Time: Sat Aug 16 08:03:58 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA08695;
Sat, 16 Aug 1997 08:04:32 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA26211;
Sat, 16 Aug 1997 08:04:05 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 08:02:54 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Heads Up (fwd)
<snip>
>
> Heads Up
>
> A Weekly edition of News from around our country
>
> August 15, 1997 #48
>
> by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
> Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>DISARM REGULATORS
> When an old friend, who is a career federal
>bureaucrat above the "GS" level, called one afternoon
>last week to chit-chat, I should have realized there may
>have also been an ulterior motive. He was, after all,
>calling from work. About ten minutes into the
>conversation he asked why this publication is so hard on
>the people working for the federal regulatory agencies.
> 'Because they are there, and should not be,'
>I wanted to answer. But I did not. Instead, I played
>the game, began my own opening gambit, and turned it
>around so he was on the defensive.
> "How many search warrants did your agency
>serve these past few weeks?" I eventually asked.
> "A few," he reluctantly answered.
> "How many with guns drawn and agents looking
>and acting like a SWAT team?" I then inquired.
> "That is for the protection of the agents. . . . . ."
>he tried to jive me.
> Uh huh. Sure.
> Lately, even FEMA and EPA started doing that.
>Where once, regulators came in dressed in normal business
>attire, now they bring a "team" wearing bullet proof
>vests and brandishing military-style guns.
> Reports are that a FEMA team "raided" a county
>flood management office recently, vested and guns at the
>ready. They even brought along a search warrant. Except
>that the only thing on the warrant was the judges
>signature and the word "sealed." They confiscated box-
>loads of public documents -- documents that were always
>available for anyone in the world to walk in and read.
>And, of course, they terrified (or is it terrorized?) the
>staff working the office in the process.
> Same with the EPA. Nowadays, if they visit a
>business suspected of spilling hazardous materials, they
>often bring along a SWAT team and act like they're going
>after a gang of armed bank robbers. Just a few years
>ago, that type of thing was handled by one man carrying
>nothing more ominous than a notebook.
> This is called lack of respect. It's the "them"
>against "us" mentality. Each year, the federal government
>ramps-up the aggression level. Today, many federal
>regulators act like they have absolutely no respect for
>the American public. Sure, they are not all like that --
>yet. But, how many of these reports do we need before
>we voters start putting pressure on elected officials to
>get them stopped?
> IRS used a SWAT team to "take over" a day care
>center, kids and all. FDA brought along a SWAT team
>to "raid" a vitamin store. The BLM brought an armed
>posse to confront two hunters. Fish and Wildlife
>delivered a SWAT team by armed military choppers. Yet,
>in none of these cases was any wrongdoing ever proven.
> The problem is, neither was any of these agencies
>punished for use of excessive force (or stupidity!).
>Clearly, these people are out of control.
> It's our fault, too. These are, after all, public
>servants. Therefore, we can, with a little effort, have
>them fired. Federal agencies like FEMA, EPA, BLM and
>OSHA do not need guns. There are only a few real federal
>police agencies: Marshals, DEA, FBI and BATF immediately
>come to mind. These other agencies are only regulatory
>and tax collection agencies.
> Worse yet, for the most part, these armed
>regulators are people with no firearms training. Police
>academies last at least ten or twelve weeks. Many of the
>armed federal bureaucrats confronting American citizens
>do not even have ten or twelve minutes firearms or police
>training. In fact, some of them never even had a firearms
>safety course. Yet, in some cases, they're carrying fully
>automatic weapons. This is not good!
> For the safety of the American public, all federal
>regulatory agencies should be completely disarmed.
>
>RESIST FEDERAL SNOOPING
> Words mean things, as Rush Limbaugh likes to
>say on his national radio program. And lawyers, so they
>would have us believe, are the legal word merchants of the
>United States. So it is with great interest when we
>notice that the rooms full of lawyers working in the White
>House, Department of Justice and FBI all seem to be having
>a definite problem understanding some of the simplest
>words in the English language: "Shall Not."
> For instance, the Fourth Amendment to the
>United States Constitution clearly states that: "The
>right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
>seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
>issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
>affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
>searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> Notice the words "shall not be violated"?
> Recently, the Supreme Court said that in all
>but a very few circumstances, officers serving a search
>warrant must knock, announce their reason for being there
>and wait to be let in. No "dynamic entries" are allowed
>unless the police are going after known killers, or some
>such demonstrably dangerous perpetrators.
> American citizens are to be informed of what
>is to be searched, and what police are looking for, BEFORE
>the search begins. Police are to show the person to be
>searched the warrant, and allow them to read it, before
>the search takes place.
> The right to be secure against government
>intrusion in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects"
>would also include a ban against pat-downs on the street;
>looking through medical and financial records; reading of
>mail; recording private conversations; reading computer
>e-mail; and listening to telephone conversations.
> Police may stop you and ask questions. But a
>free citizen need not answer if they do not wish. And,
>unless the officer indicates that you are being detained,
>a free citizen may leave the presence of the officer at
>any time. In other words, except during the performance
>of a criminal investigation (and civil citations), or in
>an emergency, a police officer has no special powers over
>and above any other citizen.
> Yet, the Department of Justice and the FBI
>cannot understand "shall not." Rather, they have plans
>to monitor thousands of American citizen's telephone calls
>simultaneously. They are also gearing up to monitor many
>American citizen's e-mail every day. And, all this, they
>hope, without the necessity of a court approved search
>warrant.
> The Fourth Amendment words "shall not," of
>course, bar these federal government activities. But,
>federal law enforcement does not seem to feel that the
>Constitution applies to their functions. Neither do two
>members of the Senate (McCain and Kerry), as evidenced
>by S. 909, which would allow federal agents access to all
>computer correspondence, without the necessity of first
>obtaining a court approved search warrant.
> We, of course, have some recourse in this
>matter. First, we should do all we can to insure that
>S. 909 and other such bills do not pass Congress. Second,
>we should start randomly encrypting some of our e-mail
>messages.
> Recently, Qualcomm, Inc. announced that they
>have mated PGP with their very popular e-mail software,
>Eudora Light and Eudora Pro. We have not seen it yet,
>but were told that it is very easy to use.
> Regardless, we should all make an attempt to
>tell the federal government that we will resist any and
>all intrusions into our personal privacy. We would never
>consider giving government agents the keys to our house
>and car, just in case they may want to snoop through our
>stuff someday. We shouldn't give them our encryption
>keys so they can intercept our communications, either.
>
>INTERNET SPEECH
> This Internet, made up of web pages, newsgroups,
>e-mail "lists," and what have you, is an effective public
>forum. And generally, it is also an uncontrolled public
>forum.
> To say the least, this is very disconcerting to
>the political powers and the "establishment" media. On
>one hand, many politicians and their sycophants in the
>media want strict controls placed on the flow of
>information over the Internet. On the other hand are the
>courts, which for the moment support the free flow of
>ideas found here. Free speech, it's called.
> Often, the Internet "scoops" the major media
>on important news items by a day or two. And sometimes,
>a great deal of important information can be found here
>that is not related by any major media source.
> The problem is that a lot of "information" available
>via the Internet is not sourced. It cannot be verified.
>Some is hear-say information, and sometimes it is just
>obvious misinformation placed to cause unnecessary
>concern. So, unless you trust the sender, the rule should
>always be 'reader beware.'
> The courts struck down a law censoring information
>on the Internet as a violation of free speech. But the
>courts did not say that anything goes here. As with any
>public forum, there are limits imposed by society.
> One limit is that of slander, defamation of
>character, and whatever else it may be called by the
>legal-eagles. In a public forum, it is necessary for one
>to be somewhat careful about things we say about others.
>It is very doubtful that the courts will allow defamation
>of character to pass as free speech -- especially for
>those who, at the press of a button, can instantly
>transmit a message to a couple thousand people.
> Normally, one can get away with saying a great
>deal about public officials, especially if it has some
>basis for truth. For instance, we have called public
>officials socialists, un-American, stupid, drunks, and a
>few other rather unflattering things. Those are all
>public attributes -- mixed with a bit of opinion.
> We do not, however, delve into the private
>characteristics of public people. For instance, we have
>never written that Governor Clinton did some of his
>shopping for sex at the local university. That wouldn't
>even be news, anyway. Nor would we list the twenty-some
>known drug abusers, the numerous gays, or those who go
>off on alcoholic binges, working in the administration.
> All that is their own personal problem, not
>ours. Our problem, our interest, is what they are doing
>that affects normal American citizens, not how they
>choose to categorize or abuse themselves in private.
> So when we saw the Drudge Report saying Sidney
>Blumenthal -- that Clinton media apologist who recently
>turned White House aide -- has a spousal abuse past, we
>cringed.
> It is true that Blumenthal is a public figure, and
>therefore open to most any ridicule in the press. But,
>was this pushing the envelope a little too far? Probably
>not, but it may be. The problem is that you never really
>know until you spend the money to get it to court.
> The political-media cabal in Washington would
>like nothing better than to stymie the flow of information
>on the Internet. Blumenthal is both political and media.
>Therefore, he will be receiving encouragement from both
>groups to pursue this case and put the Drudge Report out
>of business.
> To them, silencing the popular Matt Drudge
>will provide the perfect "example" for the rest of us.
>If they stop the Drudge Report, you can be sure other
>lawsuits will follow.
> Therefore, we must not let that happen.
>
>YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
> The Occupational Safety and Health
>Administration, -- the federal agency that demands long
>warning labels (that no one ever reads) be affixed on
>anything that looks like it may be used as a tool of some
>sort -- does not follow its own rules and regulations.
> OSHA is legendary for writing up businesses
>for violation of all kinds of stupid regulations that
>mean nothing to anyone with a little common sense.
>They'll fine a business for silliness like a stairway
>railing being one inch too low or water being on the
>floor in a butcher shop. OSHA has hundreds of rules,
>regulations and standards they regularly bother businesses
>with. Most of them are nonsense, but they all come with
>big fines attached.
> Evidently though, they do not enforce serious
>violations in their own buildings. We know this because
>the OSHA offices in West Virginia were closed for a few
>days this week. According to UPI, OSHA officials were
>forced to send their workers home and shut down the
>building because of harmful bacteria found in the office's
>cooling system.
> Whoops! Poor maintenance and inspection
>practices, resulting in bacteria growing in the office
>cooling system. Yup, Legionnaire's disease at the OSHA
>office.
> Wanna bet that no fines were imposed?
> Also this week came a message from FEMA.
>Apparently, FEMA is picking up the slack for OSHA,
>because the FEMA message informed us that: "The fire
>safety features required by the Hotel and Motel Fire
>Safety Act of 1990 can apply to colleges and universities."
> The FEMA memo warned that: "In a recent
>opinion, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
>General Counsel confirmed this policy. The opinion
>stated any establishment not owned by the federal
>government used for activities funded fully or partially
>with federal monies must have meeting facilities, rooms
>and services that meet the fire prevention and control
>guidelines under the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act."
> As it turns out, FEMA is quietly getting so
>large it now has its own agencies. One is the U.S. Fire
>Administration (USFA). And, Administrator Carrye Brown,
>the head of the USFA, writes that, "This law encourages
>the lodging industry to improve the fire safety features
>of its properties. It limits federal government travelers
>to stays in places of public accommodation that comply
>with the law. The federal government is also required to
>only hold meetings in complying facilities. Our General
>Counsel has made it clear that for colleges and
>universities this includes any dormitories or other
>buildings used to house federal attendees at meetings,
>conferences, or other activities."
> She also said that they will be compiling a
>list of complying universities and whatever, which will
>be published at a later date. Oh yeah . . . and she also
>noted that regulatory changes will be published in the
>Federal Register for comment. Yup, we'll bet you can
>count on that one to happen!
> Now remember folks, this was from FEMA, not
>OSHA. Obviously, FEMA is branching out some.
> There was some news from the Post Office, too.
>Well, actually this time the news is coming from the
>office of the Post Office's Inspector General.
> The IG reports that a Marjorie Brown was
>installed as postmaster last Jan. 10, in a ceremony held
>in the Atlanta City Council chamber. She is the first
>woman to hold the Atlanta post, which oversees 45 post
>offices and 2,400 employees. So . . . they had a little
>party to celebrate. A $45,593 party!
> First, they spent $21,348 to produce a video
>about Ms. Brown's life, the IG report said. An additional
>$9,911 was spent on air fare for out-of-town postal
>workers who attended -- and, of course, for the limousines
>necessary to drive the guests to and from the party.
> Then there was another $4,738 charge for a
>photographer, audio-visual support and postage. The
>postage was necessary for the $2,405 worth of programs,
>invitations and thank-you cards. Rounding it off was the
>$4,800 for the buffet lunch to feed the 300 attending the
>party, and for the breakfast for 30.
> The House subcommittee on the Postal Service
>originally asked for the accounting.
> This could give new meaning to the term "going postal."
>
>THE LAND GRAB PLAN
> By this time, most readers know that significant
>action is being taken to fight the UNESCO and U.S. Man and
>the Biosphere land grab program. UNESCO already formed
>two "International" biosphere reserves here in Kentucky,
>and they are ultimately planning on grabbing about one-
>quarter of the State's land mass. UNESCO has similar
>plans for most states.
> When we published this information over a year
>ago, few people cared. In fact, we were flamed by
>international lawyers, college professors and assorted
>liberals from around the world for about three weeks
>straight. Apparently, even though we write the truth, we
>were wrong -- err, not politically correct -- for
>mentioning the program. That was supposed to be their
>little leftist-liberal secret, and we went and blabbed to
>the world.
> What changed this year? Well, first, a very
>influential Kentucky State Senator noticed that his
>family's 600 acre farm was smack dab in the middle of a
>proposed biosphere. . . Yeah, that helped some. . . .
>Youbettcha!
> A resolution against the Bio-Diversity Treaty
>(mandating hundreds of large biospheres in the United
>States) and the UNESCO and U.S. Man and the Biosphere
>Program sailed right through the Kentucky State Senate at
>warp speed, without so much as one word of dissent! You
>see, when other State Senators started looking at that
>UNESCO biosphere map, they did not like what they saw
>either.
> And, that's good news. So last June, we took
>the plunge and wrote about the subject again. This time,
>we received hundreds of letters of encouragement, and not
>one flame. We also helped Lance Crowe of the American
>Constitutional Campaign Committee send out a very strong
>press release, which was published in dozens of newspapers
>around the country.
> Then, a lot of you called Congress. A LOT of
>you contacted Congress! Which, we should add, made a
>difference. Because, Congress added an amendment to
>quite a few agency appropriations bills declaring that,
>starting next year, no money may be funneled into the Man
>and the Biosphere Program.
> Your calls and letters put Congress on notice.
>They got part of the job done last month. Now, we want
>them to finish the deal. Oh, and incidentally, we also
>want them to punish the wrongdoers in government -- and
>there are quite a few. Here's a quick wrap-up of why:
> In the 1970's, the United States (Carter) joined
>into limited agreements with UNESCO. Part of that was to
>form a few small biosphere reserves in the center of
>national parks. Thirteen federal regulatory agencies and
>the State Department formed the U.S. and UNESCO Man and
>the Biosphere Committee for that purpose.
> By 1984, the Reagan administration noticed that
>UNESCO was ripping American taxpayers off for hundreds of
>millions of dollars annually, and we were getting nothing
>in return. So, we backed out of everything. All
>agreements were off. All programs were canceled. It was
>all over.
> However, that U.S. and UNESCO Man in the
>Biosphere (MAB) Committee didn't see it that way. They
>just kept right on with the UNESCO plan, making biospheres
>wherever they could get away with it. Today, we have 94
>biosphere reserves in the U.S., which have a total
>combined land area (at least) the size of the State of
>Colorado. That is land which is no longer able to be
>used by American citizens -- for any purpose.
> Not only that, but they created buffer and
>cooperation zones around the biospheres and placed strict
>land-use regulations on the people living there. All this
>with no authority. Remember, the MAB Committee should
>not have even existed after 1984, let alone bothered
>American citizens with all those land-use regulations.
> Of course, the MAB Committee never bothered to
>ask Congress if they could use federal land as biosphere
>reserves. Nor did they ever have authorization to spend
>taxpayer funds on the project. The fact is, the MAB
>Committee misappropriated both the land and the money.
>They had no authority. And, as anyone who has ever been
>in the military or worked for government knows, they broke
>the law.
> Kentucky State Senator Dick Roeding (whose
>district is not affected by any existing or proposed
>biospheres) noticed that misappropriation point even
>before we presented all of the information to him. He
>volunteered to tell his colleagues at this week's annual
>American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Convention.
>And, since there will be about 2,500 state legislators
>from around the country there, we expect there might be a
>little action forthcoming.
> ALEC, for those of you who don't know, is a
>national, Tenth Amendment, Jeffersonnian type group of
>State legislators. They are very interested in this type
>of thing. So . . . when Senator Roeding called to see if
>he could get on the agenda to present this, he got a "yes"
>back within about five minutes. It was presented to the
>Task Force on Property Rights yesterday. If they approve,
>it goes before the group as a whole. If the group as a
>whole approves, they collectively "inform" Congress.
> In that case, they will inform Congress that
>the U.S. and UNESCO Man in the Biosphere Program
>must end now. They will also call for a Congressional
>Investigation into why this unauthorized MAB Committee
>was allowed to function for thirteen years, and harass
>American people.
> And maybe, just maybe, the misappropriation
>angle will also be approved. Regardless, we voters can
>push that aspect of the problem. Because, once an
>investigation starts, they will have to ask where all the
>money was coming from all these years. Everyone in
>Congress already knows, of course. But, by actually
>admitting under oath that they diverted unauthorized
>funds into an unauthorized program, they will have
>admitted to a federal crime.
> That should put a lot of federal bureaucrats --
>regulators, one and all -- out of work at once. It may
>even lead to a few going to prison.
> We might also add at this time that there are
>30 to 40 other such frauds perpetrated by the far left on
>the American public via the federal regulatory
>bureaucracy. This biosphere business is just the most
>visible of the unauthorized programs at the moment. A
>win by the American people on this matter will have a very
>interesting domino effect on the others.
> So, if your legislator suddenly starts looking
>like he or she wants to lead this "dump the biosphere"
>parade, please encourage them. In fact, line up behind
>them and make sure they don't stop till you're sure that
>it's all over.
> Next week, it will be time to get cards and
>letters to Congress ready. A simple handwritten postcard
>to your three Members of Congress is all that will be
>necessary. This is important, too. It looks like we can
>see the end on this one, folks. One or two more big pushes
>and it looks like we're there.
>
> -- End --
>Lance R. Crowe, Chairman
>American Constitutional Campaign Committee
>5300 Scottsville Road
>P.O. Box 51851
>Bowling Green KY 42102-6851
>ACCC@bgn.mindspring.com
>Visit our web site at:
>http://mmc.cns.net/accc/accc.html
========================================================================
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