Time: Tue Jul 01 13:20:31 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA29483;
Tue, 1 Jul 1997 12:15:56 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA08694;
Tue, 1 Jul 1997 12:15:46 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 12:14:05 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Sweeneys -- Update 7-1-1997 (fwd)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<snip>
>
>7/1/97
>Written by Leroy Crenshaw
>
>I just got back home from the Sweeneys after spenting the weekend there
>helping out where needed, such as doing guard-duty so some of the other
>people could get some sleep. There are people on guard 24 hours a day. I
>spent a lot of time with other people reading some of the Sweeneys court
>papers. Just from what I read there are more than 20 judges and lawyers that
>must go to jail for a very long time, and as I read more the number will get
>larger. It seem that the only one that were going by the law and trying to
>do the right thing were the Sweeneys, the judges and lawyers sure in hell
>were not. These crooks have a gold mine in robing people like the Sweeneys.
>We have it in black and white on paper.
> I have said it before and I am saying again, the Sweeneys case is the case
>that all of us need to get behind because this case is the case that could
>save this once great Country and restore our Constitution. This case will
>expose the corruptions that is taking place in every branch of the
>government. There are people in the Congress and Senate that seem to be
>crooks and are protecting the crooks that are robing the Sweeneys and other
>people all across the country and we the people have a chance to put a stop
>to the abuse that these crooks are doing.
> Be sure to visit the Sweeneys web page http://www.qui-tam.com
>
> Leroy Crenshaw
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
> TO: THE EDITOR HAMILTON WENHAM CHRONICLE
> HAMILTON, MASS. JUNE 30, 1997
>
>Re: Sweeney Real Estate Taxes and "Thank You"
>
>We are now in day 27 of having not left our property due to the
>U.S. Federal Marshal threat of eviction. The U.S. Marshals are
>using orders issued by the FDIC that have been obtained through fraud.
>
> We want to first thank Chief Walter Cullen and his staff for we
>know the undue burden that this incident places on him, his department,
>and the town. We are sorry that Federal Authorities and attorneys for
>the FDIC have taken things to such an extreme.
>
> We also want to thank the many wonderful people of Hamilton Wenham,
>our church, and numerous others who have dropped off food and supplies for
>the many volunteers who have come from out-of-state to be on our property
>and help protect us.
>
> We do want to address the questions that seems to be of concern to
>the citizens of Hamilton and those are – have the real-estate taxes on our
>property been paid? And also -- Why should the town suffer because of any
>unpaid taxes? Here are the answers:
>
> The property taxes on our property have been paid in full and are
>completely up to date through 1997. The town has received ALL the monies
>due them for the entire subdivision plan that the Hamilton Planning Board
>approved since 1988.
>
> The FDIC and their lawyers came onto our property in November of
>1994 during active settlement discussions and held an illegal auction while
>we were away visiting our daughters during Thanksgiving and has since been
>paying the property taxes to the town. All of our assets have been frozen
>in litigation and we have not seen one cent of the $4,000,000 judgment that
>we won in state court and that the FDIC has been covering up saying that the
>45 page State Court Judge’s opinion and $4 million award "does not exist".
>The bank lawyer originally obstructed our attempts to pay back the loan
which
>was one reason the bank lost the case. However, it is our intention and
>always
>has been our intention to pay back our loan and any real estate taxes paid
to
>the town when the judgment is honored.
>
> We trust this letter will clarify any misunderstanding about any taxes
>due the town and we thank everyone again for their support and appreciate
>your interest and your prayers.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>John and Rhetta Sweeney
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> THE KENNEDY CONNECTION -- "CHAPPAQUIDDICK REVISTED"
>
>The question has come up "Why is this Federal Judge, Edward Harrington, going
>to such lengths to protect the lawyer John Hanify of Hanify & King in Boston,
>Massachusetts?"
>
>Here are the facts for you to discern:
>
>EDWARD HARRINGTON
>Federal Judge Edward F. Harrington failed to be recommended for a
>Massachusetts Superior Court appointment by Governor Dukakis’ Judicial
>Nominating Council. Subsequently Senator Edward M. Kennedy recommended
>that he be put up for the Federal Bench. Edward Harrington was well-known to
>Ted Kennedy at the time of the Chappaquiddick affair and in the years that
>followed.
>
>Edward Harrington was the law partner of Paul Markham, (1) one of the two
>individuals at Ted Kennedy’s side the night Mary Jo Kopoechne died, drowning
>inside the car upside-down underwater beneath the Dyke Bridge on
>Chappaquiddick Island. Edward Harrington also served under Paul Markham on
>the Strike Force of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston. (2)
>
>EDWARD HANIFY
>Edward B. Hanify is the father of John Hanify. Edward Hanify of Ropes & Gray
>(4) in Boston was the lead attorney in Ted Kennedy’s extensive defense team
>(5)
>as stated in the book Chappaquiddick Revealed, "The Kennedy attorneys were
>brilliantly led by Edward B. Hanify, a Boston Brahmin if ever there was one.
>Hanify headed the venerable Boston law firm of Ropes & Gray…." (p105)
>
>Edward Hanify was asked by Ted Kennedy to go to Washington, DC and speak
>on behalf of Edward Harrington’s nomination before the Senate Judiciary’s
>confirmation hearings because there were stiff objections to Edward
Harrington
>being confirmed as a Federal Judge by many other prominent attorneys in the
>Boston legal community. (5) [See link U.S. Senate Judiciary]
>
>JOHN HANIFY
>John Hanify is the son of Edward Hanify. Both he and his law firm Hanify &
>King represented ComFed Savings Bank before it failed and was taken over by
>the FDIC/RTC. John Hanify obstructed the pay back of the Sweeney loan while
>he was representing the bank and he helped develop the loan documents that
>ComFed Bank used to defraud the Sweeneys and many others doing business
>with ComFed. He was the personal Defense Attorney for the same ComFed Bank
>officers who committed "unfair and deceptive trade practices" against the
>Sweeneys and who were later charged with racketeering (RICO) by the
>FDIC/RTC. He and Edward Harrington have both worked together at the same
>time in the U.S. Attorneys office in Boston during the years 1978-1980. They
>know each other well.
>
>STEPHEN BREYER
>Stephen Breyer is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
>States.
>He worked extensively with Ted Kennedy during his time as Chief Counsel to
the
>Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, DC from 1979-1980. He also served
>as the Chief Justice in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston where he
>affirmed the actions of Judge Harrington by changing the facts of the Sweeney
>case in his written opinion, overlooking the fact that to this day the FDIC
>has
>never substituted into the Sweeney action as a party. Ted Kennedy asked
>President Clinton twice to nominate him to the Supreme Court of the United
>States.
>
>COMMENT
>When John Hanify removed the $4,000,000 state court judgement and hid it in
>the
>law offices of Hanify & King for 28 days he was desperate to get the entire
>case
>to his friend Judge Edward Harrington. The case was supposed to be "drawn"
>randomly in Federal Court. However it was conveniently "re-assigned" to Judge
>Harrington. Judge Harrington then proceeded to call a special hearing, and
>in less
>than one hour proceeded to completely ignore all of the work done in State
>Court
>over a nine month period, and a three-week trial by the State Court Judge. He
>then ruled a "summary judgement" in favor of his friend and colleague John
>Hanify. Judge Harrington "expunged and nullified" the 45-page opinion of
State
>Court Judge Catherine Liacos Izzo. He put everything under seal. No one has
>seen
>the original opinion written by Judge Izzo to this day.
>
>An initialed true copy of that opinion was given to the Sweeney’s
attorneys by
>Judge Izzo herself when she learned that the original had been removed from
>state
>court. It is that precedent-setting document, the first United States
>"lender liability"
>victory against a bank, that is now up on the internet for the world to see.
>Judge
>Harrington has at all times known of the fraud that was committed against the
>Sweeneys by ComFed Bank and its lawyers, one of which was his friend John
>Hanify. He has chosen, along with the FDIC, to cover up these crucial facts
>and
>insist that no 45-page opinion of "unfair and deceptive trade practices"
>exists or
>ever happened.
>
>The obvious question that needs to be answered by Judge Harrington, John
>Hanify, and the FDIC is…"WHY?"
>
>
>
>(1) Senatorial Privilege, The Chappaquiddick Cover-Up; Leo Damore, Dell
>Publishing, New York, NY; 1988 p113
>
>(2) Ibid., p298-299
>
>(3) Chappaquidick Revealed, What Really Happened; Kenneth R. Kappel;
>Lamplight Publications, Inc.; St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY; 1989; p105
>
>(4)Teddy Bare, The Last of the Kennedy Clan; Zad Rust, Western Islands,
>Belmont, MA; 1971 p104
>
>"At a session at the Boston Law Office of Ropes & Gray, the law firm of
Edward
>B. Hanify, the man who would from now on be Kennedy’s chief attorney, had
>decided upon the particulars of a common strategy. This could not have been
>difficult. A battery of the cleverest defense lawyers money could buy had
been
>assembled to face Judge Boyle, and they had been assembled on the same
>initiative and had the same purposes in mind: to avoid any inquest if
>possible, to
>postpone it indefinitely if avoiding it proved impossible; and to keep it
>hushed
>behind closed doors when it could no longer be postponed."
>
>(5) Please read excerpts below of Edward Hanify’s comments supporting Edward
>Harrington and then read those of the people who opposed Judge Harrington and
>you will get a "chilling" account as to how they predicted Judge Harrington
>would
>behave as a Federal Judge and his actions in this case fulfilling those
>predictions.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>
> JUDGE DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
>
>
> Judge Woodlock, Judge Harrington and Attorney John Hanify all served
>together in the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston from 1979 to 1980.
> Judge Woodlock appeared with John Hanify’s father, Edward Hanify in
>Washington D.C. to speak in support of Edward Harrington’s nomination to the
>Federal Bench at the US Senate Judiciary Hearing of December 9, 1987. [click
>U.S. Senate Judiciary]
> Judge Woodlock was the first person to hear the Sweeney case in Federal
>Court in 1991. (CA-91-10098-WD dated March 1 1991) He immediately did two
>things:
>
>1) Questioned how the case had come before him:
>
>Judge Woodlock: “Well, what I guess I don’t understand is why doesn’t
>Middlesex Court have these papers, the original of these papers? The only
>way that papers get over here on removal is [when] certified copies or a
>writ of certiorari is issued by the Court. I’m not aware that a writ was
>issued here, so, consequently, we shouldn’t have the original papers.”
>
>2) Recused himself:
>
>Judge Woodlock: “I’m afraid after reviewing the papers more carefully last
>night that I have a threshold problem, a question here that I think may
>merit my recusal from the case.”
>“And I…have had social contacts or encounters – although not extensive ones
>– with the plaintiffs here. It has been my practice generally when
>confronted with personal relationships like that – even attenuated ones – to
>recuse myself.”
>“Of course, I suppose I should note I also have had professional
>relationships with Mr. Hanify, with whom I served in the United States
>Attorney’s Office, and, in fact, with Mr. King with whom I had some dealings
>in Georgetown alumni matters.” [James King is the law partner of John Hanify
>at Hanify & King]
>“But the sole question is whether or not someone looking from the outside
>could reasonably say that there was some sort of appearance of impropriety
>as a result of these relationships. I think they perhaps could here and I
>choose not to proceed.”
>
>NOTE: When Judge Woodlock recused himself the case was supposed to have been
>“redrawn,” but instead it was “reassigned” to John Hanify’s friend and
>colleague Judge Edward Harrington.
>
>COMMENT: Isn’t it strange that Federal District Court Judge Woodlock found
>it necessary to recuse himself on the slightest impropriety but that
>District Court Judge Harrington denied the Sweeney motion requesting that he
>recuse himself because of more extensive connections with John Hanify and
>his father Edward Hanify!!! [click Senator Kennedy and U.S. Senate
>Judiciary]
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>CONFIRMATION HEARING ON
> EDWARD F. HARRINGTON BEFORE
> THE US SENATE
>
> Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC Wednesday, Dec. 9, 1987
>
>Appearing in opposition to Mr. Harrington’s nomination, prominent Boston
>Attorneys Alice Richmond and Earle Cooley presented this testimony:
>
>Miss Richmond stated that she:
>
> -Graduated from Cornell University in 1968.
> -Served as an intern to both Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Senator Jacob
> Javits.
> -Spent approximately one year in the office of the Mayor of the City
>of New
> York.
> -Received her law degree in 1972.
> -Is the Immediate Past President of the Massachusetts Bar Association, a
> statewide organization of approximately 19,000 lawyers and one of the
> largest voluntary bar associations in the country.
>
>She also submitted the following written testimony:
>
>"My opposition [to Judge Harrington’s nomination] is based not only on my
>personal experiences with Mr. Harrington but upon the literally scores of
>conversations that I have had with other Massachusetts lawyers. To oppose a
>nomination submitted by the President of the United States is not an act
>that I, or
>any other responsible lawyer, do lightly. I believe that Mr. Harrington lacks
>judicial temperament to such a degree that I chose to accept the Committee’s
>invitation to discuss my concerns publicly.
>
>"These accounts of Mr. Harrington’s explosive, if not abusive, conduct come
>from
>Massachusetts lawyers of widely different ages, backgrounds, experiences and
>perspectives. They come from both men and women and extend in time from my
>own experiences of more than a decade ago to the relatively recent past.
>
>"My experiences with Mr. Harrington date back to late 1975 or early 1976. I
>was
>an Assistant District Attorney in Boston and had been appointed a Special
>Assistant Attorney General to prosecute James F. Blaikie for the murder of
>David
>DeWilde.
>
>"I was informed that Edward F. (Ted) Harrington would be entering the case as
>co-counsel for Mr. Blaikie.
>
>"Almost from his initial appearance, Ted Harrington’s behavior was
>intimidating, if
>not abusive. He frequently yelled. Almost every disagreement about discovery,
>scheduling or the like resulted in a personalization of the dispute with Ted
>Harrington suggesting that my conduct was improper, if not unethical. He
>regularly
>stated that the police officers were lying and implied that I was as well.
>
>"At some point during the trial, a dispute arose while the jury was in the
>courtroom. My memory is that we were at sidebar and that Mr. Harrington was
>vehemently disagreeing with something I said. The Judge (Maguire, J.) excused
>the jury and told counsel to accompany him to his lobby to discuss the
>matter. As
>we were filing into the Lobby, the Judge, whose back was to us, asked me a
>question. I started to answer and Harrington, who was immediately behind me,
>leaned forward and said loud enough for me to hear: "you lying c---."
>
>"Although I did report Mr. Harrington’s remark to Attorney General
Bellotti, I
>chose not to pursue the matter.
>
>"In 1983, in a similar situation involving a female prosecutor trying a
>serious rape
>case, Mr. Harrington, who had been insisting that the prosecutor "knew"
>that she
>was "railroading an innocent man", called the prosecutor a "liar" or a
>"f------ liar"
>as they approached the sidebar for a bench conference; Mr. Harrington’s
client
>was subsequently convicted of rape.
>
>"Neither time nor space permit me to recount all of the incidents I have
heard
>regarding Mr. Harrington’s lack of control, his disproportionate reaction
>to, or
>personalization of, the kind of disputes or disagreements that regularly
>arise during
>the course of litigation.
>
>"Were Mr. Harrington to be confirmed as a judge, the consequences of his
>tendency to personalize disputes and to regard those who disagree with him
>as his
>enemies, if not worse, would be disastrous not only for the lawyers who
appear
>before him but especially for their clients."
>
>Attorney Earle Cooley submitted this written testimony in opposition to Mr.
>Harrington’s nomination:
>
>"Edward F. Harrington is under consideration for judicial appointment to the
>United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. I
respectfully
>oppose his nomination.
>
>" I have been a trial lawyer in Massachusetts for more than thirty years and
>I have
>seldom encountered a person less temperamentally suited to be a United States
>District Court Judge. It has been my experience that one disagrees with Mr.
>Harrington at the risk of being labeled an enemy of society.
>
>"Mr. Harrington sponsored Joseph Barboza for inclusion in the Federal Witness
>Protection Program and he is quite proud of the convictions he obtained
>with the
>testimony of this witness. I submit that he has nothing of which to be proud.
>Barboza was a career criminal and a vicious killer. He was given a new
>identity
>and placed in an unsuspecting California community where he continued his
>criminal career. When he was arrested and prosecuted—I believe for
>murder—Mr. Harrington intervened in his behalf and the charge was greatly
>reduced. As a result, Mr. Barboza made it back to freedom and a life of
>crime in a
>very short period of time.
>
>"Mr. Harrington also sponsored Diane Wazen for the Federal Witness Protection
>Program. Wazen was a key witness in two of the prosecutions against my
client.
>While in the program, she participated in an American Express check scam that
>netted more than $20,000. Mr. Harrington shielded her from prosecution
>until she
>had served his purpose and, although ultimately convicted, Mr. Harrington
>saw to
>it that she never served a day for her crime.
>
>"Thomas Sperrazza, confessed murderer of five people, including a Boston
>police
>officer, was another of Mr. Harrington’s protected witnesses against my
>client.
>Sperrazza was cajoled, coddled and even promised ultimate release in return
>for
>his testimony.
>
>"The legitimate function of the Federal Witness Protection Program is to keep
>threatened witnesses safe and secure so that they will be available to give
>truthful
>testimony. It should not be used as a vehicle to reward witnesses for whom
>perjury is the least offensive crime in their repertoire, nor as a safe
>haven for
>continued criminal activity.
>
>"I believe that those experiences, combined with my own, warrant the
>conclusion
>that Mr. Harrington is volatile, vindictive and intemperate when he doesn’t
>get his
>way or somehow feels invalidated. In my own opinion, he lacks the judicial
>temperament essential to the even-handed administration of justice in our
>federal
>courts.
>
>Long-time Harrington associates Judge Douglas Woodlock [click Judge Woodlock]
>and Edward Hanify, John Hanify’s father, [click John Hanify] spoke in
>behalf of
>the would-be jurist.
>
>In support of Mr. Harrington’s nomination Judge Woodlock in written testimony
>stated:
>
>"It was an honor to have served with Mr. Harrington in the United States
>Attorney’s office. I look forward to the honor--and the pleasure—of serving
>again
>with him in public office or the bench of the United States District Court
>for the
>District of Massachusetts.
>
>"I would be pleased to have this letter included in the record of Mr.
>Harrington’s
>hearing before the Judiciary Committee and would welcome the opportunity to
>expand on those views in person or in writing if you considered that helpful
>to the
>Judiciary Committee’s consideration.
>
>Edward B. Hanify, Esq. offered oral and written testimony including the
>following:
>
>"My name is Edward B. Hanify.
>"I support the nomination of Edward F. Harrington as United States District
>Judge. Although of different generations, he and I are natives of Fall River,
>graduates of the same high school and Holy Cross College.
>
>"The qualifications of a competent judge are so well-known to this
>committee as
>to make their enumeration presumptuous. I can only claim to have observed
>for a
>half-century those intangible qualities become tangible in the performance
>of what
>the Trial Bar tersely calls "a good Trial Judge," and express my expectation
>that
>Mr. Harrington will become such a Judge. The "good Trial Judge," is the
man or
>woman who conscientiously strives to be a legal scholar yet not a pedant, is
>patient, yet not dilatory, expeditious in ruling and decision yet not hasty…"
>
>COMMENT: One must ask how it is possible for supposedly objective positions
>regarding known professionals to be as different as those offered in support
>of and
>in opposition to Edward Harrington’s nomination to the Federal Bench.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>To all who are concerned.....we
> need your help.
>
> THINGS WE NEED:
>
> 1.Volunteers to physically patrol and protect our
> property. (Call 508-468-1536)
> 2.Use of one additional gas generator (4500 +watt) in
> case electricity is cut off. (Already donated.)
> 3.Use of two cellular telephones and/or CB radios in
> case phone lines are terminated.
> 4.Use of two video cameras with batteries to record
> situations should they occur.
> 5.Use of one laptop computer with fax/modem
> capability.
> 6.Copy machine and or access to one for use in
> making copies of press releases and other
> documents.
> 7.The use of a set of walkie-talkies. (Already
> donated.)
> 8.List your name with us as a volunteer to be part of a
> "phone tree"
> of people who we can call and mobilize on short
> notice. (Call 508-468-1536)
> 9.Immediately call, fax, e-mail and write all the people
> listed below to let them know that you support us
> and are holding them accountable to stop these
> actions.
>
> Andrew Hove, Acting Chairman, Federal Deposit
> Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 550 17th St. NW,
> Washington, DC 20429, Phone 202-393-8400, FAX
> 202-898-3778
> John Tierney, U. S. Congressman, 6th District, 17
> Peabody Square, Peabody, MA 01960, Phone
> 508-531-1669, 508-531-1996 (FAX)
> tierney@usa1.com (e-mail)
> CALL FREE 1-800-962-3524 & Ask For Your
> Senator or Representative - Let Them Know Where
> You Stand On Any Issue!
> John Kerry, U. S. Senator - One Bowdoin Square,
> 10th Floor, Boston, MA 02114, Phone
> 617-565-8519, 617-248-3870 (FAX)
> john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov (e-mail)
> Edward Kennedy, U. S. Senator, Room 409 JFK
> Building, Boston, MA 02203, Phone 617-565-3170,
> 617-565-3183 (FAX) senator@kennedy.senate.gov
> (e-mail)
> Alfonse D'Amato, U. S. Senator, Chairman Senate
> Banking Committee, SH 520, Washington, DC
> 20510, Phone 202-224-6542 202-224-2080 (FAX)
> senator_al@damato.senate.gov (e-mail)
> Chief Walter Cullen Hamilton Police, Hamilton,
> MA 01936, Phone 508-468-4421 508-468-1919
> (FAX)
> Tim Clark, State Representative, Fourth Essex
> District, Room 540, State House, Boston, MA
> 02133-1054, Phone 617-722-2090, 617-722-2897
> (FAX)
> Bruce Tarr, State Senator, Room 507, State House,
> Boston, MA 02133, Phone 617-722-1600
> Donald Stern, U. S. Attorney, 1003 J. W.
> McCormick PO & Court House, Boston, MA
> 02109, Phone 617-223-9400 617-223-4825 (FAX)
> Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, One
> Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108 Phone
> 617-727-2200, 617-727-3521 (FAX)
> William F. Weld, Governor, Commonwealth of
> Massachusetts, State House, Boston, MA 02133
> Phone 617-727-9173, 617-523-7984 (FAX)
>
> THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP,
> CONCERN and PRAYERS.
>
> JOHN & RHETTA SWEENEY
> 24 Meyer Lane
> Hamilton, MA 01982
> 508-468-1536 Phone
> 508-468-4428 (FAX)
> jsweeney@star.net (e-mail)
> http://www.qui-tam.com (Web Page)
>
> These people also needs more food to be donated
>
>
>
>˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙-˙
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>
>
========================================================================
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 3.0.2 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