

              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 1  Num. 63
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")


-----------------------------------------------------------------

[From an interview with Linda Thompson on the *For the People* 
radio show, Feb. 11, 1994. Host is Chuck Harder.]

[Continued...]

CHUCK HARDER: Uh, I think, I think it's important to point out 
here also that last night, *60 Minutes*, which is the mainstream 
press, went out just a little tiny bit on a limb -- and I praise 
CBS for doing it although they are, they're part of the problem 
most nights. Uh, you know, and they talked about the congressman 
who "told it like it is." {1}. And he says, you know, you go out, 
you start telling the truth and suddenly, you're not gonna get 
re-elected because they won't raise money for you.

LINDA THOMPSON: Well then you also have congressmen that, for 
instance, we've had some congressmen who have been active in 
trying to get something done about Waco. And coincidentally, two 
of those congressmen's children were arrested on drug charges.

This is... and I have had one congressman's legislative aid call 
me and tell me that he *was* threatened! So, this is the kind of 
thing that we're seeing: even if you've *got* an honest 
congressman trying to do something, the pressure is put on him 
too! That's pretty significant pressure when they start comin' 
after your kids or they threaten your life or your family's life, 
or you know for a certainty that you can never get re-elected 
because you're going to be defeated by *money* alone. This is 
what's happened. That's how our Congress has been taken over, is 
by the people with the money.

HARDER: And I think it's important also to say (and I wanna thank 
you very much for the call, "T.K."), but it's also -- Linda, you 
know this -- the Internal Revenue Service, as they have done to 
us, they have been with us now for a year. Uh, their audit 
procedures started a year ago. And there have been 3 different 
IRS auditers that have been engaged, one way or another. Uh, they 
are on what is called, in the auditing business, a "fishing 
trip." Uh, they've already determined nothing's wrong. But 
they're still "fishing." {2}.

A "fishing trip" like they are on can, by the time it's all over 
with, cost us $100,000.

THOMPSON: It can cost you that in nothing but trying to prove you 
did nothing wrong.

HARDER: Right. And, you know, after you spend $100,000 and they 
finally go away, they are convinced that they hurt you to the 
tune of $100,000. And that's what's going...

THOMPSON: And they *have* hurt you.

HARDER: Yeah.

THOMPSON: That's a very powerful weapon.

HARDER: We'll be back.

[...commercial break...]

HARDER: We are back. Linda Thompson is our guest, and we're 
taking your calls at 1-800-TALK-YES. Or, you can try us at 904- 
397-1500.

O.K. Linda, you are back on the air. Are you there?

THOMPSON: Yes. Hi.

HARDER: O.K. Good. Let's go to uh, let's conference in right now. 
Huntington, West Virginia. Bill, go ahead.

BILL: Hi, Linda. Hi, Chuck.

HARDER: Hi.

THOMPSON: Hi.

BILL: I had a question about the Waco situation. Is it possible 
that somebody could bring a civil suit against Janet Reno at all? 
I mean, maybe a class action suit? {3}.

THOMPSON: Well, I have. And you don't want a class action. That's 
one thing, I want to take the opportunity while you've got such a 
huge audience here to explain.

When you bring a lawsuit against a company -- for instance, we've 
all heard of class action lawsuits against General Motors, this 
kind of thing -- the person bringing the lawsuit does not want 
[it] to be a class action. Because if I were to, as a single 
individual, sue a large entity like General Motors over a 
defective part in a car and win, all the other 10,000 people that 
bought that car can then individually sue, too, and get the same 
amount of money I did. Because I've already set the precedent for 
them, and that's another 10,000 guys that could each bring their 
suit and automatically win.

So what happens is, when you sue on a case like that, General 
Motors would be the one that makes it into a class action. 
Because what they want to do is have to settle *everybody's* 
claim in one lawsuit, because it costs them less money *and* they 
end up paying out less money. You notice that, whenever there's a 
class action lawsuit, the attorneys get most of the money, they 
get half the money. And then the remainder of the money is 
distributed amongst 10 or 20 thousand plaintiffs! And everybody 
gets maybe, 10, 15 dollars. That's nothing. That's peanuts.

That's why the *defendants* are the ones that want it to be a 
class action suit. *You*, as a plaintiff, the person bringing the 
case, you *never* wanna be a class action. (Unless you're an 
attorney and you want the money!)

Um, but an actual plaintiff: you wanna go individually against 
that entity, win a *pile* of money, and then let all the other 9 
million Americans, or how many are affected, *also* then file 
their own cases all over the country. They already have your case 
that set the precedent, that has made the rule that has said, 
"You won." O.K.?

HARDER: By the same token, let me squeeze this in: If you do file 
an individual suit and you *lose*, it does not prevent somebody 
else from "comin' back." [i.e. filing their own suit of similar 
nature]

THOMPSON: That's right. And the government can argue, "Well, this 
person lost," but you've always got the opportunity to say, "Well 
my circumstances are different. It's not the same case. I'm a 
different plaintiff. I can still sue."

But if the other person *wins*, then you identify with that person 
and say, "I'm just *exactly* like this guy that just won. And he 
got," you know, "5 million. I should too." And then the 
government's on the defensive. They have to prove why not.

But it makes it eminently easier for the plaintiff, and *much* 
more difficult for the defendant, if it's *not* a class action.

BILL: Let me ask you: Did you say you filed suit?

THOMPSON: Yes.

BILL: Who do you represent?

THOMPSON: Myself.

BILL: Yourself?

THOMPSON: Uh-huh [affirmative]. I... You have to have "standing" 
in a case. For instance, an average citizen, it's very difficult 
to find a basis to sue the government on, when you aren't 
directly involved. For instance, if you're not a Branch Davidian 
in Waco, even though all of us as American citizens, our rights 
are being affected by this case and the things that are going on, 
that's not good enough to bring a lawsuit over it. The court'll 
kick you out and say, "Well you aren't directly affected by 
that." So you don't have what's called "standing."

Well I have standing, because while I was down there I was held 
at a roadblock and an ATF agent held a machine gun at my head for 
20 minutes and they illegally searched my car. They took property 
out of my car. They detained me for 2 hours and questioned me at 
a tent alongside this roadblock without probable cause, never 
filed charges, and eventually let us go.

And stole some film from us. I got a picture of this ATF agent 
holding a machine gun at my head! And was able to smuggle it out 
of there successfully; I hid it behind the glove box of the car 
before they searched the car.

Now that's my standing. I was directly affected by the entire, 
illegal operation that was going on in Waco. That ATF agent 
wouldn't have been in the roadblock legally, period. He wasn't 
there legally. And he was only there because of everything that 
led up to the Waco siege and because of the direct involvement of 
the executive branch. That gives me the right to sue everybody 
that had anything to do with it. And that's why, what I'm doing.

                    (to be continued)

-----------------------<< Notes >>-------------------------------
{1} "...the congressman who 'told it like it is.'" I saw this *60 
Minutes* episode. To my recollection, the congressman he is 
referring to is Luis Gutierrez(sp?) from Chicago.

{2} "...still 'fishing.'" Just like the highwaymen. They also go 
"fishing." For example, they put up signs lowering the speed 
limit because there is "road construction." So you slow down, 
form a single lane, and the people behind you are tailgating you, 
etc. "Come on, you moron! There's no 'road construction!'"
   A while later, you come to another "reduce speed" because 
there is "road construction." So you again slow down, form a 
single lane, and the people are tailgating you, etc. "Come on, 
you moron! There's no 'road construction!'"
   Then again, you come to another "road construction" situation. 
The sign says to reduce your speed to 45 m.p.h. But there is 
nobody *doing* any "road construction!" Here is your big mistake. 
A half mile ahead, there is a highwayman, fishing for taxes. But 
you figure, "Well, if I actually see anybody working, I'll slow 
down." A quarter-mile later, you see up ahead that there *really* 
are men working up ahead. So of course, you slow down. *But it is 
too late*! The highwayman has laid his trap well. He already has 
you on his radar.
   Conclusion of tale: The highwayman demands you pay the $75 in 
cash. *But* if you have "too much" cash, the highwayman will not 
like that either.

{3} Regarding bringing a lawsuit against Reno, etc. UPI has 
reported recently that Koresh's relatives have indeed filed a 
$153 million lawsuit against Janet Reno and others. [From the For 
the People *News Reporter*, July 11, 1994, page 1.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
     I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail 
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" 
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the 
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et 
  pauperem.                    -- Liber Proverbiorum  XXXI: 8-9 

