From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #137 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Saturday, May 23 1998 Volume 02 : Number 137 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 May 98 12:54:00 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: For the Children (fwd) On May 19, Liberty or Death wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- For the Children by Sarah Thompson, M.D. A friend who serves on the Board of a child abuse prevention organization recently wrote to me asking for any insights I might have regarding the hostility of so-called "pro-child" organizations towards "pro-gun" organizations. He correctly pointed out that most "child advocacy" groups have a phobic reaction towards firearms. Discussions about these issues usually degenerate into black and white thinking and name-calling: conservatives vs. liberals, Democrats vs. Republicans, pro-gun vs. anti-gun. Gun owners are often accused of "not caring" about children, as if their ownership of a firearm indicated their enthusiastic support of tragic accidents. Name-calling is never a productive method of resolving differences.=20 And as my friend points out, the vast majority of gun owners also love and care about children. After much thought, it occurred to me that the issue is _not_ who is "pro-child" and who is "anti-child". It's not a holier than thou contest over who is _more_ "pro-child". The real questions are "Why should one care about children?" and "What does it mean to be "pro-child"? Unfortunately, most "child advocacy" groups never address either of these questions. They accept as gospel that the welfare of children is more important than, and takes precedence over, all other concerns, and they arrogantly assume that only they know the proper way to be "pro-child". They're wrong on both counts. These groups need to examine their values and goals. Until their values and goals are clearly defined, they cannot advocate consistent and coherent programs for the welfare of children. Most members of child welfare organizations are, like my friend, good people who truly care about children and have the most honorable intentions. Unfortunately, a few groups, most notably the Children's Defense Fund and many gun control organizations, shamelessly use children to advance their tyrannical agendas. By doing so, they tarnish the reputations of those people who sincerely love and care about children, especially those parents who believe that _they_ are responsible for their own children. By shamelessly exploiting children, such groups cleverly manage to bypass all rational and logical evaluation of their proposals and policies. All discussion is reduced to name-calling; either you agree with them, or you're somehow "anti-child". While these groups loudly congratulate themselves for caring about "the children", in fact they are guilty of child exploitation, which they themselves consider a form of abuse. Our current society accepts it as a "given" that everyone should care about children, and that the survival of children is more important than the rights, concerns or survival of adults. But this is _not_ an inviolable law of nature as some would have us believe; it's an extremist position no more worthy of respect than the advocacy of child abuse. And, in reality, this attitude developed rather late in human history. =20 Until fairly recently, children were considered property, no different from slaves. Adults had children in order to have workers for their farms, ranches and households. As recently as the late 18th century, orphans and poor children were bought by companies, usually for only the price of their keep. The minimum working age wasn't raised to ten years old until the late 19th century, and modern child labor laws are only about 60 years old. The murder of female infants was widely practiced throughout this century, and still persists in some areas.=20 And of course, many ancient civilizations engaged in child sacrifices. Both positions are extreme, opposite ends of the pendulum swing of adult attitudes towards children. I'm not condoning child slavery or sacrifices, nor do I condone the view that children are the only humans who matter. I am suggesting that we need to find a more balanced position between these extremes. To do this, we must examine why we should value children and what it means to care for them. At the most basic level, we value our own children as a means of perpetuating our own genetic makeup. So we value and protect the children of our own tribe or community, or perhaps just our own biologic children. This trait is also seen in many animal species where the mother will protect only her young, and males may kill the offspring of another male. At a slightly more abstract level, we value children as a means of continuing the human race. If we did not procreate, humans as a species would become extinct. All animal species share this biological imperative to reproduce. At this level, we value the survival of not just our own children, but _all_ children. On a more abstract level, we value children because they represent potential. They quite literally embody our hopes, dreams and ideals for the future. They will be the masters of a future we will never see. Only humans, who are self-aware and aware of their own mortality, can value children for their role in the future. At this level we value not just the survival of all children, but their potential to advance our race and improve our world. For thoughtful humans, there are biological, psychological, and ideological reasons for caring about children. It makes sense for us to protect them until they are able to protect themselves, and it also makes sense to prepare them for the role they will play in the future of humanity. Both protection and preparation are necessary. It is not enough merely to ensure a child's physical survival until he reaches adulthood; it is essential to prepare him to fulfill his duties as an adult. This leads directly to the next question, i.e. "What does it mean to be pro-child?" Our current society behaves as if being pro-child requires the worship of children and everything about them. Children are seen as being the perfected form of humanity, who gradually deteriorate into adults.=20 Children are beautiful, innocent, wise, and completely incapable of evil. Anyone who dares to point out that children are often dirty, noisy, rude, mean, and exasperating is immediately labeled a "child-hater", when these traits are known to all parents, teachers, and others who interact with children. Children can also be evil. Our inability to understand the recent tragedy in Jonesboro is a direct result of our current taboo against stating the obvious. There have always been, and always will be, children who are evil, and these children generally grow up to be evil adults. In some, but not all, cases, adults can intervene and help such children to become functional members of society, but the fact remains that all children are not good. Worshipping children is a form of idolatry, and as such is forbidden by all Western religions. Worse, regarding children as the perfected form of humanity is completely irrational. Children are essentially savages until they are civilized by adults. Children are incapable of creating or maintaining a civilization. Virtually every advance in human philosophy, science, art and technology was developed by an adult. While adults are often admonished to become more "child-like", that is not the same as encouraging adults to behave like self-centered and irresponsible children. Columnist Barbara Ehrenreich said it a bit more humorously: "A child is not a salmon mousse. A child is a temporarily disabled and stunted version of a larger person, whom you will someday know. Your job is to help them overcome the disabilities associated with their size and inexperience so that they get on with being that larger person." My local children's hospital proudly advertises its motto: "Children First and Always". This is not only offensive, it's idiotic. Our role as adults is not to turn the entire world into a universal Disneyland for children, nor to turn all adults back into children.=20 Our role is to help children to become adults who can thrive and prosper in the real world. Our role is to create adults who are at least as competent, wise and productive as we are. In other words, children must be helped and taught to adapt to a world of adults. Adults should not be forced to adapt to a world suited only to children. Children must gradually mature from the world of childhood to the world of adulthood. They must be taught responsibility, empathy, productivity, and other human values. They need to learn that there are certain things adults can do, and certain rights and privileges that adults have, that they must earn through maturity and responsibility. If we are to rear children successfully, we must first ask ourselves what kind of adults we wish them to become. We cannot hope to achieve our child-rearing goals if we don't first define them. What kind of future, and what kind of people do we want to leave as our legacy? Do we want our children to enjoy the blessings of liberty? Do we want them to be strong, brave, competent, and productive? Do we want them to be capable of living in a difficult and complex world? Do we want them to be able to face the inevitable dangers of life with wisdom?=20 Do we want them to be able to defend themselves, their own children, and their communities, in order to ensure the survival of humanity? Or do we want our children to live as pampered and protected slaves?=20 Do we want them to be weak, unchallenged, untested, and impotent? Do we want them to be so dumbed down and so frightened that they will willingly and gratefully accept the yoke of oppression? Do we want to leave a legacy of defenseless sheep, ill-equipped even to survive? Once we answer those questions honestly, we can see through the rhetoric of "pro-child" and "anti-child". If our children are to be strong, they must successfully face some adversity. If they are to be brave, they must successfully face danger. If they are to be wise, they must have the opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them.=20 If they are to be competent, they must learn a wide variety of skills. If they are to survive, they must learn to protect and defend themselves. Most important, they must learn that the world is their domain, but it was not designed for their comfort, safety or convenience. Our role as adults should be to protect the natural rights of children because children cannot always protect themselves. We must protect them from the worst abuses and threats to their survival. But we cannot, and should not, lock them in a cotton candy cocoon or confine them to a life completely devoid of challenge. Instead, we must guide, educate and empower children so that they can take their proper place as defenders of rights when they become adults.=20 - - From this perspective, our course as adults and as parents is much clearer. Drugs, alcohol and tobacco have existed throughout human history, so banning them is not possible and for the most part not even desireable. Rather children should be educated about the risks and benefits of these substances. Their use should be restricted or supervised by parents until the children are mature enough to be responsible for their own decisions. And as adults we need to be willing and available to guide and support them when they make mistakes. Likewise we should not ban anything and everything that might be harmful to the smallest child. It is the responsibility of parents to protect their children from danger and to decide what entertainment and activities are appropriate for their children. As adults we should not ignore a child in danger or distress, but we are not required to devote our entire lives to children, or restrict ourselves only to activities appropriate for children. As my friend L. Neil Smith says, "We cannot childproof the world, so we must worldproof our children." =20 Children do have rights, but adults have rights which are broader and more comprehensive than those of children. This nation was founded by adults, for adults and our government is based on adult philosophy and responsibility. Therefore, our role as adults must not be to destroy the rights of adults and render them as powerless as small children.=20 Such a plan would not only endanger the adults, it would leave them unable to properly care for their children. Education must not be sanitized to the level of a "Barney" cartoon.=20 All people have equal rights, but all people are not equal and even the smallest child knows this. Some children are prettier or smarter or have more toys. To pretend otherwise is not only useless, it impairs children's ability to deal with reality as well as their ability to trust adults. We mustn't fake reality and it's wrong to teach kids to try to fake reality. Fantasy is a necessary part of childhood, but children must gradually learn to separate fantasy from reality. Likewise, history is not about nice people doing wonderful things for each other. It's about challenges, triumphs and failures, creativity and invention. It's the story of wars, of hatred based on race, religion and ethnicity, of battles for land and property. It's the endless cycle of freedom and tyranny. It's the story of individual humans overcoming their human limitations and doing great things, and of humans surrendering to their worst and basest instincts and creating unimaginable horrors. If children are to make rational choices, they must first learn the results of the choices others made before them. Children must also learn how to protect and defend themselves. They need to be taught basic hygiene, how to cross streets, fire safety, water safety, and what to do if they encounter a firearm. They need to know how to contact parents and where to find a trustworthy adult should they need assistance. Defending oneself does not necessarily involve the use of violence.=20 Children must learn when to fight and when to walk away. They need to be taught problem solving skills and conflict resolution skills. They must learn to resolve conflicts with words instead of force whenever possible. Children need to learn not only to defend themselves against other children, but also against predatory adults, inappropriate sexual advances, kidnappers and other criminals. They must learn how to deal with attacks from domestic animals, and also wild animals if they are to be safe while exploring the outdoors. =20 It is cruel and unfair to frighten children with awful stories of the terrible things that may befall them without also giving them the skills to deal with these threats. It is irresponsible to delude ourselves that we can eliminate all potential dangers, because we cannot. So we must teach children the skills and knowledge necessary to successfully protect themselves from these dangers, while supporting and shielding them with our own greater knowledge and skills. Each time a child successfully deals with a threat, no matter how minor, his competence for dealing with future threats grows, and he becomes more confident and less fearful. With respect to firearms, it is obvious that the only rational course of action is to teach children how to co-exist with guns safely and responsibly, i.e. the N.R.A.'s Eddie Eagle or a similar program for small children and safe handling instructions for older youth. Any child who does not learn how to deal with firearms safely will be at the mercy of anyone with a firearm, and it doesn't really matter whether that person with a firearm is an irresponsible gun owner, a criminal, or a member of an invading military force. =20 Every generation born this century has been called upon to fight for our country. While we rightly hope for a more peaceful world for our children, that peace will only come through strength and knowledge, not through ignorance, cowardice and fear. Disarmament can only bring tyranny, not peace or freedom. Gun owners and child advocates should not see each other as adversaries. In fact, they should have the same goal: ensuring that our children will inherit a nation where their rights and liberty are protected, and where they have the skills and tools to defend those rights against those who would usurp them. Unfortunately, the agendas of the most militant "child advocates" are usually overtly anti-child and anti-civilization. Forcing children to share all their toys will not teach them to respect property rights.=20 Encouraging children to turn in their parents for casual drug use actively destroys the most basic family unit and creates distrust between parents and children. Telling a child that her father doesn't love her and is going to die and abandon her because he smokes cigarettes is blatant child abuse. =20 Punishing a child for sharing her asthma inhaler with another child in severe respiratory distress because such behavior violates zero tolerance "drug abuse" rules is even worse. Such actions discourage children from helping others, confuse them about what is right and wrong, and demonstrate that adults cannot be trusted to judge them fairly. They also do nothing to combat real drug abuse and make it more likely that children will distrust and disregard any information adults give them about legitimate drug dangers. Teaching children that all men are potential rapists does nothing to encourage boys to learn responsible behavior and damages girls' abilities to form trusting relationships with men. Valuing "feeling good about oneself" over the real knowledge and competence that lead to true self-esteem discourages children from gaining knowledge and competence. This leaves them unprepared to function in the world, making them more susceptible to the promises of those who offer them safety in exchange for their freedom. If we could lock all children into sterile, padded, risk free bubbles until they turned eighteen, or twenty-one, or twenty-four, or whatever age we determine they're no longer "children", child mortality would approach zero. And in fact if saving the lives of children were our only goal, we would all be busy building these kiddie bubbles. But we all know that while such a plan would save lives, the beings who emerged from the bubbles would not be truly human. Clearly then, our goal is not just the preservation of the lives of children but the creation of competent, intelligent, responsible, creative adults. Saving the life of "just one child" is simply not a good enough excuse for the enslavement of millions of others. The next time someone advocates doing something "for the children" ask yourself a few simple questions: Is the alleged threat real, and what is the actual risk to my child? Is this plan realistic and feasible? What will it cost? What possible adverse effects to my child could result from this plan - - - both short term and long term? Will the plan help my child to understand and cope with reality? Does it falsify reality in any way? Will this plan make my child stronger, smarter, or more competent, or will it leave her weak, fearful or confused? Who stands to gain if this plan is put into effect? How will this plan affect my individual family and my individual children? What effects will this plan have on my children twenty years from now? Does this plan infringe upon my rights as a parent? Does this plan infringe upon the rights of others? How will this plan affect my child's future as a free and responsible adult? If you answer these questions thoughtfully and honestly, you'll be in a much better position to evaluate who's "pro-child" - and who's not.=20 The results may surprise you. For example, all children are now required to have social security numbers virtually from the time they're born. Supposedly, these social security numbers are intended to help prevent tax fraud.=20 However, now there are proposals to use social security numbers to track children's health care and immunizations as well as their performance in school. This information will be kept in permanent government databases. Is this a good idea? Is there a threat to your child? Assuming you're a responsible parent, no. We're told that this is necessary because "some parents" are irresponsible, and "some children" don't get immunizations. But what does that have to do with _you_ and _your child_? Do you really want all of your child's personal information placed in a government database because someone _else_ failed to get his child immunized?=20 What if you're a responsible parent who is worried about the possible adverse effects of vaccines? Should your child be penalized for the rest of his life because of your decision? Is the plan realistic and feasible? For the most part, yes. Almost all infants now have social security numbers. However, it will cost quite a lot of money to computerize all school and health records by social security numbers. Who should pay for this? What possible adverse effects could this have on my child short term and long term? In the short term, anyone with access to the database can cause serious and permanent damage to you and your child. Should your child show up at school with a few bruises, teachers can check the database and find out that you decided against vaccines. You may then find yourself charged with child abuse. Should your child have an abusive teacher, you may choose to transfer him to a different school so he can get a new start. Unfortunately, the new teacher at the new school will be able to read the old teacher's reports that your child "has behavior problems, doesn't respect authority, and is slightly retarded". In the long term, what happens when your child applies to college, for a job, or for the military? Is it really relevant that he had difficulty with math at age 13, or that his 5th grade teacher thought he had "poor leadership qualities"? Will this plan help your child to understand reality? Unfortunately, yes, assuming we are willing to accept a reality in which all of us have been numbered, fingerprinted, and had our most personal information entered into government files. Is this the reality we wish to create for our children? Will this plan make my child stronger, braver and more competent, or will it leave her fearful, weaker and confused? It may have no effect. But it's quite possible that your child's hopes, dreams, and potential may be permanently destroyed because her "file" states she is a poor learner - and all her future teachers and employers accept this at face value. Or perhaps she'll be labeled a "malingerer" because she has undiagnosed allergies or other medical conditions. Who stands to gain if this plan is put into effect? The state, which will gain a complete database on every citizen. Advocates of national health care, who will gain a universal medical database for each person, making it "unnecessary" for people to have "personal physicians". Teachers and employers who wish to "track" children into career paths based on their elementary school performance. How will this plan affect my individual family and my individual child? Only you can determine that. But if you deviate in any way from what the "experts" say is the proper way to raise your child, it's almost certain your child will suffer. So if you object to vaccines, or send your child to a religious school, or homeschool, or refuse to allow your child to attend in-school clinics that dispense birth control, or rear your child as a vegetarian, your child and your family may be victimized. What effect will this have on my child twenty years from now? It's unlikely such databases will be destroyed when your child reaches 18 or earns his high school diploma. It's more likely that the database will be expanded and made available to employers, colleges, police, doctors, insurance companies, and our ever-growing "lifestyle police". What will be entered in the database of the girl who was punished for "drug dealing" when she tried to save the life of another girl? What about the six-year old found guilty of "sexual harassment" for kissing a little girl on the cheek? What about a high school student who tells his teacher he believes public schools are unconstitutional? Clearly this plan infringes on your rights as a parent as well as the rights of all other parents, and all children. And equally clearly, this plan will seriously interfere with your child's ability to live his life as a free and responsible adult. Are mandatory social security numbers, and school and medical databases really good for "the children"? Or are "the children" being exploited to further the aims of those who would steal their freedom? If you're truly "pro-child", you'll think about these issues carefully and independently, and you'll teach your children to do the same. Feedback is, as always, encouraged. PLEASE DO NOT use the "reply" button to reply. (I'm still working on a majordomo fix.) Use the address the_righter@therighter.com for all correspondence regarding this column. Remember that ALL COMMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR ATTRIBUTION UNLESS YOU SPECIFICALLY REQUEST CONFIDENTIALITY. Due to the volume of mail I receive, I'm unable to respond to all e-mail. I will however _read_ all comments provided they are sent to the correct address and are civil in nature. Hate mail will be used for target practice. < Permission is granted for individual distribution of this column as long as no changes are made, full attribution is given and this message is left intact. Re-publication, whether print or electronic, requires the permission of the author. To subscribe to The Righter column send a message to majordomo@aros.net. In the BODY of the message put "subscribe righter-list" (without the "quotes"). Let me know if you have problems. =A91998 Sarah Thompson, M.D. the_righter@therighter.com http://www.therighter.com - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5 iQEVAwUBNWH9CNfaQ3zqMQjXAQGo3ggAmZd5qdW1LXmZ6GlVgb2I4wyxaSFj1HzF XfqQ9AhxtvBIjz6FTE6xSXG5phC9f8VCjkEceMGp8iRa7MHLYMn7FlcSKyVvDNZz 41zQav5C1/rukw1cf0eukdZq4NW8wphYUzL9wEH2xKDPPUt1k8nLk7fk/tLMAFCD XKjRthb5UmDKKu0saHSoO+JeT5l7cExaQgQ9t4b7EAvHyDKgsSK7vbBAWfUgKSCX kjedfvQJ4LQDlwnd887DWOoP+75QxXT0QzZPYaw5ucCPJSnnMlj/LpmEIjLA+lvb PcptAb33Dw5VQ2Irzw2K77dSVxneEaPkLtb8S/kj+tqAaA+GzKdY1A=3D=3D =3DgqOu - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://proliberty.com/observer [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 May 98 14:23:06 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: _TV_Causes_Murder_ As a bit of side ammo, there was a study done some years ago by a Dr. Centerwall (sp?). It's referenced in a book by Michael Medved, which if I caught the title right, is called, "Hollywood Versus America". Anyway the subject studied was the effect of TV on areas that didn't previously have TV. The study has been updated, and the results show among other things, that: 1. Academic studies decline, and 2. The Murder Rate _doubles_. Just a little something to stuff down the throats of the Media Apologists. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 May 98 23:02:11 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FW: BBC Poll - Should America ban handguns? (fwd) On May 22, Grubb, Ken wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Yes or no? You make the call http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_98000/98717.asp [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 08:51:19 +0500 From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Dancing in the Blood of the Victims Brad Alpert 1551 SW 25 Kingsville, MO 64061 (816) 720-3353 Editor: Sarah Brady and her fellow would-be gun banners are - once again, and predictably - dancing in the blood of the victims of the latest school tragedy. Here's a dose of reality for them. The 15-year old criminal who massacred his parents and schoolmates in Springfield, Oregon (one day after having been released by the police instead of facing multiple state and federal felony gun charges) broke - at minimum - the following gun laws. State: Carrying a concealed weapon/2 counts Purchase of stolen firearm/at least 1 count Possession of stolen firearm/at least 1 count Armed criminal action/dozens of counts Federal: Possession of a firearm on school grounds/4 counts (Gun Free School Zone law) Use of firearm in commission of violent felony/dozens of counts The media and gun prohibitionists' answer to this latest media-induced copycat tragedy? Why, more gun control laws, of course! In closing, I have a question for the folks who want more gun control laws in response to this tragedy: If a drunken driver has a head-on collision and kills five innocent people, would you blame the booze? Or would you blame the car? Brad Alpert - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 98 12:05:05 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Fw: [FP] FW: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER (fwd) On May 22, Terry Walker wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] - -----Original Message----- From: mcdonald To: Scan This News Recipients List Date: Thursday, May 21, 1998 1:07 PM Subject: [FP] FW: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER >[forwarded message] >=================================================================== >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrick Poole [mailto:ppoole@fcref.org] >Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 11:21 AM >To: 'ScanThisNews' >Subject: FW: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER > >Re: This is why we DON'T need biometrics in our banking system. FYI. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Privacy Concerns [SMTP:PvtConcern@aol.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 3:54 PM > To: List Member > Subject: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER > >This message is sponsored by: > > SiteOwner.com > The Ultimate Bookmark for Web Site Owners! > Free tools for promoting and analyzing your site. > http://www.siteowner.com/ > > May 15, 1998, a South Carolina businessman entered First Union Bank to cash >a Check given him by his customer on her bank for CONTRACTED services >performed by him. He presented the check and his driver's license for >identification. The teller asked if he had an account there, and when the >answer was 'no', he was informed he must also place his thumbprint on the >check. He asked the teller to verify the check by calling his customer; >reminding her of the bank's CONTRACT with their customer. > >She refused to do so, but made three other phone calls, while he waited. He >repeated his request for honoring the check, reminding her she had his DL >and his fingerprints are his personal property and not required to be given >to anyone. The branch manager came to the desk and said that Richland County >[deputies] were on the way. He asked to make a phone call and permission was >granted before the FIVE deputies arrived. He was asked to leave by deputies >while making the call (verified by deputy in question to teller). Deputy >removed phone from his hand, forced him out of the bank, cuffed him and took >him to jail. All this in front of his wife, his three small children, who >were by now crying, and all the other customers in First Union. He spent the >night in jail, and lost the following day's work while in detention. All >this for attempting to protect his right to privacy. > > First Union claims it is looking for fraudulent checks. Are its customers >aware their accounts and check-writing are being questioned by their own >bank? Are they aware their checks are being DISHONORED by THEIR bank, where >their accounts are being held? Since when does any third party private >business have the right to demand your personal property, your fingerprints, >in order to close a business transaction for contracted services provided? > > Are we to be considered criminals because we are not regular customers of >that bank? > > Is FIRST UNION aware that their PRIVATE policy is NOT LAW. There is no such >LAW, and therefore violates the people's rights in South Carolina? NATION'S >BANK has joined in this PRIVATE policy decision, as has the FIFTH THIRD >BANKS in Ohio and Kentucky. Are these the kind of banks with which you want >to do business? > > We are not the criminals, the funds in your banking facility are YOURS, not >the banks and not government. We do NOT wish to be coerced into opening >accounts in banks for more government intrusion. This is NOT protection of >our accounts it is invasion of privacy and attempted government >control..simply put, "theft" of your personal property. > > Last, we must hold law enforcement accountable for their actions. The >police are "experts who have the higher knowledge of the law". Our tax >dollars provide training, seminars, and all manner of classes at our >expense. > > Heavy handedness, snap judgements, assault, disrespect, and arrogance >should not have to be tolerated for the purpose of running "customers" >through the Judicial meat market. > > This article was contributed by Mr Lee Griggs. He can be reached at >lgriggs@msegroup.com > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent via ListBot. To remove yourself > from this list, please visit http://www.listbot.com/remove.html > Get a free mailing list for your web site @ http://listbot.com/ > ----------------------------------------------------------------- >[end forwarded message] >=================================================================== [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 15:35:57 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Fratrum: Fw: [FP] FW: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER (fwd) What bank was the check drawn on?? I think it's a hard case in todays world to argue that presenting checks on a third bank should be easy (IMHO this is wrong, Im not excusing it just stating reality as seen through my bottle bottom glasses). But as I understand it (and it's unclear now that I reread it) this was a check written on the bank to wich it was presented. IE payor handed our guy a first union check. Is that true? If not then he should have been talking to the payor rather then trying to enforce the payors contract with a 3rd member bank of the check clearing system. If on the other hand, this was a first union check written by a first union customer to a non first union recipient (our guy) then the whole thing is even scarier. If refusing to be thumb printed is probable cause for detention, then I know what me and my lawyer are doing teusday afternoon. Can anyone confirm this post? Anyone know what the fellow was -charged- with that allowed him to be cuffed? What city in SC was this branch in? (We need phone numbers here for the branch, the PD and the district attorney.) It would be great if something important like this came with more data. Boyd (I do not argue contract law with bank tellers) Kneeland - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 15:24:49 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Dancing in the Blood of the Victims Brad, I hope you send your post in it's entirety to BBC's discussion page (see bills post about the poll). Boyd - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 17:46:05 +0500 From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: Dancing in the Blood of the Victims > Brad, I hope you send your post in it's entirety to BBC's discussion page > (see bills post about the poll). Boyd Thanks Boyd, but my experience (and others, now) with that site is that it won't accept any new pro-gun postings. What has been your experience with it? I composed a statement on it last night and when I submitted it, there was a network error and my post was gone. Others who have successfully gotten past that point are still waiting to see their posts on the site. I think it's a rigged deal. Brad - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #137 *************************