Time: Fri Jul 25 19:19:24 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA18009;
Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:42:57 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 21:42:16 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: "DOJ's game is to break you."
>LOSER PAYS
>
> Every once in a while we read something coming
>from Capitol Hill that actually sounds like a good idea.
>That is, it sounds good until we study it for a while.
> This week, AP reports that a "you lose, you pay"
>penalty was amended to a spending bill approved by the
>House Appropriations Committee. The amendment was tucked
>into a bill providing funding for the Commerce, Justice
>and State departments.
> "We're sending a message to the Justice
>Department," said Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), who spearheaded
>the amendment. "You've got the whole Justice Department
>(working) against you. This way, at least if you're
>acquitted ... you can get reimbursed."
> Now, we have never personally been bothered by
>a prosecutor. Still, this sounded only fair. Any
>prosecutor filing charges against a citizen without first
>having conclusive proof of wrongdoing should themselves
>be prosecuted and have to make the citizen "whole" again.
>Otherwise, prosecutors could charge people they didn't
>like with whatever they wished, just to cause them
>aggravation.
> Rep. Joseph McDade, (R-PA) said the "game on
>the part of the Justice Department is to break you. They
>use any method they can to achieve that end and at the
>end of the day they walk away. They can charge you with
>anything."
> Strong words, coming from a member of Congress.
>Perhaps the Members of Congress will remember that as
>their law factory churns out thousands of pages of new
>law every month.
> It is true, federal prosecutors have entirely
>too much power and are poorly supervised. A vindictive
>prosecutor, or one trying to make a name for himself, can
>ruin a person's life. Worse, a citizen has zero
>recourse. There is absolutely nothing a citizen can do
>about an out of control prosecutor coming after them.
> But, alas, McDade will not remember his own
>words for long. You see folks, the provision would only
>apply to the Lords and Ladies of Congress -- and staffers,
>of course. The provision would let members of Congress
>and their legislative staff recoup legal fees if they
>prevail in court, and the money would be deducted from
>the Justice Department's budget.
> American citizens -- we who pay all the bills --
>don't count.
> Just as an aside here: Anyone remember the
>remark by Pat Buchanan last year about the "peasants with
>pitchforks" storming Washington? These guys are sure
>making that thought attractive, aren't they!
>
>ALL SPEECH IS NOT FREE
> Usually, there is so much truly outrageous
>material available we wish we had a full sized newspaper
>and a room full of writers. Just on freedom of speech
>this week there's . . . well, here's an outline of some
>of the more interesting of what we've found.
> The first piece that caught our interest concerned
>our former Congresswoman from Detroit. Anyone thinking
>Rep. John Conyers is outrageous and fun to watch has to
>meet the former U.S. Rep. from Detroit, Barbara-Rose
>Collins. Conyers is the height of politeness and decorum
>when compared with Collins!
> Beltway insiders may remember the flare with
>which Collins arrived in Washington. First, she was
>immediately charged with campaign finance fraud (but
>never prosecuted). Her first week in the House she
>repeatedly fell asleep sitting at her chair on the House
>floor -- and snored loudly. Turns out, she had been out
>clothes shopping for herself, her child and her paramour
>every afternoon and evening, using the left over campaign
>funds, and she was tired.
> A few weeks later, she went to Africa to be made
>a queen of some little place. She told them she could get
>them foreign aid, so they made her their grand poo pa.
>Again, the Democrat leadership of the House let her get
>away with it.
> Anyway, both the AP and the Detroit Free Press
>report the queen and former Rep. has sued the Detroit
>Free Press, saying she was defamed by a story in which
>she was misquoted as saying she hated the white race (she
>does).
> On July 17, 1996, the Free Press quoted
>Collins saying: "All white people, I don't believe, are
>intolerant. That's why I say I love the individuals but
>I hate the race."
> What Collins admits to saying was: "All white
>people, I don't believe, are intolerant. That's why I
>say I love the individuals, but I don't like the race."
> Herschel Fink, attorney for the Free Press, said
>the lawsuit is frivolous. "The remark Ms. Collins admits
>she said and the one the newspaper reported she said were
>substantially the same," Fink said. "We expect the court
>to quickly dismiss the case."
> In another matter, AP reports that the Montana
>Supreme Court upheld Montana's "hate crime" law and the
>conviction of a teen-ager who distributed bumper stickers
>aimed at the Church Universal and Triumphant. The law is
>neither overly broad nor unconstitutionally vague, the
>court held unanimously, and did not violate free-speech
>rights.
> The bumper stickers stated: "NO I'm not a member
>of CUT" in black writing, with the words 'NO' and 'CUT'
>in bold and the only words visible from a distance.
> The defendent "points out that others in the
>community have similar stickers affixed to their vehicles
>or in their windows as a protest against what they
>perceive to be objectionable practices of CUT," Justice
>James C. Nelson wrote. However, the defendent "fails to
>recognize that the difference between his conduct and
>that of others in the community is that the others he
>referred to placed the stickers on their own property
>while [he] placed the stickers on other people's property
>without their permission."
> So, malicious mischief may now be "hate speech"
>in Montana if it involves writing.
> In yet another matter, the Cato Institute
>posted a very interesting briefing paper (No. 31), titled
>"CAMPAIGN REFORM: Let's Not Give Politicians the Power to
>Decide What We Can Say about Them." The paper is written
>by Douglas Johnson and Mike Beard. Below is the summary:
> "Lawmakers of both parties have proposed
>'campaign reform' bills that would curtail the right of
>corporations (including issue-oriented advocacy
>organizations) and labor unions to communicate with the
>public about those who hold or seek public office. The
>really important question for congressional supporters of
>the various proposals is this: where in the world do you
>think you get the authority to regulate the political
>speech of American citizens?
> "Those proposals violate the First Amendment,
>which the Supreme Court has repeatedly held to provide
>the highest degree of protection for issue advocacy,
>including explicit commentary on the merits, positions,
>and actions of office holders and office seekers. The
>right to attempt to persuade our fellow citizens of the
>issues they should weigh in casting their votes is as
>fundamental as the right to vote.
> "Unfortunately, the news media have generally
>been promoting speech-restrictive proposals rather than
>defending the First Amendment -- the nation's paramount
>'election law.'"
> Some very important points are made in this
>5,000 word paper. And, while we may not exactly agree
>with every conclusion made, the full text is certainly
>worth reading. Because, if some bills currently on fast
>track in Congress are not killed, political speech as we
>now know it, and as the Founding Fathers intended it,
>will most certainly become a thing of the past.
> The complete text can be found at:
>www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-031es.html
>
>NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR LAWMAKERS
> Many of us have often wondered why Members of
>Congress do not always study the bills on which they are
>expected to vote. "They don't have time," is a reply we
>have received more than a few times from hill rats.
>"They are often too busy to read more than the summaries."
> We also often wondered what would happen
>if members of other professions -- say, medical
>professionals, for example -- used that excuse. For
>instance, what would happen if a surgeon were to say,
>"Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that was in there," as
>many in Congress used as their excuse to their
>constituents when confronted about the Kohl and
>Lautenberg amendments passing last year?
> Or, how about if your physician told you, after
>unsuccessfully treating you for a few weeks, that he
>really had no time to study that problem, but that choice
>of drug sounded good when the salesman told him about
>it. And that was after you noticed that he always seemed
>to have time to hit the golf course every afternoon.
> Not good, huh?
> Members of Congress like to think of themselves
>as professional law makers. And, like physicians, their
>work certainly can affect our lives. Why then, do we
>hold members of government to a different standard? And
>by the way, are there any standards at all for acceptable
>performance in government?
> Everyone in the federal government is paid for
>full time employment, so an article by Jock Friedly and
>Robert Schlesinger in "The Hill" attracted our attention
>last week. It was titled simply: "Members took 1,053
>trips in '96." The piece opened with the paragraph:
> "More than three-fifths of the members of
>Congress (and staffs) took more than a thousand expense-
>paid junkets and other 'fact-finding' trips in 1996,
>ranging from summer sojourns in Italy to winter weekends
>in Bermuda. Some 319 members jetted around the country
>and across the globe to attend seminars or give keynote
>addresses, according to an analysis by The Hill of
>financial disclosure forms and travel records filed with
>the House and Senate. These trips were financed by
>corporations, non-profit organizations, foreign
>governments and other interest groups."
> Contrast their performance with our local State
>Senator. I called him at home on a beautiful Sunday
>afternoon a few weeks back. He was busy reading
>regulations. Turns out, he is now on the committee to
>review all State regulations. He received a stack of new
>regulations over two feet high ten days before the first
>committee meeting was scheduled, and he felt duty bound
>to read each and every one of them.
> Now a little more from "The Hill" newspaper:
>"Topping the list of congressional frequent fliers was
>Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who managed 23 separate
>trips, including winter jaunts to Jamaica, Antigua,
>Bermuda, Hawaii and the Bahamas, where her husband Sidney
>Williams has served as ambassador since 1994. Waters'
>trips were sponsored by a variety of organizations,
>ranging from the Selma (Ala.) Civil Rights Museum to the
>Caribbean Banana Exporters Association, with most
>involving African-American themes. In two instances,
>Waters spent personal time in the locale beyond what the
>official itinerary demanded. According to her travel
>disclosures, Waters vacationed in New Orleans and
>Charlotte."
> "The Hill" reports that Bill Hogan, director of
>investigative projects at the Center for Public Integrity,
>is among those who are concerned about the proliferation
>of congressional travel.
> "At the very basic level, almost all of them
>are unnecessary," said Hogan. "They represent people on
>the public payroll taking trips on somebody else's
>dime. ... If you take a trip and a corporation pays for
>it ... [and] they then call you up and need a favor,
>you're going to be inclined to do it for them because
>they've done a favor for you. And that's the basic harm
>in this relationship."
> Yeah, and it's called bribes on this side of the
>Beltway. Congress is very well paid. If they want to go
>someplace, they should pay for it just like the rest of
>us. "The Hill" reports that the most common foreign
>destination was Taiwan, with most of the trips sponsored
>by a Republic of China (Taiwan) business consortium.
> Sure. And if there are ever full investigations
>on that money infiltrating our election process, Capitol
>Hill is going to have some very lonely hallways!
> Other destinations included Hong Kong, Paris,
>London, Stuttgart, Bangkok, Beijing, Mexico City,
>Leningrad, Ankara, Slovenia, Havana, Delhi and Zurich.
>In other words, no places Members of our Congress (or
>their staffs and spouses) needed to be officially.
> So, when we ask why they do not always read
>the bills they're voting on, probably we'll have to agree
>with staff. Many of them have no time.
> Professional ethics personified.
>
>INTERESTING INFORMATION
> Here are a couple very interesting web pages
>many readers will be interested in. The first is new.
>The second has been around for a while but has recently
>made some very impressive additions.
> Most of us have seen Larry Klayman, Chairman
>of Judicial Watch, on television programs such as CNN's
>Crossfire, ABC's Prime Time Live, and FOX television.
>He's usually speaking on ethics and the need for honest
>government. Currently (we are told) Klayman is providing
>legal commentary on the Thompson campaign finance
>hearings for National Empowerment Television (NET).
> Judicial Watch reports it has nine on-going
>cases to expose government corruption in the Clinton
>Administration. These cases include: Representing those
>citizens whose FBI files were wrongly accessed -- possibly
>for political espionage purposes -- by Hillary Clinton,
>Bernard Nussbaum, Anthony Marceca, and Craig Livingstone.
>Filing FOI requests to uncover the Department of
>Commerce's practice of selecting companies for trade
>missions in exchange for donations to the Democratic
>National Committee. And a class action derivative suit
>on behalf of the policyholders of State Farm Insurance
>Company against State Farm and its top executives for
>improperly paying Bill Clinton's legal fees and expenses
>in the Paula Jones lawsuit.
> Other matters in which the group is involved
>include such things as why the Los Angeles Airport
>Authority paid Webster Hubbell for legal fees when he was
>under investigation, the political motivations behind
>Attorney General Janet Reno's refusal to appoint an
>independent counsel to investigate campaign finance
>related matters, and ways to reform our legal system to
>make it more responsive and less expensive for the
>average citizen.
> The Judicial Watch e-mail address is:
>jwatch@erols.com But, better yet, last week they started
>posting press releases and other information on the
>Internet. Visit them at: www.judicialwatch.org
> For those of us looking for some excellent
>Constitutional information, most of which is written by
>the original Founding Fathers, we have only to visit the
>Constitution Society's Home Page at: www.constitution.org/
> Jon Roland is doing such a bang up job there
>that, for Constitutionalists, the site deserves a visit
>at least once a week just to see what is new. For
>instance, here's part of what we found on their "What's
>New" page on July 24:
> "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
>States," by Joseph Story (1833) was recently posted.
>This is an authoritative commentary by an early Supreme
>Court justice who helped shape the interpretation of the
>Constitution for the next century. The complete 3-volume
>work is being converted.
> "The St. George Tucker annotated version of
>Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England," was
>also recently posted. Blackstone's Commentaries, by Sir
>William Blackstone, was the codification of the Common
>Law -- the (three volume) law book of our country before
>the Constitution.
> Blackstone's Commentaries needed to be adapted
>to reflect the new American Constitution. Professor of
>Law St. George Tucker annotated the Commentaries in 1803,
>making this version the first truly American law book.
>The complete 5-volume work is being converted.
> James Madison's Notes on the Debates in the
>Federal Convention of 1787 are also posted. These are
>the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention held in
>Philadelphia, and are an essential guide to interpreting
>the intent of the Framers.
> One of the many other interesting recent
>additions is a paper titled "Let's Revive Private
>Prosecutions;" by Jon Roland. Roland proposes the use
>of private prosecutors in cases of public corruption and
>abuse where public prosecutors are unwilling to prosecute.
> The problem with Jon Roland's Constitution
>Society web site is that there is so much good material
>there we sometimes get sidetracked with interesting
>things we did not plan to study at the time.
> Hopefully, the Judicial Watch web page will
>soon be almost as prolific. For instance, they have an
>up coming deposition of Hillary Clinton that would look
>very good posted on the Internet. . . .
>
>HALEY KICKS BUTT
> Democrats thought they would nail some Barbour
>butt to the old barn wall. But Haley's country boy charm
>was backed up by some cold, hard facts. And those facts
>were related with a rapid-fire delivery that kept the
>attention of everyone in the room.
> "I was born at night, senators. But it wasn't
>last night." was an extremely effective shot across the
>bow of the impending minority attack. He knew Democrats
>were gunning for him, and he was ready.
> Haley Barbour was prepared with an excellent
>working knowledge of the political finances of both
>parties. And along with that knowledge, he brought along
>a willingness to fire back with everything in the
>backgrounds of each Democrat senator. They learned that
>quickly.
> Consequently, the Republicans, not the
>Democrats, asked most of the hard questions in this
>round. With a 1 to 10 rating system, we would score it
>Haley 9, Republican Senators 1, Democrats 0.
> CNN even ran part of the hearings while Barbour
>was there. And "part" is the correct word here, too.
>CNN intentionally tried to cut to commentary and/or break
>whenever Haley was making a good point.
> Again, the hearings were boycotted by the four
>major television networks. This time it was in favor of
>the "great manhunt" story. It didn't even matter that
>the perpetrator was already dead, either. The major
>networks made it an important news item anyway.
> Perhaps a note to some "news" sponsors is
>appropriate. Because, if they are censoring hearing
>news, we can't help but wonder what else they think us
>not worthy of seeing.
> Meanwhile, if you would like to drop the networks
>a line and let them know what you think about their "news"
>delivery, here's a few addresses:
> ABC Good Morning America -- gma@abc.com
> ABC Nightline -- NTline@aol.com
> ABC Primetime Live -- PTLive@aol.com
> CBS News producer -- dcp@cbsnews.com
> Fox News -- foxnet@delphi.com
> NBC Dateline -- dateline@news.nbc.com
> NBC Meet the Press -- mtp@news.nbc.com
> NBC Nightly News -- nightly@news.nbc.com
> NBC Today Show -- today@news.nbc.com
>
> -- End --
========================================================================
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