NEW JERSEY MILITIA NEWSLETTER

Volume IV, Issue No. VI A monthly newsletter December, 1998

A VICTORY FOR FIJA

The message of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) may be making inroads into the American way of thinking concerning the juror's role in trials. The AP reported that "Most Americans eligible to serve on a jury say they would act on their own beliefs of right and wrong regardless of legal instructions from the judge."

The article reported that three out of four jurors agreed with the statement: "Whatever a judge says the law is, jurors should do what they believe is the right thing."

"A seems to me we have more sophisticated court watchers these days so that everybody has access to lawyer programs and lawyer commentary," said Myma Raeder of the American Bar Association. She also said that "...people might answer differently If they recognized they would be violating their oaths as jurors."

If the "oath of a juror" means swearing undying loyalty to the judge's instruction—and biases—the defendant has a real problem. The true purpose of our jury system is to allow each of us to take turns protecting one another from draconian legislation and judges who believe they're above the law. The jury system allows us to hold the ultimate seat of power in the U.S. The legislative and judicial branches of government must receive our permission to execute their laws. If jurors swear to follow the judge's instructions, then the judge has usurped that power. And the "palladium of liberty", as Jefferson called our jury system, is lost

Note: if you would like to help inform potential jurors about their true duty (to judge both the law and the facts) contact

FIJA-NJ P.O. Box 874 Eatontown, NJ 07724

AFTER THE FALL OF JUSTICE

By Claire Wolfe

Note: Just when you thought defendants in court were safeguarded by the jury, after having read the article above, Claire Wolfe describes our judicial system's reaction to the rising tide of jurors who don't follow the dictates of judges.

********

In Alaska, a demonstrator is charged with felony jury tampering for shouting, "Call 1-800-TEL-JURY!" within earshot of jurors, (Those who do so hear a recording that simply informs them they have a right to vote their conscience.)

In Washington State, a judge and three U.S. attorneys covertly excise key pages from a booklet before allowing it to be entered as defense evidence in the trial of several militia men. The judge and his fellow lawyers are not charged with evidence tampering.

Another day in the American court system. Justice, or its simulacrum, is dispensed as judges and prosecutors see fit. There's nothing new in that.

What's new, or what's dangerously on the increase, is the systematic rigging of the court system to preserve judicial power and punish anyone who dares challenge it. And what's more important — but clearly unforeseen by the riggers — is the catastrophe likely to arise from this power grab.

MYTHS & HOPES

We cherish a myth that the justice system is the last, best hope for the beleaguered "little guy" in the world of the powerful. No matter what happens, we've been told, even the humblest of us can "have our day in court," be heard and be vindicated, as long as truth and fairness are on our side.

This was never literally true, of course. Any poor black man can tell you the reality of justice. The surviving, imprisoned Branch Davidians can tell you, as can the girlfriend of a drug dealer, locked away for years for simply sitting in a car during a transaction. Dozens of militiamen, set up by government informants, can tell you. As can dope smokers, tax resisters and business people who made the mistake of violating arcane regulations. Nevertheless, justice is sometimes served, and the myth prevails.

There are good reasons why it must prevail.

In a civil society, the myth of justice serves two related — if contradictory — purposes. On one hand, ordinary people need the myth to give them hope against the powerful. On the other, the powerful require ordinary people to believe in the myth because it keeps the rabble complacent. A belief in justice — even a mistaken belief - can be the line that separates gentility from riots in the streets.

Even in these days of cynicism, there has still existed a flame of optimism about the power of ordinary people in the courtroom. The belief is so strong that some advocates of limited government have built their main hope upon it. The constitutionalists - loosely, the legal researchers, sovereign citizens and pro se litigants who seek to limit the influence of government — have spent endless hours and endless dollars building cases for, and on, the law.

These hopeful Good Citizens have cherished the belief that they could go into court, present their arguments and (if the arguments were intellectually, historically and constitutionally correct) prevail against institutionalized injustice. Not only prevail personally, but return America to a land of limited government and individual rights. With that hope, and armed with reams of legal documents, many have besieged the courts and other government agencies. Some of their arguments have been bogus. Some undeniably correct. A few have won the day. Most have been futile.

A CHANGE IN THE TIDE

Recently, a tiny time bomb landed in my e-mail box. In one sense, there was nothing new about it; some of us radical anti-government curmudgeons have been shouting a similar mess for years. But given the source, it was revolutionary.

Titled "Citizen Soldiers," the message said, in part: "I have just returned from a meeting with a true constitutionalist attorney here in town, one with past and quite recent important victories in the area of tax issues... Basically, he intimated we as American must finally realize there is no such thing as an unassailable constitutional protection in this republic anymore...

"Pace it, we're on our own; there is not and CAN NEVER BE any 'silver bullet.' So what's new, you ask?... We know the law better than the Department of Justice, we have higher judicial scruples than judges, and we're losing ground every day. In essence, we are fielding the GE College Bowl winners against the KGB.

"I have spent endless hours over the last five years studying and applying the law, contacting the IRS, my Congressman...and the only difference it has made is that I understand PERFECTLY the gargantuan fraud this government is perpetrating on its citizens. The question arises: why do I continue the futile?"

Within days, confirmations poured fourth. One came from attorney Steffan Bertsch of Lake Stevens, Washington, author of the book Crisis in Our Courts: "I am sony to admit that your writer is correct in that there is little or no law running the 'justice' system; American justice has given way to ignorance, cowardice and corruption."

Henry David Thoreau told us that if a law is immoral, we as a moral people must realize that we may not live long enough to change the immoral law by any democratic means and that therefore "if it [a law] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, 1 say, break the law."

His advice is especially apropos today when Congress and state legislatures pass so many laws that lawyers, unable to read them all, are forced to read summaries of statutes and regulations; hence they are ignorant of the law. American laws are so numerous that "ignorance of the law" should be a defense if a reasonable person would not know of the law.

The essential point is, again, that the last dogged proponents of "the system" are beginning to abandon hope.

The justice system was the last legal avenue for these "little guys" and their principled attorneys. What has changed? Why are they abandoning it now when it never has been a perfect system? And, perhaps more important, what happens after they bail out? WHY NOW?

The various justice-system reformers have seen some victories, some defeats. The record is inconclusive. But the very existence of these challengers threatens the security of the powers-that-be. Recently, those powers have been taking harsh steps to fight back:

In a now-notorious case, political activist Laura Kriho of Colorado became the first American juror in more than 300 years to be put on trial after refusing to convict a defendant. She was, among other things, charged with perjury for failing to volunteer information about her past that she was never actually asked to give.

(In the Team Viper cases in Arizona (and many others) the judge refused to allow the defendants to question the constitutionality of the laws they were charged with violating, even though the Supreme Court declared in one of its most famous rulings: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" and are without force from the moment they are passed

(Marbury v. Madison, 5

U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803). Today's judges shrug "Take it up on appeal," knowing all the while that, by then, an innocent person may have spent years in prison and be bankrupt.

Fearful of the power of minority opinions on juries, the state of Oregon changed the law to enable conviction on an 11-1 vote. The U.S. Supreme Court decreed that states may convict on a 10-2 vote. In Albany, New York, a juror refused to convict a defendant in a drug case, saying the law under which the defendant was charged was wrong. Instead of declaring a mistrial, as had been done in the past, the judge simply fired the juror and permitted the rump jury to convict 11-0.

In Washington State, Republican state representative Karen Schmidt circulated a memo warning fellow members of government they might become "victims" of a type of "organized crime" committed by "extremists." Schmidt's newly defined crime. Paper Terrorism, is primarily an attempt to use the justice system to challenge the status quo:

"Frivolous lawsuits against government entities"; challenging judges in court cases;

"disrupting the court system by persuading fellow jail inmates to defend themselves...", "distributing the extremist Citizens Rule Book (sic) to foster jury nullification" and "requesting information from courts, government agencies, elected officials and businesses..." In California, Indiana and other states legislatures and enforcement agencies are now actively prosecuting courtroom "terrorists."

THE ATTACK ON THE JURY

An increasing number of judicial power plays involve attempts to curb jury nullification. Nullification is the historic, common-law practice by which jurors pass judgment on the law, as well as the facts of the case before them. Today, trial judges habitually inform jurors that they may deliberate on the facts only — that they may never ask, "Is the law just?" or "Is the law justly applied to this defendant?"

Until the Kriho case, jury-rights activists (notably those associated with the Fully Informed Jury Association) considered their position to be win-win; even if activists were arrested for telling jurors about nullification, or if jurors were charged for practicing it, the juries who heard their cases would — viola! — hear jury-rights arguments or see jury-rights literature presented in evidence. Naturally. How else could jurors gauge activists' actions?

But under Colorado law, defendants facing six months or less don't receive jury trials. Therefore, a judge and prosecutor got together and carefully structured charges against Kriho to ensure she would not have the benefit of trial by jury. Facing only a judge, whose power was directly threatened by her stand, Kriho naturally lost (although the judge's decision vindicated part of her position).

But this is only one early, and highly visible, example of the attack on citizens who challenge the authority of judges and the will of prosecutors. The two cases cited at the top of this article are others. In the Washington State Militia case, what did the judge and prosecutors excise from the evidence but the jury rights section of the Citizens Rule Book.

The attack on the jury extends across national borders, as well. In Canada, a juror in that country's longest and most expensive murder trial (Regina v. Bhudpinder Johal et at., Court File No. CC940998) faces up to 10 years in prison for obstruction of justice. There is evidence the juror, Gillian Guess, behaved foolishly ~ she visited several defendants and, after the verdict, formed a sexual relationship with one of them. However, she never received an order not to visit them, and there is no evidence she influenced the outcome of the trial.

Why charge Guess? For one thing, the jury humiliated the prosecution — finding every defendant not guilty in this highly publicized trial. But Guess was the only one who went on television afterward and declared that the government should never have brought "such flimsy charges".

In previous cases of juror misconduct, judges have declared mistrials, or appeals courts have overturned guilty verdicts. But for 300 years, the independence of the jury has never been threatened, even by the angriest prosecutor or most dictatorial judge. Prosecuting jurors is a new trend whose danger as an intimidation tactic can't be overstated. There is, however, not only a trend to cow jurors into obedience, but to fill juries with those who are predisposed to obey orders.

The process of voir dire was originally intended to screen out friends of either side or people with unshakable prejudices. However, it has become, as syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz and attorney Bertsch have both pointed out, a jury-stacking scheme. Jurors are grilled on their sex lives and the number of guns in their homes. (The very process screens out anyone with enough spine to refuse to answer outrageous questions.) In high-profile trials they are subject to private investigation and "management" by jury consultants, looking not for impartiality, but for desired forms of bias. If prospective jurors express knowledge of jury rights or hint that conscience might take precedence over authority, they're out. The truly independent-minded juror is automatically removed from the panel.

Thus, the news is filled with tales of jurors, who cry (mistakenly) that they had "no choice but to convict," having ignored their conscience and common sense. In a notorious 1997 case, jurors emerged from deliberations weeping and demanding a pardon for an 18-year-old boy they had just convicted of child molesting. His "crime" carried a horrifying mandatory sentence. Yet he had done nothing worse than get his 15-year-old girlfriend pregnant. Jurors recognized they had before them a normal teenager who, in fact, wanted to "do the right thing" and marry the girl. But the judge decreed his jurors could judge only the facts, not the fairness of the law. The jurors obediently "followed orders."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." --George Orwell

SWIMMING WITH PIRANHAS

We have reached a point at which "the law is whatever I say it is"—as long as the "I" in question is a judge or a prosecutor. Because the appeals system is populated by members of the same "club," the most outrageous injustices are often upheld. Those who dissent are like minnows among piranhas. Their earnest belief in the truth is no defense against the frenzy of carnivores.

Yet, the piranhas fear the minnows—or are at least determined to show the next little school of challengers not to mess with guys who have sharp teeth. Clearly many of the above judicial maneuverings are in response to the perceived threat posed by self-taught legal scholars and jury-rights activists.

The problem is this: No matter why authorities maneuver to curb the power of juries and political dissidents, the effect of their power play can strike anyone. A judge may issue instructions in defiance of FIJA, but it isn't FIJA that suffers when the jury convicts against its own conscience. It's the poor pot smoker, militia member or gun owner convicted of violating unconscionable law.

A judge may refuse to admit constitutional arguments to her courtroom out of frustration with "paper terrorists." And indeed the "terrorists" suffer and become more outraged. But justice suffers more.

Even victories present dangers. When a FIJA activist or drug user goes free because of a hung jury, such momentary triumphs inspire courtroom crackdowns, revenge against jurors, and laws to further curtail jury power. Ultimately, the myth dies. Whether you're a constitutional scholar or a semiliterate kid, you know you won't get justice in the justice system. Remember, the justice system isn't the little guy's first hope. It's the last. What do you do when that hope is snuffed?

The weary, but principled writer of "Citizen Soldiers" says: "In my humble opinion, we should ALL be deciding on the level of civil disobedience we are willing to engage in. If this is the law, we should all become LAWBREAKERS, encourage others to become LAWBREAKERS, be steadfast on juries to free LAWBREAKERS, stand tall in the rightness of being LAWBREAKERS."

But this cry of defiance sounds sweetly innocent when compared with what a less principled "little guy" is likely to do if he knows he can't get justice in the courts. As Vin Suprynowicz said about the New York 11-0 verdict, which was partially upheld by the Court of Appeals:

"The segment of the American populace who should be most concerned about the arrogant, elitist trend reflected by this New York appeals court ruling should be police officers. So far, when advising an armed suspect to 'Give it up, and I'll see you get a jury trial,' the average cop has had a fair chance of success. But once the average suspect realizes that government-salaried judges now can and will remove any juror who votes to acquit — or who admits under questioning that he might favor a defendant's view of the law over the government's — that suspect is far more likely to figure 'I'm dead anyway, and I might as well take one lying government bureaucrat with me.'"

The same feeling could arise from any form of court-rigging. Those who crave authority should understand that when they reduce the power of ordinary citizens in court — whether jurors or defendants — they do so at their own peril. The justice system serves as a safety valve on the overheated engine of society. Plug the valve and something explodes.

Ultimately, prosecutors and judges who behave like tyrants will find that it isn't the little guy — the demonized "paper terrorist," the jury-rights advocate, the pot smoker, the militia member, the drug entrepreneur or the errant juror — who suffers the most dire consequences when the justice myth dies. No. When the powerful close the doors to justice — and when common people understand that the doors are closed, we have one more place to turn: the streets.

ANOTHER GUN CRACK DOWN

"We didn't fight as hard as we did to pass the Brady law only to let a handful of unscrupulous gun dealers disrespect the law, undermine our progress and put our families at risk," said President Clinton on his weekly radio address. He's referring to the ease of firearms purchases at gun shows, flea markets, state fairs, etc., around the country.

"At too many gun show, a different, dangerous trend is emerging. Some of these gun shows have become Illegal arms bazaars for criminals and gun traffickers to buy guns on a cash-and-carry, no questions asked basis," said Clinton.

"In state after state, criminals can now walk Into a weekend gun show and buy a gun with no questions asked from an unlicensed dealer that is selling from his or her private collection. That's an open invitation for criminals," said Sarah Brady, Chairwoman of Handgun Control, Inc.

According to an AP release "The president directed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno to present him within two months a plan to close the Brady law loophole and prohibit any gun sale without a background check."

TWO CITIES BEGIN AN ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT CAMPAIGN

A new assault against the Second Amendment is forming on the city level. New Orleans mayor Marc H. Morial (D) is planning to sue firearms manufacturers and trade groups for being financially responsible for gun violence. Said Morial, "Today is a day that the victims of handgun violence and the citizens who live with violence on the streets of this city will know that somebody has decided to do something about it." Morial, in God-like fashion, declared that it's the "day of atonement" for the firearms industry. He called for state and city governments across the nation to follow New Orleans' lead.

And it seems that some are doing just that. Two weeks later (Nov. 12) Chicago Mayor Richard Daley announced a "S200-million-lawsuit against a dozen suburban gun shops and major gun manufacturers," reported UPI. The article also reported that Cook County will join the lawsuit "...based on public nuisance laws." So this is what the Second Amendment has been reduced to in the 90s--a public nuisance.

The AP reported about a family in Oakland, California that recently sued Beretta U.S.A. over the death of their 15-year-old son, Kenzo Dix.

"Kenzo died in 1994 while playing with a friend who found his father's Beretta 9mm semiautomatic handgun. The friend removed the loaded dip from the pistol, but a cartridge remained in the chamber and fired when Kenw's friend pulled the trigger."

Said Dixs' lawyer, Jonathan Lowy, "Beretta had to take reasonable precautions to minimize the harm. They knew something would happen. They have to do something about ft." During the trial Dix's father admitted that he kept the gun loaded and unlocked in the house. "We must all bear responsibility for what we do. It's the height of irresponsibility to do that with children around," said Beretta's attorney, Robert Gebhardt.

Needless to say if these lawsuits (and no doubt others) are recognized by the courts the firearms industry in America is dead. Ironically, the companies being demonized and sued today produced the firearms used by our armed forces which helped win every war our country has been engaged in. Short memories indeed. Perhaps the American people need to be reminded of their contribution to our freedom we enjoy today.

A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE

If you need a good illustration about why your children should stay away from drugs let them read the following quotes from former Washington, DC, mayor Marion (Where's My Crack Pipe?) Barry:

*"The contagious people of Washington have stood firm against diversity during this long period of increment weather."

*"l promise you a police car on every sidewalk."

*"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very, very low crime rate."

*"First, it wasn't a strip bar, it was an erotic club. And second, what can I say? I'm a night owl "

*"Bltch set me up."

*"/ am clearly more popular than Reagan. I am in my third term. Where's Reagan? Gone after two! Defeated by George Bush and Michael Dukakis no less."

*"The laws of this city are clearly racist. All laws are racist. The law of gravity is racist."

*"l am taking this trip to Africa because Washington is an international city, just like Tokyo, Nigeria or Israel. As mayor, I am an international symbol. Can you deny that to Africa?"

*"People have criticized me because my security detail is larger than the President's. But you must ask yourself: are there more people who want to kill me than who want to kill the President? I can assure you there are."

*"The brave men who died In Vietnam, more that 100% of which were black, were the ultimate sacrifice."

*"/ read a funny story about how the Republicans freed the slaves. The Republicans are the ones who created slavery by law in the 1600s. Lincoln freed the slaves and he was not a Republican."

*"What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem them necessary?"

*"Peopte blame me because these water mains break, but I ask you. If the water mains didn't break, would it be my responsibility to fix them then? WOULD IT"?

*"/ am a great mayor; I am an upstanding Christian man; I am an intelligent man; I am a deeply educated man: I am a humble man."

"sent in by Ed Wolfe

OXYFUEL GAS BACK AT THE PUMP

Thousands of New Jersey residents say fall doesn't smell of baking pumpkin pies, wood-burning fireplaces and apple orchards—it reeks of a noxious gasoline called "oxyfuel," the AP reported Nov. 1, 1998.

Starting Nov. 1, gas stations in 13 northern New Jersey counties must sell the controversial wintertime fuel until March 1. The state, under orders from the federal government [so long, Tenth amendment], has mandated the sale of oxyfuel every November through February since 1992.

The fuel contains higher levels of the additive MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) than regular gasoline.

The stronger concentration increases the oxygen mix in engine combustion by 2 percent, reducing the emissions of poisonous carbon monoxide. It's introduced in winter because cool air doesn't rise or move like hot summertime air.

Members of a grassroots group "Oxybusters" say the MTBE additive causes "...all kinds of freaky health problems," including dizziness, fatigue, nausea, asthma, bloating, vomiting, diarrhea and sinus infections.

"/ believe everybody is affected in subtle ways," said Plainsboro resident Barry Grossman, founder of the New Jersey chapter of Oxybusters.

Grossman, who says 15,000 residents have signed a petition opposing the sale of oxyfuel, blames his migraines on the fuel.

Federal health studies have found no link between the fuel and health problems, federal and state officials say.

Editor's note: Speaking from experience, the charge that Oxyfuel causes dizziness and nausea is absolutely true (and many auto mechanics will attest to that).

Secondly, we've received information that Oxyfuel has caused "meltdowns" in some gas station fuel storage tanks made of fiberglass. (We asked a chemist if Oxyfuel would have any effect on fiberglass, his answer was no.) A motorcycle mechanic told NJM that one bike owner who experienced starting problems after using Oxyfuel, opened the gas cap only to find a strange looking "goo" inside the tank. Looks like we're going to have to rely on testimonials in this case. Have any of our readers experienced problems with Oxyfuel?

THE POLLS ARE IN

Question

Should Militia Groups Be Regulated? Answers

(A) I think that imposing regulations upon freedom activists would only farther destroy our civil liberties. These people are not breaking the laws. They aren't the ones committing needless murders and random acts of violence; the government does a fine job in that area all by themselves. 40% chose A.

(B) I think that militia groups are already regulated sufficiently. With the increase in gun control laws and increased regulations that come with legal gun ownership, we have imposed all the safeguards that a society has the right to impose on them. 26% chose B.

(C) There is strength in numbers. While one gun-toting citizen may not be a threat, this is not the case when individuals join together and form groups. Who are they to decide how the rest of Americans need to be protected. Not everyone is complaining. 9% chose C.

(D) Militia groups are no different than Arab terrorist groups or any other militant freedom fighters. They all claim to be on the side of freedom, but where they go, death and chaos are close behind. 10% chose D.

(E) None of the above fits my opinion. 14% chose E.

-ParaPoll

Note: If you'd like to cast your vote go to:

http://www.parascope.coni/poll/pollarchive.htm

THE BIG SET-UP

"Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection," said Defense Secretary William S. Cohen on October 27, 1998 in an Army Times story titled "US Martial Law Coming?" In other words, kiss Posse Comitatus good-bye.

"It's going to require greater intelligence on our part-much greater emphasis on Intelligence gathering capability-more human intelligence, and it's going to take more technical Intelligence," said Cohen.

After an 8 month study on terrorism Cohen said he "...considered the chilling specter of armored vehicles surrounding civilian hotels to block terrorism as strictly an overseas phenomenon. But no longer. It could happen here."

"You can't do it from the Defense Department side unless Congress dramatically revises the Posse Comitatus laws," said John Odom, Jr., a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve and a reserve Judge Advocate. He continued, "The 1878 law specifically prohibits the use of the military in domestic law enforcement unless authorized by Congress or the Constitution and does not allow for military intervention through the action of the Secretary of Defense or even an Executive Order from the President. We're trained from the first day of Judge Advocate school to think of Posse Comitatus. If Secretary Cohen is suggesting that the Department of Defense be involved, it may be part of a legislative package, but it will not be happen unilaterally without a lot of folks thinking long and hard about it."

Libertarian Party spokesman Steve Dasbach wasted no time in attacking Cohen's proposal.

"Libertarians utterly reject any contingency plans to turn America into an occupied nation-even if that occupation is by American troops. The U.S. military exists to protect Americans against threats to our liberties, not to become a threat to our liberties. The best way to live free from the threat of terrorists is not getting into a bloody, unwtnnable war with terrorists in the first place," Dasbach said.

nbsp;

Founding Fathers Were Clear on Meaning of Second Amendment

By Quin Roberts (quinr@jyms.com)

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Anns shall not be infringed." Raymond Hogler (10/04/98) misinterpreted these words as authorizing comprehensive gun control. He wrote, "Far from being a constraint on regulation, the Second Amendment conditions gun ownership on the state's ability to maintain a militia."

I'm afraid he has a disagreement with those who created the Bill of Rights. As the states debated whether to ratify the Constitution, they drafted amendments to protect fundamental freedoms. Many were later included in the Bill of Rights, and their language clarifies its meaning.

Virginia's Declaration of Rights was a model for the Bill of Rights. It stated, "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided..."

Thus, a "militia" is not the U.S. armed forces or the National Guard. In fact, it serves as a safeguard against these "standing armies". Tench Coxe, an influential Federalist, wrote:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves .... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God It will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Richard Henry Lee, the man responsible for the Tenth Amendment, wrote, "...to preserve liberty. It is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms..." Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword: because the whole body of the people are armed..." In short, "the whole body of the people" is the militia. Since the militia is not created by the state, Hogler's reference to "the state's ability to maintain a militia" is meaningless.

The New York ratifying convention affirmed "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; That a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms; is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state..." Here, as in the Virginia Declaration, gun rights clearly are independent of the need for a militia. The "right to keep and bear arms" is for self-defense, too.

George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, believed that "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." "Disciplined" is interchangeable with "well-regulated", meaning properly trained in the use and purpose of firearms. Washington did not intend to give a future tyrant permission to control the ultimate means of opposing tyranny.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison, the "father of the Constitution", proposed a list of amendments to the new Constitution that became our Bill of Rights. They were based on the amendments proposed by the states. He said of them, "They relate first to private rights..." Senator William Grayson later wrote to Patrick Henry to inform him that "Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.."

The men who set forth our Constitutional rights would laugh at Mr. Hogler's claim that "the protection conferred by the (second) amendment is one determined by the needs of the government itself." They believed our gun rights are determined by the need of individuals to be free. Legalistic redefinition of terms can obscure that fact, but cannot change it.

—The Coloradoan, Fort Collins, Colorado, November 3, 1998

The Brother-in-Law

Gentlemen,

Thank you for sending me my renewal notice. A year seems to go by so quickly. I consider myself to be a member of the N.J. Militia although to my knowledge I've never met another member.

I'd like to relate a cute story I think you'll enjoy. Several months ago I engaged in a very long conversation with my brother-in-law. We touched on a number of subjects and I managed to keep things "lite". Then out of nowhere he leans across the table and says to me, "Well, you know what we have to do. We have to get rid of those crazy people running around in the woods, down in south Jersey." With that I looked him straight in the eye and I told him, "Well, Ed, if you get rid of them you'll have to get rid of me too." You should have seen the look on his face. It was really entertaining. With that said, he promptly took my sister and left.

Keep up the good work, we have a long row to hoe.

J.Y.

Passaic County

JUDICIAL FOLLIES

We've all heard of ridiculous court decisions from time to time but this one really deserves notice; "The Arizona Supreme Court overturned the murder convictions and death sentence of a man who admitted killing two women but said space aliens were In control of him at time," reported the AP Nov. 12, 1998.

The space cadet, Robert Joe Moody, was convicted of murder back in 1993 during a robbery. Moody, during his sentencing in 1995, asked Judge Howard Huntman for the death sentence, explaining that aliens would resurrect him from the dead and thereby prove their existence.

During the first trial Judge Huntman refused to allow Moody's lawyer to present the space alien defense—a big no-no in Arizona-hence the re-trial. Prosecutors maintain that Moody killed and robbed the two victims for drug money.

Servicing the Commander-in-Chief

James R. McDonough, the director of strategy for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal under the headline "Clinton's Contempt for U.S. Soldiers."

McDonough, a retired Army colonel and decorated Vietnam veteran, earned three bronze stars and a Purple Heart. In 1995 he went to Bosnia, when called upon to rescue some United Nations soldiers. This preceded the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops to the region.

While reading the Starr report on the Monica Lewinsky scandal he was struck by the fact that President Clinton was being serviced by Lewinsky as he was on the phone trying to persuade a member of Congress to support the deployment of U.S. troops to Bosnia.

McDonough was outraged: "The act of casual sex at a moment of great importance smacks of callous indifference, sophomoric arrogance and reckless disregard of the sanctity of soldier's lives. It saddens the heart to learn that President Clinton, during this one moment at least, was arguing for sending America's armed forces into potential danger even as he must have been significantly distracted."

Editor's note: With all due respect to Mr. McDonough, he in his way also seems to have been destroying America, though not as wittingly as the President. Is McDonough unaware that undeclared wars such as the Vietnam war, in which he served so gallantly, are unlawful. Is he unaware that U.S. forces in Bosnia are in fact NATO forces under command of the Secretary-General, which is also unlawful. (The president cannot delegate the command of U.S. forces to anyone, least of all to a non-American.) Is he unaware that the Constitution enumerates the powers granted to the government, and that the "war on drugs", in which he is engaged, is not among them.

Mr. McDonough's only apparent disagreement with President Clinton is that Clinton was being serviced as he lobbied for (another) unlawful military intervention under foreign command.

Had Clinton kept his zipper zipped McDonough apparently would have unreservedly supported the decision to send our troops to Bosnia, in this instance to impose tyranny (see the following article). But then he is unaware that he and his "drug warriors" are employing the tactics of tyranny at home.

NATO's Dictatorship in Bosnia

The New York Times has noted that, "The United States and its Western allies in the Bosnia peacekeeping operations are creating a tribunal that will have the power to shut [down] radio and television stations and punish newspapers that it decides are engaged in propaganda that is undermining the peace." In fact U.S. and other NATO troops have already seized four TV transmitters in Bosnia.

That's right: in the name of peace U.S. forces under the NATO command are engaging in censorship. News from Bosnia will be monitored to make sure it meets "internationally accepted standards."

Though printed on the front page of the Times, because leading elements of the U.S. media are accessories, the reaction has been one of complete silence. A group called the Committee to Protect Journalists favors handing control of the Bosnia media, first to NATO and then to an international panel dubbed the Intermediate Media Standards and Licensing Commission. The commission has been authorized to "restructure" the media "in accordance with internationally recognized standards." It will decide whether to return control of the media to the local people.

Thus Americans, with the support of our country's James R. McDonoughs (see story above), are underwriting the establishment of a potential military dictatorship in Bosnia (for now).

The commission will monitor the media for hate, racial epithets and ethnic slurs. One group, the "intervention tribunal", would be able to punish news organizations if they are found to be engaged in "propaganda." Punishments include forced public apologies, fines and revocation of licenses.

Since the Senate recently voted overwhelmingly to expand NATO such efforts will no doubt continue and spread.

-The two preceding articles were adapted from The Newsletter of the American Sovereignty Action Project, Nov. 11, 1998.

LETTERS FROM PRISON

Dear Mr. Avezzi,

Regarding your letter in the N.J. Militia Newsletter I too lived in Agawam, MA, until I was raided by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Gun Police, kidnapped, and imprisoned since 1992 for the "constructive possession" of my wife's licensed and registered guns in the privacy of our own home. And I still don't get released for another year. I lost my wife, my dog, my vehicles, etc., all for simply living in the same bedroom where licensed guns were kept, even though the gun safe was on her side of the bedroom and the key was on her key chain. So much for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The situation in this country has deteriorated so badly that we either become sheep (the vast majority at present) and go along with their program, or else get steamrolled; or go along and get steamrolled; or we become patriots and fight back. I am meeting a lot in the prison system who feel the same way, especially those from the Northwest.

This isn't the first time things have gotten to this point. In 1786 we had Shay's Rebellion where the Western Massachusetts fanners occupied the courthouses and shut down their corruption for awhile. This led Thomas Jefferson to write on Jan. 30, 1787, "I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical...It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government..."

If you like to read. try The Ashes of Waco by Dick Reavis; Ambush at Ruby Ridge by Alan Bock; The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terrorism, by David Hoffman; and Bitter Harvest, about a farmer, Gordon Kahl, who in 1983 shot two U.S. marshals in self defense.

Sincerely,

M.C.
US Penitentiary

**********

Dear Sir,
My address is changing to a new prison. Keep up the good work!
God has a plan 2000 also!
Here are 3 stamps.
Thanks,

C.A, POW
Florence, Colorado

Pencil note on C.A.'s envelope: "These so-called governments are In reality only great bands of robbers and murderers, organized, disciplined, and constantly on the alert." —Lysander Spooner, 1869.

Southern Poverty Law Center Informant?

Beware of a one-armed man, Caucasian, Northwestern United States accent, dark reddish blonde to light brown hair (worn both long and short-changes appearance), mustache, self-proclaimed explosives expert.

Married, two children; may operate as a husband/wife team. Husband appears to be "Irish" in ethnic origin. Very comfortable working with militia and Christian Identity groups. Logging background. Looks to be about 5'8" tall, 150 Ibs. Wife's appearance has somewhat mutated over the years. She is also about 5'8", overweight, approx. 175 Ibs., shoulder length light brown hair.

These individuals are members of a loosely-knit "organization" called "Nemesis". They call themselves "civilian intelligence" gatherers. He is a former drug runner and a felon. He has worked for a variety of agencies, including the FBI, CIA, ATF and numerous State of Montana agencies (county and state). He travels throughout the U.S. but has resided in Washington, Montana, California and others while participating in "right wing radical" sting operations. He claims to have maintained longtime friendships with Ohio and other militia groups throughout the U.S. in order to gather further intelligence. His wife is expert at remaining "behind the scenes" at militia gatherings, staying in the shadows, taking expert notes of statements being made by patriots and also taking down the license plates of those in attendance. This information is systematically fed to the FBI's "domestic terrorism" mod squad. This couple can be "creative" with the intelligence they gather for their employer.

They are very Christian-Identity versed...can use the proper militia and Identity "buzz words" in order to "fit in" with your organization. The man was and may possibly remain a narcotics abuser.

If you have any intelligence to share regarding these two prostitutes, please notify sender, -mom-l@logoplex.com

N J M. P.O. Box 10176. Trenton. NJ 08650 E-Mail: militia264@aol.com

(Newsletter subscription - Donation $10.00) CASH or BLANK MONEY ORDER ONLY