Home -> Apollo BBS -> Apollo Archive Index -> January 1992 -> January 6

Apollo BBS Archive - January 6, 1992

Mail from Pete Fischer
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:20:30

[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

Howdy, I wanted to thank you for inviting me to your house. I hope I didn't
inconvenience you by arriving so early. I was a tad upset. Things are much
better now, though. Take it easy, Pete
*s
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:It was a pleasure seeing and talking with you.  United we stand, divided we 
 2:fall.  I'm anxiously awaiting the hour when the movement takes wings, big 
 3:wings.  We've been ripped off long enough.
 4:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...

As for the message to which you replied...
[A>bort, [C>ontinue or [Z>ap:Zap

Post Office command:JN

*=* Journey to a SIG *=*

*=* X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board entered *=*

X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

Press  to abort

Message: 5291
Author: $ Chris Neal
Category: Shit-Chat!
Subject: The start of 1992
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 21:22:28

Well, 1992 is off to a great start for me. 
  First off, I broke up with my girlfriend on New Year's Day, but atleast
we're still talking.
  Second off, it is like something came over everyone at work, they are all
acting like fucking assholes,
  and third off, My friends house, 2 blocks away, burnt almost two the
ground on the 5th (Sunday).  That was a first for me.  Knowing someone who's
house caught fire with serious damage.  It was also a first, that I was
there before and Police or Firemen, and watched it happen, his neighbors and
myself saved his project truck a beautiful 1987 Ranger, and his dog.  His
car that was in the garage, and really nice Maverick, went up with the rest
of the house.  Shit, and I thought 1991 started off shitty!!!  What the fuck
is going on!!???
 
Alright, so I expect someone to give me some 'insight', like Rod, 'with his
guiding light' kinda stories on how the world goes round.
 
I hope everyone else's year is off to a better start!
 
-Chris

Message: 5292
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Hey!
Date: 01/07/92  Time: 00:07:33

You got it bad?  Officer Russ Whitney of the Glendale Police Force is a good
friend of mine.  I was considering inviting him (with the agreement of the
other Apolloites) to the shoot-out GT, as he has (or had, not sure whether
he's sold them or not) a few nice auto- and semi-auto assault rifles. 
Actually, one of them was ripped off by a dealer who was supposed to be
converting it.
 
Anyway, this was before he and his motorcycle lost an argument with a car.
 
I saw his dad today, things are hopeful.

Message: 5293
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Insight
Date: 01/07/92  Time: 00:59:22

I'm sad that shit like this happens but it comes with the territory.  They
say that 'time' heals all wounds and so it does.  We don't know what the
next event in our lives will be and we can't really be all that prepared for
it.  Look for the silver lining otherwise you'll get so depressed that you
won't be of use to anyone, yourself included.  Chin up.

That's the best I have to offer for the moment.  I hope life gets better for
everyone although we seem to be entering a major world gear shift so we may
all find ourselves in the soup in the near furture.  Don't allow yourselves
to get too emotionally involved in this world as it is just a short stay
with the same rom.

X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:JN

*=* Journey to a SIG *=*

*=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*

Public Bulletin Board command:$C

Press  to abort

Message: 81233
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Kudos
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:40:20

FS> Who do you suppose has to pay for all the gold that is needed to have
FS> that Gold money if the money is to be issued by the gvt and backed by
FS> gold??  Is all that gold going to just materialize out of thin air?  Or
FS> will the equivalent in taxes need to be collected to buy the gold out
FS> of which the money is to be made?       

FS> So there is STILL the need for the gvt to collect as much in taxes as
FS> they issue in gold if the currency is ONLY to be that issued by the gvt.

RE: your messages 81112 through 81116:

I have to compliment you on a logically deduced argument reaching several
downline conclusions from the basic premise you start with which all seem
"reasonable" given the basic premise.  You even touch upon the actual truth
of the matter; however, because your basic premise is faulty, the conclusion
you reach thereby is faulty.

Your paragraph quoted above, containing the sentence "Or will the equivalent
in taxes need to be collected to buy the gold out of which the money is to
be made?" is stated as a question, but unfortunately, since you did not know
the correct answer to that question (which is 'no'), you allowed that
question to become a statement by default and then took it as

Message: 81234
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: False Premise
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:41:40

the premise of your argument.

Any logical conclusion reached from an argument based upon a false premise
is going to be a false conclusion, and your conclusion is false.  Had you
allowed my post on "seigniorage" to sink in, you would have known it is not
necessary to tax the people in order to buy the gold with which to mint the
gold coins.

     SEIGNIORAGE:  A royalty or prerogative of the sovereign, whereby
     an allowance of gold and silver, brought to the mint in the mass
     to be exchanged for coin, is claimed.  Cowel.  Mintage, the charge
     for coining bullion into money at the mint.
                                -- Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914)

Basically, seigniorage is the difference between the face value of a minted
coin and it's intrinsic value.  When bullion is brought to the mint for
coinage, it is paid for in U.S. Dollars in minted coin which has been
previously minted.  The result is a coin which, if melted down into bullion,
does not quite measure up to the necessary weight and fineness to qualify as
a U.S. Dollar -- thus preventing coins being removed from circulation by
speculators.

People who bring gold bullion to the mint, say, sufficient in weight and

Message: 81235
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Seigniorage
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:42:57

fineness to be equivalent to 1,000 U.S. dollars, would not go home the same
day with 1,000 U.S. dollars in coins.  According to "Money of the Early
Americans" [A Guide Book of United States Coins, 36th edition, 1983] the Act
of 1873, for example, reduced the coinage charge to 1/5th of 1 percent.

Your discussion touches upon this process when you refer to a "fractional
standard," though you don't call it seigniorage.

Now, then: won't you be surprised when you discover, as I was surprised when
I discovered, that for the most part the U.S. Mints DID NOT CHARGE
SEIGNIORAGE on the bullion they minted into coin unless the bullion producer
demanded payment in coins on the same day.  AND YET THERE WAS NO INCOME TAX
-- NO CAPITATION, AND NO DIRECT, TAX IMPOSED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OR BY
ANY STATE GOVERNMENT.  Capitation, and direct taxes, were and still are
today prohibited by the U.S. Constitution unless apportioned according to
the census.

There are two reasons why this was possible, and these reasons are
associated with why we find it difficult to conceive of such a thing today: 
The first reason is that by far the most commonly minted coins were not the
twenty dollar Double Eagle, or the ten dollar Eagle, or the five dollar
Half-Eagle (gold coins) or even the Silver Dollar or Half Dollar.  The
largest coin ever commonly used by the working man to pay his cost of

Message: 81236
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Coins ...
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:44:08

living was the Silver Quarter, and the Disme (dime) and 5-cent piece
(Nickel, because it was made mostly of nickel) were far more commonly used
than the quarter, and the most common coin of all was the threepenney,
twopenney, and penney.

Today we think nothing of buying twenty "dollars" (frns) worth of groceries;
that's small change.  Starting from scratch, with nothing in the pantry, 20
frns today would provide a subsistence level of food for maybe two and a
half, three days.  In the 1800's, and up to the 1900's, twenty real dollars
worth of groceries would have fed my household of two adults and one
teenager for approximately a month at a somewhat higher level than
subsistence, or two months by making it stretch.

If the prices for foodstuffs in the 1800's were present today, I could make
the food I purchased stretch a lot farther today than I could have made it
stretch in the 1800's due to technological advancements such as
refrigeration, efficient energy, etc.

This shows that our assumption today, since everything costs dollars and
tens of dollars instead of pennies, that a return to the gold and/or silver
standard would mean that we have to have dollars and tens of dollars in gold
and/or silver in circulation for every human being in the country, and that
is not true -- we would have to have maybe a dollar in gold and/or

Message: 81237
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Check on gov't abuse
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:45:09

silver in circulation for every human being in the country to maintain the
same level of economy.  [This example is intended to show the ratio between
what we conceive we would need and what we would need in reality, not the
actual dollar amounts.]

What it boils down to, Fred, is this:  until we left our monetary standard
of intrinsic value, our country was successful in providing a quality
standard of living for most workers because gov't was restrained to doing
that which gov't was and is supposed to do under the Constitution.  There
was a prohibition against taxes upon the working man, and gov't was in the
same boat as everyone else: if gov't wanted to do something, it had to find
the money to do it.  Thus when the thing gov't wanted to do was not pursuant
to the Constitution, the minority of Congress who happened to be possessed
of principles of honesty and integrity could use the lack of funding as a
way to argue against passage of the unConstitutional bill, if they could not
persuade based upon principle alone.  It was a means of keeping gov't in
check and out of the lives of the working people.

Less than ten years after the Constitution was ratified, a crisis occurred
which we have previously discussed.  The Congress had been infested with a
bunch of Centrists, backed by banking interests, who wanted power
concentrated in the U.S. Government and doled out to the States, instead of
the Constitutional procedure of recognizing that power resided in the

Message: 81238
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Centrists
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:46:03

People and in the States, and was doled out to the U.S. Government.  Thomas
Jefferson wrote letters pertaining to this crisis, and we have quoted and
discussed those letters here.  Luckily, the crisis was averted when the
principled members of Congress got their way because the unprincipled side
hadn't figured out how to pay for their usurpation of authority.

Later on, Abe Lincoln was embroiled in an argument with the Centrists over a
national bank which he refused to support.  Then he paid for the costs of
the Civil War by selling War Bonds instead of borrowing from the bankers,
and the bankers had him assassinated in a fit of pique.

Later still, the banker-backed Centrists gained dominance in government and
managed to get their dream of a national bank established -- whereupon a
very principled and courageous President by the name of Andrew Jackson
pulled the rug out from under them by refusing to allow their charter to be
renewed.  I never have figured out why he wasn't assassinated, unless the
bankers figured it would be obvious who paid for it.

Centrists gained power again in the late 1800's and early 1900's, sold
F.D.R. a bill of goods (which he later, reportedly, realized on his
deathbed), and managed to get their dream of a national bank established as
reality.  The rest is history.

Message: 81239
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: A hash of it
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:47:13

And today, Fred, there is no reason why honesty and integrity should hold
sway over our government.  It is no longer limited by the necessity of
finding funds for its Centrist machinations; unlimited funds are there for
the borrowing.  Honesty and integrity is no longer effective arguments
against unConstitutional statutes and programs because funds can no longer
be withheld to give those arguments teeth.  All they gotta do is borrow the
money into existence and expect our children to pay for their folly.

By the way, Fred, you may think this reduces the compelling nature of my
argument, but I think it adds to it:  Any serious examination of monetary
policy throughout the period of time between the ratification of our
Constitution and the establishment of the FED will reveal that basically,
our government made a complete and utter hash of the monetary policy during
that period of time.  However, one thing it didn't do was delete or
otherwise subvert the principle that the money was of intrinsic value, and
represented wealth directly, not merely indirectly.  In spite of the fact
there was *never* enough actual money in circulation to go around because
enough had not been minted, our nation expanded, the working class improved
their living standard and did so at less cost, and were able to pass on
their achievements to their children, and their children were able to build
upon those achievements in their own lives and further improve their
standard and reduce their costs.

Message: 81240
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Conclusion
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:47:51

All of this was possible, not because of specifically gold and silver coin,
or of magically competent and principled government (of which there was
none), but because of one thing and the natural result of that one thing,
which result was the intent of the founding fathers:  That one thing was a
monetary system of intrinsic value which gov't was prohibited from
subverting and which naturally lent itself to natural processes of honesty
in trade, which also prevented subversion.  The result of that one thing
(coupled with the prohibition against direct taxation) was that government
could not get too big for its britches as it is today -- it couldn't pay for
it.

Message: 81241
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Not UnConstitutional
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:48:48

FS> There could, of course, be non-gvt gold out there in use as currency
FS> but that would violate the constitution since only the FEDs have the
FS> right to coin money.

I see nothing unConstitutional about non-gov't gold being out there in use
as currency.  The Constitution doesn't limit the people; it only limits
gov't.  State gov'ts are prohibited from making any Thing but gold and
silver coin a tender in payment of debts, but it doesn't say it has to be
U.S. gov't minted coins.  Indeed, until Roosevelt and his cronies
'purportedly' managed to deprive the people of their gold (by Executive
Order, which is null and void anyway, since it was not passed by Congress),
many different gold and silver coins were in circulation besides those
minted by the U.S. gov't.  More on that Executive Order, its purpose, and
its effectiveness later.

Additionally, using non-gov't gold as currency is not the same as "coining
money."  It could be used in bullion form.

Lastly, gov't has no "rights."  Gov't has only powers and authorities, and
not nearly so many as it is currently exercising.

Message: 81242
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Deviate.
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:50:11

FS> There *is* a partial solution of course - we can start talking of only
FS> fractional backing for our currency, that is, instead of putting the
FS> "real thing" (no not coke, but gold coins) out as currency, we start
FS> putting out sandwich coins, or "alloyed" coins.

Alloyed coins is the method; it also makes the coin harder and less
susceptible to wear, and less susceptible to the practice of "shaving."  But
that is not "fractional backing for our currency;" you could always exchange
the coin for the bullion at face value, not intrinsic value.  The point is
that gov't doing that maintained the face value of the coin, but obviously,
no one else would be willing to do it.  And hardly anyone ever found the
need to take advantage of gov't's willingness to do that; the coins were
trustworthy and tradable; bullion was less so.

FS> We deviate from the idea that each coin is worth (please bow down) ONE
FS> TRUE DOLLAR OF REAL VALUE and say that each coin is "worth" a dollar
FS> but only has some fractional dollar's worth of gold in it.

By virtue of the previous paragraph, we have not deviated from the idea that
each coin is worth ONE TRUE DOLLAR OF REAL VALUE, though it only has some
fractional dollar's worth of gold in it -- indeed, the intrinsic value was
never less than 95% of the face value.

Message: 81243
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Wrong again.
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:51:28

FS> If we trust the gvt to NEVER EVER change the fractional value then, at
FS> least in theory, we have no worry once we make the change.

We can at least trust gov't to never ever reduce the fractional value to a
point where it would cause an economic problem, because if gov't did the
coins would no longer be traded at their face value and would therefore be
supplanted by other coins, or even bullion,  of greater intrinsic value. 
Indeed, we had as big a bunch of hungry crooks in Congress in the 1800's as
we have today, and they never once reduced the intrinsic value of our legal
tender coins to the point where a problem was created.

FS> We can all sleep at night knowing that our money is "stable" as long as
FS> we are willing to continue to tax ourselves enough to keep buying MORE
FS> gold to satisfy the increasing need for currency as the economy
FS> expands.

We can all sleep at night knowing that our money is stable in its value and
that we *don't* have to be taxed into the poorhouse to prop up its value. 
*That's* what we have to do *now* to keep the frn afloat.  We don't have to
do that under the Constitutional monetary standard because there is no need
for it -- there is no inflation which gov't and the banksters have to hide
from public view and pretend to "control" by pulling their worthless
printing-press money out of circulation before it gets spent.

Message: 81244
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Banks
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:52:28

As far as the need for an increase in the money supply as the economy
expands, there are fine indicators of that.  The indicators primarily are
that other, sometimes less stable, mediums of exchange are being used
because proper minted coins are not as available as they should be.  When
this occurs, gov't loses its ability to keep track of interstate commercial
transactions, and thus its proper and lawful taxation revenue from commerce
is reduced.  Gov't therefore has an incentive to purchase more gold and/or
silver and mint it into circulation, lest gov't go broke.

FS> Naturally, we would require ALL banks to only make loans in amounts no
FS> greater then the amount of REAL money in their vaults, otherwise they
FS> would be adding to the money supply and we can't have that, it would
FS> mess up our "stable" currency if there were other "funny" forms of
FS> "equivalent currency" out there in the form of deposits created from
FS> merely unbacked loans and drawn thru the use of checks rather then
FS> REAL money.

The requirement you describe is correct, but the reason you give is not the
primary reason for it.  The primary reason for it is that it is fraud to
lend more money than you have on hand, because by doing so you are demanding
a greater payment of interest than is actually justified by the amount you
lent.  As a bank you could set your loan interest rate wherever you want to,
and that will determine how attractive your loans are in the

Message: 81245
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: The Choice
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:53:23

marketplace.  But if you set your interest rate at one level, and then
demand more than that by creating part of the loan out of thin air and
convincing the recipient he is getting more than he is actually getting,
then that is fraud.  Indeed, if, instead of lending the recipient substance
of value, you lend him substance representing debt and convince him it is of
value, then it is fraud to begin with and constitutes conducting a
fraudulent enterprise.

FS> As you may be getting the idea, the choice in a growing country will
FS> boil down to either tax after tax after tax to support a FULLY backed
FS> currency OR abandonment of the absolute "gold" standard to a fractional
FS> standard.

This is the logical conclusion of your logical argument which is based upon
the faulty premise, and therefore this conclusion is faulty.  What you call
the "fractional standard" of gold and silver coins has always been the case
(never less than 95% intrinsic value to 100% face value), and as previously
shown, has worked fine in spite of government making a hash of everything it
attempted and in spite of being just as hungry and inclined toward
malfeasance as our current government.

I certainly do not suggest that level of intrinsic value should ever be
reduced.  But I would like to point out that the system would most likely

Message: 81246
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Laughable
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:54:21

work with almost *any* level of intrinsic value as long as it is above zero
-- i.e., as long as it does not represent debt instead of value.  The great
evil of our current system is that it represents debt, not value.

FS> And of course, once people find that a fractional standard works, as it
FS> clearly does in just about EVERY country on the face of the globe, they
FS> will not be eager to continue paying taxes each year to support their
FS> "stable" currency and stop it from DEFLATING.

That statement is laughable considering our current system, in which people
have to continue paying taxes each year to support the fraudulent frns to
keep them from INFLATING.  And people just LOVE doing that, don't they,
Fred?

Every objection you have raised to what I have said applies more to this
current monetary standard of fraudulent debt-money than it does to a an
honest monetary standard of intrinsic value.  I'm surprised you use these
very negative arguments against honest money when they apply so very much
better to the dishonest money you support.

Message: 81247
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Debt-backing
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:55:22

FS> A growing economy means that MORE people are entering it, that more
FS> factories are coming on line, that MORE money is therefore needed in
FS> circulation.

I know the difference between "inflation" and a "growing economy."  The
point is, there *is* a difference in an honest monetary system of intrinsic
value.  There is no meaningful difference between the two in your fraudulent
debt-money system.  You cannot have one without the other in this system;
you can have economic growth -- and a lot of it -- *without* inflation in an
honest monetary system.

FS> Since we have NO backing anymore, there is no longer any chance of
change
FS> in the standard.

Again, this statement is laughable.  Under the current system, change in the
system occurs daily; it is called INFLATION.  And we DO have backing; the
problem is the "backing" is no longer a substance of value, it is DEBT --
and IT MUST BE PAID with more of the same labor that created it, and the
PAYING OF IT with more labor CREATES MORE OF IT.  And those who cynically
perpetrate this fraud, and produce nothing, get more and more powerful and
those who produce the wealth of this country get more and more oppressed and
poverty-stricken!

Message: 81248
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: False conclusion
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:56:02

FS> As I have tried to show, the Gold standard is not "Free", it has to be
FS> paid for with taxes and if you don't want DEFLATION of the money as the
FS> economy grows you can expect continued taxes that do NOTHING but fill
FS> gvt vaults with yellow metal.

And, unfortunately, you failed to show it because you started with a false
premise.  It does not require taxation -- certainly not taxation of private
individuals! -- to coin money of intrinsic value.  Contrariwise, it DOES
require taxation of private individuals to prop up the fraudulent system we
have now.

Message: 81249
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Gold
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:56:55

RW> If a dollar was backed by gold would there be enough gold to back the
RW> dollar?

Absolutely.  As long as you don't expect to back all the worthless frns
currently in existence, which couldn't be done with all the gold on the
planet.  But you wouldn't need to.  A real dollar would buy a lot more in
the marketplace than a frn; therefore, fewer of them would be needed.  Most
of the real dollars could be minted as silver quarters, silver dimes, nickel
nickels, and copper pennies.  Wouldn't it be nice to pay for a loaf of bread
with a dime again?

RW> Wouldn't gold producers have an unfair advantage since only the wealthy
RW> would be gold producers on a large scale?

No more so than they were in the 1800's.  I've heard a lot of stories about
the big railroad men throwing their weight around and getting rich by
exploiting labor, but I've never heard of the gold producers doing so --
indeed, the gold producers hired people for their mines and stamping mills
and processing plants and paid them better than anyone else got paid for
their labor anywhere.  I've heard reports of up to fifty dollars a day, when
the going rate for unskilled labor was 40 a month.

Message: 81250
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Bankruptcy?
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:57:51

RW> If the dollar was backed by gold how would those lost dollars be dealt
RW> with?  Fire, flood, and other disasters would destroy millions of
RW> dollars annually.

How do you "destroy" a dollar's worth of gold?  You can burn paper money,
but the best you can do with gold is melt it.  Generally speaking, much if
not all of the gold "destroyed" by a fire would be recoverable.  As for
floods, well, they've recovered gold from sunken ships on the ocean floor. 
As for other disasters -- well, I don't know what all you're thinking of
here, but I can't think of any disaster that would be more lossy in gold
than it already is in paper.

RW> Couldn't we just start the economy over after declaring bankruptcy?
RW> The national debt would then be zero.  

Aside from the fact that there is no "world bankruptcy court" to hear the
case, one cannot file bankruptcy when one is in the physical possession of
enormous intrinsic wealth.  If you do, that wealth goes to your creditors. 
How does that help us?

Message: 81251
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Bill B./Matlock
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:58:43

BB> > Someone here said congratulations might be in order for me for my
BB> > "Guest Column" published in the Arizona Repugnant.

BB> You probably saw it in a comment I made to a message by James Matlock
BB> (which you probably didn't see since you filter his messages).

Actually I think I did see that message.  It was at the tail end of someone
else's booklength manuscript, and so I turned off the filter and downloaded
the whole thing faster.

BB> He replied that his reference was made tongue in cheek.

That figures.

Message: 81252
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Answer!
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 19:59:39

BB> > I pay 40 frns a month for insurance on two 1980's vehicles, one
BB> > of which has full coverage.

BB> What company are you with?

Allstate.  I pay 60.60 a month for four months out of six; that averages out
to 40.40 a month.

Message: 81253
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Fervor 1/2
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 20:00:49

BB> It was supposed to be "True Believer."  I don't know whether line noise
BB> got you or me.  Ain't technology grand?  :)

It probably got me.  I lose two or three characters, on the average,
whenever my buffer dumps to disk.  I'm going to have to readjust the flow
control again.

BB> The flip side of that is that if one has faith in a Truth, he accuses
BB> those he cannot convince of that Truth of having ulterior motives.
BB> That to me indicates what you well refer to as a "religious fervor."
BB> I've seen some of this in a couple of your messages to Fred.

Well, I have to ask, then:  Are honesty and integrity to be considered
desireable principles of conduct?  And if so, is this concept a "Truth?"  I
believe it is.  In saying this I do not intend to demean Fred; but I do
intend to demean the current fraudulent monetary standard.  When someone
suggests than a dishonest and fraudulent system, which is prohibited by law,
is "better" than the honest system authorized by law, and refuses to even
address any question of its dishonesty, or its illegality, then it seems to
me one is forced to conclude such a person does not have very high standards
or principles of conduct, and therefore may be part of the problem instead
of part of the solution.
     [Continued]

Message: 81254
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Fervor 2/2
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 20:01:31

While it may not be proper under the ules to accuse the individual of
being an unprincipled crook, believing in established principles of
integrity does not, and I think should not, equate to "religious fervor." 
Nor do I think a fair question asked as a result of those perceptions should
be regarded as a demeaning attack in itself.  It might be an attempt to
reveal a bias based upon cunning self-interest rather than upon principle. 
It should not, therefore, weaken one's arguments in favor of principle and
lawful conduct by government.

At least, that's what I think.

Message: 81255
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Gold Disappeared
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 20:02:30

AS> My question if you don't mind my ignorance...  but what ever happened
AS> to the 'gold' we Americans had to turn in for exchange in no value
AS> what-so-ever FRNs?

There are two possible aspects to this question which would require
different answers.  The first aspect is that we never had to turn in any
gold in exchange for no value whatsoever frns.  Frns came into circulation
along with other paper money backed by gold and by silver and most people
didn't know any difference.  (Even today I run across people who think the
frn is still backed by gold or silver!  They don't even know they've been
defrauded.)  As the gold and silver certificates came into banks, they were
retired.  I wouldn't be surprised if a few people didn't turn in gold and
silver coin in exchange for foldable currency for convenience, and got frns
instead of certificates because they didn't know any better.  As to what
happened to that gold, most of it is in the Swiss bank accounts of the
banksters and their moles in gov't.

The other aspect of the question has to do with the widely held belief that
the private ownership of gold became illegal after the gold standard was
removed from the dollar; many people believe the people of that time were
forced to turn in their gold and receive worthless frns for it.  That was
the purpose of Roosevelt's edict, necessary because no one in their right
mind would accept worthless paper in trade instead of gold unless there was

Message: 81256
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Swiss
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 20:03:17

no gold to be had.  However, the edict was an Executive Order, not a statute
passed by Congress, and therefore had no weight at law with the private
individual.  People responded to the edict the same way they respond to
assault weapon bans -- they ignored it.  Over 600,000 U.S. Dollars in gold
(no small figure in those days!) was never recovered by gov't, even when
gov't knew who had it, and not one single person was ever prosecuted for
"hoarding" gold.

AS> Did it reduce our taxes?  (Hell no)

We (private individual working class people) didn't have any taxes applied
to us when this happened.

AS> Is it in some big Government vault somewhere?

Bankster vault.  Mostly Swiss.  The Swiss make a lot of money by hoarding
banksters ill-gotten gains for them.

Message: 81257
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Evolution
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 20:04:23

DW> He is forced to sit in a required science class and then fed an
DW> evolutionist doctrine that places pressure on him to abandon his
DW> beliefs ("give up your fairy tales and join the REAL world") and
DW> become another individual that believes his ancestors swung from
DW> trees.

Doesn't hurt 'im a bit.  Gives them an exposure to an alternate truth, and
unless he is paranoid about it, there is no pressure or need to give up his
beliefs unless *he* finds them inadequate to explain reality.

And in addition, your last sentence reveals a certain bias of your own:  The
"Evolutionist Doctrine" does not teach that Man's ancestors swung from
trees.  It teaches that those critters who swing from trees today, and Man,
descended from a common ancestor.  That can be *proven,* beyond a shred of
any reasonable doubt to any reasonable observer, and it can also be proven,
beyond a shred of any doubt to any reasonable observer, that a guiding force
was involved in that evolution every step of the way.

I've always felt this was a dumb thing to be upset about.  If Creationists
believe exclusively in Creation, then there is a lot to learn in Science
class about evolution without waiving your own beliefs, and that knowledge
might be critical to you some day.  Refusing to learn anything about
Evolution does not validate Creationism as a theory.

Message: 81258
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon on Pulliam&tc
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 22:00:02

Well, if you think about it, the advertisers, though they may be paying high
rates to the R&G, are only paying *once* to advertise in the Sunday daily. 
If there are two papers, they're going to (almost) have to double the
advertising budget in order to reach all of the (continually fewer and
fewer) readers.

Message: 81259
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Arch on monkeys
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 22:23:13

Hey, congrats on that Creationism post !!!

Message: 81260
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Political parties
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 22:35:13

Well, now we see why political parties are a bad thing.  They are not
democratic, but autocratic (or oligarchic).  They *pretend* to be democratic
because they support voting and all, and they let anybody "join" the game
(registration).  A Republocrat who really isn't will find himself without
support (or with opposition) during a primary.  This isn't so bad, actually,
as it allows the other registered Republocrats to have a say as to what type
of Republocrat should stand for election.
The problem occurs when the "leaders" of the party decide that so-and-so
isn't a fit party member, and takes non-democratic action to prevent the
other party members from deciding this themselves (during a primary or
caucus).  This is (almost) always done within the rules of the party, of
course, so it is "legal" for the functionary to take these steps.  The
people supporting the candidate in question, of course, don't understand how
this could happen.  The (gleeful) members of the Democrican party, on the
other hand, go to court on behalf of the beleaguered candidate, of course,
as they'd like nothing better than to see the Republocrats tear themselves
up trying to get rid of the guy.
 
(Kind of reminds me of organized religion, when the "leaders" say "abortion
is bad, don't do it" or "homosexuals are nice people, love them", or
"Communism is really pretty close to what Jesus was talking about" -- and
the lowly pew-sitters think "Say what?!")
 
I have been saying for a few years that political parties ought to own up to

Message: 81261
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Politics
Subject: Duke, parties, etc.
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 22:43:28

the truth and require members to actually agree with 90% of the party
platform before allowing them into the party.  The parties would then be
ideologically stronger (though probably politically weaker, as they wouldn't
be able to bamboozle so many people -- hard to jump on the bandwagon when
you can see the rotted underside...).  Of course, I have an ulterior motive
for such a suggestion -- I'd like to see quite a few more political parties,
enough so that they didn't run things.  The country would be in much better
shape if there weren't such a monopoly on power.
 
Anyway, back to Duke.  The ACLU has (surprise, surprise) come down on Duke's
side, saying that he has a right to run for President and some state party
functionary can't stop him.  The functionary, of course, doesn't deny that
he has a right to run -- just that he has a right to run as the Republican
candidate.  And here, I believe, the party *should* have a solid
constitutional case.  The ACLU counters with "you know as well as I do that
you can't get elected unless you're a Republican or a Democrat" -- and here,
too, I agree, but that just means that *that* needs to be changed (by
society, not courts) -- and it is no reason to force any party to place any
person on its ballot.  Next we'll have some "oppressed" member of a minority
saying that he lost a primary because of descrimination by the unfair
majority, and the courts will *appoint* the candidate as the party's
candidate because it is too late to hold another primary before the
election.
(I'm sure there is more to come, but not *yawn* tonight)

Message: 81262
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Bible death sentence
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:22:24

Unfortunately the only information I have about the court case is the very
brief statement given in the magazine.  But the main point is that it wasn't
the man's guilt that was in dispute, and it wasn't the verdict that was
overturned.  If that had been true -- if the jury disregarded evidence to
arrive at a verdict -- that would be a very different matter.  The issue was
whether or not the already-convicted man "deserved" a death sentence.
Whether a killer deserves to be executed or not is a very subjective issue.
Often the grounds for execution are couched, even in law, in such vague
terms as "extreme cruelty" or that the crime was "particularly heinous".
What does this mean?  One can only expect the jurors to apply their personal
value systems to whether the criminal deserves death or not; and those value
systems will inevitably include religious beliefs about right and wrong.

I don't see that the government functionary, the prosecutor, was asking for
a death sentence *because* Biblical law demands it.  I think he was asking
for a death sentence because it's his job as prosecutor to secure an
appropriately severe penalty.  Citation of Biblical law was just one of the
rhetorical tricks of the trade that helped him accomplish the legitimate,
secular goals of his job.  If it's fair game to play on a juror's subjective
feelings as a spouse, a parent, a potential victim of similar crimes, or
whatever, it's fair game to play on religious feelings as well.  The only
alternative is to rule out all kinds of emotional appeals to a jury and set
down strict, specific, verifiable rules for what circumstances deserve
execution and what circumstances don't.

Message: 81263
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: School religion
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:23:53

If extracurricular school activities can include anything at all *except*
religion, then whoever runs the school is sending a clear message that there
is something "wrong" with religion, that religion is undesirable and
disapproved of by the school authorities (i.e. by the government).  Surely
the intention of the First Amendment was to remain strictly neutral to
religion, not to actively discourage it.

If a member of the school staff is required to sponsor an extracurricular
activity, that's an unfortunate administrative inconvenience that
complicates matters.  I think the real issue here is who initiates the
activity, and whether or not there is any pressure on members of the student
body to join in.  If some teacher stands up and leads a prayer in front of
the whole school, he is clearly initiating the religious activity, and
students must feel that they're obliged to join in.  Extracurricular
activities, on the other hand, are voluntary, and each one involves only a
minority of the students.  Nobody feels that they *have* to join the
photographic club or whatever, unless they're interested.  Also, none of
these activities would get off the ground unless a reasonable number of
students were interested in the first place.  The students have to *want* to
get involved.  If a Bible study club is initiated by a group of students,
why shouldn't a staff member be allowed to fulfill the wishes of the
students and sponsor their club?  The policy would have to be followed in an
evenhanded way, though.  If a bunch of students wanted to start a Satanist
society, the school would be obliged to find a means of accommodating them.

Message: 81264
Author: James Matlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: (1/2)
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:42:52

OK, since several people have requested it, I have edited out all personal
remarks (accurate and illuminating as they were) and this is what is left
over of the messages that were deleted:
 
This is the same exact pattern of argument that religious fanatics take -- 
I don't care if they are Christian or Moslem or whatever.  You should 
recognize it: only the context is different.  They make wild assertions and 
then get upset when you require proof to support them (e.g., the Earth is 
only four thousand years old..., etc.).  When you point out how worthless 
their idea of "proof" is, they accuse you of having unrealistic standards 
of proof, not seeming to realize that the crazier the assertions, the more 
proof (and the better quality of proof) is required.  If you keep hammering
them, they retreat to a different argument.  Finally, they get to the point
where they accuse you of being one of THEM (a pawn of the Satan, or a pawn 
of the Banksters (or the military industrial complex, or whatever their 
little bugaboo is) depending on whether the conversation is religious or 
political.  Even though they retreat to a different argument when pressed, 
they jump back to it again, ignoring the fact that it has been discredited.
You either get disgusted and quit, or you keep beating them down until they 
retreat to faith (though never acknowledging this), and then next week, they
start posting the same old drivel as though the argument had never occurred.
 
(continued)

Message: 81265
Author: James Matlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: (2/2)
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:43:32

Both groups live in a paranoid fantasy universe, where they are surrounded 
by evil forces who conspire against them.  Both groups have their 
apocalypses, when society will crumble and only those who have seen the 
light will triumph, while the rest will wander like living zombies.  Both 
groups have the same "if you're not for us, you're ag'in' us" attitude.  
Both groups have their mythical Eden they wish to return to.  Both groups 
have their prophets (whether Ezekiel or Bill Benson) and the trials and 
tribulations these holy men have supposedly endured in the name of their 
cause.  Both have their martyrs, their devils, their rituals, their holy 
books...even pilgrimages (Yes, just $99.00 gets you a Trailways bus ticket
to all the sites Bill Benson travelled in his historic Sixteenth Amendment
tour.  Over here is the step where he slipped on a banana peel and scared
a group of Girl Scouts visiting the Capitol Building...)
 
 

Message: 81266
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Me
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:47:59

  A belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone. I have been
quite busy lately and haven't even managed to download often enough to
catch all the messages (I have about 500K of unread messages on disk and I
know that a lot of other messages scrolled between my downloads.) This is
usually a very busy time of year for me, but this time it was even more so.
Along with all the regular holiday planning that goes on we have our
wedding anniversary on December 21st and my birthday on December 23rd.
  This year we celebrated by having our nieces babysit our kids while we
went on a four day second-honeymoon to Las Vegas and Southern California.
We had a blast! I rented a new Thunderbird for a week so we could cruise in
style. I was more impressed with that sporty little machine than I would
have expected, and may even talk myself into buying one. Along the way I
acquired a minor obsession for playing Blackjack and made my comedy debut
at the Alladin. The best parts of the trip I can't even comment on.
  Last week my company laid off three of the five guys I work with,
including my best friend who started there with me fifteen years ago. I
should probably be glad it wasn't me, but I won't be able to feel that way
until he lands a decent job. Fortunately he got thirteen weeks of severance
pay because of his time with the company.
  I finally finished some posts on jury nullification that I began working
on when we were discussing it earlier. The whole thing runs 24 posts, so I
will upload them a section at a time and number them 1-24 in case anyone
wants to assemble them in order.
  See You Later,  Dean H.

Message: 81267
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Jury Duty
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:48:54

   The following excerpts are from several sources found at the public
library referring to courtroom procedures and the powers of a jury. I
selected the books by grabbing anything that looked like it might
address the subject and did not pick and chose looking for sources which
were pro-nullification. Note that I grouped quotes under two headings of
my own within each source's material, "JURY NULLIFICATION" and "DIRECTED
VERDICTS" I used quotes of complete sentences, and the separate quotes are
not contiguous within the source material. Interspersed throughout the
material are some notes from me marked thusly (Note From Dean, ......)
The marker I put between sources is this:
 
---
 
A Handbook For Jurors
  Superior Court of Arizona - Maricopa County
 
JURY NULLIFICATION
  "Once inside the courtroom, you should follow instructions given you
there."
  "Justice will be done if jurors will base their verdicts solely upon the
evidence and upon the Judges's instructions as to the law, rather than upon
their own notions of what the law is or ought to be."
  "It is the jury's duty to follow and apply the instructions given by the
Judge as to the law."

Message: 81268
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 2of24
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:49:32

  (Note from Dean, notice that 'you should follow' and 'justice will be
done if' and 'it is the jury's duty to follow' imply that there is no
choice in the matter. Further study will show that this is a false
impression which seems to be intentionally given)
 
DIRECTED VERDICTS
  "Directed Verdict: After evidence has been presented and no issue of fact
remains for the jury to determine, the Judge will instruct the jury as to
the verdict to return. The jury must return such a verdict."
  "If there is no issue of fact for the jury, the Judge must direct the
jury to return the proper verdict of otherwise dispose of the case."
  (Note from Dean, they make it sound like this could be a guilty verdict,
but later material will show that in a criminal trial it can only be a not-
guilty verdict)
 
---
 
Arizona Rules of Court: State and Federal 1991
 
JURY NULLIFICATION
  (Note from Dean, there isn't any real reference here on how a jury may
decide a case, as far as its latitude in determining right and wrong are
concerned, only procedures for preparing and handling the jury while it
decides. Such information could be contained in the judge's

Message: 81269
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 3of24
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:50:05

instructions to the jury, which are covered here with rules of procedure,
but nothing about content other than the fact that the attorneys may
request special instructions and the court may or may not concur. There is
a non-circulating book in the central library on recommended jury
instructions for Arizona courts. I had hoped that book would shed some
light on what juries are normally told and what they may optionally be told
regarding their ability to acquit regardless of the letter of the law.
Unfortunately that type of instruction is not included, either pro or con,
in that book.)
 
DIRECTED VERDICTS
  "Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 20. JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL
a. Before Verdict. On motion of a defendant or on its own initiative, the
court shall enter a judgement of acquittal of one or more offenses charged
in an indictment, information or complaint after the evidence on either
side is closed, if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a
conviction."
  (note from Dean, there was no rule for Judgement of Conviction)
 
 
---
 
Trial By Jury: A Complete Guide To The Jury System
  by Samuel W. McCart 1964

Message: 81270
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 4of24
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:50:43

JURY NULLIFICATION
  "The form of jury trial in effect when the constitutions were adopted has
been defined in these words:
  Trial by jury, in the primary and usual sense of the term at common law
and in the American Constitution, is a trial by a jury of twelve men, in
the presence and under the superintendence of a judge empowered to instruct
them on the law and advise them on the facts and (except on acquittal of a
criminal charge) he may set aside their verdict if, in his opinion, it is
against the law or the evidence."
  "There is considerable misunderstanding in the minds of the general
public regarding provisions making a jury the judge of fact and not of law.
This misunderstanding is attributable in large part to the inaccuracy of
the general rule that juries decide only the facts. This is an inaccurate
expression because it leaves the impression that juries are not judges of
the law at any time or in any sense. Juries are always judges of the law in
the sense that juries must pass on the manner and the extent in which the
law expounded by the judge fits the facts brought out in evidence. This
process requires juries to perform the legal function of interpretation and
application. In the absence of express authority, however, juries are not
judges of the law in the sense of determining what principle of law is
applicable to the evidence."
  "When a jury has under consideration a case in which a strict application
of law to the facts calls for a verdict which will violate a juror's sense
of justice, a direct conflict exists between law and justice. This conflict

Message: 81271
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 5of24
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:51:21

puts the law itself on trial."
  "Two questions then arise. Do juries have the power to apply their
concept of community justice? Do juries have a legal right to exercise this
power? The answer to the first question is an unequivocal affirmative. A
jury has the power to bring in any verdict it desires."
  "Now we come to the second question: Do juries have a legal right to
exercise their power? The courts have had two views on this question, as
gleaned from decisions.
  At the time of the Revolution, the colonists had strong resentment
against the arbitrary exercise of power by the colonial judges, and hence
the idea that a jury could find the law was quite popular. This idea found
acceptance in some courts. The few decided cases available on the subject
come from the federal courts. The first decision came in a case involving
illegal privateering tried in the United States Supreme Court in
Philadelphia in 1793. Justice Wilson charged the jury in a few words 'that
they, in their general verdict, must decide both the law and the facts.'"
  "This opinion held good until 1835 when one Battiste was tried for the
illegal transportation of slaves into the country. In the case Justice
Story wrote: 'my opinion is that the jury are no more judges of the law in
a capital or other criminal case, upon the plea of not guilty, than they
are in every civil case, tried upon general issue. In each of these cases,
their verdict, when general, is compounded of law and of fact and includes
both. In each they must necessarily determine the law as well as the fact.
n each they have the physical power to disregard the law as laid down to

Message: 81272
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 6of24
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:52:03

them by the Court. But I deny, that in any case, civil or criminal, they
have the moral right to decide the law according to their own notions, or
pleasure. On the contrary, I hold that the most sacred constitutional right
of every party accused of a crime, that the jury should respond as to the
facts, and the Court as to the law. It is the duty of the Court to
instruct the jury as to the law; and it is the duty of the jury to follow
the law, as it is handed down by the Court. This is the right of every
citizen; and it is his only protection.'"
  "The federal courts now act according to the opinion of Justice Story."
  "It appears then that it took a considerable period of time for the
courts to freeze the judicial opinion of jury power. It seems that it will
take a longer time to educate the public to accept the judicial view, if
indeed it can ever be done, due the fact that the appellate courts can
view trials objectively while jurors act in the field of emotions present
in trail.
  If the layman expressed his view, it would be that he accepts the
judicial view of jury power in trials in general but uses jury power over
law when his sense of justice so requires. He will, in other words, refuse
to follow instructions. The public has never been indoctrinated to either
view as applicable in all cases. The result is that judges persist in
instructing according to the majority legalistic view, and juries persist
in acting on the layman's sense-of-justice view.
  This situation existed and was known to the framers of the federal and
original state constitutions. They considered jury trials and acted

Message: 81273
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 7of24
Date: 01/05/92  Time: 23:52:45

specifically in abolishing attaint (Note from Dean, abolishing attaint
means they removed the ability of the court to punish jurors for finding
not guilty in spite of the evidence) and in providing that in trials of
criminal libel the jury should be the judge of law and fact. Yet the
framers did not provide that judges should pass on law; nor that juries
should not pass on the law. They were satisfied in general litigation to
leave the majority view and the layman's view counterpoised. It appears
that by silence they ratified the counterpoised positions as law and
perpetuated them deliberately"
  (Note from Dean, I disagree with the last comment. The framers always
meant for juries to serve as a bastion against 'legal' injustices and did
not intend for them to be misled into voting for convictions against their
own consciences. Justice Story's opinion that juries should not acquit in
the face of the law, even though he admitted this is undeniably within
their power, freed judges to increasingly keep juries in the dark about
their ability to nullify an unjust application of the law in a certain
case.
   Story's argument invokes civil trial procedure, where any verdict can be
set aside if it contradicts the evidence, as reason that criminal juries
should be reduced to ignoring any inequities in the law before them. In
civil proceedings the plaintiff and the defendant are usually independent
parties appearing on equal footing before the state's courts to have a
difference settled, while the criminal defendant is always appearing before
the state's courts to be prosecuted by the state. The potential penalties a

Message: 81274
Author: James Matlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 00:25:16

Congratulations on your second honeymoon and your comedy debut.  How did you
go over?  (As far as the latter is concerned.)
 
I've been told that Blackjack is about the only casino game where the player
can, if very shrewd and skilled, obtain a small but favorable percentage
against the House.  Don't know if it's true or not.  I think I'd rather play
cards under conditions where the odds aren't artificially stacked against
me, though.
 

Message: 81275
Author: James Matlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 00:32:42

I enjoyed your last pair of quads (about power, government, and business;
and about minorities).  With regard to the latter set, I'd like to address a
point which was implicit in some of your comments.
 
In addition to all the other factors which must be present to make
persecution likely, there is what might be termed the "inherent tendency" on
the part of the majority to behave one way or the other.  This may seem
obvious, but there's nothing sufficient in any of the other conditions to
initiate persecution, if the majority members aren't already predisposed
toward it.  
 
This is not to say that whole nations have a genetic or cultural
predisposition toward persecuting minorities, merely that, when
individuals in the majority each independently choose a set of values, the
collective result can sometimes be reinforcing and thus lead to a result
indistinguishable from the former.

Message: 81276
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: fRED/SALESMEN
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 05:34:19

 It sounds as though you and I have met the same used car people!
 Have you run into the "Sun City" line yet? Most of the dealers in Glendale
will give you that one, as though people in S.C. take SUCH! good care of
their cars that buying one is like buying a practically new car.
 I have never met, as a group, a worse bunch of liars, cheats and thieves as
those that prowl the used car lots lookikng for victims.

Message: 81277
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Arch's Fervor
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 09:35:39

> Are honesty and integrity to be considered desireable
> principles of conduct?
 
Yes, but the judgment of whether one is acting with honesty and integrity
lies in opinion, not in fact.  Now, that opinion may be bolstered by facts
that might tend to sway others to share your opinion, but, unless you're
talking about criminal activity and lawful conviction, you're still talking
about opinions.
 
> While it may not be proper under the [R]ules to accuse the
> individual of being an unprincipled crook, believing in
> established principles of integrity does not, and I think
> should not, equate to "religious fervor."  Nor do I think a
> fair question asked as a result of those perceptions should be
> regarded as a demeaning attack in itself.
 
Agreed.  And to further clarify, exhibiting religious fervor is not, in and
of itself, a violation of the [R]Ules.  But that doesn't mean it's a part of
a rational argument either.

Message: 81278
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Arch's History
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 09:36:12

> Abe Lincoln was embroiled in an argument with the Centrists
> over a national bank which he refused to support.  Then he paid
> for the costs of the Civil War by selling War Bonds instead of
> borrowing from the bankers, and the bankers had him
> assassinated in a fit of pique.
>
> Later still, a very principled and courageous President by the
> name of Andrew Jackson pulled the rug out from under [the
> banker-backed Centrists] by refusing to allow their charter to
> be renewed.
 
Uh, Andrew Jackson was the 7th President, Lincoln the 16th.
 
And why did the banksters wait until AFTER the Civil War to assassinate
Lincoln?  It would seem to their advantage to kill him during the war,
placing the blame on a Southerner and further inflaming Union tempers.  In
this way they might have prolonged the war, making it more likely the Union
would have to borrow to finance it.

Message: 81279
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: The SYSOP Speaks
Subject: LET2BUSH.TXT
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 13:10:05

        A letter to President Bush by Archimedes is in the [L]ibrary under
the file name LET2BUSH.TXT.  This is an ASCII file and can be read on line
if you [D]ownload it using the [A]SCII option over that of [X]modem. The
file is 24 K and if [A]SCII is selected as the [D]ownload option, you can
use the [P]ause key at any  time.

        If you do not remember the name of the file, try the [S]earch cmd
and use ARCHIMEDES as the search string.

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif- 

Message: 81280
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Rod Williams 1/2
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 15:37:22

RW> Those who carry FRNs in their wallet owe a debt in the form of a tax
RW> when they go to use them.

Absolutely.

RW> With gold or silver would there be that same debt to our government.
RW> Would the government charge us a percentage of our gold?

It could not, under the Constitution.  The only reason it can get away with
taxing us on frns now is because using frns constitutes a commercial
relationship with gov't based upon the rules of the Law Merchant (tried at
Equity).  We don't pay for anything when we pay with worthless frns, and
that is a privilege granted by gov't.  We are taxed on that privilege, which
is not a right.  So if we go back to paying for things with substance of
intrinsic value, we are not exercising that privilege and we are no long
subject to a tax.  [This is my opinion based upon my research.  I do not
give legal advice.]

[Continued]

Message: 81281
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Rod Williams 2/2
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 15:38:04

RW> Would the people ship it to them?

I wouldn't.  But then, I don't anyway.

RW> For a capitalist based system it seems like it would be better for the
RW> working class to deal in something of useful value rather than a piece
RW> of printed paper.

You got *that* right!

Message: 81282
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Unprincipled
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 15:40:47

FS> If the gvt had not done that there would be no way they could institute
FS> an even handed tax system since human nature being what it is, those
FS> people bartering with gold would not likely pay the tax that they were
FS> supposed to.

Gosh, I love it!  No reference to the fact that gov't wasn't *supposed* to
institute any tax system on labor, even-handed or otherwise!  The
Constitution prohibits it!  No reference to the fact that those people
bartering with gold are not *supposed* to pay any tax upon their exercise of
inherited and unalienable right; the Constitution prohibits it!  No
reference to the fact evident even in the above paragraph that gov't had to
*force* people to do that which gov't had no authority to force them to do
in order to unlawfully acquire not only the current wealth of the people,
but the *future* wealth of the people beyond the foreseeable future!  No
reference to the fact that the whole fraudulent scam was perpetrated for the
specific *purpose* of changing the practical operation of our nation from
"of the People, by the People, and for the People" to "of the Government, by
the Government, and for the Government!"

(Not to mention "of the Banksters, by the Banksters, and for the
Banksters!")

Message: 81283
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Republic!
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 15:42:09

FS> It still boils down to a question of your trust (or at least grudging
FS> acceptance) of gvt requirements.

Oh, yes, by all means.  This gov't and its bankster owners has shafted the
people of this country up one side and down the other in every way possible
for 79 years now, and we're supposed to just roll over whenever gov't says
"roll over!" and let them do it again.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, Fred, but this gov't does not have
a divine right to govern.  It governs only at the sufferance of the people,
and only pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.  To the extent that it steps
outside that Constitution, it ceases to govern with any authority
whatsoever.  I, for one, am not going to put up with so-called "gvt
requirements" that are not lawful under the Constitution in which We, the
People conveyed governing authority to government in the first place, and I
commend Rod for at least the appearance of taking the same position.

And I don't care one whit whether you or even 99% of the sheeple in this
country thinks that gov't dictatorship "by divine right" is "better" for the
country or not.  We are *not* a collectivist system; individual rights are
superior to collective rights.  We are *not* a pure democracy; we are a
*Constitutional* *Republic*.  Gov't must obey the law, or it ceases to
lawfully govern.

Message: 81284
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Religious fervor
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 15:54:28

Well, I think we are talking about criminal activity vis-a-vis the current
monetary system, though unfortunately there have as yet been no lawful
convictions (which I consider part of the problem), and I still don't think
adherence to lawful principle and annoyance when others disregard lawful
principle is "religious fervor," but I will agree that is also an opinion if
you will.  Uh ... well, it's an opinion whether you agree or not, I guess.

Part of the problem I see here is the old saw about the "breakdown of
integrity" in this country.  There is a breakdown of morality, sure, but
that is not in and of itself a problem necessarily.  Some of those
principles of morality were nothing but power trips, and some activities
previously regarded as immoral can be conducted quite honestly and with
integrity.  But I hope we haven't broken down our "morality" -- I call it
integrity -- to the point where we give the individual engaged in criminal
activity (present company excluded!) the same respect as we give honest
people.  I certainly don't, and I will not.  I find it difficult to show
much patience with people, then, who support that criminal activity by
others and act as though that activity is in everyone's best interest, which
it most certainly is not.

As for whether the current monetary system is a criminal activity or not,
and whether that is an "opinion" or not, the only thing we have to reference
it to is the law of the land and the supreme law of the land, and ultimately
the written intentions of the framers of the supreme law of the land.

Message: 81285
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Religious fervor
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 16:06:29

If we examine those writings, their intentions, and what they actually
wrote, and the fact that they were clear in their own writings that the
Constitution was written in plain English and was intended to be interpreted
according to the rules of plain English, then we are left with the
inescapable conclusion that what gov't is doing today is not only criminal,
it is criminal activity with both malice and avarice.

To conclude otherwise is to stand the meanings of the words of the English
language on their head.  To support an alternate conclusion, especially
without ever making the attempt to address those laws and their meanings, is
to conclude outrageously, without reference to any known baseline.  To do so
means one of two things:  the individual so concluding, and proselytizing
his conclusions as though they are fact, is either a fool or a tool of the
criminal interests.

The above may be, as you say, "opinion" -- but it is opinion based upon life
experiences and is legitimately come by, and should be addressed on its
merits, not discounted because it sounds like religious fervor.  What I say
and the way I say it may sound like religious fervor, but I have
documentation for what I say, and I have researched what I say, and the
question is not so much whether what I say is "just my opinion" or not, but
whether the other parties in the debate subscribe to the same baseline
references or not.  In other words, Fred could (and has) indicate that he
thinks I'm all wet.  Yet he doesn't address the issue of the Constitution

Message: 81286
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Religious fervor
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 16:10:17

and whether he thinks *it* is all wet or not, because what I am saying is
coming direct from the framers of the Constitution in their own writings
(well, okay, I'm not a 'channeler' or anything like that; I'm just saying
the same things they said but in updated language.)

So what I say may be "opinion," but it is opinion shared by some pretty
important people in our nation's history and foundation.  I'd like to hear
someone address that issue if they are going to disagree with what is said,
which is their right, not merely discount my remarks on the grounds of
"religious fervor."

Message: 81287
Author: James Matlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: a clarification
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 19:52:33

Just thought I'd point out that the details of the birth stamp length
argument I gave are superfluous, whether correct or incorrect.  
 
It all boils down to the fact that, no matter what system you might come up
with for uniquely identifying individuals, no matter how compact, those
100^(3,200,000) books will contain every possible combination of characters
you might employ from a set of that size, in a book of that size.   
 
So 100^(3,200,000) is an upper bound, and as I explained before, certainly
not the least upper bound, on the number of people who could be
differentiated on the basis of such 1000 page books.
 
 
Am I the only one who finds this fascinating, not to mention stupendously
mind-boggling and even a little profound in its implications?  Here I am, 40
hours later, and I still find it all difficult to grasp and utterly
intoxicating.  My mind reels in contemplation of it.  Have I made the point
clearly?  Is there a flaw in my reasoning?  Is everyone speechless, or just
apathetic?

Message: 81288
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Comedy
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 22:57:00

  We got seated in the front row at the Comedy Underground at the Alladin
and I kept getting dragged into the show. First they tried to make everyone
do a sing-along during a warmup before the show and I wouldn't do it, in
spite of an intimidating dwarf's best efforts. This got me a special phallic
hat award. Later in the show I ended up on the stage as a stand in for a
dummy after a demented ventriliquist had dismembered his partner with a saw.
It was great fun.
  Depending on the type of house setup; exact rules, number of decks,
frequency of shuffling; it is possible that an occasional advantage can be
found against the house in Blackjack. Then the players option of controlling
the amount of each bet can give a careful player the chance to come out
ahead, but it's still gambling.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 81289
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Car Salesmen
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 22:59:33

  In my experience, a private individual who is selling a car to a stranger
can sometimes surpass even the worst of professionals when it comes to lying
in order to hook a buyer.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 81290
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Money
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:01:50

  How come you are making sense now when the last 500 times I explained this
to you, your response was always something like, 'Nah, let's use dirt
instead and then we can all be rich.'?
  See You Later,
   Dean H.

Message: 81291
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Jury 8of24
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:02:51

defendant faces in a criminal trial are also of a different degree than
those of a civil trial, and hence there are greater protections against
unjust conviction. While double jeopardy, questionable evidence, directed
guilty verdicts, and restriction of the jury to judgement of only the facts
and not the law have long been acceptable practices in civil court, this
fact does not support importing any of them into criminal court.
   Justice Story's charge that the defendant will be protected by having
the law handed down inviolate by the court, without extrapolation by the
jury, does logically support setting aside convictions where a jury has
gone beyond the law to convict someone and this is provided for by the
mistrial and appeals processes. That argument for the protection of the
defendant's rights does not support keeping the jury in the dark about
their option to find not-guilty when a conviction in the case at hand would
be an unjust application of the law. The anti-nullification argument seems
to nearly always hinge on a distaste for having a jury decide for
themselves what the law says or means, but in reality a jury does no such
thing when it nullifies the law in a particular case. The jury decides that
punishing this defendant under this law under these circumstances would be
a miscarriage of justice and refuses to do it. They have not redrawn the
law and if it is a just one it will still lead to convictions in cases
where such punishment is found to be warranted by a jury.
   This so-called 'majority view' did not take hold in the courts until
after 1835, so the framers can not be said to have silently agreed with it
decades before. All evidence I have seen from revolutionary times indicates

Message: 81292
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 9of24
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:03:35

that jury nullification was purposefully intended as a defense against bad
law and bad application of law.)
 
 
DIRECTED VERDICTS
  "In almost all states, the defendant's lawyer, at the conclusion of the
plaintiff's evidence, may put the plaintiff's case to an initial test by
making a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant."
  "If the motion is granted, the judge will direct the jury to find for the
defendant."
  "The motion can also be made by the plaintiff or by the prosecutor. In a
civil case, the motion can be granted on the basis that the defendant has
produced no substantial evidence to support a defense."
  "In a criminal case, as can be expected, the prosecutor is restricted.
Some statutes preclude the prosecutor from making the motion in capital
cases; some statutes preclude the motion in all cases involving felonies.
Some states permit the motion in cases of misdemeanors where guilt is the
only inference to be legally drawn. In Indiana and Maryland, where the jury
passes on the law and the facts, the prosecutor is forbidden to make the
motion.
  (Note from Dean, this last quote obviously applies to jury nullification
as well. Note that all criminal juries may pass on the law and the facts in
order to acquit, since the acquittal can not be set aside and the court can
not take any recourse against the jurors. The only difference is whether or

Message: 81293
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 10of24
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:04:10

not they are informed of this, as juries in Indiana and Maryland were when
this book was written.)
 
---
 
The Jury: Tool of Kings, Palladium of Liberty
  by Lloyd E. Moore 1973
 
JURY NULLIFICATION
  "The case of Georgia v. Bailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794), was tried to a
special jury. The question was whether a debt due from Spalding belonged to
the State of Georgia or to the original creditors. After hearing arguments
for four days, Chief Justice Jay, in the first jury trial in the United
States Supreme Court, told the jury that the facts were agreed by the
parties and the judges were agreed on the law. It sounded like a case,
under modern procedure, for a directed verdict or a similar remedy. Chief
Justice jay, however, charged the jury:
    It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good
  rule, that, on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on
  questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it
  must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable
  distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take
  upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as
  the fact in controversy. On this and on every other occasion, however,

Message: 81294
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 11of24
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:04:50

  we have no doubt, you will pay the respect, which is due to the
  opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that
  juries are the best judge of facts; it is on the other hand,
  presumable, that the courts are the best judges of law. But still
  both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.
 
  The jury returned a verdict for the defendants in accordance with the
charge, but the case is a clear demonstration of the right of juries, under
authority of the United States Supreme Court, to decide questions of law.
No Supreme Court judge was to deny the right of juries to decide law, the
constitutionality of a statute excepted, before 1835. It is obvious that,
at least in practice, in both the federal and state governments, the
American people began by reserving to themselves as jurors the right to
judge both law and facts."
  "A decision by Justice Story was the first federal judge to cast doubt on
the jury's right to decide law. The jury's right was finally denied in the
federal courts in Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).
The court, at page 102, held, 'We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in
the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases
to take the law from the court and apply that law to the facts as they find
them to be from the evidence.' But, at page 105 he continues, '...it is not
competent for the court, in a criminal case, to instruct the jury
peremptorily to find the accused guilty of the offense charged or of any
criminal offense less than that charged.' The right was gone, but the power

Message: 81295
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 12of24
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:05:26

remained."
  (Note from Dean, this last quote clearly applies to directed verdicts as
well. It is hard to sort this material because both topics are closely
intertwined)
  "As to the charge that juries nullify some laws and exercise the
sovereign right of pardon, although having no explicit right to do so, the
question must be asked whether this is not their real value. For example,
although not all 'drunks' are released, the jury may realize that
alcoholism is not cured by a few days in jail, especially when this may
result in the loss of the defendant's job. A partial answer to this and
many other such situations may be to find a better remedy than jail."
  "In many cases it has been found that judges do not follow the law if
they can find a way to avoid it. Many jurisdictions formerly had statutory
and constitutional provisions that permitted the jury to judge law as well
as fact. Many judges paid scant attention to these enactments. An earlier
author said of the judiciary's actions:
    What seems discreditable to the judiciary in the story which I have
  related is the fierce resolution and deceptive ingenuity with which
  the courts have refused to carry out the unqualified mandates of
  statutes and constitutional provisions."
 
  "In order to end a certain amount of hypocrisy in the system, a pamphlet
ought to be given to all jurors setting forth their duties and a summary of
the jury's history. In criminal cases the jury ought to be permitted to

Message: 81296
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 13of24
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:06:17

know what punishment the accused would be liable to upon a conviction. Even
Judge Frank (a critic of the trial-by-jury system) agrees that we should
tell the jurors that they can decide contrary to the judge's charge if they
find it necessary, even though the judge might not agree. This has always
been the practice in capital cases. In civil and criminal cases, jurors
ought to be charged that under most circumstances they should take their
law from the court but, in any event, they would not be required to return
a verdict contrary to their consciences. The judge's charge ought to be
brought into line with practice and theory."
 
DIRECTED VERDICTS
  "The law courts copied the Star Chamber in fining and imprisoning jurors
who refused to convict. A rare exception to the contrary was a case in 1500
in which a judge was fined for imprisoning a jury that had refused to
convict. A statute of 1534, applicable to Wales and the marches only,
authorized the fining and imprisoning of jurors. A similar statute
applicable to England was issued without authority of Parliament by King
Henry VIII in 1535. It provided that if jurors acquitted felons contrary to
the weight of the evidence or otherwise 'misbehaved', they could be fined
and imprisoned at the discretion of the court. This act was soon declared
illegal, although the practice continued. Cases are recorded in 1535 and
1554 of juries being fined on failure to convict, and from 1571 to 1597
jurors were frequently fined for finding contrary to the direction of the
court. During the years 1664-65, jurors insisted on acquitting Quakers of

Message: 81297
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 14of24
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:07:05

various charges and were fined for their actions. The judges of the Common
Bench generally agreed that this practice of fining was unlawful, although
it nonetheless continued, and more jurors continued to be punished in 1666
and 1667.
  A resolution of the Commons, dated December 13, 1667, declared, 'That the
precedents and practice of fining or imprisoning jurors, for verdicts is
illegal.' Not surprisingly, there is no record, according to Williams
(historian), of punishing jurors for conviction. At long last, the practice
came to a permanent halt with Bushell's case in 1670."
  "In the history of the jury, two cases of the greatest importance were
the trial of William Penn and William Mead before a jury at Old Bailey in
1670, and the sequel to the cases, the Habeas Corpus action on behalf of
Edward Bushell, one of the jurors at the Penn and Mead trial. The first
case took place on September 1, 3, 4 and 5, 1670. The case charged that
Penn and Mead, with about 300 others, on the 10th of August at 11:00
o'clock in the Parish of St. Bennet Grace-Church,
 
      ...unlawfully and tumultuously did assemble and congregate them-
   selves together, to the disturbance of the peace of the said lord
   of the King...William Penn...did take upon himself to preach and
   speak...unto the...persons there assembled...
 
causing, it was alleged, great terror and disturbance to the people. Mead
was charged with conspiring with Penn to cause the disturbance.

Message: 81298
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: 15of24
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:07:43

  As the trial commenced, Penn desired a copy of the indictment to read
before making his plea. He was told that he could have it afterwards. Penn
and Mead were both fined 40 marks for not having their hats on, although
one of the court attaches had told them to uncover their heads. Bushell,
one of the jurors, had to be sworn again, as it was claimed he had not
kissed the book. During the evidence, which apparently consisted only of
crown witnesses, Penn conducted an intelligent and spirited cross-
examination. Mead refused to answer a question of the recorder (judge) on
the ground 'that no man is bound to accuse himself.'
  The jury had been retired for an hour and a half when it returned with
eight in agreement. At this point, J. Robinson, a member of the bench in
the case, had this exchange with Bushell:
  J. Robinson: Mr. Bushell, I have known you near this 14 years; you
  have thrust yourself upon this jury because you think there is some
  service for you: I tell you, you deserve to be indicted more than
  any man that hath been brought to bar this day;
 
  Bushell: No, Sir John, there were threescore before me, and I would
  willingly have got off, (jury duty) but could not.
 
  The jury retired for the second time and returned with this verdict,
'Guilty of speaking Grace-Church Street.' This did not satisfy the court
who wanted the words 'unlawful assembly' to be included in the verdict. The
Recorder said:

Message: 81299
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: FRN debt
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:46:44

There you go again, Archimedes.  I thought we'd agreed that we don't
*personally* owe debt because we're using FRNs, but that we (as citizens and
taxpayers) *jointly* owe debt because our government has been borrowing
money and issuing (inflationary) money.

Message: 81300
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Question?
Subject: Arch on taxes
Date: 01/06/92  Time: 23:52:51

OK, so the federal government is acting illegally by taxing income.  Do you
pay (or think you should pay) state taxes on income/wages ?  or do you think
the 14th amendment (which I remember you saying might not really have been
ratified???) precludes the states from operating in this manner?

Message: 81301
Author: Jimmy Olsen
Category: News Today
Subject: Extree! Extree!
Date: 01/07/92  Time: 00:15:07

Read all about it!   
 
            
 
                 "Golden Mooncalf Worships Golden Calf"
 
Says he: "I was lost but now I'm found, man."
 
 
Story on page 2!

Message: 81302
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last 10,000
Date: 01/07/92  Time: 01:30:43

Let me start off by saying, Thank you Jimmy Olsen for that revelation, now
go do the dishes.

Next....wow, I was just on-line last night and my buffer says I have 90,000
and some odd bytes to read.  Eeee gads Gerturde.  I have only read a short
bit of what I scanned.  I will spend the next day reading it all over again
but my fear will be that when I log on again there will be 200,000K more. 
Evelyn Woods, here I come.

To Archimedes and Dean Hathaway concerning precious metals.  A few of my
messages ago I pointed out that I was learning but did not know what it was
that I was learning.  The other night while smoking a Spanish cigar with
some friends and discussing the nature of things it all fell pretty much
into place.  I still have a few lumps to sort out in my mind and this I will
do over the next several months until I understand it clearer.

Even the semi-precious metals have been taken away from us.  All of the new
pennies are zink and if you put one in your yard for two weeks all you will
be picking up is a bit of unrecognizable rust.  This is no bull.  If you
wanted to make some good wiring for a project and you used the new pennies
you'd have a bit of of problem as the size of wire you'd need to carry house
current would have to be large.  Our silver was taken away long ago and gold
even longer.  All we now have is paper with numbers and each piece carries a
debt to us.  Not so with gold, silver, nickel or even copper.  I understand.

Message: 81303
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last
Date: 01/07/92  Time: 01:32:10

I'll have some additional comments and questions to make later but I don't
want to scroll any more messages.  -Rod

[A]bort or [S]tart download:Start download

                                                       Archimedes
                                                       P. O. Box 650, #1091
                                                       Glendale, AZ 85311

                                                       December 28, 1991
President of the United States
THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington, D.C. 20000

Dear Mr. President:

    A 'National News Brief' article in the Arizona Republic (Phoenix) 
expressed your consternation about the public's deep anxieties over the 
economy. It reported your statement that "confidence is far lower than it was 
in the last recession, in 1981-82, when conditions were 'a heck of a lot 
worse.'" (Please see clipping attached.)

    [As an aside, I have to say that maybe the 1981-82 recession was "a heck 
of a lot worse" from your standpoint, but from where I'm standing it was 
minor by comparison -- and this one is the natural progression of that one.  
But more on that later.]

    The article notes that you want to "find the answers that will really 
help the economy without doing long-run damage."

    Sir, I've done an awfully lot of research on this issue, and I have some 
suggestions to make.  Some of them you may not like, and I'd be safe in 
saying that practically none of your democratic colleagues in Congress or 
elsewhere are going to like any of them.  But they work, they are proven to 
work, and if you manage to implement them without getting assassinated by 
those who profit from human misery, you will go down in history as the only 
President to ever challenge George Washington's popularity.

    Before I make those suggestions, however, a little background is in 
order.  I would not expect that your background would make you aware of much 
of what I am about to say, but you may confirm it fairly easily.  If you ask 
others about the truth of what I am saying, their responses will be divided 
right down the line of whether they believe in the national rip-off Keynesian 
economics represents, or whether they believe the American people have a 
right to both economic and political liberty.  In any event, this economic 
battle has been fought before, and it has been won before, by the founding 
fathers of our nation, the framers of the Constitution of the United States, 
and the results of their wisdom and their commitment of their lives, their 
fortunes, and their sacred honor stood our nation in very good stead for one 
hundred and twenty-six years of the greatest prosperity and liberty any 
nation of the world had ever known or likely will ever know.

    During the one hundred years from the year 1800 to the year 1900, the 
working class folk of the United States improved their standard of living 
more than it had been improved in the last eighteen centuries.*1*  Even 
during the Civil War, the working class managed to hold onto their gains, and 
recovered their rate of improvement immediately following the Civil War.*2*  
During that one hundred years, wages for all working class people, men, 
women, and children, consistently increased while consumer goods decreased in 
cost.*3*

    Equally important, the working class were able to hang on to their 
acquired wealth and pass it along to their children.  There were no taxes on 
their labor or their wages; there was no inflation to drain their savings; 
there was no "interest on the national debt" which their children and their 
children's children would have to pay which would cut into *their* living 
standard. Indeed, working class people could invest in industry and see a 
positive return and often elevate themselves out of the working class by the 
direct result of their labor and industry and the labor and industry of their 
forebears. America was indeed the most prosperous nation in the world, the 
most powerful, and without a doubt, evinced the greatest economic equality 
between the upper class, the middle class, and the lower class, and the 
greatest opportunity for upward mobility between the classes.

    There were aberrations, certainly; what might be called "flies in the 
land of milk and honey."  There was slavery of black people, for example.  
There were sweat shop labor conditions.  There was exploitation of the labor 
of children.  But all these aberrations were dealt with, and they were dealt 
with *without* destroying the economy.

    Economists, particularly those wishing to promote the fraud of Keynesian 
Economics, will point out no less than seven major "recessions" during the 
1800's. They will point to these recessions and refer to them as "normal 
business cycles of boom and bust."  They will argue that this normal cyclic 
nature of business is why *their* system of Keynesian economics works better; 
i.e., levels out the playing field so that the booms aren't as big, the 
recessions aren't as deep.

    I hope you will forgive a technical vernacular here, sir:  Bulldust!  
Every one of those recessions, from the so-called "War of 1812" to the 
so-called "Panic of 1893," was orchestrated by the same old European banking 
interests who opposed the independence of our colonies, who chafed at the 
wealth and industry of our economy over which they had no control and from 
which they could derive no greater benefit or profit than any other person, 
institution, or nation, who veritably gritted their teeth over the 
insufferable idea that low-born men and women of vision and industrious 
nature could get along just fine without an aristocracy to run their lives 
for them while skimming the cream from the top, thank you.  And our economy 
survived every single one of these contrived "busts" and *still* improved the 
living standard of the working class more than it had been improved in 18 
centuries.

    Contrast the circumstances of the 1800 to 1900 period with the 
circumstances of today:  Has our living standard improved?  Certainly.  But 
at what cost?  At terrible, terrible cost, sir, and the payment is coming due 
shortly. Where the worker of the 1800's earned wages and was able to turn 
those wages into wealth, the worker of today earns debt.  The more he earns, 
the more debt he passes on to his children and their children.  Does he own 
the wealth he earns?  No, he has not paid for it with any substance of value, 
therefore the courts have ruled that all he has done is defer the obligation 
to pay without actually paying for it, without actually acquiring ownership.  
In exchange for this government-issued "privilege" of deferring payment for 
his living standard off onto his children, he is permitted to "manage" the 
wealth he has earned as long as he keeps his nose clean like a good little 
slave and pays an annual leasehold rental on his labor and his property to 
government in the form of taxes.

    That paragraph may seem a little confusing if you don't understand how 
our monetary system works today -- the subverted, fraudulent, destructive, 
patently unConstitutional way it works today.  Therefore I will explain:

    The Federal Reserve Bank ('the FED') -- a private corporation chartered 
by Congress in 1913 and *owned* *by* *those* *same* *aristocratic* *European* 
*banking* *families* *who* *opposed* *our* *independence* *from* *the* 
*crown* *during* *the* *American* *Revolution* -- offers worthless pieces of 
paper to its member banks at what it calls the "prime lending rate" of 
interest. If the economy heats up too much the FED raises the interest rate, 
making loans harder to obtain.  If the economy slows down too much the FED 
lowers the interest rate, making loans easier to obtain.

    The member banks of the Fed are approached for loans by other banks, 
Savings & Loans, major industry, and by government.  When those member banks 
need more money to loan, they borrow it from the FED.  The FED cranks up the 
printing presses and prints more money, which it loans.

    Now it doesn't cost the FED a darned thing to create this new "money" out 
of thin air, except perhaps about one and one-third cent per Federal Reserve 
Note of any denomination.  So, for all practical purposes, these so-called 
"dollars" are created out of thin air and are backed by nothing, and are lent 
out to FED member banks at interest -- the prime lending rate of interest.  
(The greatest con game the world has ever known!)

    Government borrows this money for operating capital.  Naturally, under 
this kind of "easy money" scheme, the government can borrow virtually all it 
wants to, subject only to limitations caused by industry not being able to 
capitalize because government has used up all the debt currently available.  
(Then the economy stalls and government has to finagle its way out of another 
crisis.)

    Meanwhile, all this worthless printing press money finding its way into 
the economy causes inflation -- enormous inflation.  Therefore a means must 
be implemented to "control" inflation, and that means is the Internal Revenue 
Service, which is a patently unConstitutional organization not established by 
any law, not having any lawful Executive Branch law enforcement authority, 
and which is a "Service" only to the Federal Reserve Bank:  It maintains the 
scam perpetrated by the Federal Reserve Bank by "controlling" inflation, 
which it accomplishes by pulling a portion of the money out of the economy 
before it even gets spent -- pulls a portion of the money out of every 
transaction which occurs before the proceeds get spent.  That money is then 
turned over to the FED, which shreds it and makes a bookkeeping entry 
recording the payment applied to the national debt.

    In reality, however, this action does not control or in any way limit 
inflation. All it does is *defer* the inflation off onto future generations 
of workers -- our children, andtheir children.  So we paid, last year, two 
and one-half percent more for products we purchased than we paid the year 
before -- but we paid seventeen hundred and fifty percent more for the same 
products than we did fifty years ago, because we are paying the national debt 
of our parents and their parents.  Our children will pay between two thousand 
and three thousand percent more for the same products as we are currently 
paying, because the process is accelerating.

    By contrast, the total inflation rate for the entire 126 years between 
1787 and 1913 was less than one percent cumulative for the entire period.

    And yet, while this monetary system is immoral, and unConstitutional, and 
flies in the face of everything our nation stands for, it is not the most 
devastating feature of this fraudulent monetary system.

    Another interesting feature of this system is that if fiscal maturity and 
honesty were to suddenly, magically, grip our government and its leaders, and 
a process were begun which resulted in every single Federal Reserve Note 
being recalled, collected, turned in to the FED, shredded, and a bookkeeping 
entry made applying the amount turned in toward the national debt, we would 
*still* owe trillions of dollars in interest -- and we would have no more 
Federal Reserve Notes with which to pay it.  Interestingly enough, and by 
intentional, fraudulent design, the "dollar" we owe is not the worthless 
Federal Reserve Note; it is the "U.S. Dollar" -- defined by law as 25.8 
grains of gold .9 fine, or 371.25 grains of silver .9 fine.  And *that*, sir, 
is substance of value, which -- in the absence of adequate gold or silver 
reserves to pay it -- is equivalent to the total land and structure value of 
the entire United States and all her possessions, all the personal property 
of her citizens, plus the gross national product for the next 130 years or 
so.

    And yet, while this is also immoral, and unConstitutional, and 
fraudulent, and is equivalent to having sold our national soul to the devil, 
it is *still* not the most devastating feature of this fraudulent monetary 
system we endure.

    This fraudulent monetary system we endure is based upon debt and the 
exploitation of labor to accrue debt.  Thus any statistical population over 
which this monetary system holds sway must, sooner or later, become saturated 
with debt.  When this occurs, as it did in about 1975, it becomes necessary 
to open up new labor markets for exploitation.  For awhile there was talk of 
getting children involved in credit cards (for God's sake!), and various 
other schemes. But then David Rockefeller made his sojourn to the Soviet 
Union to sell the Soviets on the 'merits' of a 'free' economy, FED style, and 
shortly billboards began to appear in Moscow extolling the 'virtues' of VISA 
and Mastercard.  And shortly thereafter Mr. Nice Guy Mikhail 'Gorby' 
Gorbachev, former head of the KGB (isn't it a coincidence that you are former 
head of the CIA?) popped up and started promoting *perestroika* and 
*glasnost* -- both Madison Avenue shill words translated to Russian.

    Now we see the "enormously gratifying" (or words to that effect) break-up 
of the Soviet Union into autonomous "republics" (they don't know the meaning 
of the word, and our own government has forgotten it) all fantastically eager 
to be exploited by your "New World Order" under the control and absolute 
authority of the international bankers -- just like we are.  And while 
begging for handouts from across the seas, and getting some help designed to 
hasten their descent into the financial world of debt and debt and more debt, 
they are sitting there on two hundred metric tons of gold .9 fine and we 
aren't even asking for legitimate collateral on the loan!  Dumb, dumb, dumb.

    And yet, this is still not the most devastating feature of this 
fraudulent monetary system we endure.  Currently, unless the former Soviet 
Union gets its act together *very* fast, and makes itself available for the 
exploitation of its labor by the world bankers *very* *fast*, so this world 
economy based on debt and debt and more debt can start expanding again (for 
awhile, anyway), our economy is not going to see the year 2000.  This is 
because of the most devastating feature of this fraudulent monetary system:

    The disinformation excuse put out by the inflationists and the Keynesians 
for the existence of the FED, as I pointed out earlier, is to "smooth out the 
normal business cycles of boom and bust."  And yet, the FED has not smoothed 
out any business cycles of boom and bust, 'normal' or otherwise; if anything 
it has exacerbated them and created them for the profit of its foreign 
banking cartel owners.  But you see, the banking cartel owners of the FED are 
not as smart as they think they are:  they have created a monster which even 
they are beginning to fear has slipped its tethers.


    The Crash of '29 occurred only sixteen years after the FED got into 
power, and was intentionally caused by the FED with three distinct goals in 
mind: the first was to punish those upstart Americans for being so arrogant 
as to throw off their rightful masters; the second was to nip this crazy 
"middle class" idea in the bud; the third was to wean Americans away from 
this dangerous idea of liberty and bring them back under the control of their 
masters with a vengeance, and the fourth was to deprive Americans of their 
one greatest weapon against economic oppression: their money of intrinsic 
value, their wages of gold and silver coin.

    The program worked.  We were punished severely with ten years of the 
Great Depression; the "middle class" became the "poverty class" overnight; 
Americans cried out for (socialist) relief and were promptly granted the 
Social Security System with its government-issued serial number for every 
American 'Commercial Commodity Unit'; and by 1934 Americans were fraudulently 
deprived of the gold backing to their currency.  (Fraudulently because the 
Gold Reserve Act of 1934 specifically *exempts* currency from its provisions 
in the second paragraph, but Roosevelt's packed Supreme Court ruled the way 
Roosevelt and the Keynesians wanted, and that was that.)

    As noted earlier, the FED stimulates the economy by reducing its prime 
lending rate of interest, and limits the expansion of the economy by 
increasing its prime lending rate of interest, meanwhile printing whatever 
amount of money the borrowers need.  However, every recession since 1929 has 
required an "adjustment" of the prime lending rate greater than the last to 
get the economy moving again.  Every recession since 1929 has occurred a 
little bit sooner than the last one, and has been a little deeper, and has 
been a little harder to pull out of by lowering the prime lending rate.  As 
of about ten years ago, FED analysts began admitting that the measurements of 
the economy they use, the M1, M2, and M3 money supplies, were no longer 
accurately indicating the condition of the economy.  A few weeks ago they 
admitted the same thing again.  In other words, they no longer know what they 
were doing.

    In an effort to once again "jump-start" an economy which wouldn't need a 
jump-start if it were operated pursuant to the Constitution of the United 
States, the FED recently lowered the prime lending rate to 3.5% after several 
previous lowerings that seemed to have no effect.  This rate, the most 
drastic action ever taken to "jump-start" the economy, appears to have done 
something -- the stock market took off the following week, and *maybe* -- 
*maybe* that is a harbinger of better times ahead, and again, maybe not.

    If it does get the economy moving again, the economy will come roaring 
out of this recession straight into the worst (masked) inflation the world 
has seen since pre-World War II Germany, which inflation rate at that time 
brought Hitler to power.  When they raise the interest rate to try and catch 
it before the worthless Federal Reserve Note goes into hyper-inflation, it 
will again require a more drastic "adjustment" than they expect.  And when 
they finally get results the economy will stall, even more suddenly and more 
deeply than this last time.

    This is the most devastating feature of this fraudulent scam of a 
monetary system: How much lower than 3.5% prime lending rate do you think 
they can go, Mr. President?  To put it succinctly, sir, their "adjustments" 
have run out of travel.  Their scam has caught up with them, and with us.

    It is time to apply Constitutional principle or we *will* pay the piper.  
In my view there is a good likelihood that the newly emerging republics of 
Ukraine, Russia, and others, suddenly deprived of their expected good fortune 
as a result of buying into your New World Order may get peeved -- and they do 
still have ICBMs.  Even if they do not or cannot use them for some reason, 
our so-called "14th Amendment" (which I doubt was ever ratified pursuant to 
Article V of the Constitution; I know the 16th and 17th Amendments weren't) 
prohibits the national debt from ever being questioned.  (How convenient to 
the world banksters!  I wonder who they bribed to get that clause inserted?)  
Are Americans, under your sneaky "International Tax Cooperation Treaty" 
submitted to Congress in November of 1989, going to have to face 
international tax collectors in the blue berets of the United Nations?

    Now then, background having been completed, I offer you my suggestions 
for turning our economy around virtually overnight and for going down in 
history as the most popular, principled President the United States has had 
since George Washington.  I don't care how you do it; this federal government 
appears to derive no authority to govern from the United States Constitution 
anyway (which means it is a totally illegal government without any lawful 
power whatsoever, but that is another discussion).
1.  Rescind the charter of the FED on grounds of embezzlement of the wealth 
of the United States.  In short, kick out the FED.

2.  Seize all the assets of the foreign owners of the FED wherever such 
assets may be found within the borders of the United States and its 
possessions.

3.  Restore a Constitutional monetary system of gold and silver Coin, or at 
least *backed* by gold and silver Coin, to our nation.

    George Washington had the same problems you have -- we all have! -- with 
the economy, and for the same reasons:  worthless paper money cynically and 
fraudulently created out of thin air for profit.  George wrote on the eve of 
the Constitutional Convention that "We are fast verging to anarchy and 
confusion. No day was ever darker than this."  Other founding fathers saw the 
crisis of paper money then extant as "a favorable crisis to crush paper money 
once and for all."

    And with the ratification of the Constitution, Washington's first State 
of the Union address, one year later, reported that the industry and 
prosperity of the nation had exceeded all expectations; that a dependable and 
stable medium of exchange had caused the monied people to bring their gold 
into circulation to the benefit of everyone.

    Lastly, sir, you expressed consternation about the public's deep 
anxieties over the economy.  You said confidence is far lower than it was in 
the last recession, in 1981-82, when conditions were "a heck of a lot worse."  
Well, sir, we are a more sophisticated people now, and regrettably, more 
cynical. We see what government is doing to us -- we see who is doing what to 
whom, and who is getting paid.  And while many of us prove John Marnard 
Keynes theory that "not one man in a million can detect the theft," many of 
us are waking up and finding out what is going on.  And we don't like it.  
And even if the economy does improve, we're not going to participate in a 
fraudulent economy that does nothing but cut deeply into, today, the living 
standard of our children and their children, tomorrow.

    Sir, John F. Kennedy learned who is actually in control of the Office of 
President after he became President.  Whether there was a cover-up of his 
assassination or not, it is significant that in a speech given at Columbia 
University ten days before his death, he stated that before he left office he 
would inform the American people of the control of the Office of President by 
unelected outsiders.  President Reagan discovered it after gaining the Oval 
Office also, and turned into a wimp.  You, I believe, are the first President 
in history to enter upon your duties knowing in advance to whom you were 
actually accountable.

    I hope you will consider what I have said, and realize that your first 
obligation is to the Constitution of the United States.  If you meet that 
obligation instead of the control of those internationalist banksters, the 
economy, and the American people, will take care of themselves and America 
will once again be a nation of economic and political liberty the founding 
fathers founded.

    If you do not -- well, I give America less than ten years as a sovereign 
nation worthy of the name.

    For your information, sir, copies of this letter are being widely 
desseminated by various and sundry means for others to consider.

Best regards, sir.

Reprinted by Archimedes from:  NCBA Reports, monthly report of the

                  National Commodity and Barter Association
                     8000 East Girard Avenue, Suite 215
                           Denver, Colorado 80231
                               (303) 337-9617

                        An interview with Bill Benson
                                     by
                            John Voss, director

     (The day before Thanksgiving, I received a call from Bill Benson.  Some
new readers may not know that name.  Bill is the legal researcher who was
incensed by an Indiana judge's refusal to allow all of the evidence (some
gathered earlier by the " Montana historian") into a tax trial in 1983.
[Bill was an IRS agent at the time. --Archimedes]  The evidence in question
cast doubt on the validity of the sixteenth amendment.  Bill vowed later to
thoroughly and objectively research the ratification process of each state
and obtain certified copies of the documents the judge had disallowed in
order to force a decision on whether or not the amendment had ever been
properly ratified and made law.  His efforts, assisted by many others [most
notably by Red Beckman of Montana -- Archimedes] resulted in a two-volume
work, "The Law That Never Was."  Bill himself was subsequently subjected to
an income tax trial, was not allowed to argue his findings, and was found
guilty.  He has recently had his conviction reversed by the seventh circuit
court of appeals, after serving 16 months of his 3 year sentence.  Bill's
health was seriously affected because the prison "doctor" refused to let him
continue taking the anti-seizure medication he has taken for over a decade;
as a result, Bill suffered some very serious seizures which paralyzed his
right side, leaving impaired speech, vision, and writing ability, and
confining him to a wheelchair.)

 NCBA Reports: Bill, I'm sure glad to hear from you; how are you getting
along, now?

 Benson:  Much better now, thanks.  I still tire out awfully fast it seems,
but I can see without double vision again and, as I hope you can see, I'm
not slurring my speech anymore; I just have to pause more often to remember
the words I want.  Some days are much better than others, but little by
little, I hope to get the toxicity out of my system and be up to traveling
the country and lecturing again.

 Reports: I can't detect even a little bit of that, Bill; you sound 1,000%
better than you did six months ago.  You've been home about three months
now, haven't you?

 Benson:  Yes, I was released just a few days after your Labor Day
convention.  Sorry I couldn't be there!

 Reports: A lot of folks asked about you, Bill.  I know many were praying
for your release.

 Benson:  John, be sure to emphasize with everyone you know just how
important calling and letters can be.  I received a lot of mail, some of it
cards and some of it copies of letters to congressmen.  For a while, I
couldn't read it all, but my cellmates read it to me and they were amazed
at the volume of it.  I'm sure the warden hated it because many congressmen
sent letters to the warden inquiring about me, and he had to answer all of
them.  Letters written to Congress do make a difference!  If it hadn't been
for all the letters people wrote and got their congressmen to write, I don't
believe I'd be alive and be talking with you today.

 Reports: I understand you and the warden talked with each other a lot.

 Benson:  Very often.  And it was usually very matter-of-fact, very
objective.  The letters protesting my treatment got me back onto the right
medication and the right dosage, after the damage had been done,
unfortunately.  But then the warden and I had many conversations about my
condition, and the fact that the prison wasn't built to accommodate anyone
confined to a wheelchair.

 Reports: Lorraine (Bill's wife) told me that you had been successful in
getting a lot of changes made toward that end.

 Benson:  Oh, boy, did I!  But again, I'd just talk to the warden about the
federal law requiring all employers and all public buildings to be built or
modified to accommodate those in wheelchairs, and I'd stress that I didn't
think he could ignore the laws anymore than anyone else.  I explained to
him that he wasn't the federal government, or the legislature; he was just
an agent.  He complained a lot at first about me insisting that he comply
with the laws, but the pressure of my letters and pressure from the
congressmen as a result of my letters and letters from lots of others
finally made him see the light and make some significant changes.

 Reports: For example?

 Benson:  Well, where there were one or two steps, there's now a ramp; in
 fact, one of the ramps, the one to the law library, was being finished as I
 left.  The others there told me it was going to be christened "Benson
 drive" in my honor!  There are ramps now to the dining area, to the
 recreation area, and there are electric door openers on the doors on each
floor; doors that I absolutely could not budge before, from in my
wheelchair.  All the restrooms had to be modified too, and the counters in
the kitchen, and special tables placed in the dining room.  There's now
recreational equipment, several thousand dollars worth, that wheelchair-
bound folks can use.  Even many light switches had to be re-positioned.  Oh,
the warden hated it initially, but you know what?  Now he takes legislators
and others through the building and brags about how his facility leads the
country in such modifications.  Some of the officers and guards there
started saying, "They better let that guy Benson go, before they have to
rebuild the whole prison!"

 Reports: I thought you were in a quasi-hospital facility, since you were in
Rochester, and close to the Mayo Clinic.  I assumed that many of these
modifications were already in place because it was a quasi-hospital
facility.

 Benson:  (laughter)  Far from it, John!  It was a prison facility alright,
no mistaking that.  It's a maximum security institution, from level 1 to
level 6 -- mafioso, you name it.  And the doctors over at the Mayo Clinic
used to respond to calls for their assistance from time to time.  However,
ever since an inmate sued Mayo Clinic and won, and the prison failed to
reimburse Mayo even though it should have, well, the clinic has just stopped
sending over doctors to help.  There's $10 million at issue in total and it
needs to be paid!  If any of us did need clinic attention, we were driven
over in prison vans.  Oh, and there's another thing, four new vans had to be
purchased to accommodate wheelchair-bound inmates!

 Reports: In light of that, I guess your successful efforts to get the warden
to appropriate the money for the building modifications was quite an
achievement.

 Benson:  A lot of the guards couldn't believe it was happening.  And some
were within earshot when I'd be talking to the warden, just calmly insisting
that he had a duty to comply with the law.  They loved it.

 Reports: Whatever happened to the doctor who insisted on depriving you of
your medication, and putting you on his prescriptions?

 Benson:  Dr. Kvam?  I'm not sure.  He's no longer on the staff, as I
understand it, he left the facility about 3 weeks after I did, to take a
non-paying job conducting a choir in the twin cities (Minneapolis - St.
Paul).

 Reports: Non-paying?  Then what else is he going to be doing?

 Benson:  I'm not sure.  He was there the day I left though and he seemed to
want me to know that he wasn't going to be employed as a prison physician
any longer.  Perhaps he thought I'd forget about the medication he deprived
me of, and of the unapproved injections he force me to submit to.  I wanted
him to know that I hadn't and wouldn't forget it, though.  I told him that
whether he was "doctoring" any more or not, he'd better keep his insurance
paid up, 'cause he really needs to be sued, and I will do it.

 Reports: You were forced to submit to injections?

 Benson:  Oh, yes.  I resisted as much as I could, especially because the
drugs were either experimental or the dosage was much, much more than
recommended.  At one point I was injected with 1,150 mg per day of a drug
that was accompanied by instruction that cautioned no more than 5-15 mg per
day, to begin with.  I was really out of it for several days afterward,
after I came to.  I still don't remember some of those days.  I'm convinced
that Dr. Kvam was trying to kill me or at the least erase my memory.

 Reports: That's barbaric, Bill.  Sounds like a scene right out of
Solhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago."

 Benson:  That's right.  And like the Gulags, there are many political
 prisoners there.  Lyndon Larouche was there, for example, and he used to
 clean my room every week.  He's an extremely brilliant man, incidentally.
 Lyndon's attitude was like mine, he made the best of it he could.  Rev.
 Jimmy Baker was there too, but his attitude was not as positive and thus he
 was having a harder time of it, I feel.  Some of the "Greylord" judges were
 there, from the Chicago prosecutions of the corrupt judiciary.  I'm just
pleased that I was able, with the help of so many who wrote their
congressmen, to make some changes.

 Reports: With the appeals court reversing your conviction, what's next?

 Benson:  You know, I've been studying the appeals court's decision and it
seems very clear; very short and to the point:  they did reverse.  There was
no mention of "remand for further action" or, "new trial" or anything like
that.  But so far they haven't issued the mandate to the district court, to
Judge Plunkett.  So Judge Plunkett signed a *four-page* order, *prepared*
*by* *the* *prosecutor,* which instructed the prison to release me.  By
acting without the mandate first, I think Judge Plunkett was acting without
complete and proper jurisdiction; and then his order instructed me to report
to a probation officer, which doesn't make any sense if my conviction is
reversed.

 Reports: Sounds like the prosecutor just wanted to keep tabs on you,
legally or illegally.

 Benson:  Right!  As if I could run away!  It's very strange.

 Reports: I'd like to see a copy of the order the judge signed, that the
prosecutor prepared for him.

 Benson:  I'll be glad to send you one.  Another thing you have to see is
the transcript.  My transcript is five to six thousand pages in total; the
trial lasted 4-5 weeks, as you recall.  The judge made some really
interesting remarks about the research we'd done on the sixteenth
amendment, even though he wouldn't allow it in as evidence in my defense.

 Reports: He disallowed it because the book was published in 1985 and you
 were charged for years prior to that, right?

 [Note by Archimedes:  It is a principle of jurisprudence that if a law or
statute is invalid, it is not invalid merely from the moment of the
discovery of it's invalidity; it is invalid from the moment of its
inception.  Thus Judge Plunkett's refusal to allow Mr. Benson's certified
copies of the legislative records of the several states into evidence, on
the grounds that they were not produced until 1985, is in itself reversible
error, in my opinion.  This is my opinion based upon my research.
 I do not give legal advice.]

 Benson:  Right.  But listen to what he said.  The judge is admonishing the
prosecutor after the 3rd superseding indictment came down, and he's saying
to her, "No more changes to the indictment; if Mr. Benson's thesis is
correct and you don't have a law, then he's not required to file a return,
so what difference does it make as to what year you indict him for?"  and
the government had a problem with that one!  The government told the judge:
"Now judge, you'd better think about what you've said ...!"

 Reports: ...Before too many people pick it up and run with it!

 Benson:  Yes!  And the judge made comments about reading "The Law That
Never Was," and about how I obviously believed my research I did on it.  He
made it a "reliance" book, part of a good faith defense.  There's more,
John.  Some of the exchanges are terrific.  And I'm sure the government
never counted on my getting every transcript of everything that was ever
said, whenever or wherever it was said.  Another example:  Their expert
witness testified that he hadn't read most of the IR code, wasn't familiar
with a lot of the sections we were talking about, yet in his summary
testimony he testified that he'd worked on 320 cases over his 15 year
career.  Defendants need to attack such testimony, like we did, and
discredit these "expert" witnesses.  That's what my appeals court judges
considered so strongly when they reversed my conviction, the so-called
qualification and statements of the prosecution's so-called "expert"
witness.

 Reports: Have you had a hearing yet before Judge Plunkett, to iron out the
differences between the appeals court's reversal order, and the order he
signed, that is, the one that was actually written by the prosecutor?

 Benson:  Not yet.  But my probation officer has sorted it out to her
satisfaction.  She finally decided that she doesn't want to see me.  She's
told me to just do what I have to do and go where I have to go, she doesn't
care to hear from me.  She's read the appeals court's decision, and she's
spoken with Judge Plunkett.  She told me that she intended to follow the
judge's verbal advice:  "Mr. Benson doesn't have to report anywhere, just
leave him alone!"

 [Note from Archimedes:  The same sort of verbal advice was given to Gordon
Kahl by a probation officer two days before he was ambushed on a country
road at night by U.S. Marshalls and his son was gunned down in the
Marshalls' mistaken belief they were shooting at the elder Kahl.]

 Reports: I imagine that's music to your ears.  And speaking on behalf of a
lot of folks who've expressed their concern to me, we're glad you're back
home.  Before we wrap this up, what are your thoughts about winning the
current battles we have going against our oppressors in government?

  Benson:  Well, I believe that fight is quite a ways from over.  But we're
 all doing much more now than ever before to turn things around, and our
 numbers seem to be growing; there's definitely an awakening going on.
 Inspired researchers keep giving us more tools.  We may not accomplish it
 for awhile yet, but as long as people keep trying, we will.

 Reports: There are those like yourself who've certainly made major
contributions, and sacrified a lot.

 Benson:  Oh, there have been many more who've given much more, I feel.  I'm
proud to be part of it and looking forward to re-joining the lecture
circuit.  The message has to be, "Don't give up, no matter what happens."
and in that vein, I want to stress once again that letters and
correspondence to these bureaucrats and the congressmen do make a
difference, don't ever think they don't.  The pen and the public opinion it
reflects is still mightier than the sword.

 Reports: Thanks for everything, Bill.

 End of article

 Uploaded by Archimedes 12/19/91.  If anyone wishes to contact the NCBA for
more information, please refer to the beginning of the "Bill.Benson" file
for the address and telephone number.  Please refer to rep #5413 in all
correspondence.  Thank you.

 to continue: 

Library command:P

*=* Post Office entered *=*
First name:ARCHI
Last name:MEDES

 1:There is only one person I know that can debate and gather information like
 2:you and that person is Dean Hathaway.
 3:
 4:By the way, I haven't filed any type of tax form since 1958.  It was the
 5:first time I filed and it was the last.
 6:
 7:How in the fuck does one get enough gold to do any good or is it already too
 8:late for that?  If things really get BAD I think I'll just blow up and be
 9:done with this petty world and all of its pure shit.  No biggie.

Content of this site is © Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.