Subject: Frog Farm #13

From: [email-masked] (Schirado)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 20:24:31 -0400 (EDT)

Welcome to the thirteenth installment of the Frog Farm. This issue contains:

1) More Tidbits from the Net
2) George Gordon's Lesson 22: The Jury Pick   [incomplete]
3) One More from the Vault: The (last of the) Frog Farm Archives
4) Constitutional Rights and a state of War: Ex parte Milligan
5) _Dirty Little Secrets: Military Information You're Not
   Supposed to Know_

**

More Tidbits from the Net

>Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Children in the buff
Date: 2 Oct 1993 12:56:04 -0400

[quoted stuff elided]

This may reflect MORE OR LESS what is written in the specific law.
HOWEVER, "sexual content" seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Under a ruling handed down October 15th, 1992, by a U.S. Federal 
Appeals Court in Pennsylvania, photos of a fully clothed 17 year 
old can count as "Child Pornography."

The ruling comes in the case of Stephen Knox, a graduate student 
at Penn State University, who was given a five year sentence for 
possessing videos showing girls wearing bathing suits or underwear 
at the beach and in modeling sessions.

The government said that even though the models were clothed 
and not engaged even in sexually suggestive activity, the way 
the film maker framed the images, made them child pornography. 

Federal law bans photographic images that show a person 17 
years old or younger either having sex or engaging in a 
"lascivious exhibition" of the "pubic area."

Anyone purchasing, selling, or possessing such images faces up 
to ten years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.

Know was originally convicted in District Court on the grounds 
that the videos depicted the girls' "inner thighs" which the judge 
declared counted as "pubic area" under the federal law.  

On appeal, a three judge panel of the third circuit agreed with Knox's
attorneys that the thigh was not "pubic area," but nonetheless upheld
the conviction on the grounds that the pubic area does not have to be
uncovered at all for a depiction of it to be "lascivious."

[end]

A bit of research disclosed the following. The case is U.S. v. Knox, 977 F.2d
815 (3rd Cir. Oct. 15, 1992).

The court of appeals opinion's opening gets right to the point:

   The principal question presented by this appeal is whether
   videotapes that focus on the genitalia and pubic area of 
   minor females constitute an 'exhibition of the genitals or 
   pubic area' under the federal child pornography laws, 18 U.S.C.
   sec. 2252(a)(2), (4) (Supp. 1990); 18 U.S.C. sec. 2256(2)(E)
   (1988), even though these body parts are covered by 
   clothing.  We hold that such visual depictions qualify as an 
   exhibition, and that this construction does not render the 
   statute unconstitutionally overbroad.  Finally, we conclude 
   that the government presented sufficient evidence at the 
   bench trial to establish both the necessary mens rea and the
   delivery of the films through interstate mail. We thus will 
   affirm the conviction.

>Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Legality of Secession(Civil War)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 18:58:41 GMT

: >The question was,  was Secession Constitutional as a states right.
: >What Right authoriized the U.S (North) to bring back the Confederate
: >States.  The answer is in Article 1,  Section 10:
: >
: >     Section 10.  States prohibited from the exercise of certain
: >     powers.
: >
: >Pretty clear cut.

: I guess you and I have very different ideas of "pretty clear cut."

: I don't see anything here that says that a state cannot secede.  (Unless
: "letters of marque and reprisal" have something to do with that.  I don't
: know what that means.)

: One could easily interpret the restrictions as applying to *states* that
: remain *states*.  That is, a *state* may not enter into a treaty,
: confederation, etc., as long as it is part of the US.  But if the state
: secedes, it can do whatever it wants.

: I'm additionally skeptical because I recall seeing a civl war documentary
: (I believe it was the famous PBS series) in which a historian talked about
: how the southern states believed it was a state's right to secede--and that
: when the constitution was originally ratified, it was likely that *none*
: of the colonies would have joined had they believed that they would not
: have the right to secede.

: And of course, southerners have always referred to the war as the "War of
: Northern Agression."

: I have difficulty believing that the issue was clear-cut at the time, and
: the excerpt you posted doesn't do much to change that.

I assume you refer to a "right" of secession under the Tenth Amendment.
The Confederacy believed the same.  There were many nervous souls at
the drafting of the Constitution who were afraid the Union couldn't
possibly succeed.  Yet,  the fear of openly even mentioning secession,
either by expressly allowing it or expressly banning it,  might
fatally weaken the Constitution,  kept the framers from mentioning it
one way or another.

In it's absence,  the Confederacy used the Tenth Amendment as
justification for secession.  The North held no such right was
possible,  that in forming the Union the states had abdicated all the
rights under Section 10.  Congress is also granted power over the
admission of new states and the reformation of states from those
already existing.  Absent is mention of any mechanism for quitting the
union.  In contract law (and that is exactly what the Constitution is,
a contract between the states),  the absence of any means of breeching
the agreement (and specific language would be required,  not the
nebulous language of the Tenth Amendment),  leaves no means for the
agreement to be breached.

Remember,  the Confederate States never legally asserted this supposed
right.  No case was ever argued before any court.  They engaged in
insurrection,  insurrection backed by their state governments,  but
insurrection nonetheless.  They abandoned Congress,  which was then
able to brand them outlaw.

I seriously doubt if any court,  at any time,  would have ruled in
their favor.  The states surrendered so many greater rights in joining
the Union,  that the lesser right to withdraw without Congress's
approval,  would also appear moot.

I suspect it will come up again,  and probably in my lifetime.  The
21st Century may have even more turmoil than the 20th.  I doubt Canada
will still exist in even 15 years.  When China takes over Hong Kong,
many of the citizens (particularly the wealthiest) and much of the
wealth will transfer to British Columbia.  This is already underway.
Eastern politicians will not be able to keep their hands off this new
wealth as a way of financing Canada's creeping Socialism.  So I look
for BC to opt out,  followed by Quebec and the Prairee States (which
will join the U.S.) leaving Ontario and the Northern Territories.
BC's move will put pressure on the Pacific Northwestern States,  which
already have less in common with their neighbors to the south.

[end]

>Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Citizenship: various responses...
Date: 2 Oct 1993 00:41:08 -0400
Organization: Masochists' Institute of Technology, Outpatients' Association
Summary: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force."
            --George Washington

>Yes, as long as you receive any kind of federal benefit, you fall under the
>jurisdiction  of the U.S.   Remember, the 14th says "...AND subject to 
>the jurisdiction thereof..."

You don't have to receive Federal benefits to be under the
jurisdiction of the US Federal Government.  You don't even have to
consent to the Federal Government's authority to be under its
jurisdiction.  Indeed, when there isn't an explicit law or treaty in
the way, the Federal Government can assert jurisdiction over any
person, consenting or vigorously objecting, who stands before the
wrong end of a Federal employee's gun.

Legal cite: _United States of America vs. Manuel Noriega_.

[end]

>Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: F.3rd has arrived!
Date: 3 Oct 1993 19:29:59 -0400

I was looking up a case on Westlaw last week.  
The citation:  ____ F.3d ____!

Boy, we live in exciting times.  First the fall of the Berlin Wall,
then the end of the Soviet Union, and now the last volume of the
F.2d!

[end]

>Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.british,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Britain may end right to silence (and presumption of innocence?)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 22:53:35 GMT

According to a UPI story on Clarinet:

===========
>Home Secretary Michael Howard Wednesday announced 27 new proposals to
>combat crime [...]

>       Among the sweeping reforms was a proposal to abolish the right to
>silence, a legal right Howard said protected terrorists.
>       ``The so-called right to silence is ruthlessly exploited by
>terrorists. What fools they must think we are. It's time to call a halt
>to this charade,'' he said.
...
[A civil liberties group says:]
>       ``People are going to be convicted on the basis of silence alone,''
>Banerjea warned.

[end]

**

[I've been more than a little busy lately helping keep food on the table to
type in any more of the audiotapes I have. Even though this one isn't done,
it's got some good stuff.]

               George Gordon: Sunday School (Selected Lessons)
                 Originally taped sometime around 1982-3 A.D.
                    Transcribed from videotape 1992-3 A.D.

Lesson 22: "The Jury Pick"

An important thing to keep a constant focus on if things go as far as an
actual jury trial is the psychological reaction that a juror is going to have.
it's a matter of salesmanship. you're trying to sell those people your concept
and ideas. as an example, if you don't have a driver's license and they all
do, you have an opportunity to show them, in two different ways, that the
driver's license issue is an issue that has to be decided upon by them. it's
an issue of fact, not one of law. and the best, and possibly the only way to
get an issue of fact before the jury regarding the driver's license, is by the
questions you ask.

you want them to know that you're charged with not having a license, and that
that you don't have a license, and that is your defense, and you want them to
judge. and some of them will say wow, here i've got a driver's license and
this guy comes in here and says he doesn't need one? now how are you going to
convince them that you're not a person required to have a license, now that
they're sitting there? that's the difference between law and fact.

now our position is that the jury has the right to try the law. but you've got
a judge and a prosecutor over here that are going to do everything in their
power to keep that information from the jury! they'll lie, and tell them that
they don't have that right, they can only judge the facts. So, it's really
quite simple: You ask each and every juror if he or she knows and understands
"jury nullifcation" or "jury lawlessness". if that juror says they've never
heard the words before, you disqualify the juror for cause.

Now the judge may or may not go along with it, but IF HE DOESN'T, remember the
Dougherty doctrine of 1970: The presumption of the court is that every citizen
knows about jury nullification and knows that he has a right to try the law,
AND IT'S FOR THAT REASON THAT THE COURT WILL NOT INSTRUCT THE JURY OF THAT
RIGHT. so therefore, a qualification of a juror would naturally be, "do you
know about your right of jury nullification?"

Now the question is NOT "your right to try the law", "your right to find the
accused innocent despite the law", or anything like that. Just "jury
nullification" and "jury lawlessness". If the person says no, I've never heard
those terms before, you dismiss him for cause, because Dougherty assumes he
does, and so does Malloy [sp?].

If, on the other hand, he says yes, i do, let the prosecutor over here throw
him off, and that's one of the key questions you're looking for. Because if
there's a freeman sitting on the jury over here and you bring up the subject
of nullification, well, imagine it the other way around, if you were the juror
and a freeman, and the accused asked you that question. Only a freeman would
typically know about that phrase, as a general rule. Members and subjects,
remember, are privileged persons, and if they've been acting under privilege
all their lives, they're not too likely to have ever heard that phrase.

It's up to you to figure out all the questions you want to ask the jury. You
may think of a lot of good ones on your own, and it's probably better if you
do, but I'll bring up three or four that we've come up with around here, just
for your consideration.

Always stay organized. As early as possible, you need to sit down and look at
the subject matter of the case, to give you an idea of the questions that will
be raised. I can't tell you the questions to ask in each and every case. At
this point, it's like the fifteenth move in a chess game: The first few moves,
you know what your opponent's move will be, but this far in, you'll need to
study it. There may be dictionary definitions, and state of mind.

Let's try state of mind, and I'll see if I can't help you get the ideas of
state of mind, and arguing the law before the jury.

You don't have to take the witness stand in your own defense. BUT IF YOU
DON'T, YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE BEFORE THE JURY. It's pretty obvious why: The
jury's sitting here saying, he's got to have something to hide and he must be
guilty, or he'd take the stand and tell his story. So as an example, in my Big
Three case (and you should know that one by now, it's No License, Registration
or Proof of Insurance), I take the witness stand. And since I'm representing
myself, I'm going to do it in a narrative form.

Now the jury cannot hear the law from me, they can only hear facts. So I can't
get up and say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the reason I'm not guilty is
because the Supreme Court, in Crandall v. Nevada, said, because about the time
you say the supreme court said, the prosecutor will jump up and say, "Your
honor, the defendant is attempting to instruct the jury in matters of law",
and the judge will come down on you.

Maybe a lot of you are nodding your heads right now going Amen. I know this
must have happened to me at least a dozen times. Well, we can't present law,
just facts. So I'd start something like this:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I guess by now, you're sitting over there
being pretty puzzled, and I would guess that the reason you're puzzled is
because I don't have a driver's license. But I'm not guilty of breaking any
law. And the reason is because I studied the question of whether or not I
should HAVE a driver's license. And in my research, I found some facts, and
the facts that I discovered were these.

"Fact number one: There's more than one kind of driver on the road.

"Fact numebr two: The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled, in a
number of cases, that NOT ALL PERSONS ARE REQUIRED to have a driver's license.

"Fact number three: MOST persons ARE required to have a driver's license."

Let's pause for a second to clarify. You have a right to testify in your own
defense and you have a right to testify as to facts, or as to what you believe
are facts, even if you believe something to be true which in fact is not. and
when you present your facts to the jury, those facts have to be considered.
Remember I cannot open this book and say, "Fact number four: In Crandall v.
Nevada," no, i can't do that. But i can tell the jury the facts that I learned
from research:

"Another thing I learned was that a State cannot charge a tax for the use of a
right-of-way. Another fact I learned was that a registration fee is a tax.
Another fact that I learned was that the fee for a driver's license is not a
fee, but a tax. Another was that the insurance policy is a contract in
maritime commerce. Another was that I'm not a person engaged in maritime
commerce."

Now I may sit here for half an hour or forty-five minutes stating the facts as
I know them. That's my testimony. Remember how the prosecutor works? When he
has a policeman on the stand, let's say, he ascertains facts:

"Officer Schmedly, did you see George Gordon driving on June 5th, 1983?"

"Yes, I did."

"And where was he driving?"

"On Americana Boulevard."

"What did you see him do?"

"I saw him driving 45 miles per hour in a 35 mile an hour zone."

"And was that your probable cause for stopping him?"

"Yes, it was."

"And you did stop him?"

"Yes."

"And did you ask Mr. Gordon for his driver's license?"

"Yes."

"And did Mr. Gordon give you his driver's license?"

"No, he did not."

"What did Mr. Gordon say?"

"Mr. Gordon said that he didn't have a driver's license, that he was driving
as a matter of right and that he didn't need a license."

Those are facts of the case. He's not sitting there saying, "And the law says
he has to have a license, and this case says he has to, blah blah," because if
he brings up issues of law, YOU OBJECT. You see? It's fair for both sides.
They can't bring issues of law to the jury, and neither can you.

Now you might be saying, Wait a minute, my case is based on law, and Supreme
Court decisions, and the judge won't listen to me. Now we get down to the
nitty gritty: JURY INSTRUCTIONS. And here's where we're going to create yet
another reversible error in the hopefully mile-long list of them you've
already created.

I'm going to read a few instructions to you, and show you how to tell the jury
the law surrounding your case. The jury has a right to know what the law is
surrounding this case. There's a good reason for this, and that's because they
don't want laymen coming into the court and citing all sorts of irrelevant
gibberish. When the trial procedure is going on, there have to be relevant
issues to this case, the facts pertinent to just this case. As a matter of
fact, that's why it's so difficult for most average people, say, a truck
driver, to get any issue of fact before the jury. The process of the court to
get this done is by JURY INSTRUCTIONS. So let's look at one.

Notice at the bottom of the one in this lesson, there's a citation. There's a
jury instruction. You may have never seen one, but I'll bet you didn't know
that just about every lawyer and prosecutor use them. As a matter of fact,
they filed them already in your case. And if you have the jury looking at the
court's instructions, and you go out there without any, that's like going out
to fight Goliath without any armor, without a sling, or even a smooth stone,
and you walk up to him and you kick him in the shins. Don't wonder what
happened to you later -- you never got the law before the jury, and it's
understandable, you didn't know. So let's learn about this instruction by
reading it. The citation on this one is Camp v. Holt, this is one I put in a
case concerning property rights.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: YOU ARE INSTRUCTED that, the words 'life,
liberty and property' are Constitutional terms and are to be taken in their
broadest sense. They indicate the three great subdivisions of all civil
rights. The term 'property' in this instance embraces all valuable interests
which a man may possess outside of himself, that is, outside of his life and
liberty. It is not confined to the mere technical property, but literally to
every species of vested right."

And the citation, by the way, is Camp v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620.

Now here's what makes this relevant to your case, or the way you must make it
relevant. When you took the witness stand and said you don't have a driver's
license and gave them all those other facts, like not all persons are required
to have licenses, you couldn't open the book and tell the jury the case and
the law. when you took the stand, you careted the issue, the fact. Is that
fact substantiated by law? You bet it is. Let's get back to the property
issue. I would also use this in most driver's license cases:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: YOU ARE INSTRUCTED that the court held that
a license to own and operate an automobile is not property, but a mere
privilege and therefore, a suspension would not deprive the licensee of his
property without due process of law."

Another one:

" -- that the court held to compel one who used his automobile for his private
business and pleasure only, to submit to an examination and take out a
license, was imposing a burden on one class of citizens in the use of the
streets which was not imposed upon others, and such an ordinance was therefore
void."

Now there's a mouthful. But let's recall our objective: We're in court without
a driver's license, and we have to convince the jury that we don't need one.
You've got to create facts, and testify to them the fact that not all persons
are required. So we look at what the court has said, and that will show you
what facts you want to testify to, and tell the jury about. Because for each
fact, you should bring in a jury instruction with supporting law. The judge
will add his own instructions based on the law surrounding the case, you can
count on it.

Here's a couple more instructions. These are facts that I would testify to, or
get witnesses to testify to:

"It was further said that the use of a motor vehicle is frequently the true
source of a man's ability to earn a livelihood, and to deprive him of this
privilege unncessarily is not a reasonable police regulation."

What questions could we ask the policeman on the stand that would create the
facts necessary for us to include that jury instruction? Is it a reasonable
police regulation?

Well, the best place to start is way back at the scene of the crime, of
course. Picture this: you've just been "pulled over" and the policeman has
just walked up to the window and asked you for the Big Three documents, and
the first words out of your mouth, of course, are, "Well in that case, is this
a custodial interrogation, and if so, do you have a 4th amendment warrant, and
what is your probable cause, and I demand counsel present," and you're gonna
go through it all. This goes all the way back to lesson 2. But once you enter
some dialogue, if you want to get this policeman to testify favorable facts,
you need to state that you're not using this road as a matter of trade,
commerce or profit. You'd BETTER tell him. And if you have a passenger, you'd
better tell him that your passenger isn't paying you anything. Why do we do
that at the scene of the crime? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT SOME MONTHS DOWN THE LINE,
IN COURT, I'm going to be asking him questions like this to establish facts:

"Officer Schmedly, at the time that you asked the defendant for his driver's
license, did he say anything to you?"

"Yes."

"Did he say to you that he was operating a taxicab?"

"Oh, no."

"Did he say that he was operating a business?"

"No, I don't think so."

"Well then, did the defendant say to you plainly, in words more or less
approaching these, 'I am not operating this automobile for trade, commerce,
profit or gain'? Did he use words similar to those?"

"Yes, I think he did."

"He told you plainly that he was a person not required to have a driver's
license?"

"Well, yeah."

"Then why did you give him this 'ticket'?"

"Well, because the law says he has to have a license."

"The law then, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, requires that, is that correct?"

"Well, yes."

"That is, the statute, Idaho Code 63-52 or whatever, requires that Mr. Gordon
have a license?"

"Yes."

"Do you know of any other laws that would exempt Mr. Gordon from this
requirement?"

"No."

"And that's why you gave him the ticket?"

"Yes."

Now what have you done? You've ESTABLISHED FACTS. THe officer believes that
you need a license, and he's acted in good faith. But the facts that you've
gotten from him would grant you, then, the jury instruction we gave above
regarding reasonable police regulation. You said you weren't using the vehicle
for your livelihood. Remember, to compel one who used the vehicle for private
business or pleasure is unreasonable. You've now established that you were
using the vehicle in that capacity! And you need to make those statements at
the scene of the crime, to set that foundation.

once his facts and my facts are out, and we've established facts, as a jury
instruction, you instruct the jury that the court held, etc., etc. you've done
exactly what you needed to do, but you've done it in writing, whereas you
couldn't do it verbally or in testimony. i couldn't tell the jury about the
case. when I found the case, i had to tailor my testimony and the testimony of
all the witnesses, both mine and the government's, to fit that case. I create
the facts at the scene of the crime, i create the testimony from the
witnesses. and that's how you get the law to the jury.

sure seems simple, eh? let's see just what it is that you have to do to get an
instruction in, when you file it.

jury instructions have to be in writing, and they have to be in four parts.
the jury will not see the words "Camp v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620". so here's how
you write it up.. let's act out this example, and think it through. we talked
about the driver's license. I want to tell the jury about a case called Smith
v. Thompson from 1930 that says I don't need a license if i'm not acting in
trade, commerce or industry. now how do i do that?

at the scene of the crime, i set the policeman up by telling him all the
pertinent facts. then when i got him on the witness stand, i got him to
testify to it, and i testified to it as well. now the jury is sitting over
here, a little confused, and i need to tell them about this particular case, i
want them to see it. so i write it up in four parts. it'll look something like
this.

number one, you'll notice, there's no jury instruction. down at the bottom, it
has no citation, no smith v. jones or anything. and that's because, THE JURY
CANNOT SEE THE CITATION! as far as they know, when they look at this, it's
that trial judge that gave them this instruction. but in reality, it's the
supreme court of the united states that's giving them this instruction.

so let's take a look at this instruction. the JUDGE gets a copy that DOES have
the citation at the bottom, and your opponent, the prosecutor, gets a copy,
and you're going to get a copy.

now mark this one down also and get it straight, because it's crucial: YOUR
JURY INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS THEY'RE SENT IN TIMELY!  about
five days before the trial, the judge has to see those instructions. by your
motions, remember lesson 13 and 14, and 20, and we went through the motion
hearing. and when it was over, we got our theory of the case across to the
prosecutor and the judge. the judge knows that you stipulated to certain
facts, like that you don't have a driver's license. now you come in with the
jury instructions, five days prior to trial, and file them with the court.
what i do is go across the street and have them stamped in, just like a
motion, and i walk over to the judge and give him a copy of ALL my jury
instructions. can you imagine this, dropping a stack of paper on him this
thick his eyes might pop out of his skull.

Five days before trial, he knows what the instructions are going to be, and so
does the prosecutor. so on the day of the trial, the judge will typically call
for a PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. during this, you go in and talk about your
procedure. ANY JURY INSTRUCTION THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED IS NOT
NECESSARILY GOING TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY. because what happens if you
walked in and forgot to cross examine the officer, forgot to testify, forgot
to set facts down such as that you're not a "person required" to have a
driver's license? then that jury instruction wouldn't be relevant, because
there are no facts in the case relevant to it! you can't tell the jury that a
person doesn't need the license if he's not engaged in commerce, if you
haven't established the fact that you're not engaged in commerce -- and THAT's
why you create the facts at the scene of the crime, in the jailcell, and your
entire procedure. if the prosecutor got someone to testify that you've driven
people around and gotten paid for it, your whole case could be blown. your own
jury instruction will hang you now, based on that established fact. so it's
IMPERATIVE that you show the facts.

now your instructions are facts, so when you go through the witnesses, you
question them based on the instructions that you want to get in. this one
we've been working with, camp v holt, states that life, liberty and property
are constitutional terms. that's a fact. now you take the stand and say
something like, "A fact that I contend for is that the words 'life, liberty
and property' are constitutional terms, and i've conducted myself
accordingly." there's the fact, and here's the instruction, and you've
testified that you believe it. you might now put an expert witness on the
stand, like a lawyer. and a lawyer is an expert witness, who can testify as to
what the law means, in his professional opinion. might go:

"Mr. Jones, would you tell the jury what your occupation is?"

"I'm a lawyer."

"How long have you been a lawyer?"

"25 years."

"And what branch of law do you specialize in or practice?"

"Constitutional law and criminal practice."

"Have you read a number of Supreme Court cases?"

"Yes."

"Are you familiar with the Supreme Court's position on various topics?"

"Yes, I am."

"Do you know how to research the law?"

"Yes."

That's to qualify him as an expert witness. Now you move on.

"Have you studied the Constitution?"

"Yes, I have."

"Have you read a number of Supreme Court cases which are relevant to the
Constitution?"

"Yes."

"Now will you tell me, in your professional opinion, what the words 'life,
liberty and property' mean to you?"

"They are Constitutional terms to be taken in their broadest sense."

See, he can testify to the jury about that, because he's an expert. A law
professor could work just as well in this capacity.

Okay, now let's cover the physical aspect of getting this in. We've talked
about qualifying it, according to the rules of procedure for whereever you're
from, and you'll need a different number of copies of each instruction
depending on where you're from. i usually have 5.

first, i type it up with the citation at the bottom of the page. Citation and
quotation. One copy to the judge, one to the prosecutor, one in the "filed"
folder along with all the motions i've filed so far, one i keep for myself,
and the FIFTH copy has the CITATION REMOVED FROM THE BOTTOM, and THAT goes to
the jury. easy enough? your personal copy gets stamped and in your folder. and
the judge will take the huge pile of them that you dump on his desk, with and
without, and he'll physically give, hand over, the instructions WITHOUT the
citations, to the jury foreman. And the jury foreman will take them into
deliberation, and read the instructions aloud to the jury.

now the prosecutor, or in a civil case, youur opponent, will have the same
stack. when you go through your case, you use your stack as your notes, and
you go through and make certain of everything, and keep your legal pad handy
for jotting down questions you may think to ask officer schmedly, would
instruction 6, or 36, maybe relate to questions that i might want to ask
officer schmedly? and you should number those instructions, so you can
reference them easily.

now step back, and take a look at all the FACTS you've established. Remember
the traditional role of the jury? They're the judge of the FACTS. when they go
in, the judge gives them those instructions with all the rest of the facts,
and so they get the instructions almost right from your mouth.

let's capitulate, and look back on lesson 21 and 22, and see what we've
learned here. we started off talking about the grand jury, and we know that we
have a reversible error issue over the grand jury issue. We also learned about
Lysander Spooner and Red Beckman's books. the Spooner might be at your local
library. people tell me those are some of the best books out. Red Beckman, in
Montana, has basically shut down the IRS. At least ten percent of the people
in Montana know and understand jury lawlessness, jury nullification. that's
one of the best things you can do, is teach people what it's about. when
you're called for jury duty, remember to play the dummy, because you'll be
bumped off the minute you start talking intelligently and asking questions and
such.

we talked about the state constitution, about the juries in the state of
Idaho, and we know that we have a right to a grand jury on each and every
charge if the penalty is one year and one day in jail, because that's an
infamous crime. check your state's constitution and see what your provision
is.

remember that the federal supreme court has said that in those states where
informations are lawful, they will not interfere. idaho is one of those
states, it can prosecute either by information or inditement by grand jury.
remember that the information is permission that you grant the state, so that
they can prosecute you WITHOUT a grand jury inditement. so while idaho is, in
fact, one of those states, it STILL REQUIRES YOUR PERMISSION. you check your
state constitution and see. if it has provision for informations, you've got a
major federal question that needs to be addressed, and set up right from the
scene of the crime.

then, the common law jury: it's a petit jury, it'll be either 6 or 12. now the
6-man jury started with the phoenicians, around 700 B.C. there are places and
various state constitutions that set up 6-man juries. Idaho is one of those.
That's when you're entering the court in equity, admiralty, maritime, probate,
whatever, but it's not common law, because a common law jury is twelve, and
it's the very definition in fact. when you walk in, always demand a 12-man
jury at the common law. keeping in mind, of course, that the traffic, tax,
etc., courts are not common law courts, and no freeman belongs in one of them.

once in a while, it can get humorous. i'll file a motion or two, they'll get
overruled, i'll demand a 12-man jury and the judge will say he'll give me six,
and i'll look around and go, "Where am i? Am I in the wrong room? Where do I
have to go to get common law?" The conversation will break down awfully fast
after that, but at least there'll be some humor in the courtroom. and remember
the golden rule: IF YOU'RE NOT HAVING FUN, YOU'RE NOT DOING IT RIGHT.

then in lesson 22, the last segment i talked about was jury instruction and i
want to wrap it up on this one. i hear all the time that our courts are so
unfair and are taking advantage of this. remember, if i've said it once, i've
said it a dozen times, and that's that it's not my position to argue whether
these things are good or bad. my position is that the way the court works
seems to be pretty good. i've had 33 cases so far, and i've won 33, and got 4
in litigation right now. my record in civil actions isn't so good at this
moment, but we've just begun to do civil actions specifically under Title 42
and trovers and that sort of thing. we've got two cases right now, one is a
writ of prohibition that bob halstrom has done that's before the federal
supreme court. it's the third one that i know of that's come out of our
school, because we helped some people in colorado file two writs of
prohibition. and there's a writ of prohibition that someone else told me
about, that's been sent to the supreme court. so we know of three or four that
are now before them. so whatever we're doing must be right, because we've got
those cases docketed in Washington. three of our students have cases docketed
before our state supreme court, and i just got my first case in five years of
doing this -- i've always been sandbagged at the district court level, but i
finally got one docketed before the state supreme court. we know our procedure
is correct, and so is our strategy. and we know that no student who has
graduated from the school has yet been defeated. deafeat could only come at
the hands of the federal supreme court when they refuse the appeal or rule
against us, and this hasn't happened yet.

[tape ends prematurely]

**

[The most recent batch of the best of the best. With this installment, we've
covered all the captured messages in the archives. I still have unposted
files, however.]

   91Nov21 2:32 am from Roadkill @ Beach _ MI

   Here are my results of 15 minutes of research on the land patent thingie 
(don't you just love technical jargon?!).  I want you to shove them, Buddy, 
down Mr. Appleman's throat.  Now you must do this politely--never say anything 
you aren't immediately able to back up.  Merely point out that five-sevenths 
of Larry's argument collapsed upon the application of a quarter-hour in the 
law library.  It would take many times that to acquire an exhaustive knowledge 
of land patents, but this is a nice start. 

 Larry Appleman writes: 

 > Here's a list of cases rejecting "land patents": 
 > 
 > U.S. District Court, 7th Circuit:  Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (1986). 

 Patents may not override legitimate subsequent interests.  Glick, white male, 
claimed racial dicsrimination--damages were assessed for frivolity of using 
federal courts to uphold a rule against racial discrimination where it could
not apply. 

 > Illinois:  Britt v. Federal Land Bank Association of St. Louis, 505 N.E.2d 
 > 387, 153 Ill.App.3d 605 (1987). 

 An attempt to patent (gain fee simple title as a private person from the
government) after foreclosure proceedings had begun.  They wrote the patent
themselves.

 > Indiana:  Blair v. Emmert, 495 N.E.2d 769 (Ct. App. Ind., 1986). 

 Emmert wrote himself a declaration of land patent after his property had been 
sold for back taxes and used it as justification for a suit against the 
purchasers at the federal auction. 

 > Minnesota:  Leibfried Construction, Inc. v. Peters, 373 N.W.2d 651 (1985). 

 The people who wrote themselves patents occupied a house on a property with 
no lease or equitable interest.

 > Pennsylvania:  De Jong v. County of Chester, 510 A.2d 902, 98 Pa.Cmwlth. 
 > 85 (1986). 

 This appears to support him.  However, the facts stated within are limited,
and over the claim of allodial property; whether or not the property was 
removed from the township claims office is unknown. 

 > Washington:  Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Redwine, 755 P.2d 822, 51 
 > Wash.App. 766 (1988). 

 Again, an attempt to declare ownership AFTER foreclosure has already begun! 

 >  Wisconsin:  Chan v. Svee, 428 N.W.2d 562, 145 Wis.2d 897 (Ct. App. Wisc., 
 > 1988). 

 Unpublished here, and we don't get the Wisconsin Reporter. 

   91Dec05 3:20 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo
Roadkill @ Beach>> Wait a minute?  Are we netting again?  YES, we are! 

     Yay! Welcome back, everybody!  So, where were we when the net  went 
down?  Here, the issue all the legal eagles are researching is  "What 
constitutes a valid formal complaint sufficient to give a court 
jurisdiction?" 

     In California, a "Notice to Appear" (traffic ticket)  constitutes a 
"complaint to which the defendant _may_ enter a  plea..." (Cal. Vehicle Code 
40513).  However, the word "may" is  permissive, not mandatory, and if the 
defendant demands a formal  verified complaint, Penal Code sec. 853.9 and 
section 988 requires  that he be provided with one.  Cal. Rules of Court #501 
spells out the  requirements for "all complaints", yet we here have only been 
able to  come up with one or two instances where a proper complaint was 
filed.   In all other cases, fraudulent fake complaints are given to the 
defendant upon his request, and then because the public is generally 
ignorant about such matters, the defendants usually plead to the faked 
complaints, thus giving the court the jurisdiction it otherwise lacked  over 
the defendant.  Cal. Evidence Code sec. 1414 seems to have been  written just 
to support this charade: "A writing may be authenticated  by evidence that: 
(a) The party against whom it is offered has at any  time admitted its 
authenticity; or (b) The writing has been acted upon  as authentic by the 
party against whom it has been offered." 

     The tendency for sheeple to be afraid of incurring the judge's  wrath 
for daring to challenge the official looking but fake documents  leads them 
into making the fatal error of "acting upon as authentic"  the fake 
complaint, and entering a plea to it, thus in that fatal  moment making it 
authentic by their own action.  From that moment on,  their fate is in the 
hands of an equally ignorant jury, so all efforts  must be made to either get 
a valid formal complaint (which is usually  impossible since few people want 
to commit perjury) or to quash the  service of summons upon the grounds of 
the lack of jurisdiction of the  court over the defendant.  You will all 
agree that the vast majority  of the victims of the Law Enforcement Growth 
Industry have no idea of  any of this, and that this is one reason why the 
courts have turned  from being Halls of Justice to being Revenue Mills for an 
increasingly  bankrupt political machinery. 

     Comments? 

   92Dec13 6:17 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo
b0b>> Since you have *no* experience with the rules that social workers apply 
to their cases, you are totally unqualified to discuss the subject. Following 
people in supermarket parking lots is hardly a good way to get a balanced look 
at the governments' social service programs!<<

   I'm not even attempting to discuss the rules that social workers apply to
their cases.  You don't understand the tax laws, and yet you feel it necessary
to pay an excise tax upon the activities you engage in.  Just as you can pay
taxes I don't think you owe, I could get aid you don't think I qualify for,
IF I wanted to waive the rights necessary to do it.  The only thing preventing
me from getting aid from Big Brother is the lack of my signature on the required
contracts.   Glad I never said "balanced look".  All I was doing was getting a
look at the standard of living that YOU call "needy".  Now - before you jump
all over me for putting words in your mouth, let me explain that last remark.
You refuse to define "needy" objectively, but you did allege that aid is for
the needy, not for the "capable", so I can assume that any food stamp
recipient I see (or at least the majority of them) would fit your definition
of "needy".  What I see at Food-4-Less is that many, many of these "needy"
have a higher living standard than I do, by far.  And yet, I don't consider
myself so needy that I stoop to feeding off my neighbors, unless they
voluntarily offer me charity. I'd feel terrible if their property was coerced
from them for my benefit.

b0b>> Moreover, since paying into that system is a voluntary act (according to
things you've posted in the past), why does all of this matter to you at 
all?<<

   Because "my people perish for lack of knowledge".  The fact that it 
is voluntary has been hidden from them (if not outright lied about), and many 
who have failed to volunteer have been victimized because they were ignorant.  
Your pet schemes are ruining my country and my ability to enjoy Life, Liberty, 
and the Pursuit of Happiness.  A look at the former Soviet Union shows the end 
results of unrealistic socialist programs.  I watched a rebroadcast of their 
evening news on CNN the other night.  The people over there have grown so 
dependent upon government that they cannot conceive of life without it.  In 
the particular story I was watching, people who wanted to fly out on Aeroflot 
couldn't understand that there were not enough functioning aircraft to 
maintain the published schedules.  There were no more spare engines.  But they 
couldn't understand that someone had to pay for all those things they had been 
getting for free from the government, and of course, when the government fell, 
no one stepped forward to fund the state airline.  So what did the people do?  
They went out and sat down on the freezing cold runway! Pathetic!  And people 
think that our country can't go the same way as the Soviets!  Just the other 
day, the FDIC (Fraudulent Deceptive Instillers of Confidence) announced that 
they could not pay as promised if one more major bank failed!  I hope that 
stops one more major bank from failing!! Hahahahaha!  Forgive me for laughing 
- it's not really funny.

   92Apr18 2:08 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo
Nombrist Beor>> Is there any way that two sovereigns can make any sort of 
contract involving the transfer of property across State lines without 
getting involved in Commerce?<<

   Well, the owner of the property could certainly transport and deliver his 
own property, and accept substance for it.

Nombrist Beor>> Attempt #3 (still ongoing): Suddenly, out of the blue, a man 
walks up to me and says, "Buddy. You got it all wrong. This is still a 
lawful society, you just gotta know the rules well enough to force everyone 
to play fair. Here, I'll explain some of the basics to you and give you some 
suggestions on where they hide the manuals for the game." FF, guess who that 
was?<<

   Uh,...Lynn Johnston??  I heard she was 19 when she started writing her 
book...  She was one of my great inspirations, if not the greatest. It was 
she who motivated me to take my first steps.  She's from your state, you 
know.  

   I've been recently discovering just how lawless this society really is.  
The people are lawless, having been trained to be so.  The government is 
lawless, because it finds that the people are asleep and don't notice and 
don't care.  Still, before guns are resorted to, I think we should at least 
be able to say that we TRIED to use the courts, according to the Law.  But 
now there are so many corrupt judges, and ignorant juries, that even that 
route has its problems.  What's a mother to do?  Where else can you go where 
you have the chances you have here?  All the people of the other countries 
KNOW that they are subservient to their governments. At least here the law 
is on our side, and as they say, a pendulum eventually swings back the other 
way.  I'm willing to try to hold out for my rights here.  If enough people 
do the same, we'll have them, since we can't ALL fit in the prisons, jails, 
and labor camps.

NB>> Result #3: I have most of the instructions for the game now, but a lot 
of the instructions are vague (at least to me). So now I'm in the process of 
picking up all the hints books that I can find whenever I can afford them so 
that I will hopefully become a master game player.<<

   We are all still learning.  No one can know it all.  Remember that.  Not 
even the judges, and especially not the prosecutors.  For a guy your age, 
you're WAY out ahead of the pack.  Keep reading, and learning, and fighting.

NB>> So far, I still haven't even asked to be dealt a hand from a new deck 
yet because the stakes are REALLY high. I want to make absolutely sure that 
I will at least break even, if I don't win my first hand. I've seen a lot of 
people go to the table already and end up losing.<<

    Start with little things first.  My first case, taken through to appeal, 
was over a $14 dog license.  I won on a writ of mandate when the judge 
wouldn't follow the appellate rules.  The writ commanded the judge to either 
follow the rules (too embarassing at the time) or dismiss the original 
charges on which I was convicted.  Up until then, I didn't even know that 
the charges could be dismissed by the trial court AFTER conviction.  I still 
haven't found where that's possible in the books, but it happened.

    A little girl (she was about 4'6" tall, 20 years old) was the FIRST 
person to EVER appeal a traffic ticket in our county.  The judge entered a 
GUILTY PLEA for her, over her objection, and therefore, on the basis of the 
plea THAT HE ENTERED, found her guilty and sentenced her right there on the 
spot.  Appeal time.  They dismissed those charges too, before the appeal ran 
its course.

    Of course, you're always better off avoiding court.  I used to try to 
get tickets just to get the courtroom experience, but now I work on avoiding 
court when possible.  Pre-trial procedures are now my area of interest.

NB>> I don't have enough money right now even to be able to bribe one of the 
masters or even pay their drinks for them to tutor me through a single game 
yet, so I'm just sitting on the side lines, working as a Cabana boy or the 
bus boy and watching everything and picking through the trash they leave 
behind. Needless to say, it's not a job I enjoy, or even an enviable one, 
but it does get results. I have the patience to wait a very long time if I 
have to. When I feel that I am competent, I'll start by asking someone else 
to deal me into a hand just for fun, or play at one of the very low stakes 
tables. Then if my skills are what they should be, I will save up enough to 
play not just one, but several games at one of the highest tables in the 
room. If I lose, I'll just have to quit my job and go find work elsewhere. 
If I win, I'll rent out the Presidential Suite, invite the people I met to a 
party, and maybe, if I am feeling bored, I'll throw the table scraps to the 
dealers and the dirty card sharks in the alley.<<

    Someday we'll discuss all this over margaritas on the beach of some 
tropical island, with the trip paid for by the winnings from a lawsuit over 
deprivation of rights under color of law.  Whoever is first to win such a 
suit will buy the drinks and the airline tickets...

Jim Bianchi>> Froggy... ths oaths thing has really got me thinking. If no 
state official since 19xx has sworn a proper oath, then doesn't that 
invalidate every state law and ordinance enacted by those officials since 
that date? And, as if that weren't enough, HOW can anyone's trial and 
punishment be legal if the JUDGES THEMSELVES haven't sworn a proper oath?
     Until this situation is resolved, I feel that THIS should be the 
defense of choice -- "MISTER xxxx, you have no authority to HEAR this case, 
which is based on a totally NON-EXISTANT law. Now I'm going to go home and 
play with the mother of my children. When it is shown that I have failed to 
obey a LEGAL ORDINANCE, and that my case will be heard by a LEGALLY SWORN 
judge, call me.."<<

    I agree, Jimbo.  You always want to make sure you know who you're 
talking to, right?  Makes sense to ask him (whoever it is) "Before entering 
upon your official duties, did you take the oath of office required by the 
Constitution of the State of California?", and if he says "yes" then you can 
compare the oath he took (certified copies are available) with the 
Constitution to see if he is lying or not.  Last week we watched the whole 
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors lie in answer to that question.  
Actually, the chairman lied for all the others, who carefully aquiesced in 
the lie by remaining silent.  Their counsel was speechless - it was obvious 
that it was the first time he'd ever heard of this issue, and he had no 
ready response.  He left the room and came back with his constitution book, 
and kept comparing the oaths they took with it for at least 5 minutes. We 
have this all on videotape.

    A point raised by Neat Pete was that if they didn't take the required 
oath, and didn't even know it, then that's evidence that they never even 
read the Constitution, the provisions of which it is their job to uphold.  
The question must be asked, if they are incompetent to fulfill their first 
job (taking the required oath), what makes them think that they are 
competent to perform any other duty?

Jim Bianchi>> Re: oaths.. On the other hand, if no judges were legally sworn 
in, to whom would you present a writ of habeas corpus to get your bod out of 
gaol should you be thrown in? (Esp if the reason you were there in the first 
place was incident to the fact that no legal oaths had been sworn.)<<

   Well, in my case, if I thought I had a friendly judge impersonator in my 
pocket (and I think I do) I'd enclose a copy of the oath, and ask that the 
would-be judge sign it before signing my writ.  Or, I could always go to a 
federal judge, but I like handling my affairs with my home boys.  After all, 
this is where I live and we all have to get along with our neighbors, now 
don't we?? I don't like to call feds into anything - heck, THEY may have 
taken the proper oath and still might be willing to commit treason, whereas 
our homeboys, not having taken their oaths yet, are only guilty of 
impersonating an officer.  You know, all the times I've ever tried to get 
one of 'em to fill out one of my Public Servant Questionairres, none of 'em 
have been willing to do so and claim to be an officer of the law on paper.  
That's saying something for them.  Of course, not being willing to identify 
themselves as officers, they always let me go.  With that in mind, I'm not 
too worried about ever having to use a writ of habeas corpus.

   Another consideration is: WHY would I want to be gotten out of jail so 
fast?  After I'm in there for over 7 days illegally, each day is worth about 
$50,000 in my civil suit.  And the longer I'm in, the more names I'm taking, 
and the more rights violations I might be able to rack up on the score 
sheet.  If they ever make the mistake of illegally putting me in jail, 
they're gonna hafta KICK ME OUT!

   How else am I gonna be able to afford to sit on the beach drinking 
margaritas in Jamaica with all my Frog Farm buddies??

MR>> Does anybody know what the legal standing is of a vehicle that has been 
"junked"?? I mean, let's say I find a truck I'm interested in purchasing.  
This truck isn't currently running, but it has been registered and the state 
does have an interest in it.  Now, what I'm wondering about is what happens 
when you go down to the DMV, turn in the "pink slip" ownership papers and 
the license plates in exchange for a "junk slip"??<<

   I really haven't checked it out.

MR>> I'm curious about the legal matters of ownership that may apply if I 
were to use the frame of this vehicle to build another car.  What if I use 
the frame and the body and just build up a new engine for it?  Can I then 
create an MSO for the vehicle and claim I built it?  If it is the frame of 
the vehicle that has the identification numbers on it...maybe I can have a 
custom frame welded and use the body parts to build the car/truck?  Where 
would the line be drawn?<<

   I've *heard* (in discussion with other folks) that any vehicle that was 
CREATED within the corporate establishment falls under the state's 
jurisdiction, but Bruce McCarthy has already disproved that.  I'm not
really concerned with that aspect of the issue right now.  I'm currently 
driving a vehicle that belongs to someone else, and is registered (my own 
car's engine needs rebuilding.)  Still, I'm not worried about getting 
"caught" because I have a few other issues that need exploration, such as:

    1. Can a policeman really create a valid complaint, without an injury
       being done to one of the State's own citizens?  I don't think so.

    2. Since no official of the State of California has taken the oath
       required by the State Constitution, WHO is going to prosecute me?
       I'm living in a territory with no valid republican form of 
       government, and no one pretending to be an officer is really 
       capacitated.

    3. According to Penal code section 145, it's a misdemeanor for an 
       officer to refuse to take me DIRECTLY to a magistrate for an 
       "examination".  I don't think the officer will be able to pass my 
       examination.

MR>> Does anybody know where I might research this?  The book by Bruce 
McCarthy is my starting point...  I really need to figure out a way to get 
some transportation, and I can't afford to go out and purchase a new vehicle 
from a dealer, so...<<

    Why don't you obtain a $300 "classic" like George drives?  Then, if they 
steal it from you, it'll cost them more than it'll cost you.

   92Apr19 9:08 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo
MR>> The bailiff moved over behind him, pulled out his cuffs, and began to 
play with the cuffs while the defendant was talking with the judge.  He was 
really making a disturbance moving the arm of the cuff all the way around 
and slowly clicking it through the lock and around again.  He asked the 
judge 3 or 4 times, "Can I cuff him now?"  The judge was getting disturbed 
and everyone in the courtroom was looking around at each other.  Nobody 
could believe this cop was being such a jerk.  The judge made up a deal (was 
paying more attention to the jerkoff cop) and the defendant signed some 
papers, probably promising to pay and was let go.  I can't believe this cop, 
though...just the look on his face...sheesh.<<

    You have to learn to pretend the bailiffs aren't there.  I ignore them 
to the degree that, for me, they ARE not there.  One time, as I was yelling 
at the top of my voice in order to be heard over the judge who kept 
interrupting me, two bailiffs moved to either side of me and were about to 
each grab one of my arms.  I didn't know that until my friends who went with 
me told me about it later.  I was blanking them out of my consciousness so 
they couldn't distract me from what I was doing, which is one of their 
games.  Ignore the bailiffs - they have no effect on the outcome of any 
hearing; they're irrelevent.

   92Apr28 11:26 am from frog farmer @ Garbanzo
b0b>> No, but the documents Frog Farmer described were all less than 20 
pages in length.  Hardly comparable to a set of encyclopedias.  Do you know
anyone who would be willing to pay a buck a page for an encyclopedia?<<

    First of all, your statement is blatantly incorrect.  Six of the
documents were OVER 20 pages - some were two and three times that. Five of 
the documents (less than half of them) were UNDER 20 pages.  You may think 
I'm splitting hairs here, but this is the kind of misunderstanding that 
makes papers such as these necessary.  You saying that they "were all less 
than 20 pages" is the same kind of misunderstanding (or faulty perception) 
that might lead someone to conclude that "all drivers must be licensed" or 
that "everyone must pay income tax".

    People often do, in this local area at least, pay attorneys around 75 
bux per page for legal papers of the type advertised (papers to be filed in 
court). Paralegals usually get around 20-40 bux per page.  I think if you 
ask Mark Randall if he would have paid a dollar a page to have 50 sheets of 
8.5" x 11" paper that would have won his latest case for him, he'd have 
jumped at it.  A lot of time doing research and composition goes into the 
formation of effective legal papers, just like the same goes into the disks 
that contain your programming.  And just as you would never sell a disk of 
your programming to the public for the cost of copying the disk, many people 
who put hours into the formation of legal briefs also want some return on 
their investment of time and effort.

    On the other hand, most people would never pay what you ask for your 
programming, since they don't see the value in it, and might never use it.  
Just as many people figure they'll never need to defend themselves from the 
State, many people figure they'll never need a computer. The same probably 
applies to you and the documents that were offered.  Those who use these 
documents tend to be of the opinion that they should not be as "pearls cast 
before swine" - that they should only be used by serious people who will 
take the time to make sure that they are not misused.  I know that's how I 
feel about my own Constructive Notice which is less than 20 pages long.  
I've turned down offers of over 2 dollars per page for that document.

    Legal papers are weapons of self-defense.  Just like other weapons, many 
people can imagine no need for them.  Yet those who can see the need for a 
firearm, and how to use them, will pay much more than the cost of the raw 
materials involved, and much more than the cost of machining that goes into 
them.  There's a certain value to be had in being able to use them to 
produce the desired effect.  The documents offered at a total cost of under 
300FRNs ought to be able to save the purchaser many, many times that amount, 
IF they were to be used.  If they were to be purchased strictly for 
entertainment purposes, then I'd agree that more might be able to be 
obtained for your entertainment FRN.

   92Apr28 11:27 am from frog farmer @ Garbanzo
Last night I had the pleasure of being able to talk about the license issue 
on the Bill Wattenberg Show on KCBS radio.  Dr. Wattenberg, who is very 
knowledgeable on many issues, was totally in the dark about the driver's 
license.  He expressed the common belief that anyone who travels on the 
roadways is required to have a driver's license.  Even when I read him the 
quotation from the case of Thompson v. Smith, from the Supreme Court, his 
cognitive dissonance wouldn't let him believe it.  I told him of the cases I 
had won over the issue. I explained that the origin of the driver's license 
was the combination of the two pre-existing licenses for chauffeurs and 
commercial operators.  His disbelief made him overtly hostile to the idea 
that one could exercise rights in an auto on the highways.  He said that if 
he found out that what I had said was true, he would work hard to see that 
the law would be changed to remove any such right.  I quoted the Miranda 
case to him - "Where rights are involved, there can be no rule-making or 
legislation which would abrogate them".  He snapped back that "Miranda has 
nothing to do with it."  All he probably knows about Miranda is what he's 
seen on television cop shows.

After I went off the air, a caller from Oregon called to confirm what I had 
said to Bill, further explaining the commercial nature of the term "drive". 
Bill accused him of "hairsplitting" and stupidity.  By this time, Bill was 
so shaken that he rudely interrupted the caller, and proceeded to misquote 
me and twist my words, obviously ignoring what I had told him.  It seemed 
that Bill was trying to protect the public from knowledge by making me out 
to be some sort of "kook".  I really didn't expect anything different.  The 
media are the prime players used to keep the public asleep and oblivious to 
the truth.  In trying to prove myself and the Oregon caller wrong, he 
repeatedly asked "Just how many people are out traveling in this way without 
driver's licenses?"  Logic would indicate that the answer to that question 
could never be known, since such people DON'T REGISTER their activity.  Only 
the number of people WITH LICENSES could be accurately ascertained from 
state records.  For a Ph.D. like Dr. Wattenberg, asking a "stupid" question 
such as this, and for the purposes of refutation, was clear evidence of his 
bias and proof that he had an axe to grind, instead of being open-minded and 
receptive to new ideas as he should be.

My wife doesn't like Bill Wattenberg.  She thinks he acts like he always 
knows more about everything than anyone else, and that he always cuts people 
off when he doesn't agree with them.  My call was successful on two counts - 
he failed to stifle what I had to say, and he was left showing his 
ignorance.  To top it off, he failed to regain his composure for the 
remainder of his program.

   92Apr29 7:45 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo
Jim Bianchi>> Seems to me that when Mr. Wattenberg accused the caller from 
Oregon of "splitting hairs," he was correct -- only, when the STATE splits 
the same hairs in IT'S favor, this is not looked upon as being "stupid." If 
hair splitting it be, then it's obviously to your favor to split them in 
YOUR favor and not in anyone elses ..not even the states.<<

    The law regarding ambiguous laws states that any ambiguity is to be 
resolved AGAINST the government, since laws can be declared void for 
vagueness.

JB>> George Gordon, throughout his taped lectures, constantly reiterates one 
point -- that "if any case is worth my gov't prosecuting, it's worth my 
defending." And these legal beagles have all gone through at least four or 
six years of intensive law school, so it takes some learning for a non-law 
school  graduate to equal them. What price your freedom (if that is what is 
at stake)? It's admittedly not as easy as it was in past years -- the sheer 
accumulation of legislation and interpretations of them that have 
accumulated make up the greatest part of the law school curriculum, so there 
is a LOT to be caught up.<<

   Law school concentrates on STATUTORY LAW, and avoids Constitutional and 
the Common Law.  Of course, legislatures like to make new laws all the time, 
and hardly ever spend any time repealing old statutes.  But if you learn how 
to regain your status of freeman, what does the will of the legislature mean 
to you?  It only means something to those who struggle under it, those who 
are SUBJECTS of the legislature.  Howard Freeman was once told by a judge 
(as was George Gordon) that there really hasn't been much new LAW for a very 
long time.

JB>> Again, as Mr. Gordon says, "F. Lee Baily might be the one to get to 
handle a murder case, but for simple stuff, such as no DL or registation, I 
can handle that fine, thank you.."<<

   Yeah, NOW you say that, Jim!  You've taken the course!  Howzit feel now 
that you're more competent than 90% of all trial attorneys?  Any different?

   92Aug10 6:05 pm from Nombrist Beor @ Beach _ MI
I found court opinions where one of the parties was a Mr. George Gordon in the 
Pacific Reporter, in Ada county. Seems Mr. Gordon really teed off one 
particular judge who completely ignored Gordon's legal papers and sent him to 
the can and fined him in FRN's. 
 My original goal was to actually research this right to travel issue. 
 I ran into a FEW snags... 
 Now, I haven't researched this aspect, but the Secretary of State handles all 
driver's licensing matters, which may or may not be strictly a commercial 
aspect. This is a question that I still have to check, because the other 
things I checked into came up really strange. 
 The "Right to Travel" as defined in Corpus Juris Secundum and American 
Jurisprudence (or whatever the other legal encyclopaedia is) gives a lot of 
cases that I haven't started looking up yet, but both go off on a tangent and 
circumvent INTRASTATE travel and try to discuss interstate travel. 
 Now, this is all well and good, but they're defining travel as basically 
(from C.J.S) as: migration with the intent to settle and abide; ie, the right
to change your domicile. Excuse me? Is that not obvious? Well, most of the
cases stemming from that deal with whether or not states can require 1 year
residency for welfare benefits and such, which would make it hard for the poor
to move into a state. Obviously, Michigan is in no clear and present danger of
violating that!
 The second thing which really made me stand up and take notice was when I 
looked up the legal encyclopaedia for Michigan and it stated that Michigan's 
courts have never ruled on the issue as it refers to automobiles. 
 Third, while we're defining funny little unmentioned rights, Michigan's 
constitution is almost like an extension of the national constitution's 9th 
amendment:  
 Article 1, Section 23: "The enumeration in this constitution of certain 
rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the 
people." 
 ie, there's this big list and if your's ain't on it, you keep it. 
 Title 9, Section 19.2001+ (or is it 9.2001+? I don't have that material 
because I forgot it at a neighbors and now I have pink eye, so using a car is 
currently tricky to do since I don't normally drive or motor with glasses on). 
 is the section and it says that getting a driver's license is mandatory, and 
seems to contain none of FF's key words like "resident" and such. 
 The definitions in that same section are also not nice, and I do recall them 
claiming "residency and domicile are synonymous". Huh? Since when? This is why 
I was going to research the Secretary of State..he evidently is a 
commerce-only figure, and the whole section is evidently only related to 
commerce, but unburying THAT will take some time. 
 As far as my methods, I'm planning on writing to the Secretary of State and 
changing the assumptions regarding the whole matter. I have considered an 
affidavit of constructive fraud, but I don't know anything about that, so I'm 
not going to unless I learn more about it. 
 I will continue with my case citation problems next..pull out your copy of 
"drivers.txt" for a reference. 

 First off, I've only checked citations for which I can find Reporters at WMU
(didn't bother Kzoo court house yet), which limits me to Supreme Court, NE, 
NW, Pacific, Federal, and Federal Supplement. 
 This eliminates pretty much all of FF's California cases, because he didn't 
provide citations outside of Californian Reporters or the complete citations 
into the Pacific Reporter (reading the Pacific one is interesting..they have 
illustrations, photos, and such actually in it..much higher quality and better 
written decisions than the others). 
 First comes Richmond Baking Co. v. Department of Treasury, 18 NE 2d 788. This 
case involved the bakery which had delivery trucks not only in Ohio, but 
extending into Indiana (or was it the other way around? not really 
important..only shows interstate traffic occuring). The owner seemed to be 
pretty irate about the tax, but admitted that some things which apply to 
commercial vehicles do not apply to others. His argument also included the 
idea that non-commercial trucks did not get taxed but commercial ones did. The 
tax itself was a motor vehicle weight tax. 
 The judge struck down his arguments because the owner himself admitted that 
there was a difference between the commercial and noncommercial arena. This, 
we get FF's quotation: 
  "Users of the highway for transportation of persons and property for 
 hire may be subjected to special regulations not applicable to those 
 using the highway for public purposes." - Richmond Baking co. v. 
 Department of Treasury 18 N.E. 2d 788 
 
 Next on the list is Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co. This is one that I 
definitely want a copy of because it is referenced more than once in several 
others casees I found. Unfortunately, it's in the South. 
 The actual license cases I didn't check up on because those were part of the 
more overall "commerce v. rights" issue, while I was only researching the 
fundamental right to travel issue directly. 
 "Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not 
 a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees 
 of Federal and State constitutions." - Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 
 P2d 46 
 
 This one wreaked havoc with the rest of the research. 
 On the face of it, Adams v. City of Pocatello is practically the definition 
of the Right of Travel I was looking for. The plaintiff had his driver's 
license suspended because he didn't pay a bond to satisfy their insurance 
scheme, and had been arrested 3 more times for driving on a suspended license. 
 The funny part is that the first paragraph of the judge's declaration of "the 
way things are" is just that. But the next paragraph states that 
 "The right of a citizen to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets 
and highways, is subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the exercise 
of its police power." 
 Next, he vindicates the insurance scheme since it protects the public against 
reckless and careless driver's. Needless to say, this one is also not quite 
what FF was talking about. It gets worse, though, because after looking for 
similar cases via Shephard's, another case claimed that one should carry and 
be able to produce proof of said insurance or bond. Another vindicated the 55 
mph speed limit for the environmentalist wacko line used to reduce it to 55 
back in the 70's. 
 Now, the interesting part is that George Gordon referenced this particular 
case, and quoted it, too, and all the other claims of "freeman" (the judge 
quoted it, too). The judge basically lumped most of it together and said that 
essentially George Gordon was full of it. 
 There was another similar case where George was suing a towing company to get 
back his 200 FRN clunkers. It seems that he just demanded his property back, 
but they asked that he prove that he owned them. My best guess is that he just 
bought them from someone else but didn't get rid of the state's interest in 
them, so the state returned them to the "registered owners". 
 So much for direct cases, except in the case of Slusher. 
 Now, since this right has been at least recognized (and references are given 
for it in Adams v. City of Pocatello), and there are some others still to 
check up on, it isn't a hopeless situation. 
 What's more, the Callaghan's reference is pretty blatant about the right not 
being infringed and being virtually unlimited, if it wasn't for all the 
Callaghans references deal with changing one's domicile pretty much. 
 A right is different from a privilege. That is the one remaining, though 
esoteric, issue. The fact that the Michigan Constitution may be different from 
those in some of the other cases may be the material I need to cement this 
particular line of reasoning together. 
 So, right to travel isn't hopeless yet. Oh, and I'm of course going to write 
George Gordon and Frog Farmer and ask them, simply, "What's up? Your 
references seem to be full of holes, so far." 

   92Aug11 5:27 am from Tom o' Bedlam @ Beach _ MI
  Congratulations, Nombrist, you've come to the same conclusion I came to when 
I looked up those cases, only you took the time to post what you found.  It 
does seem like they excerpted those lines for a sales brochure, doesn't it? 

  Incidentally, the 1963 Constitution also "equalizes" the terms resident and 
citizen. 

   92Aug11 6:25 pm from Nombrist Beor @ Beach _ MI
Tom: I didn't research all the "rights can't be converted to privileges or 
subject to government whim" issue, but this is a way I can see to "rescue" 
cases like Adams v. Pocatello.. 
 When you find something that doesn't fit the "norm", you have to show why it 
is not the same as your case, right? Well, if we can find the other state 
constitutions involved, we should be able to show that they don't gaurantee 
rights like Michigan does? 
 Just a thought, but I think we've all been tripping over each other and 
really need to set up a date/time to meet regularly EVERY WEEK or at least 
biweekly, but that has the disadvantage that people forget which week it is, 
etc., etc. 
 Now, you got to admit, we have learned a few useful things, like forcing 
either self dismissal or recusal of a judge when he starts acting like a party 
to a case? (summary)... 
 "What is your name, boy?" 
 "Sir, are you asking me my name because you are attempting to enter evidence 
onto the record?" 
 "How do you plead, boy?" 
 "Sir, since I don't understand the issue, because you won't let me have 
counsel of my choice, and because no counsel you will let me have is adequate, 
I can't plead." 
 "Fine boy, I'll enter not guilty for you." 
 "Oh, sir, are you going to be my lawyer? Because if you are, I'm happy 
because you obviously understand the issue and can explain it to me and if 
you're not, you're still going to have to immediately disqualify yourself 
because you have now admitted on the record that you're either beholden to or 
a member of the accused party." 
 "Are you going to swear to tell the truth or not?" 
 "I don't know sir, are you throwing me into the dungeon because I'm lying 
when I'm telling you that I'm a pathological liar or are you throwing me into 
the dungeon because I'm telling you the truth when I'm telling you that I'm a 
liar or are you throwing me into the dungeon because I'm lying about telling 
you the truth that I'm lying when I tell you that I'm a pathological liar?" 

 Needless to say, making a judge behave is not as difficult as I once thought
it was. The only irritation is those annoying (and VERY thick and muddied)
contempt charges.

   92Aug31 5:23 am from Tom o' Bedlam
 Actually, there is something worth looking up.  While common law and equity 
have been merged under the Michigan Constitution (and have been since 1850), 
"substantive differences remain"  Brown v. Kalamazoo Circuit Court Judge. 
  If we go looking for these "substantive differences," we may be pleasantly 
surprised. 

   92Sep01 3:49 pm from Nombrist Beor @ Beach _ MI
Tom: They were not able to abolish the substance of the differences between 
equity and common law, only the forms. You no longer have to go through the 
plea/demurrer route, but can use the other simplified forms available under 
Equity. 
 It does have major advantages. For instance, remember the way that you 
notarize something under common law? Either track down a couple witnesses or a 
notary public. In Federal equity, you need only sign it with the proper prayer. 
 I've already seen this a lot of times, and I know the difference was 
mentioned in the Frog Farm database (substantive vs. forms) before. 

   92Sep01 3:57 pm from Nombrist Beor @ Beach _ MI
On Right to Travel: 
 The Michigan courts were challenged on the no-fault insurance issue before. 
See Callaghan's under Constitutional law (Right to Travel). The issue of the 
right to travel was brought up, but in that case, the judge was unwilling to 
enlarge the right to travel to include mere locomotion. Now, when you check 
CJS and the other encyclopaedia, they do mention that in one case, it was also 
spread to include the right to free movement or locomotion. 

**

[I'll be looking up a more complete citation of this case, as I have a hunch
it may provide some good quotes for the FAQ.]

HEADING: Constitutional Rights and War

Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace 2 (1866)

> Milligan, who was not and never had been in the military service of the
>United States, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged by a
>military commission established under Presidential authority. The
>sentence was approved by the President. In a proceeding for a writ of
>habeas corpus Milligan contended the commission had no jurisdiction
>over him and that he was not accorded a jury trial.

QUESTION: Did the military tribunal have any legal power and authority to
try and punish this man?

DECISION: No.

REASONING: The court stated that every trial involves the exercise of judicial
power. No part of the judicial power of the country was conferred on the
military commission because the Constitution expressly vests it "in one
supreme court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to
time establish." The military cannot justify action on the mandate of the
President because he is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of
duty, which is to execute, not make, the laws. The Court stated that in times
of grave emergencies the Constitution allows the government to make arrests
without a writ of habeas corpus but it goes no further; that is, that the
citizen might be tried otherwise than by the course of the common law. The
court further stated that martial law can only be applied when there is real
necessity, such as during an invasion that would effectually close the courts
and civil administration. However, as long as the civil courts are operating,
as they were in this case, then the accused is entitled to a civil trial by
jury.
  "The Constitution...is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in
peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all
times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious
consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its
provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

CORROLLARY CASES: Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1; In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1;
                  Duncan v, Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304; Korematsu v. U.S.,
                  323 U.S. 214; Hirabayashi v. U.S., 320 U.S. 81; Ex parte
                  Endo, 323 U.S. 283; Ex parte Merryman, 17 Fed. Cas. No.
                  9487; U.S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11

**

[This, and every other book by James Dunnigan, fits all my requirements for
being a great book by being both entertaining and informative. This is the
first time I've ever departed seriously from the primary focus of the mailing
list, and I debated with myself whether to include it or not...for about five
seconds.]

 A few excerpts from _Dirty Little Secrets: Military Information You're Not
Supposed To Know_, by James F. Dunnigan and Albert A. Nofi:

 - No Modernization Necessary: The bicycle currently in use by the Swiss Army
is the same model introduced in 1905.

 - What Am I Bid For This Fine T-62?: One day, while on maneuvers in
Czechoslovakia, a Russian tank crew got lost. Wandering around, they soon came
upon a country inn. Having no money for drinks, they cleverly sold their tank
to the innkeeper for as much booze as they could drink and carry. They were
eventually caught, while sleeping it off. The tank was recovered, hidden
behind the inn, before it could be cut up for scrap and parts.

 - Which Way Is North?: A study conducted by the U.S. Army some years ago
concluded that, regardless of how intelligent or well educated they were,
about 25 percent of the troops involved were incapable of being taught to
understand a map.

 - Asleep At The Wheel: The U.S. M-1 tank is a marvelous, and quite effective,
combat vehicle, but it does have its shortcomings. One of the least talked-
about flaws is the tendency of the drivers to fall asleep. This is due to the
design of the driver's seat, which has him in a reclining, and apparently very
comfortable, position.

 - The Not-So-Insignificant Fuze: Fuzes have long been rather simple and
inexpensive components of warheads. The primary function of fuzes is to sense
when the warhead has struck something and then to quickly detonate the
warhead's explosive charge. During World War II, fuzes began to get very
expensive, particularly with the development of the "proximity" fuze, which
had a miniature internal radar that sensed when it was close to a target and
then detonated the warhead, making a near-miss a hit. Since that time, these
fuzes have become more elaborate still. Current examples of this type are
found in the U.S. Army's Patriot surface-to-air missile. Each fuze for the
Patriot costs $26,000.

 - Everybody Wants To Get In On The Act: Russian sources claim that in the two
years after Mattias Rust landed his little airplane in Red Square, violations
of Soviet airspace had risen markedly, occasionally to as many as fifty a
month.

 - Flying Lessons: NATO intelligence units regularly monitor radio activity in
East Germany. One day a Russian Air Force general flying a MiG-23 was heard
carrying on a heated conversation as his aircraft attempted to land in bad
weather. The MiG began to have mechanical problems, and the general began
getting angry. As he came in lower, the cockpit warning system began to
announce, in a taped feminine voice, that various systems were broken, and
suggested alternative procedures. The general was really pissed off at this
point, and as he crashed, his last words were, "Shut up, you whore, don't try
and tell me how to fly an airplane."

 - Ah, That's Much Better: Nerve gas is a deadly weapon, often incapacitating
or killing its victims within seconds. To date, the most effective antidote
is Atropine. This was distributed to the troops in the form of a syringe.
Within seconds of being hit, the troops had to plunge the syringe into a large
muscle, usually in the leg. Unfortunately, there are many different flavors of
nerve gas, and Atropine is not equally successful with all of them. Moreover,
soldiers can become quite sick if they administer Atropine when they are not
actually hit by nerve gas. To overcome these problems, the Atropine formula is
constantly being changed. One of the more successful has added Valium to the
syringe. You may not feel better, but it will calm you down.

 - The Sukhomlinov Effect: Military historians have an amusing rule of thumb
for determining which army is most likely to win a war, the "Sukhomlinov
Effect". Named after General Vladimir Sukhomlinov, the imperial Russian
minister of war at the start of World War I, this "rule" holds that in any
given conflict the loser is most likely to be the side whose generals wear the
better uniforms. Sukhomlinov himself was perhaps the most splendidly outfitted
general in this century, with gold braid embroidery down to his knees.
Consider the lessons of history: The barbarian invasions, the Dutch War for
Independence, the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French
Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War, World War I, the
Russian Revolution, World War II, the several Arab-Israeli wars, the Vietnam
War, and the Afghan War were all lost by the side that had the snappier
uniforms.
 Though the suggestion of a "law" at work is perhaps a bit facetious, there is
more than a coincidence here. Particularly in peacetime, armies tend to
concern themselves more with appearances and style than with fighting skill,
which cannot, after all, be demonstrated. Men who "look" like generals --
tall, ruggedly handsome guys with broad shoulders and splendid posture who
wear the uniform well -- are more likely to be promoted than those who may
have a real talent for war, since the latter may not meet the peacetime
criteria. Although lots of fine commanders have been short, fat and slovenly,
they had to wait around for a war before they could prove themselves. There is
no known way to pick the able generals in peacetime. As a result, despite a
few notable exceptions, the generals who command at the onset of a war are
rarely still in charge by its conclusion.

 - From The People Who Brought You "Protective Reaction": The U.S. Army has
recently been detected avoiding the use of the word "combat", preferring the
euphemism "violence processing". In a similar vein, the New Action Army does
not "attack" targets, it "services" them. You might think of the army as the
ultimate service industry.

 - Rules We Kill By: The Geneva Convention, a series of agreements dating back
to before World War I attempting to "humanize" warfare, contains a number of
prohibitions. You aren't supposed to kill prisoners, yet this is routinely
done when there is no way to guard them, an action that the convention
suggests may be permissible. Bullets that fragment after entering a soldier
are forbidden, but most weapons in use today do just that at the normal short
combat ranges. The most curious prohibition is that of shotguns. These were
great favorites during World War I trench fighting. During the Vietnam War,
soldiers at the lead of a patrol customarily carried a shotgun, and no other
weapon was more effective in fending off an unseen ambusher. The people who
drafted the Geneva Convention were of good heart, but they should have studied
their history. Several hundred years earlier, the then-more-influential Roman
Catholic Church attempted to ban the use of the crossbow. This met with much
resistance, so the prohibition was lifted as long as the crossbow was only
used against non-Christians. That didn't work, either.

 - The Empire Is Secure: The British recently obtained a century's supply of
one of their most critically important strategic materials when they purchased
from China twenty kilograms of yak hair, which will be dyed scarlet in order
to provide the plumes for officers of Her Majesty's Foot Guards.

 - Gas Guzzlers: Modern tanks with gas-turbine engines use about as much fuel
standing still as when they are moving. Tanks spend most of their time
stationary when operating. Successful tankers have found that it's safer to
wait for someone else to move into their gun sights.

 - Bill It To Your Grandchildren: Fully 125 years after Appomattox, federal
pensions are being paid to about a dozen widows of Civil War veterans -- all
of whom had been involved in May-December marriages in the early part of this
century -- including the widows of former Confederate veterans, eligible under
an act of 1959, who are in some cases also collecting pensions from states of
the soi-distant Confederacy. Another few dozen pensions are being paid to
surviving children of Civil War veterans. If the Civil War pattern holds true
for subsequent conflicts, the last Spanish War pensions will probably be paid
out sometime around 2030. Similarly, World War I will still be costing the
taxpayers money until about 2050; World War II until about 2075; Korea until
about 2080, and the Vietnam War until sometime around 2110. The pension burden
for the current "peacetime" armed forces will not run out until at least 2125,
given the gradual increase in life expectancy.

 - Don't Overlook The Footnotes: The official Defense Department recipe and
specifications for making, packaging and storing fruitcake are eighteen pages
long. In a similar vein, the specifications for chewing gum are fifteen pages.
On the other hand, the specs for condoms are only thirteen pages.

 - Foreign Aid: While most Americans generally think Uncle Sam spreads their
money around pretty generously, over the last decade or so over 50 percent of
American military aid to foreign powers has gone to just two countries, Egypt
and Israel, who, along with Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and Pakistan also account for
about 75 percent of U.S. sales of arms.

 - The Civilianization of War: An ominous trend in twentieth-century warfare
is the increasing proportion of deaths among noncombatants. In World War I,
the ratio of deaths among military personnel to those among civilians was
about 20:1, a figure that fell to 1:1 during World War II, to 1:5 in the
Korean War, and to 1:13 in Vietnam, a ratio that may be even worse for the
Afghanistan War. A future nuclear war would see this trend spiral upward, with
hundreds of civilian deaths for each military one.

 - Warrior Is To War: In most languages, the word for "warrior" is derived
from the word for "war", implying that the latter necessitates the existence
of the former. Thus, of course, there is the English "warrior" from "war", the
German "krieger" from "krieg", and the Romance "guerrero" from "guerra". In
Russian, however, the reverse is true. The word for war, "voyna", derives from
the word for warrior, "voin", the linguistic implication being that since we
have warriors, we might as well have a war.

 - Thanks, But No Thanks: When then-Chief Justice Warren Burger was notified
that a place had been reserved for him in the government's secret underground
fallout shelter, situated in the foothills of the Appalachians some miles west
of Washington, he inquired as to what arrangements had been made for his wife.
Learning that she was "nonessential" to national recovery from a nuclear war,
the Chief Justice notified the appropriate authorities that so was he.

 - Tradition Pays Off: Tradition is widely considered one of the things that
keeps a military force going. As a result, most armies pay at least lip
service to traditional ceremonies, uniforms and music. In one army, this has
also proved to be rather profitable. The former East German army was, in
drill, ceremony and music, something of a reincarnation of the Imperial German
and Royal Prussian Armies. Indeed, the army band is so skillful in the
reproduction of traditional Prussian and German military music that it has cut
a number of records, which are sold to military buffs in the West. And by some
accounts, the band once also held a recording session behind closed doors, so
that it could cash in on sales to Neo-Nazis as well.

 - One Might Say There's A Pattern Here: In 1984, the University of Oslo and
the Norwegian Academy of Sciences calculated that since 3600 B.C., there had
been 14,351 wars resulting in 3,600 million deaths. Peace prevailed for only
292 years of the 5,584 studied -- about 5 percent of the time. These rare
instances of peace are probably due to inadequate historical records.

 "There never was a good war, nor a bad peace."
   - Benjamin Franklin

**