Posted on 01/04/2002 8:52:30 AM PST by editor-surveyor
There is something very wrong inside the Justice Department of the United States and there has been for some time.
Various newspapers are now reporting that under President Clinton, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was ordered to stand down on various terrorist investigations.
One of the most egregious examples is the failure of the bureau to investigate fundraising organizations like "The Holy Land Fund," based in Arizona, which allegedly funneled millions of dollars in donations to Middle Eastern terrorists.
Although the Bush administration has now frozen the assets of the fund, it was apparently allowed to operate for 8 years despite the FBI intelligence that was presented to Mr. Clinton and then-Attorney General Janet Reno. One bureau source told the press that Ms. Reno felt any investigation of "The Holy Land Fund" would lead to anti-Arab sentiment and therefore was opposed to such an investigation.
As always, Ms. Reno will not comment on any aspect of her tenure as attorney general that is at all controversial.
There is no question now that under Ms. Reno and then-FBI Director Louis Freeh, Americans were put at great risk. The Wen Ho Lee-Chinese espionage case still has not been explained, and the fact that the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists weren't even on the FBI's radar screen is about as frightening as Janet Reno's passion for political correctness.
The current attorney general, John Ashcroft, has made no attempt to examine Ms. Reno's bizarre behavior or update the public about the Marc Rich investigation or anything else. Mr. Ashcroft specializes in looking dour and stonewalling. While Congress is attempting to get documents about President Clinton's dubious foreign fundraising and FBI abuses in Boston, Ashcroft is refusing to cooperate at all.
And this isn't a political issue. Conservative Congressman Dan Burton and liberal Congressman Barney Frank have actually joined forces to try and pry this information from Ashcroft's hands. If that's not amazing, then nothing is.
The truth is that for nearly 8 years, the Justice Department has been corrupt and inefficient. Janet Reno botched nearly every important decision she had to make including Waco and Elian Gonzalez. Time after time, Ms. Reno refused to approve investigative initiatives sought by the FBI. And time after time, Mr. Freeh sat in his plush government office refusing to let the American people know what was happening.
Now Mr. Ashcroft is doing the same thing. There is no reason on this earth why the public should not know the status of the Rich pardon probe. Or the anthrax investigation. And what about Enron, Mr. Attorney General – are you going to look into that? Millions of Americans were hosed while some Enron executives made millions.
How about a comment on that, Mr. Ashcroft?
To: exodus
Well, gov'ts can keep their book like that,
and it isn't illegal to do so.
Its one of the advantages of being able to print money...
# 1152 by habs4ever
************************
That's it?
Your defense of government fraud is
it isn't illegal for government to commit fraud?
Government murdered Randy Weavers loved ones.
Government murdered the Davidian children at Waco, too.
Is that okay with you too?
That wasn't illegal either,
because our tyrannical government
wrote laws saying that official murder is lawful.
I guess that's one of the advantages
of being the one who writes the laws,
right, habs4ever?
Morever, the Common Law in the Constitution states that the jury (of peers) is to be the trier of FACT and the trier of LAW. The judge was only to serve as the court referee, so to speak. Judges had little power or authority. Our government has moved our judicial system out of the Common Law Courts and into Courts of Equity, wherein the judge is the trier of law (criminal cases), and both fact and law (some civil cases). Again, these are extra-Constitutional developments that have STOLEN the power from "We The People" and stolen OUR justice system.
"Gray and Shiras (Justices), Dissent: Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51, October Term, 1894. The classic opinion of the two dissenting justices on the case which effectively ended routine instruction of juries in their right to judge both law and fact. The majority ruled that while jurors do have the power to nullify the law, judges need not tell them about it, except in cases where state laws or constitutions specify that jurors must be told."
The highest moral, human an individual right is the right to self-defense and survival. The best way to ensure that individual rights are protected is to have a constitution or amendment to the constitution and courts based on the following:
Principle One: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Principle Two: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Principle One.
Principle Three: No exceptions shall be allowed for Principle One and Two.
Principle One is first a law. For every instance that a person has force initiated against them there is a loss to that person. Only the person/victim knows the true value of their loss. The law underlying Principle One is as absolute as the law of gravity -- absolute as the laws of physics.
And this:
All jurors shall be informed that they have the option of jury nullification.
Principle One is first a law. For every instance that a person has force initiated against them there is a loss to that person. Only the person/victim knows the true value of their loss. The law underlying Principle One is as true as physics law.
All a person need be concerned with is whether he or she has been the victim and who violated Principle One. Then prove that to a jury. Thus the ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claiming to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All jurors will be informed that they have the option of jury nullification. Objective law; The Point Law
What is, is. Identify it. Integrate it honestly. Act on it. Idealize it.
To: exodus
I must have missed the 67 Republicans in the Senate in 1998.
I recall that the GOP had only 54.
The Democrats allowed Clinton to stay in office.
And more people trust the Republicans right now than the Democrats.
Lots of wishful thinking in your post.
# 1159 by sinkspur
************************
I recall that Trint Lott and the members
of the Republican leadership of the Senate
told Henry Hyde,
"Henry, you ain't dumping this on us!"
and
"I don't care if he rapes a woman
and shoots her dead on the Senate floor,
you will not get a conviction here."
The Republican's were the majority party at the time.
Republican's refused to allow witness testimony during the Trial.
Republican's refused to allow evidence of crimes committed by Clinton
to be admitted for consideration and debate by the Senate.
Fist of all, the Bill of Rights (Amends. 1-10) carry more weight than the rest of the Constitution because they were the only ones written by "We The People." Amends. 11-27 were passed by Legislative entities (Amend. process). One must remember that adding Amendments cannot give us more Rights; it can only subtract from what we had. Theoretically, a new Amendment could abolish Amendments 1-10. However, our Founding Fathers recognized this possibility and recorded this recognition by indicating that our Rights are endowed by our Creator and can never be removed by humans or governments. So even if an Amend. is added to the Constitution, that does not necessarily indicate that it is not in violation of the wording and intent of the Bill of Rights.
That said, there is all kinds of documentation (I've archived them somewhere and will try to get the sources to you) about the fraudulent nature in which the 13th Amend. was passed. For example, on Const. Amendments, the various state Legislatures can only vote, YES or NO. On the income tax issue, a large number of Legislatures never even bothered to vote, yet these states' votes were counted in the YES category, fraudulently. Many Legislatures were aware of the unconsitutionality of the income tax and didn't vote on the issue for that reason. But the Federal Government, with its insatiable, cancerous drive for power acted illegally -- can you imagine that? Would they do that? Naw! There goes the wacko in me, again! Just can't control my insane self. Anyway, I digress; but here's one source to get you started. I'll find some articles I archived, too. I don't know how to post links so you'll hafta copy and paste:
http://www.taxax.org/
To: exodus
It isn't fraud. Understand?
# 1164 by habs4ever
************************
If I did it, it would be fraud.
If you did it, it would be fraud.
If a small company did it, it would be fraud.
If a major corporation did it, it would be fraud.
If a workers union did it, it would be fraud.
Please tell me why it
isn't fraud when my government does it.
And if you think, for one minute, that that evidence would have changed any minds on the Democrat side you're dreaming. So many FReepers think, "if only we could have had witnesses, everything would have been different."
Could you tell me who would have changed their vote because of the "evidence" and witnesses?
To: exodus
And if you think, for one minute,
that that evidence would have changed any minds
on the Democrat side you're dreaming.
So many FReepers think,
"if only we could have had witnesses,
everything would have been different."
Could you tell me who would have changed their vote
because of the "evidence" and witnesses?
# 1171 by sinkspur
************************
Democrats are political amimals.
If evidence of Clinton's treason,
jury tampering, purjury, obstruction of justice, murder, etc.
had been admitted, and witnesses allowed to testify to the facts,
Clinton would have been removed.
Al Gore would then have been removed for his crimes,
and both would have been remanded to the criminal justice system.
You think that strange?
I believe that our system of government will work,
as long as the truth is allowed to be seen.
I would appreciate that link and book title as well, BillofRights.
To respond to your post,
the explanation doesn't require a book-length treatise.
The money system in use today is un-Constitutional.
The Federal Reserve is a private corporation.
The Federal Reserve prints our bills and mints our coins.
All fine and good, but the Constitution says
that Congress is to print our money.
Any other way is un-Constitutional.
DINGBAT ALERT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.