Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:22:01 -0500
> From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)

> Now, Deft-Spinner Jim, you've switched from what we (you) 
> did or did not do to what Jim did or did not do, which is what 
> I was indelicately pointing out has been how we (you and me) 
> self-censoringly plead our case for or against AP and USG, 
> and thereby capitulate covertly while ineffectively protesting 
> Jim's (and other terrorist targets') zap by USG-AP.

Bullshit, your Burroughs-esk not withstanding. I believe Jim Bell's AP
proposal is sheer insanity with no real merit other than clear and open
endorsement of anarchy. I have always said this and will always say it.
However, I *do* support his right to *talk* about it all he wants. When he
or others begin to *act* upon it then I say do to them exactly what they are
wanting to do to others - nail their hide to a wall. Violence has one and
*only* one justification - immediate self-defence.

His putting stink bombs in a federal building deserves some punishment. It
is nothing more than a petty childish prank and should be treated as such.
Bottem line with Jim Bell, he is a selfish child who refuses to grow up. Let
him reap what he sows.

The federal responce to this and other forms of civil disobedience are
equealy without merit.

My view: neither the feds or Jim Bell have two halves of a clue to rub
together.

> And rightly so, what fool would want to take Jim's place, and
> that's what we're relieved to not be in, now that we've been 
> shown an example. Chilled speech, it's called, finger-pointing 
> about some fool going too far, and worse, getting caught.

It certainly hasn't changed my beliefs or my plans to act on them one whit.
The difference is that I believe the system can be fixed, yes it will take
time, yes it will require a certain level of jamming unsavory morsels of the
Constitution down some tyrants throats; but it is doable.

Personaly, I would not plea bargain, I would not accept a court appointed
attorney, I would claim political prisoner status, and further I would
immediately appeal my conviction to the Supreme Court. I say this openly and
in public in order to give the Feds one of two options: leave me alone and
accept my civil disobedience for what it is or let's tango in the courts and
let the supreme law of the land draw the lines in the sand. My faith in the
strength of this country rests in the Constitution and the ideals it stands
for.

For a start:

1. I oppose the current tax laws. The Constitutional amendment was *never*
   legaly ratified and was never intended to make individual citizens pay
   40% of their taxes to support the federal govt.

2. Agencies such as NOAA, FBI, BATF, NASA, etc. are not constitutional
   because there is *no* section of the Constitution that delegates those
   issues to the feds. Per the 10th they go to the states or the people
   unless an amendment is enacted.

3. The DoD is currently engaging in contracts that extend over the
   Constitutionaly mandated 2 year limit for anything other than naval
   forces. They also allow the use of military personnel and equipment
   by civil law enforcement - a clear violation of both the letter and
   spirit of the Constitution.

4. I oppose the extension of the inter-state commerce clause because
   regulation does not imply the level of law enforcement and the use of
   force that is currently employeed. I further object to the apparent
   skipping over of the last sentence of the inter-state commerce clause
   which clearly invokes the 9th and 10th.

5. The 14th Amendment does *not* extend *any* protection of rights to the
   states - only privileges and immunities. I further believe that such
   extension at the state level is a bad thing.

6. The fed's interest in doctor assissted suicides is misplaced. There is
   *no* mandate for this to be a federal issue.

7. The use of drugs is *not* mandated by the Constitution to be a federal
   issue.

8. The Constitution does not allow *any* seizing of private property,
   legaly or illegaly gained, without compensation to the owner of
   that property.

9. There is a whole raft of political party rules and regulations that
   limit the participation in government of many smaller organizations.
   These limits are un-Constitutional.

If you or anyone else doesn't like the way it works then get an amendment
passed that changes the way the rules operate.

In short my main bitch is that the Supreme Court of the US doesn't say
"Ain't our problem" nearly enough and when it does speak the question it
should be asking is "Does the Constitution allow this power to the federal
govt. within the constraints of the 9th and 10th?". Neither Congress or
the Supreme Court act in a manner to honor either the letter or the spirit
of the Constitution and in particular the 9th and 10th Amendments.

I believe that *every* federal law and regulation *must* be able to
demonstrate its lineage from one or more sentences in the Constitution
before it is applicable and legal by the 10th.

Personaly, I want to bring charges against Congress and the Supreme Court of
the US for actions contrary to those granted them under the Constitution. In
short, I want to impeach the whole kit and kaboodle.

I also want to get an amendment passed such that representation in
government is related to percentages of votes cast for individual parties and 
not the over all winning party of the votes counted.

> Keep quiet about yourself, blame somebody else, luck may hold.

I not only blame myself (as well as all citizens), but I expect to do
something about it over the remainder of my life.

I learned several lessons from Operation Sun Devil. The most important one
was that if you compromise you loose. Phiber Optik and his ilk plea
bargained and he went to jail. Mentor, Erik Bloodaxe, & Steve Jackson
refused and they walk around free men to this day (it's interesting that 
these folks are all here in Austin).

> That's what I'm doing, blaming wildly, hiding in a crowd of "we's"
> and now, thanks much, your equation for going along and getting 
> ahead.
> 
> Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There's not? You sir, don't have one whit of morality, ethics, or empathy.
Let alone any sort of sense of justice or liberty.

I hope your happy licking the hands of your keepers.


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |                                                                    |
   |      We built your fort. We will not have it used against us.      |
   |                                                                    |
   |                          John Wayne -  Allegheny Uprising          |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|

I think both you and Bell are in relatively good agreement on the problem, differing mainly on the means of a solution.  Although, like you I have never considerd engaging in acts of violence to right the wrongs in our legal structure, I also do not believe that the changes you wish can reasonably be expected to be achieved through legal and democratic means within our lifetimes.

Almost from the start of our nation, the actions of the Federal branches have proven that the Anti-Federalists were right, that the Constitution (as accepted) would not prevent their power grab.  Wasn't it Article 2, Section 18 which was intended to prevent such abuse, and which was easily overcome by the SC's liberal interpretation in Maubery vs. Madison?  

Little has changed, nor it it likely to, within the system.  There's too much inertia and entrenched economic and political interest, including the electorate's acquiessence to limitations of their liberties in exchange for real or imagined protection from harm.  I can think of no instance when changes, of the magnitude of which you speak, were made during a peaceful transition.  Can you?

>Jim Choate wrote:
>The difference is that I believe the system can be fixed, yes it will take
>time, yes it will require a certain level of jamming unsavory morsels of the
>Constitution down some tyrants throats; but it is doable.
>

[snip]
>If you or anyone else doesn't like the way it works then get an amendment
>passed that changes the way the rules operate.
>
>In short my main bitch is that the Supreme Court of the US doesn't say
>"Ain't our problem" nearly enough and when it does speak the question it
>should be asking is "Does the Constitution allow this power to the federal
>govt. within the constraints of the 9th and 10th?". Neither Congress or
>the Supreme Court act in a manner to honor either the letter or the spirit
>of the Constitution and in particular the 9th and 10th Amendments.
>
>I believe that *every* federal law and regulation *must* be able to
>demonstrate its lineage from one or more sentences in the Constitution
>before it is applicable and legal by the 10th.
>
>Personaly, I want to bring charges against Congress and the Supreme Court of
>the US for actions contrary to those granted them under the Constitution. In
>short, I want to impeach the whole kit and kaboodle.


--Steve