### 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.