Time: Thu Nov 07 23:03:59 1996 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 21:08:38 -0700 (MST) To: "Robert A. (Bob) Phipps, Sr." <bphipp@pernet.net> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: Roger Cravens 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 as 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? Contact attorney Jeffrey Thayer and legal researcher Richard McDonald for a copy of the videotape they made on this subject. I was shocked; Richard told me it was evidence of premeditated murder. I now believe him, even though it was very difficult for me to believe him at the time he made that videotape. > >>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 his 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. Yes. Calling it a "conspiracy theory" doesn't add one iota to the debate; that is only a worthless label, designed to discourage people from considering a perfectly valid hypothesis. What better place to design a deadly virus, than right under our noses in a federal center for disease control. Ya, that's "control" all right; I call it planned and premeditated. Now, THAT'S real control. 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. More 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, after all that they have been through. > >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 to 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. So, I agree to disagree, and I also agree to have a full public airing of this horrific matter: 10,000 deaths so far from GWS, and the number is still climbing. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >Bob Phipps =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state ===========================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail