Time: Wed Sep 24 07:55:21 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA25456;
Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:49:37 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA18082;
Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:47:41 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:47:21 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Paper Terrorism (fwd)
<snip>
>
>Kim,
>
>Thank you your excellent response to Karen Schmidt.
>
>Harold Thomas
>http://www.halcyon.com/harold/
>
>> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 22:28:57 -0400
>
>> Dear Karen Schmidt,
>>
>> Your article on "Paper Terrorism" was recently posted on the internet
>> and I read this with complete fascination. Surely you can't be THAT
>> clueless in regards to why there is a "noticeable increase in the
>> number of people across the country who have joined and continue to
>> participate in the anti-government movement."
>>
>> You state that you believe that "seminars and recruitment meetings"
>> fuel the trends in the anti-government movement. In your article
>> you seem AMAZED that people view themselves as "systematically
>> oppressed by an illegal, totalitarian government" and also AMAZED
>> that people "believe the time for traditional political reform has
>> passed."
>>
>> Actually, the anti-government movement is not a movement against
>> government, but a movement back to the Constitution of the United States
>> and the laws of the land. If you had done any real research behind
>> your statements, you would have found this to be fact.
>>
>> I think from this point on, I will refer to this movement as the
>> Constitutionalist movement. I consider myself to be a Constitutional
>> conservative. You are right about the fact that Biblical passages are
>> often used in our discussions. This is because the Constitutional
>> movement is based on Biblical principles. These principles are at
>> the very foundation of our core beliefs.
>>
>> For instance, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill
>> of Rights, state that these rights are "God given" rights. These are
>> not "permissions" of our government. These are rights given to us
>> by our God, and the government cannot infringe on these rights.
>>
>> When the Constitutionalist movement state that it opposes the UN
>> movement, this is because the Charter of the UN lists basically the
>> same rights, but proclaims the rights are given by "permission" from
>> the governing body (not God). For instance, if you consider the
>> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18,
>> 3rd paragraph, it states:
>>
>> "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs
>> may be subject only to such limitations as are
>> prescribed by law and are necessary to protect
>> public safety, order, health, or morals or the
>> fundamental rights and freedoms of others."
>>
>> So, it states that the freedom of religion is subject to limitations
>> prescribed by law to protect "morals". Morals? Huh? Our Constitution
>> states that the freedom of religion is a God given right. Not a right
>> given by "permission" of the governing body.
>>
>> Now turn to Article 19, paragraph 2. This article states,
>>
>> "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
>> expression; this right shall include freedom to
>> seek, receive and impart information and ideas
>> of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either
>> orally, in writing or in print...."
>>
>> But then later states:
>>
>> "...these shall only be such as are provided
>> by law..."
>>
>> Our Constitution states that we shall have the right of freedom
>> of speech, freedom of press, etc., and these freedoms are given
>> by God, not "permissions" given by a governing body.
>>
>> Belief in God, and the fact that our rights are God given is at the
>> core of the Constitutionalist movement.
>>
>> On other note, is it any wonder that the Constitutionalist movement
>> believes our government is an oppressive, illegal, totalitarian regime?
>> I will provide you with some examples which can be backed up by fact
>> should you take the time to research these events. Please take the
>> time to research these to verify for yourself their validity. It would
>> be quite an eye-opener for you.
>>
>> A current example of an oppressive government even can be found at:
>> http://www.qui-tam.com
>> This is a story of a family who have experienced and are still
>> experiencing much oppression at the hands of our government. A short
>> summary of their story goes like this:
>>
>> The Sweeneys inherited a rather large piece of property from their
>> relatives, and their family has been generally wealthy for many
>> generations. The Sweeneys, though, were not generally wealthy
>> and have to provide for themselves by actually working like "normal"
>> people. They had a lot of bills accumulated, and decided that in
>> order to pay off these bills, it would be good to sell off some of
>> this land after placing some large, rather expensive homes on them.
>> They went to a bank called ComFed and explained their indebtedness
>> and showed them their plan to subdivide their property, build houses
>> on it, then sell the property and homes, then pay off their bills
>> and the loan they were presently seeking.
>>
>> Comfed basically agreed that this was a good plan, gave the Sweeneys
>> a loan, and made them sign an agreement that the Sweeneys would not try
>> to get a construction loan from any other bank (huge penalties if they
>> did). The Sweeneys then got the re-zoning done and subdivided the
>> property. They then came back to ComFed to request their construction
>> loan to begin building the homes. ComFed then refused to give them a
>> construction loan. The Sweeneys could not get a construction loan
>> anywhere
>> else, as they had already accumulated the previous bills and the present
>> subdividing loan to pay off, on top of the penalty of getting a
>> construc-
>> tion loan somewhere else. Basically, ComFed set them up for failure in
>> order to acquire their property.
>>
>> The Sweeneys took ComFed to court and Judge Izzo saw many irregularities
>> regarding the way that ComFed did business, and in particular how they
>> handled the Sweeney situation and awarded the Sweeneys approx $4 million
>> for fraudulent practices by ComFed. See the court documents on the
>> web page above and read the reasoning of Judge Izzo why she made the
>> judgment for the Sweeneys and against ComFed. The Sweeneys still had
>> to pay back the $1.6 million of the original loan amount (I believe with
>> interest), as this is only fair. So, basically ComFed owed the Sweeneys
>> ~$4 M - $1.6 M = $2.4 Million.
>>
>> Then ComFed went bankrupt (I assume so they would not have to pay the
>> Sweeneys the $2.4 Million), never paying the Sweeneys their judgment.
>> The FDIC/RTC took receivership of the failed ComFed bank. The FDIC
>> now basically says the judgment by Judge Izzo is obsolete, and that
>> the Sweeneys owe them $1.6 million dollars. The FDIC asserts that
>> the judgment rendered by Judge Izzo was too late, in that the FDIC
>> acquired this "receivership" before the judgement and renders it totally
>> obsolete. This is not true, as the judgement came before the RTC/FDIC
>> took over. Also, what's really interesting is that ComFed really didn't
>> go bankrupt!!! From what I understand, ComFed Mortgage is still alive
>> and well, and the judgment by Judge Izzo was toward ComFed Bank and
>> ComFed Mortgage. See the web page for all the details. It goes on and
>> on and on.
>>
>> Well, the Sweeneys have appealed to their Senators, Congressmen, etc.,
>> but to no avail. They have appealed to the FDIC/RTC to look into the
>> judgment by Judge Izzo. They refuse to believe Judge Izzo's ruling,
>> probably because this would be a huge land grab for the FDIC/RTC, and
>> they could sell this off at a huge profit to them, especially if they
>> take the time to build homes on the property. They would stand to make
>> a killing! They have supposedly agreed to a mediator to settle this
>> dispute, but the FDIC has post-poned this meeting three times. Could
>> it be they are attempting to bribe the mediator? Could it be they are
>> desperately searching for a loophole? Whatever the case, I'm sure it
>> is not in the Sweeney's best interest to prolong this. Years go by.
>> They're (the Sweeneys are) trying resolve things peacefully, but the
>> FDIC has called upon the US Marshalls to evict them. The Sweeneys are
>> afraid to leave their home.
>>
>> Any wonder why people don't want to seek traditional means to settle
>> their disputes? No quick justice. Sometimes no justice at all...
>>
>> Another example of an oppressive totalitarian government is the Ruby
>> Ridge example. Randy Weaver's son and a friend are walking along a
>> path by their house with their dog. The US Marshall fires and kills
>> the dog. They are in camoflage and hidden, and the boys do not know
>> who is firing, does not know who killed their dog. They fire and turn
>> to run home. Randy's son gets shot in the back and in the arm,
>> instantly
>> killing him. The other boy, Kevin Harris, turns and fires again and
>> continues to run back to safety within the cabin. When running into
>> the cabin, the government sniper fires at him and hits Randy's wife
>> dead on. She dies holding her baby in her arms. All this over a sawed
>> off shotgun! All this over a missed court hearing--in which case they
>> sent out the wrong date on the subpeona! Isn't this just a little bit
>> oppressive? Did any government official get fired/prosecuted over
>> the deaths of Randy's wife and son? Did Randy's wife and son commit
>> the crime? Did the level of force fit the crime? Give me a break!
>> Yes, I know, Lon Horiuchi is being tried for "manslaughter" in Idaho
>> (because our federal government didn't think he did anything wrong).
>> Kevin Harris faced a federal trial for murder and was acquitted, but
>> now is going to be prosecuted again in Idaho for the same crime (isn't
>> this double jeopardy?).
>>
>> Another example of an oppressive, totalitarian example is the crime at
>> Waco. Our government basically killed over 80 innocent men, women, and
>> children. Our government thought Koresh had illegal weapons. Why not
>> approach Koresh at the door and give him the search warrant? He had
>> been investigated before and had cooperated peacefully. He had no
>> history of violence. From what I have been able to find out, there
>> was a person who was involved with the church who was a gun collector.
>> Gun collectors are legally able to have illegal weapons as long as they
>> pay the $200 tax. From what I have been able to gather, the tax was
>> not paid and this is why the BATF came upon them. Why did the search
>> warrant state that they believed an amphetamine lab was located on the
>> property when they had sent in an informant and he knew that was not
>> the case? Because they wanted to violate the Posse Comitatus Act
>> (US Code Title 18, Section 1385) and use military weapons against the
>> Branch Davidians. Our government said that no weapons were fired down
>> from the helicopters--NOT TRUE. Our government said that the Branch
>> Davidians fired first--NOT TRUE--the federal agents again shot the dogs
>> first. Our government said that CS gas is not flammable--NOT TRUE (A
>> note in the Manual for Civil Disturbance Operations, Army Institute
>> for Professional Development states, "Do not fire a dispenser indoors
>> when using dry riot control agents (CS gas). Open flame or a spark
>> can cause a dust explosion." Since the power was turned off at Mt.
>> Carmel, they knew they were using lanterns. There is more and more
>> and more to this episode, but you would have to do your own research
>> to find out the amazing truth! This is most assuredly an example
>> of our government at its worst!
>>
>> Other items to indicate our government's oppressive, totalitarian
>> characteristics is the fact that it passed the Electronic Communications
>> Act, which basically states the FBI can monitor communications if they
>> believe a circumstance is an emergency situation. No where does it
>> state that the FBI has to PROVE there is an emergency. They can monitor
>> for 48 hours without a warrant, disregarding the Constitution of the
>> United States and various state Constitutions which require a warrant
>> first (probable cause). Since no one will know when they begin the
>> monitoring, how will they know that the agents monitored for only 48
>> hours? Why couldn't they start and stop over and over again (if
>> necessary) to keep monitoring longer? This is totally against the
>> 4th Amendment.
>>
>> Note: This is totally against the Pennsylvania Constitution
>> also, as our Constitution states that a warrant is required
>> before any search and seizure can take place. I wrote our
>> Attorney General and asked if he would prosecute should he
>> find the FBI (or anyone else for that matter) wiretapping
>> without a warrant. Their response to me was that they
>> could not give out legal opinions. Right! :\
>>
>> I could go on and on, but I think I will stop here as this is probably
>> boring you to death! Basically what the American people are beginning
>> to see is that our government is completely unaccountable to anyone
>> for their acts against our Constitution and other laws such as:
>>
>> 1. Illegally seizing assets and property, i.e., FDIC against
>> the Sweeneys, probably some IRS examples too.
>> 2. Illegally serving search warrants. Warrants don't exist,
>> are signed by judges outside of the jurisdiction, warrants
>> aren't signed at all, warrants based on facts they know to
>> be untrue, i.e., Waco.
>> 3. Illegal wiretapping without a warrant.
>> 4. Committing heinous crimes without accountability, i.e.,
>> killing Branch Davidians, killing Randy Weaver's wife and
>> son.
>> 5. Breaking the law if it serves their purpose, i.e., campaign
>> finance solicitation on government property, selling the
>> Lincoln bedroom and arranging appointments with the President
>> for a price. Soliciting funds from foreign governments.
>> Obstruction of justice in not allowing the Parks Police
>> into Vince Foster's office after his suicide/murder. Possible
>> Whitewater involvement, since basically all their friends
>> and acquaintances surrounding this deal have been convicted
>> of crimes.
>> 6. Using government agencies for their own political goals, i.e.,
>> IRS investigating Paul Jones and the FBI files to find out
>> dirt regarding the opposition.
>>
>> I probably have missed some things, but if you total it all up it
>> stinks, and the American public is becoming aware of it in spite of
>> our mainstream media dancing around these crimes as if they are
>> "nothing".
>> Our justice system is based on if you commit the crime, you do the time.
>> BUT NO ONE IS PROSECUTING. INVESTIGATIONS/HEARINGS ARE A SHAM. Reports
>> are untrue.
>>
>> We've had Whitewater hearings, hearings over Vince Foster, Campaign
>> Finance hearings, Waco hearings, Ruby Ridge hearings, FBI file hearings,
>> etc., etc. Is it no wonder that the American public are starting to
>> think that the time for the standard approach, the "traditional
>> political
>> reform" has passed, since it doesn't matter who is in office? The same
>> shenanigans continue.
>>
>> Next time, before you write an article, try to understand what/whom you
>> are writing about. A little research would do you good.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> --Kim Martin
========================================================================
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