thankful for a CDC employee who cares enough to spend time disseminating
>useful info not otherwise available;

No taxation without representation!
No expenditure of public funds without
acts of Congress.  This is the supreme
Law of the land, like or not. You keep
justifying it because it is "useful info
not otherwise available."  That is 
debatable, to say the least.  But, even
if it is "useful info not otherwise
available," there is no end to the scope
of expenditures which could be justified
under this rubric you have just invented.



  I will offer a prayer for those
>members of the BATF  who had the guts to protest the actions at Waco & to
>resign, even though there has been a media black out on their heroism;  I
>will express gratitude for the Libertarians who work for the IRS and work
>tirelessly to expose & correct the crimes committed in that agency.  I could
>go, but won't.

BATF is another subject entirely.
I don't wish to go off on this
tangent with you right here.



>
>Thank God that in 30 years of working for 2nd admendment, Libertarian and
>other causes for freedom, I haven't come to the sorry point where I can't
>tell the difference between a government agency and a good person who
>happens to work for the government.

The road to hell is paved with
good intentions.  If the man
has no authority to expend
public funds in the manner in 
which he does, then he is stealing
from the American People.  There
is no gray area, I am sorry to say.


  Get help before it's too late & leave
>sources of good information alone.

There are millions of sources of
good information;  just where do you
stop with this maxim?  When the 
public treasury is totally looted,
the way it has been for this and
that wild and crazy idea over the
last 80 years?  What you are saying
is that the end justifies the means,
and I am adamantly opposed to such
a doctrine.  It is situational ethics,
and your spiritual guides should tell
you that such a belief is flatly 
wrong, morally, ethically, and legally.
Why don't we have ALL CDC employees
disseminating information which you
consider valuable, and do so without
any authorization?  Would that make
the world a better place?  I think not.
The contrary is closer to the truth.
While Roger is broadcasting a high rate
of pre-selected muck-racking to his
many lists, private and public, others
within his same organization were,
evidently, plotting and suppressing
evidence of a deliberate, premeditated
program to innoculate American soldiers
with a deadly, infectious disease, which
now threatens their families directly,
including spouses, children, siblings,
grand parents, cousins, aunts, uncles,
and grandchildren, not to mention neighbors,
co-workers, and church members.  The thing
is spread by casual contact;  intimate
contact is not required.  What more do we
need as a nation to understand that we are
under biological attack, and the gulf war
was an excuse to expose Americans beyond the
range of typical public health measures we
enjoy here in the several States.  The 
Desert Storm was a witch's brew of death,
now brought home to roost in our own backyards,
in our own churches, and in our own living
rooms.  This is very very ugly. 

/s/ Paul Mitchell


>
>Bob Phipps
>
>
>/-
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail