From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #39 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Sunday, January 4 1998 Volume 02 : Number 039 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 09:31:03 -0800 From: "Jerry Wootan" Subject: Need e-mail address for Larry Ball Please excuse the bandwidth. Larry, I don't have any e-mail saved right now with your e-dress. Please drop me a line at wootan@dmi.net. I have some questions regarding Nebraska CCW. Thanks, Jerry Wootan - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 01:00:55 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: DOD would like to command your cops - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.usnews.com US NEWS Online January 12, 1998 WASHINGTON WHISPERS Taking civil liberties? The Pentagon's strong role in domestic disaster training is drawing fire from civilian agencies. In 1996, Congress gave the Defense Department $52 million to conduct the nation's largest civil-defense effort since the cold war. With help from the FBI and other agencies, military specialists are training emergency workers in 120 cities to cope with an attack from biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. But the training--conducted in seven cities to date--has sparked conflicts over lines of authority. "The military just doesn't understand the police and firefighter worlds," complains one law enforcement official. "They don't even understand the civilian federal community--they just charge ahead no matter what anyone says." DOD officials counter that they have the government's top expertise in coping with weapons of mass destruction and that's why Congress gave them a leadership role. But some officers may be going too far. After one field exercise, overenthusiastic DOD officers were bluntly reminded that they do not command civilian officials. Coordination of the disaster training has now sparked an investigation by the General Accounting Office, which will issue a report early this year. BY DOUGLAS STANGLIN WITH KENNETH T. WALSH, JULIAN E. BARNES, RICHARD Z. CHESNOFF, DAVID E. KAPLAN, GORDON WITKIN, AND SHAHEENA AHMAD - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 07:15:29 -0500 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Judge clears way for US to seize Sweeney Estate Anybody heard about this one? >Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 23:37:55 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Judge clears way for US to seize Sweeney Estate > >Judge clears way for US to seize Hamilton estate of defiant couple=20 >By David Armstrong, Globe Staff, 01/03/97=20 > >Mediation efforts to end a standoff between a Hamilton couple and=20 >federal marshals trying to seize their 14-acre estate have been >declared dead by a judge, clearing the way for agents to take=20 >control of the property as early as Monday.=20 > >But the couple, John and Rhetta Sweeney, raised the possibility=20 >of a confrontation with US marshals. They vowed not to leave their=20 >property under any circumstance.=20 > >=91=92It continues to be a very dangerous situation,=92=92 Rhetta Sweeney= =20 >said yesterday. =91=92Our position hasn=92t changed. We are certainly not= =20 >leaving.=92=92 > >In June, a federal court ordered the property seized because=20 >the couple failed to repay a $1.6 million loan to the Federal=20 >Deposit Insurance Corp. The Sweeneys contend they do not owe=20 >the money and were cheated by a now-defunct bank, ComFed Savings=20 >in Lowell, which granted the loan during the 1980s. The couple=20 >had put up their property as collateral.=20 > >As part of the mediation, the US Marshals Service was=20 >ordered to halt its efforts to take the property. But=20 >five months of talks have stalled.=20 > >Last Monday, US District Judge A. David Mazzone concluded=20 >that =91=92further efforts at mediation are unlikely to be productive.=92= =92=20 >As a result, his order stopping federal marshals was rescinded,=20 >allowing agents to seize the two homes on the estate as early > as 5 p.m. Monday.=20 > >The marshals service did not comment on the Sweeney case yesterday.=20 >The service has indicated it will proceed slowly in its dealings=20 >with the couple.=20 > >FDIC officials did not return telephone calls.=20 > >The dispute between the Sweeneys and the FDIC has become=20 >a high-profile event in Hamilton, a well-to-do North Shore=20 >town best known for its historic horse farms and sprawling=20 >country mansions. The Sweeneys are longtime residents whose=20 >ancestors were among the founders of the exclusive Myopia Hunt Club.=20 > >Some residents are worried that a confrontation could affect the=20 >surrounding area. The Sweeney property is adjacent to Route 1A,=20 >the town=92s main road, and is across the street from Hamilton-Wenham=20 >High School.=20 > >The couple has cordoned off the estate with yellow tape and >barricaded entrances with heavy equipment. They have placed signs >around the margins of the property warning federal agents to stay >away.=20 > >The Sweeneys have declared they will not leave the three-story,=20 >French-style mansion that serves as the main house on the property=20 >even if ordered out. They have asked volunteers to patrol the=20 >property and donate supplies.=20 > >The Sweeneys have also asked several local politicians to intervene=20 >on their behalf.=20 > >The couple is represented by Linda Thompson, an Indiana attorney=20 >and self-described militia leader.=20 > >Yesterday, Rhetta Sweeney said she and her husband still want a=20 >peaceful resolution. She said they hope to continue talking to FDIC=20 >officials.=20 > >=91=92We don=92t regard this as dead,=92=92 she said. =91=92I feel there is= a >strong possibility that this can still be settled peacefully through >talks. But it is disappointing we haven=92t been able to get anywhere >in mediation talks.=92=92 > >This story ran on page A01 of the Boston Globe on 01/03/97.=20 >=A9 Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company. > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 07:23:34 -0500 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Sweeney Web Site >Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 23:41:50 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Sweeney Web Site > >Sweeney Web Site >http://www.qui-tam.com/ > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jan 98 11:41:27 PST From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES BOOK REVIEW: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, BY JOHN ROSS Gun Control Run Amok Reviewed by Wesley Phelan "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Declaration of Independence The major premise of this book is that all federal gun-control legislation passed since 1934 violates the Second Amendment. The minor premise is that heavy-handed attempts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to enforce this legislation constitute a threat to the freedom, dignity and safety of every gun-owning American. Ross draws the conclusion that it is time for Americans to rise up and put a stop to these infringements of their liberty. This is a very timely book. Every American who has not slept through the last four years knows about the ATF and FBI assault on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. Fewer know about the assault on Randy Weaver and his family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Ross, who has spent his whole life in the gun culture, gives a very insightful and accurate account of these two episodes of government-sponsored murder. But he does more than that--he shows that incidents like these are all too common, especially for the ATF. The main story line begins in 1932 with the 'Bonus Army.' This was a band of some 20,000 World War One veterans who, in the depths of the depression, marched to Washington to ask for early payment of their war bonuses. The government's response to this peaceful assembly was indicative of things to come. The army, under the leadership of General MacArthur and Majors Patton and Eisenhower, drove the Bonus Army out of Washington at bayonet point, burning their shanty-town and killing many women, children and veterans in the process. Ross also gives a very moving account of the Warsaw ghetto uprising of April and May of 1943, when a handful of brave Jews, armed with a few captured guns, held off 2000 heavily armed German soldiers for four weeks. The Germans finally had to burn the ghetto, block by block, to overcome the resistance. As Ross makes perfectly clear, the holocaust began with--and indeed was made possible by--laws which first disarmed those whom the Nazis intended to destroy. The story then moves from fact to fiction as it shifts to post- World War Two America and the birth of the book's protagonist, Henry Bowman. We watch as Henry grows up in the middle of the gun culture, becoming an expert marksman with both rifles and hand guns. As Henry matures the federal government gradually intrudes into more and more aspects of its citizens' daily lives. By the time he reaches adulthood the government is taxing its citizens at confiscatory rates and is regulating everything from the use of privately-owned land to the day-to-day operations of many family-owned businesses. The last straw for Henry comes when the ATF launches a fraudulent raid on him and two of his friends, all of whom are licensed gun dealers. The agents intend to plant contraband in the three men's houses as part of a plan to eliminate them as opponents of the ATF's illegal activities. The response of Henry and others to these outrages constitutes the last third of the book. Unintended Consequences is a well-written, fast-paced novel, and even though it is over 800 pages long it never becomes tedious. Anyone who loves airplanes and guns will become thoroughly engrossed in the action. A few of the sex scenes are a bit risque, though, and might offend some readers. The plot of Unintended Consequences would have been entirely unconvincing ten years ago, but in 1997 it is entirely believable. As such, the book is a sad reminder of what has happened in the United States during the 1990's. The book eloquently expresses the white-hot rage tens of thousands of Americans feel toward an overbearing and indifferent federal government, which they have come to see as the greatest obstacle to their pursuit of happiness. And while many will not be prepared to grant that popular resistance to government should yet be taken as far as it is in this book, none can deny the reality of the grievances which provide the motive for that resistance. Ross writes in the author's note at the beginning of the book that a friend of his in law enforcement advised him to publish the book under a pseudonym. The friend gave this advice because he expected official reprisals to be directed against the author and his family. I think the friend was right. But Ross ignored the advice in a manly spirit reminiscent of those who first fought for American independence. This book is a call for other Americans to join him in saying to a corrupt, remote, centralized government: "We will not stand idly by while you send your agents out to harass and intimidate us. We know that a just government has nothing to fear from armed, law-abiding citizens. We remember that our ancestors fired 'the shot heard around the world' to protect their liberties. If forced to, we will do likewise." [Wesley Phelan is a Professor of Political Science at Eureka College.] [Unintended Consequences can be ordered through the Washington Weekly web site at http://www.federal.com/Book91.html ] Published in the Jan. 5, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jan 98 11:51:51 PST From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Forfiture Alert "The working and middle classes are endlessly conscripted, dunned and sacrificed -- to rescue the investing classes." Patrick Buchanan - --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: Jackie Patru <104645.452@compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com Subject: Hyde's law suit & betrayal Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 16:37:24 -0500 Message-ID: <199801031638_MC2-2DE9-E7D7@compuserve.com> If you've read Henry Hyde's press releases and not the fine print in his asset forfeiture reform bills (HR1835 and HR1965) you, like many, may be in trouble... Henry Hyde being sued? From The New Republic, 1995 and more recently Mother Jones Magazine... = "He is a defendant in a $17.2 million lawsuit by the [Federal Government's] Resolution Trust Corporation for his role as a director, from 1981 to 1984, of Clyde Federal Savings and Loan"... = "As [the U.S. House] Judiciary Committee chairman, Hyde could be involved in deciding questions about prosecution of thrift cases..." = "...Hyde's case [civil law suit] has never received an ethical review despite 'questions of honesty, influence peddling and conflict of interest'." We have no further information other than the article transcribed in full below. We do know that Hyde's recent actions concerning his so-called Asset Forfeiture Reform legislation leaves many questions unanswered and places all of us in even greater danger of expanded NAZI-like infringements of our freedom and property rights. = How does one explain the actions of Henry Hyde, an elected official who has represented himself as a staunch opponent to property seizure, who then introduces legislation *pretending* to reform asset forfeiture but which is in direct opposition to his purported philosophy? = Hyde's proposed legislation is a blatant betrayal to his constituents in Illinois and all Americans whose very lives are dependent upon legislation endorsed by him and passed out of his powerful congressional committee. = Could Hyde's betrayal have anything to do with the above mentioned $17.2 million civil lawsuit filed against him by the [Federal Government's] Resolution Trust Corporation? = Could the law suit be a lever used by those in power in the Department of Justice to further their obsession for more and more Orwellian control? Could the law suit have anything to do with Hyde's original appointment to chair the House Judiciary Committee? = Which came first, the chicken or the egg? = In 1995 Henry Hyde authored a book titled, "Forfeiting Our Property Rights", published by Cato Institute, $8.95 in paperback, (800-767-1241). How many of us even knew the book existed? = In his book, "Forfeiting Our Property Rights", on page 2 Hyde writes, = "Federal and state officials now have the power [by charging your property with crime, not the owner] to seize your business, home, bank account, records, and personal property, all without indictment, hearing, or trial. [Since approximately 1984] everything you have can be taken away at the whim of one or two federal or state officials operating in secret. Regardless of sex, age, race, or economic station, we are all potential victims. And unless these trends are recognized and reversed, there will soon be very little that individuals can do to protect their property or themselves." = The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 was the jump-start. According to Hyde's book the Act was expanded in 1978, '84, '86, '90, '92 and again in the Crime Control Act of '94, along with States passing ever broader and more intrusive legislation of their own. = Sounds like Hyde is against asset forfeiture, doesn't it? = That's why so many of us have been confused and misled by the so-called Asset Forfeiture Reform bills Hyde has introduced which in reality will give broader, more abusive powers to the myriad federal, state and local law enforcement agencies which already have authority to seize real and personal property on a mere whim. Add to that Hyde's bate and switch tactics being played and the resulting web of confusion becomes nearly impossible to sort through. The article following this summary may give us some clues. First the background... Hyde (R-Ill) along with Conyers (D-Mich) introduced HR1835, the Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, 15 pages short, looking on the surface like true reform. Chairman Hyde's House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on 6-11-97, from innocent Americans who've lost their property to money-hungry law enforcement agents. = It became clear that asset forfeiture has nothing to do with stopping drugs and crime and is instead used to fill the coffers of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. = HR 1835 garnered many co-sponsors based on Hyde's claims of its reform provisions. Then! During the mark-up session, behind closed doors, staffers from the Department of Justice working with Hyde's committee crafted an entirely NEW bill - HR 1965 - also titled "Asset Forfeiture Reform" ALERT! HR 1965 is not asset forfeiture reform any more than is HR 1835. In fact, HR 1965 gives broader, more abusive forfeiture power to law enforcement agencies and fewer protections to innocent people who are accused by paid - and often professional - informants. = HR 1965 replaces "probable cause" as a prerequisite to instituting civil forfeiture procedings against Citizens with mere hearsay. The statute of limitations for civil forfeiture is five years from WHENEVER law enforcement discovers an alleged forfeitable act, based on mere hearsay evidence. In effect, there is no statute of limitations. = HR 1965 also contains provisions which implement several of the 40 goals set by a P8 - Senior Experts Group on Transnational Organized Crime, which met in Paris, 4-12-96, allegedly "To combat Transnational Organized Crime efficiently... ". = In actuality, the intent of the experts' international group is to HARMONIZE criminal and forfeiture laws of all countries, including America's, to "identify and eliminate obstacles to extradition, including those that may arise from the differences between legal systems, by for example, simplifying evidentiary and procedural requirements." (goal #8) Both bills will accomplish this. = Goal #1... "States [countries] should review their laws governing criminal offenses, jurisdiction, law enforcement powers and international cooperation, as well as their measures dealing with law enforcement training and crime prevention, to ensure that the special problems created by Transnational Organized Crime are effectively addressed." = In other words, what they want is international reciprocal forfeiture laws so that the same alleged illegal conduct, giving rise to forfeiture, by an individual or business in one country can cause forfeiture of that individual or company's assets internationally. Consequently, world citizens can uniformly have their rights violated. In America, local Chiefs of Police are currently making trips to foreign countries, including Bosnia (and Washington, D.C.), for cross-training. = Then... one week after the hearings on HR1835, the DOJ's version of reform (HR1965) was brought back to the same House Judiciary Committee members for a vote... no public hearings, little debate (if any)... just a vote. Both Hyde and Conyers endorsed the DOJ's bill as reform, which then passed through committee with only one dissenting vote. = We're told Hyde wants the bill brought to the floor for a full House vote as quickly as possible. A real danger here is that congressional members who believe Hyde and Conyers are their champions of asset forfeiture reform may carelessly vote for any bill presented to them, based only on claims or a watered-down summary of the bill. Many of us were duped into believing HR1835 was reform because it provides a defense for "innocent owners". We sent messages asking our Congress members to lobby for reinstatement of HR1835. = Then... the hook discovered in both HR1835 and HR1965 is the provision which would require property or business owners, in order to establish an innocent owner defense against civil forfeiture, to first report their property to the police [give law enforcement a timely notice] if they had knowledge of or a reasonable belief that a forfeitable offense had been or may be committed on or with their property. = In other words, we must incriminate our property first by reporting it to the very law enforcement agencies which have the power to seize it. Who decides what is 'a timely notice to law enforcement' or 'a reasonable belief'? = Forfeiture Alert! We're told by Congressman Bob Barr's office he is lobbying for reinstatement of HR1835. Both so- called reform bills (HR1835 and HR1965) give more power to law enforcement and less protection to American property and business owners. To top all that off, Congressman Bill McCollum, (R-Fla) has another doozy he's chomping at the bits to get introduced... yet more abusive authority for law enforcement. = Rumors are that sections of his piece of work may be added to one of the two Hyde and Conyers are pushing or introduced separately to expand criminal forfeiture. = We have no further information on the status of McCollum's bill. Now, the BIG QUESTION IS... WAS IT EVER POSSIBLE, FROM THE BEGINNING, FOR HENRY HYDE TO HAVE ACTED OBJECTIVELY IN INTRODUCING ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM LEGISLATION WHEN THE SAME U.S. GOVERNMENT WHICH HE IS OPPOSING HAS SUED HYDE FOR ALLEGED WRONG-DOINGS AS A BOARD MEMBER OF AN ILLINOIS-BASED S&L WHICH ULTIMATELY FAILED? If anyone has further information on the status of the law suit against Hyde, please forward it to Jackie Patru = >104645.452@compuserve.com.< = For the moment, Hyde sits in a powerful congressional seat and may be performing under outside influence and coercion by even higher powers. = Here's the article from The New Republic... - -------------------------------------------------------------- From: The New Republic January 23, 1995 pages 19-21 The Judiciary chairman's S & L fest. HYDE - BOUND By David Moberg After two decades in Congress representing the conservative middle-class suburbs west of Chicago, white- haired, corpulent Henry Hyde now holds a key position of power. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Hyde now has jurisdiction over half of the ten points in the Republicans' Contract with America. Gracious and quick- witted, the 70 - year - old Hyde is best known for his amendment prohibiting federal funds for abortion. He has made a reputation as a strong voice on the right with a streak of thoughtful independence. He is also known for his willingness to work with Democrats. Yet Hyde assumes the chairmanship with a legal thorn in his side. He is a defendant in a $17.2 million lawsuit by the Resolution Trust Corporation for his role as a director, from 1981 to 1984, of Clyde Federal Savings and Loan, which federal officials shut down in 1991 at a cost now estimated at $67 million. The charges against Hyde, if true, amount to a serious wrong-doing, in his roles both as thrift director and as a congressman. Hyde's elevation to committee chairman only raises more questions. More obviously, he will be overseeing the work of the system that is charged with judging and prosecuting him. = Politically, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, having made his mark attacking Democratic congressional corruption, now appears to countenance an even more costly, if different, alleged malfeasance by one of his lieutenants. If the Republicans revive Whitewater hearings, Democrats will have grounds to demand similar investigations of Hyde-- whose S & L debacle cost taxpayers a lot more than the Arkansas land deal did. = When the RTC suit was filed in April 1993, Hyde insisted he soon would be dropped from the case. He wasn't. After eighteen months of legal proceedings, Federal District Court Judge Brian Duff indicated last summer that a trial may be inevitable. Until then, Clyde's records are not available, and it is difficult for outsiders to prove or disprove Hyde's guilt. But what is public makes the charges plausible -- and substantial enough to call into question whether Hyde should hop into the chairman's seat until they're finally settled. The RTC has charged Hyde and fellow directors and officers of Clyde with gross negligence, mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract. The lawsuit cites several specifics. Among them: losses from options trading that violated federal guidelines; participation in a pool of out-of-state mortgages without following the right procedures or guidelines; and a loan to a luxury condo development in Texas arranged by a broker with a shady past. In the last case, the RTC said, Clyde "relied upon information provided and analyzed by" the broker, who stood to benefit financially from the loan. Although Hyde now says it was "foolish" to join Clyde's board, he insists he wasn't deeply involved in the company's decisions. He claims to have made only $300 in fees for each monthly meeting (the RTC reports finding no record of what he was paid). Hyde says he was simply a victim of the early '80s recession. But Hyde's actions were not - merely "foolish." The congressman has been a prominent member of the Banking Committee immediately prior to joining Clyde's board of directors. In that role, he helped write laws on the fiduciary responsibility of bank and thrift directors. The conflict of interests here should have been recognized as egregious. Think of the outcry that would ensue if a member of congress left the Armed Services Committee and joined the board of Rockwell or Lockheed. Nor was Hyde simply a passive director. Minutes of board meetings show him to have been involved in making and seconding important motions and voting on risky loans. for example, he seconded the motion that permitted Clyde to begin trading futures through Refco Inc., a firm with a long history of trading violations. (Refco, which came to fame for helping Hillary Clinton with cattle futures, was not on the list of firms recommended by Clyde's own financial adviser.) = Minutes also point out that Hyde was present when the board heard regulatory reports critical of Clyde's investments. = Hyde was there in 1982 when the board chairman read a letter from the Federal Home Loan Bank board supervisor indicating that Clyde would remain solvent for only another thirteen to fourteen months. In 1983 auditors reported rampant, mismanagement, noting that Clyde had overcharged the government for interest on student loans. Hyde agreed to send Clyde's lawyer and auditor to Washington to seek a review of regulatory criticisms of Clyde, but publicly available minutes show no effort by Hyde to fix the problems. Hyde may have acted improperly not only as thrift director but also as a congressman. When he resigned from the board in 1984, Clyde's liabilities exceeded its assets by $30 million. Yet Hyde claimed it was solvent, since the deregulated thrifts had great leeway in accounting procedures. = In 1989 President Bush moved to eliminate some of those accounting abuses in his S & L bailout legislation. Hyde led the unsuccessful fight to block a key provision of Bush's plan. Hyde's action was not surprising: he had long supported much of the thrifts' favored legislation, and they supported him. From 1981 to 1992 he received roughly $125,000 in campaign contributions and speaking fees from the financial industry, a notable sum for a safe seat such as Hyde's. = There was also a more direct, personal conflict of interest in Hyde's advocacy. If he had succeeded in blocking Bush's provision, Clyde might have been able to stay open longer, concealing the negligence and mismanagement that the RTC says brought about its downfall. Instead, the Office of Thrift Supervision put Clyde in receivership under the RTC in 1990. According to bank consultant Tim Anderson, a number of lllinois thrifts played a central role early in the S & L crisis. They often bought up risky loans of many Sunbelt thrift operators. Anderson suggests they did so to protect fraudulent and even criminal behaviors; by delaying confrontation with the crisis, the industry and its allies greatly raised the overall cost of the eventual bailout. = Another question is whether Hyde knowingly participated in furthering this strategy. Hyde is the only member of Congress who has been sued for playing a direct, fiduciary role in the thrift collapse and one of few members to serve as an S & L director while in Congress. (Republicans Edward Derwinski and the late Edward Madigan of Illinois also were directors of failed Illinois thrifts.) "Illinois in the aggregate is responsible for making the crisis worse," argues attorney Walker Todd, who recently left the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank after twenty years with the Fed. "The main players were principals of the U.S. Savings League, but these three public officials could be characterized as being bamboozled by the principals of the league." Fred Cedarholm, a former RTC investigator in the Chicago office, agrees that lllinois was "central to the crisis." But the RTC investigation of Illinois was cut short in 1993 when the Chicago office was closed in the name of bureaucratic consolidation, following decisions made by the Bush administration; all the knowledgeable investigators were lost. = "We were really starting to turn up some very good things, and they didn't want them pursued," Cedarholm said about Bush officials. "I think we were too close." Besides abortive investigations, Illinois also has a poor record on criminal prosecution in the S & L scandal. From 1990 to 1993, Fred Forman, a staunch Republican, headed the U.S. attorney's office in Illinois. During his tenure, the office stood out as a glaring exception to what was going on around the country. Nationwide, fraud was involved in many S & L failures; various government agencies estimate that between 10 percent and 70 percent of all cases involved criminal activity. Yet during these years the U.S. attorney in Illinois, in cases where the RTC made criminal referrals, brought criminal charges at only one-fourth the national average. These records raise the question of whether the presence of three prominent Republicans, including Hyde, on the boards inhibited either the investigation of Illinois thrifts or criminal prosecutions. = As Judiciary Committee chairman, Hyde could be involved in deciding questions about prosecution of thrift cases, though the Banking Committees have primary responsibility for S & L legislation. Further, Hyde has announced that he will hold hearings early next year on the "prosecutorial effectiveness" of the current U.S. attorney in Illinois. Will he also look into the past prosecutorial effectiveness in S & L cases? Could such an investigation influence the attorneys who might decide whether to pursue a case against Hyde? Will Hyde's prominence influence the willingness of RTC attorneys to settle the case in a way favorable to Hyde? "Failure to clear the air on the charges against Hyde should leave everyone worried, " argues Boston University finance professor Ed Kane, who has written extensively on the role of Congress in the thrift disaster. Kane lamented that Hyde's case has never received an ethical review despite "questions of honesty, influence peddling and conflict of interest." Hyde's actions, he said, may have gone beyond simple conflict of interest to acting as a channel of interest for thrift industry leaders. "There's enough to be worried about to say that an investigation ought to occur," Kane said. = "It would serve Mr. Hyde, assuming he is innocent, to have the facts clarified. The approach has been just the opposite -- to hope it blows over." It's possible, though, that the storm is just starting to gather force. = = DAVID MOBERG is a senior editor of In These Times. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - -- - ---------------- Law enforcement needs the new and improved powers which will be given to them in any of the three bills mentioned above to take the final steps toward the implementation of world government. What we need is real asset forfeiture reform - total abolition of criminal and civil asset forfeiture. Will Bob Barr step forward? Anyone who reads Hyde's book will realize seizure of private property for any reason is un-Constitutional (Article 3, Constitution and Article 5, Bill of Rights) and illegal (the Act of 1790 which according to Hyde is still on the books as law) Since our web site has not been updated for over a year, (I don't know how to do it) please feel free to recopy, forward, put on your web sites, etc. Thank you. = submitted by Jackie Patru CDR [Council on Domestic Relations] 104645.452@compuserve.com http://www.logoplex.com/shops/cdr/cdr.html -------------------------------------- Radio Program "Sweet Liberty" 4-5 (eastern) Mon - Thurs. Satellite G-7, 14 - Audio 7.71 --------------------------------- "WE ARE APT TO SHUT OUR EYES AGAINST A PAINFUL TRUTH... = FOR MY PART, I AM WILLING TO KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH; = TO KNOW THE WORST; AND TO PROVIDE FOR IT." Patrick Henry - --------- End forwarded message ---------- Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 13:34:14 -0800 From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Looking for a Clinton Quote Does anyone still have the Bill Clinton quote where he got the Gettysburg Address mixed up with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence? Thanks. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (voicemail) http://www.gvn.net/~creative/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Roaming the world as a foreign correspondent for more than a decade, I was able to observe how a variety of vastly different nations organized themselves economically. The inescapable conclusion was that no politician anywhere on the planet has ever actually created a rupee's worth of prosperity." Louis Rukeyser, "Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street" newsletter, Nov 96 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 01:00:24 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: Baltimore City Paper editorial on Jim Bell (fwd) Don't criticize big bro too much. bd - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Baltimore City Paper editorial on Jim Bell A Bridge Too Far? - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- No doubt about it, Jim Bell disliked the government. As far as this Vancouver, Wash., resident was concerned, there isn't any problem with Congress that $60 worth of bullets couldn't solve. And he let his opinion be known in newsgroups, mailing lists, and, perhaps most notoriously, through an essay he wrote and promoted on the Internet called "Assassination Politics". But did Bell-who, federal authorities discovered, had an arsenal of deadly chemicals and firearms and the home addresses of more than 100 government workers-have a plan to murder public employees? "What was interesting is that the whole case was based on whether he'd be harmful in the future. He hadn't actually hurt anyone, but he was talking about some scary stuff," John Branton, a reporter who covered the Bell case for the southern Washington newspaper The Columbian (The Jim Bell Story), told me by phone. On Dec. 12, Bell, 39, was sentenced to 11 months in prison and three years of supervised probation after pleading guilty to using false Social Security numbers and setting a stink bomb off at a local Internal Revenue Service office. But authorities acknowledge those charges weren't what his arrest was really about. "We chose not to wait until he followed through on what we believe were plans to assassinate government employees," Jeffrey Gordon, an IRS inspector, told the Portland, Ore., daily The Oregonian. Gordon likened Bell to convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and Unabomber suspect Theodore Kaczynski. The federal government's court filing against Bell stated the belief that the defendant had a plan to "overthrow the U.S. government." Proof of his motivation, the government asserted, was found in Bell's Internet writings: "Bell has spelled out parts of his overall plan in his 'Assassination Politics' essay." Bell wasn't lacking for firepower. On April 1, 20 armed federal agents raided Bell's home, where he lived with his parents. According to U.S. News & World Report ("Terrorism's Next Wave") the feds found three semiautomatic assault rifles; a handgun; a copy of the book The Terrorist's Handbook; the home addresses of more than 100 government workers; and a garage full of potentially deadly chemicals. Authorities had long known that Bell was a spokesperson for a local libertarian militia and was involved in a so-called "common-law court" that planned "trials" of IRS employees. Given what the feds found at the house, in retrospect the raid seems prudent-as Leroy Loiselle of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told U.S. News, "You don't need nitric acid to keep aphids off your flowers." It's easy to forget the troubling fact that the government's initial reason for raiding Bell's residence was "Assassination Politics," which they found in Bell's car when the IRS seized it back in February. (Bell owed some $30,000 in back taxes.) Will others who make public their wrath for government and owe some taxes to Uncle Sam be paid similar visits? What's perhaps more troubling still is the way the feds held up Bell's essay as evidence of his violent intent. Reading "Assassination Politics" makes clear that it is no more a workable blueprint for overthrowing the government than Frank Herbert's Dune is a realistic plan for urban renewal. For about two years prior to Bell's arrest, "Assassination Politics" floated around the Internet. Bell, for instance, sent this essay out on the cypherpunks mailing list, where scenarios for the future, based on new technology and libertarian principles, are frequently discussed. None of the cypherpunks took his "plan" seriously then. The core of "Assassination Politics" is a plan to establish an anonymous electronic market wherein people could "wager" money on when public individuals, be they world leaders or corrupt tax collectors, will die. A person (say, for instance, an assassin) who correctly "predicts" the day of a death could anonymously collect the "winnings." Far from being a direct call to arms, Bell's essay is largely hypothetical, at least until encryption, traceless digital cash, and mass homicidal hatred of world leaders becomes widespread. Ugly yes; realistic no. "I've told Jim Bell on any number of occasions that it would never work," Robert East, a friend of Bell's, tells me by e-mail. "If Jim had properly titled this as a fictional piece of literature he'd have been far more accurate." In April, when the Jim Bell story broke, both The Columbian and Time Warner's Netly News portrayed Bell as a victim whose free-speech rights were violated. But as evidence against Bell piled up, the sympathy muted considerably. U.S. News' recent cover story on domestic terrorism, "Terrorism's Next Wave," opened with the Bell case. Perhaps Bell was prosecuted for what he wrote rather than what he might do. (Both friends and family have repeatedly said Bell, though a big talker, isn't much of a doer. "Jim is a harmless academic [n]erd," East insists. "I've known him for years and he's harmless.") Perhaps the IRS was spooked by little more than idle speculation of its demise. But the evidence seems to have dealt the feds the better hand, and lends credence to the idea that, for all the protest of free-speech advocates, words are not always separable from actions. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------- The Baltimore City Paper: http://www.citypaper.com City Paper's Cyberpunk column: http://www.citypaper.com/columns/framecyb.htm - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #39 ************************