The Unsorted BBS Collection/thegreatunsorted.tar/thegreatunsorted/texts/txtfiles_misc/frogfarm.8

Text File | 1994-02-01 | 79KB | 1,433 lines

Welcome to the eighth installment of the Frog Farm. This issue contains
information regarding the following subjects:

1) Criminality and the Law, by Homer Wilson Smith
2) NCBA Brochure Sample and Application
3) Rescinding Social Security w/Marion and Roger, Part 4
4) Administrivia: FTP site, mailing list automation, tonight's guests
5) General net.mishmash

**

[This is all familiar territory for us folks, right? But I was still glad
to see this sort of thing being communicated at this level. I've cleaned up
the original by splicing together paragraphs and adding puncutation. If any
of you have read James Donald's essay "Natural Law and Natural Rights"
(available via FTP as ftp.netcom.com:/pub/jamesd/rights), you will recognize
many of the ideas that Homer presents. If you have not yet read this essay, I
highly recommend it, and as usual, will send copies to any readers who lack
FTP access.]


                        CRIMINALITY AND THE LAW
                 Revised and expanded 8/23/92, 11/7/92
                          [Re-edited 9/5/93]

                 Copyright (C) 1992 Homer Wilson Smith
                          All Rights Reserved

     So women are finally allowed to bare their tits in public in New York
State.  Not just at beaches, or private clubs, but anywhere that men can.
That includes the streets of Manhattan or your college classroom. Now ain't
this a breath of fresh air.

     There are, however, a few people violently opposed to this new law. One
girl interviewed on the news report, said she thought it was ok if girls did
it in their bed room, or their car, or boat, but not on the beach or in
public.  'You got small kids around for Christ's sake', she said. As if small
kids and tits don't have anything to do with each other. I guess some people
are just afraid they might have to explain to their kids what tits are for,
and why the kid didn't get any when they were a baby.

     Anyhow, turns out this woman was a STRIPPER at a strip joint, and
probably her real worry was losing her job when men no longer came into
patronize the bar because they were getting all the looks they needed on the
way to work. Not to mention at the school ball park, where the 14 year olds
were playing co-ed stick ball, 'shirts against skins'.

     Expect serious opposition to this law from the porno industry, and anyone
who makes a buck from public nudity at any age being illegal. One way to end
the trade in child pornography is to defuse people's interest in naked kids.
Anyhow, if you want men to stop looking at your tits, show 'em to them.

     Next, marijuana...

     A LOT of people make money off of boo being illegal.  Petroleum, paper,
drug, medical, alcohol, tobacco and PRISON industries included, not to mention
government drug sales to finance foreign wars. Tremendous amounts of money are
made by prison officials pushing soft and hard drugs to the very inmates they
hold for dealing drugs in the first place. The more people they can get thrown
in jail for dealing drugs, the more money they can make dealing drugs to them
and using them for slave labor.

     The prison system especially needs its slave labor, so anyone the
government can get away with sending to jail they will.  You know, the
products prisoners make are sold for a profit, which does not go back the
prisoner's pocket, and this profit is way more than enough to cover the cost
of the prison system, which is CHARGED TO THE TAX PAYER ANYHOW. Someone fat is
pocketing all that earned money.

     So the tax payer is subsidizing a slave labor system, DESIGNED TO NOT
REHABILITATE ANYONE BECAUSE IF IT DID THEY WOULD LOSE A WORKER, and the
profits from this slave production are going into the pockets of someone.
Certainly not research into mental and spiritual health. But don't tell
anyone, you might end up dead.

     And of course, the government gets to confiscate the property of anyone
busted for marijuana.  You can murder someone and go to jail forever and still
get to keep your property even if just to pass it on to your kids, but get
caught with one joint or a field full of flowers and you own nothing.

     Tell me the righteous are in control.

     The law does not DEFINE, DECREE or CREATE criminality, it merely records
people's recognition of what is criminal, along with people's opinion about
what should be done about it. If things were criminal only because the law
said so, then you could never have a wrong, bad or criminal law no matter how
bizarre or evil the law was.  Any law at all would be righteous or good just
because it was the law.  Such an attitude would create a field day for
criminal tyrants who could create laws with impunity designed to rip you off,
and if they were passed by their criminal cohorts in the House and Senate,
then those laws would go into history as 'right' and 'good' just because some
snake in the grass said so.

     BREAKING THE LAW, THEREFORE, DOES NOT MAKE ONE CRIMINAL. DOING SOMETHING
CRIMINAL MAKES ONE CRIMINAL.

     Smoking pot is not an inherently criminal activity, any more than
drinking a beer or smoking a cigarette, so smoking pot does not make one a
criminal.  Stealing money from someone else does.

     Are Indian tribes all criminals for smoking pot or eating peyote buttons
in their religious ceremonies?  Western Societies worship the Grave, the Bomb
and the Cross, so of course they make any spiritual weed illegal and proclaim
a criminal anyone who would dare seek a higher state of consciousness not
based on lies and self deceit. It is incredible that any plant could CAUSE a
higher state of consciousness, but is anyone studying this amazing phenomenon?
NOOOOOOOO! Of course not, there's no money in spiritual freedom. Besides,
people would rather go to their grave believing that they never had or COULD
come back to Earth again, so of course they are going to suppress the hell out
of any experience that suggested to them they might have something to do with
being here in the first place and might CHOOSE to do it again.

     This "I was made by someone or something else and put here with out my
say so" is the ultimate in denial of personal living responsibility.

     There is a difference between CRIMINALITY and ILLEGALITY.  There are
things which are criminal which are not illegal (probably because people have
not come up to recognizing them yet) and there are things which are illegal
which are not criminal.

     Going through a red light is an example of something that is illegal but
not criminal.  There are many laws written to prevent people from doing
something STUPID.  Going through a red light is stupid, it is not criminal.
There is NO WILLFUL KNOWING INTENTION TO HARM SOMEONE OR RIP SOMEONE OFF.
THAT is criminal.

     In truth, things do not become criminal just because the law says they
are.  The purpose of the law is to record what is criminal, to RECORD it based
on people's experience and heart felt feelings about fair play.  The purpose
of the law is not to CREATE or DECREE criminality.  The criminality or non
criminality of something does not change just because the law says so any more
than scientific Truth is changed by a scientist's report of it.

     Basically, the law says things are criminal because they ARE criminal.
The law is supposed to be a research record detailing what we have learned
about life and how to live with each other. The law does not create the truth,
it merely records the truth.  As such, the law can be wrong, and it is wrong
to follow a wrong law for long.

     What one is supposed to do about wrong laws is a touchy question, one
that the law itself does not take up very thoroughly.  The law as it stands
today is a citadel of self proclaimed rightness.  The law is on sort of a
RIGHTNESS BINGE, you know, "if I say don't do it, don't do it, even if you
should be doing it".  In very tiny print, possibly if you look hard enough it
says, "if you want to do it, get the law changed first".

     Well, that's fine for laws that merely prevent us from doing things that
are stupid; if they aren't so stupid you get people to see that they aren't so
stupid and you get the law changed. But when the law prevents us from doing
something morally mandatory or forces us to do something criminal, then it
becomes criminal to follow such a law, and the law itself becomes criminal. At
that point you are above the law, because you are not a criminal.

     People who knowingly follow or enforce criminal laws made by criminals
for the benefit of criminals, are themselves criminal. There are those who
will tell you that if the law does not say it's wrong, then it's ok to do it.
And likewise they will tell you that if the laws says it is wrong, then it's
not ok to do it.

     This is called HIDING BEHIND THE LAW. It is a justification for
committing criminal acts not yet recognized by the law to be wrong, and a
justification for passing and making people obey criminal laws that benefit
the criminal.

     One should never look to the law to find out what is criminal, one looks
to the law only to find out what criminality people have recognized and
recorded. To find out what is criminal one looks to one's own heart in the
matter and sense of justice and fair play. That's what your heart is for, not
to pump blood.

     Some would call that subversion.  I would hope so, there is something
here to subvert, a corporate criminal police state. Criminality has to do with
production and consumption, and fair exchange according to the sense of
decency of the players of the game and the agreements that they have all made
and sworn to uphold.

     The primary criminality is to take other people's productive output
against their will, which means not in accordance with the agreements and
sense of fair play they set up in the beginning. You can take a person's
clients away from him by producing a better product and thus put him out of
business, and he may even starve to death.  This is not criminal, this is
playing hard ball in the game of life, something we have all agreed in general
is ok. You may NOT take a person's clients away by spreading rumors and lies
about him, or by passing laws that prevent him from producing so that you may
have less competition.

     Criminals CHEAT at the game of life, just like those jerks you used to
hate as a child, who would always claim they won the game when they hadn't or
who made a lot of noise claiming you were cheating when you weren't.  THEY
were, and still are. They are the people who grew up and are still making life
hard for us all on a global scale. Their basic philosophy is that you are a
fool for playing by the rules.  Decency is for losers. Somehow they think they
are winners and they admire themselves for it, along with their deep insight
about how decency, sportsmanship and compatriotism are all a fool's dream.
They think anyone so stupid as to make rules of fair play and then live by
them certainly deserves to be cheated.

     To a criminal, WINNING is more important than how they play the game.
They agree to the rules, so that you will then let them play with you, even
though they PLAN to cheat on you all along. Life and ownership are basically
competition and cooperation, and like all sports, there is an inner sense of
duty, rights, HONOR, fair play and SPORTSMANSHIP, all in the game of
production, consumption and fair trade. Criminality is any violation of these
factors, it is violating agreements that you yourself made, and cheating at
winning at the game of life, especially in a way that destroys the game for
others who are still playing by the rules and also for yourself in the long
run.

     If one person starts to break the rules, others will try to break the
rules too, in order to maintain their 'fair advantage' and after a while
everyone is breaking the rules and you no longer have a game and nobody wins.
This is the way of all societies that deny their heritage of Truth and
Decency. Criminals are very lonely people in the end.

     Basically, criminality is violating fair trade, it is trying to force
someone to give you what they are unwilling to give you, to rip people off, to
deny them their rights and duties, so that you can live better by not having
to produce yourself. It's getting other people to play the game of life FOR
YOU, to take all the risks and give you all the rewards. It's a form of
undeclared, covert slavery.

     Criminality has to do with consumption and production, with fair trade
and fair exchange.

     The foundation of life is fair exchange.  The criminal, in trying to
consume more than he is producing and to rip off other's production so that he
can continue to consume, is assigning himself the fate of any parasite that
kills its host and does not form a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship
with those around him.

     It's a cold and dark future for anyone bent on that route.  To the rest
of us trying to make an honest living, they seem to live in the warm glow of
their theft and stolen affluence, but they cannot produce anything of worth on
their own, and when they run out of people to rip off what will become of them
then?

     You gotta see this over the span of many lifetimes, as the criminal
starts off very smug and self assured about what fools others are for playing
by the rules, and how bright he is for knowing better.  But the dark tar they
end up in at the end of their run is hardly worth the good times they had in
the beginning at other being's expense. And they will have very few friends
left to help them, or give them comfort except perhaps a few in the tar with
them.  They usually end up gnawing on each other's bones.

     So do not hide behind the law, and do not look to the law for the last
word in what is right and wrong. The law is merely a human record of Truth
Found, it is not the Creator of Truth.

     The law is humanity's recording of their limited and imperfect
perceptions of the beating of The Heart, adulterated by those who would alter
the Truth of the Heart, to fabricate a false reality by writing in the Book of
Observations what they would want to behold and wish others to believe.  A
false reality that benefits them at the expense of others.

     A criminal is not someone who breaks the law, it is someone who does
something criminal.  Since criminality existed before the law, and continues
to exist above and independent of the law, a person who tries to make a law
that MAKES something criminal, is himself a criminal making a criminal law.
Following or adhering to a criminal law, is itself criminal, or at least just
stupid in that it perpetuates the criminals who made the law. Criminals make
criminal laws all the time.

     Therefore any law that tries to MAKE marijuana CRIMINAL, or otherwise
tries to DEFINE, DECREE or CREATE what is criminal, is itself criminal,
administered by criminals for the benefit of criminals. You can make marijuana
illegal, but you can not make it criminal.

     Criminality existed long before the law ever came around to
recognize and codify that fact.

     Many people make money from marijuana being illegal, especially those
people who make and keep it illegal. What drug companies would find their
profits hurt if marijuana were legalized?  Who owns stock in those drug
companies? Whenever you come across someone who wants to keep marijuana
illegal, just look to see where he benefits or THINKS he benefits FINANCIALLY
from it being so. This includes everyone from the politicians to the sleazy
drug dealers down the street.  It even includes your mother.

     You think the drug dealers all want drugs to be legal, right?  Then they
could sell their drugs without fear.  Wrong.  There would be no money in it.
Marijuana grows freely everywhere.  Drug dealers routinely make their greatest
political contributions to the most fervently anti drug candidates. The
hypocrisy on Earth is strong.

     It is criminal to make or keep something illegal because you make more
money from selling it illegally, or from selling some other inferior,
dangerous or deadly product that otherwise would not stand a chance.
Legalization of hemp would put a serious dent in the petroleum industries
sales of gas.  Ever hear of gasohol and other plant related fuels for cars?
Apparently the clothing industry is worried that hemp cloth would compete
successfully with their petroleum based synthetic fabrics.

     The paper industry would throw a fit if they couldn't cut down all their
trees every year to make paper.  Did you know the constitution was written on
hemp paper?  Did you know that Kentucky has just outlawed its own constitution
by outlawing all hemp products?  Did you know the first American Flags were
made of hemp? Did you know that most of civilization grew up around the
affluence created by hemp products?

     However, the real criminals are those who want marijuana to remain
illegal so that they can continue to make money SELLING IT. That includes the
drug dealers, and the people who fight the drug dealers (the drug cops).  They
would all be out of a job if the criminal laws against drugs were repealed and
the drug war were ended. Wars are CREATED by people with a financial interest
in the war, even if it's just the raiding hordes coming into plunder what they
could not themselves produce. The DRUG WAR is no exception and the plundering,
rape and taking of slaves just as great.

     But there is almost always a THIRD party, egging the other two warring
parties on, a third party who intends to clean up during and after the war.
Who would they sell their border patrol planes to, if the borders were open to
Mexican weed? Drugs are not a criminal problem, they are at worst a health
problem, like AIDS, or VD.  Turning drugs into a criminal problem is itself
the act of a criminal who wishes to take attention away from real crime and
have slave laborers, with NO rights, to serve him to boot.

     Such a person has no concern for the health interests of the citizenry at
large, they are only concerned about how fat their own pocketbook is.  They
loudly PROCLAIM that they are interested in the well being of the population
at large, but anyone with brains can see that drug addiction and crime goes
way UP the moment that any drug becomes illegal. The British thought they had
a good idea when they tried to flood China with Opium.  I'm not sure what they
thought they could attain by doing this except a tidy profit, but they were
sure that if everyone became addicted to Opium they would hit the jackpot.
Now some people did become addicted, and the Emperor became alarmed and made
Opium illegal. Good move.  Following that piece of brilliance, the Chinese
were thrown into years of war with the British, and neither have recovered
since. Opium is still illegal there, and addicts abound everywhere.

     One has to ask, if the Chinese LET their people become addicts, if they
let the forces of free market reign in their country, would there be more or
less addicts today?  How about dead bodies?

     These historical events pertain to today's drug war and the little ole
lady types who scream and yell for more police protection on the streets and
how sugar, bubble gum and drugs must be eradicated for the sake of the kids.
Maybe if the damn kid had had enough titty when he was young he wouldn't be
sucking so hysterically on other things when he was an adult. So people rant
and rave about how everyone who does drugs will become instantly addicted and
unmotivated and indigent and unwilling to die in their foreign wars or even in
school for that matter. We couldn't have anyone stepping off the corporate rat
race from a glimpse of higher consciousness, now could we?

     Anyhow, only a tiny proportion of people actually develop serious drug
problems, but their effect is magnified because of all the crimes they commit
because the drugs they need are illegal and much too expensive. Fine, so you
make drugs illegal so the few who are destined to have problems with it can be
protected from themselves, and then you resign yourself to living in a war
zone, as the real criminals move in with guns and money to sell drugs to the
people you were trying to protect anyhow.

     You think anyone who was a potential drug addict was ever saved from
becoming addicted to drugs because they were illegal? By making drugs illegal
all you do is open the door to every sleaze bag to come in and make as much
money has he ever wanted to. Other criminals love to make money off of drug
addicts, criminals who themselves wouldn't touch their own product and
wouldn't buy it for their own use if it were free. That's because drugs and
criminality actually have very little to do with each other.

     The only reason that CRIMINALS SELL DRUGS is because they are illegal,
they are usually the only ones willing enough to break the law for a buck.  If
drugs were legal, then there would be no money in it for the criminals and
they would withdraw from the arena. The way to starve the mafia to death is to
legalize drugs, prostitution, gambling and pornography. Of course, a lot of
cops would be out of a job and we couldn't have that now could we?

     But by definition, the only thing lower than a cop is a criminal, so
maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea.

     Anyhow, the production output of each person is part of the GNP, the
gross national product of the country.  You have a personal GNP, the country
has a GNP and the world has a world GNP too. If you take the gross national
product and subtract from it the gross national consumption you get the gross
national PROFIT. The GNP measures the amount of production a person, a country
or a world is outputting into the market place for trade. The GNP measures
whether you are producing more than you are consuming.

     I mean, if you were a farmer and for every 10 ears of corn you ate, you
only planted 9, that would be a down hill trip now wouldn't it? Profit comes
from the ground, not from other people.  You eat 1 ear of corn and from the
energy that give you to work you plant a whole mess of seeds, and you get
100's of ears of corn.  That's profit.  Whether you ever take your product to
market and trade it for peas is irrelevant, your profit has already been made.
FROM THE GROUND, NOT FROM OTHER PEOPLE.

     Profit is the result of the natural exothermicity of the ground, storing
sunlight.  Plants are like a rechargeable battery storing energy as they grow.
When you harvest them and eat them you get that energy back.  The amount of
energy it takes to plant, harvest and eat those plants so that you can
continue the production cycle is far less than the energy stored in them.
THAT is profit.  Thus you always end up having more plants in your warehouses
after a production cycle than you could possibly eat. That's profit. It comes
from the ground and sunlight and the plants that live off the ground and
sunlight.  The Sun God Ra is the ultimate source of all profit and her energy
is free. If you must worship some god, worship Ra. If you wish to get rich,
worship Ra. The point is, if your life is not turning a profit then you are
planting your seeds in a toxic waste dump.

     Every time you take someone out of the arena of production, out of the
game of producing goods and taking them to market, and place them in jail, you
cut into the gross national product of everyone concerned. Putting someone in
jail is like cutting off some part of your body.  If you cut off one of your
hands, how would that effect your production?

     If you were to jail every person who had ever smoked pot, or was smoking
pot, or who will smoke pot, something some people would dearly love to do, the
gross national profit of the world would turn negative. That means the world
would be consuming more than it was producing because it was preventing so
many people from producing, and spending so much of its resources to keep them
from producing.  This is the way out the tubes, for no parasite can last long,
especially one that destroys or jails its own assets.

      On the other hand, if you jailed every one on the planet actually
committing some crime, and LET EVERYONE ELSE GO, the GNP of the planet would
go through the roof, as uncaught criminals specialize in supporting their own
personal GNP at the terminal expense of everyone else's.

     Ever wonder why you are having such a hard time making an HONEST living?
Well it's because there are a few 'good' people out there expertly making a
DISHONEST living. You can always tell them by the smell of self righteous
indignation in the air. They are just SOOOOOO put upon because you wish to
expose their criminality.

     That there are so many druggies in jail is a sure sign that some criminal
could care less about the overall GNP of the planet and is only looking to the
benefit of his own GNP, a personal GNP he is incapable of supporting without
ripping off others. If every druggie were put away, and I mean EVERY DRUGGIE,
the criminals would get very rich, but they would have to row to work in
streets of blood because the world can not last long with a declining GNP, no
matter how many fat cats are looking on enjoying the view. Enslaving others,
taking their property, preventing them from producing, making sure they can't
compete with a better product, is all part of ripping people off. Sort of like
what happens between parent and child in your normal American family.

     Most of the people who smoke pot are not making a living by ripping
people off, they are in general the most productive religious, scientific,
artistic and business oriented people on the planet. As for the hard core
druggies, they are just trying to handle the PAIN, all of it psychosomatic but
understood by no one.  Because it is not understood, use of drugs to handle it
leads to mind blowing addiction, also psychosomatic, which if the drug is
illegal and therefore overly expensive will lead to crime.

     Druggies know instinctively that drugs are illegal because criminals have
made them illegal, including the people who voted them into office, and so
they have no bones about doing criminal things to people to support their drug
habits.  It's not the most ethical logic in the world, but the solution to it
is not to create more criminal anti drug laws. People HATE society, if you
cause them pain and then prevent them from having the drugs that handle the
pain, they will EAT you.

     Making such drugs illegal and keeping people ignorant of how and why they
hurt so much, is a sure way to create more crime, so you can then bust, arrest
and enslave those druggies too, and then keep them comfortably up to their
ears in drugs while in prison so they won't complain and do their slave work.

     That the world seems bent on having Presidents and Supreme Court Judges
who have never smoked pot, and therefore don't know the first thing about it
so they can continue to pass cretinous laws about it, is a sure sign that the
'moral majority' is composed of people with little sense of religion, science,
art or business, not to mention ethics or decency.

     One wonders what they do with their time.  Probably drink and beat up on
their children.

     Anyhow, the moral majority holds shares in Reynolds, Bayer and Eli Lily.
World wide ignorance of the cause of psychosomatic pain and drug addiction is
sure to drive the prices of those shares way up. The drug companies sure don't
want you to understand anything about why you get sick, or have headaches or
want to kill yourself, let alone why you can't remember being molested as a
child and have no clue you've been living with monsters most of your life.

     What would happen to their Saint Joseph's Aspirin for Children, or their
headache medicines, or their sinusitis medicines, or their anal retentive
expulsive medicines etc.? Knowledge is dangerous to these people.  Who would
buy their snake oil if anyone knew the truth and could lead a well and happy
life, or give their parents the spanking of their lives once in a while?
The drug companies DEPEND upon you being fucked up and DUMB so they can
continue to make a living pushing lies, sugar coated chemicals, and dear
sympathy.

     You might also consider that any religion that used pot as part of its
consciousness raising ceremonies would be violently opposed by any other
religion that used alcohol or wine as part of its sacraments. Alcohol is so
wide spread mainly because it allows you to feel good about yourself no matter
how dumb you are.

     The only thing lower than a heroin addict is an alcoholic. Especially the
strong silent religious types who get really mad if you suggest they have a
problem with alcohol.  These kinds usually raise children who turn to heroin
as soon as possible. If these children are lucky enough they will turn to pot
instead to raise their consciousness above the stone cold hearts and stone
dead souls of their parents who lost their raison d'etre long ago.

     Alcoholics are unaware of this, but there is a great big NO DRINKING sign
in Heaven. Gee, and I thought marijuana was illegal because it was bad for
you. Having a brain is bad for you, you might end up dead if you speak.
Witness America.

     New York State, on the other hand... well, there are lots of tits that
need a lot of catching up in the sun.

     Tits and reefer.  What better combination can there be?

     - Homer

**

[The following information is taken from an NCBA brochure sent to me in
January of 1991. I was originally going to make it part of an updated
Resource List, but it got so big I decided to put that off for a while
and let this stand as a separate entry.

I would first call these facts to your attention:

 - The NCBA considers it a Good Thing to be "politically involved",
   i.e., being registered to vote and voting, stirring up "grass roots"
   action, etc., whereas the Frog Farm's position has always been that
   free persons do not need to vote, and are actually better off not
   voting at all, since "rights are not subject to a vote" or to the
   whims of a majority; remember that nobody else can make you free,
   only you can, and you cannot make anyone else free, only yourself.

 - You should be aware of the change in your status before the law if
   you become a "member" of a "group" or "organization".

 - Never allow anyone to represent you, do not represent yourself,
   DEFEND yourself. NCBA offers (among other things) information
   regarding the few lawyers who will operate on this sort of
   level. But one of the Frog Farm's many golden rules is to NEVER
   give power of attorney to anyone, except to a very limited
   degree, and even then only under dire circumstances.

With this in mind, let's let the brochure speak.]


GREETINGS FROM THE NCBA


The National Commodity and Barter Association is the strongest First
Amendment association in the nation today offering vital services to
members. The NCBA is a political redress, first amendment association,
formed for effective redress of greivances as provided for and protected
by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was founded in 1978
by John Grandbouche, who remained its director until his death in May
of 1986. The NCBA is now under the leadership of Mr. John Voss. It is,
by definition, a First Amendment association dedicated to educating all
Americans and helping them exercise and protect their individual rights.

In numerous confrontations with the government, particularly with the
Internal Revenue Service, the NCBA has consistently had its claims
upheld, most recently in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals where the
NCBA challenged and defeated the IRS over the use of an illegal search
warrant issued upon its main office in Denver. (Voss, Grandbouche, et.
al., v. Agents Bergsgaard, et. al., 774 F2d 402, 1985.) The court
stated, among other things... "Certainly, the organization's advocation
of modifying or abolishing our country's tax system is a legitimate
activity. Indeed, it is an activity protected by the first amendment."
NCBA director John Voss, who believes that he, as a private individual,
was not and is not required to file income tax returns and that his
wages did not constitute taxable income, was charged by the IRS with
willfully failing to file income tax returns for years 1979-1980. He
was found not guilty by a district court jury.

The NCBA carries the fight for individual rights forward on many fronts:

 o The right of parents to home educate their children as an alternative
   to public schooling is only one area of activity within the association.
   With the high illiteracy rates among our young people and our public
   schools suffering from a decline in educational quality, is it any
   wonder why increasing numbers of concerned parents are choosing home
   instruction for their children?

 o The NCBA is active in putting a stop to the tyrannical activities of
   the IRS against the American citizen, and ridding America of the
   present, counter-productive system of income taxation.

 o Members have access to some of the best legal help in the country for
   defending themselves from the illegal and oppressive tactics of
   government. [Moderator's Note: No, government actions are not illegal --
   they're done with all due form of law. But they're UNLAWFUL -- because
   they do not have the SUBSTANCE of law.] This includes the Mutual
   Assistance Plan (MAP) which provides financial assistance to NCBA
   members needing a licensed attorney or to those wishing to defend
   their rights pro se.

 o NCBA provides Freedom Books to its members which contain over 60
   chapters on Constitutional Law and Taxation, home education litigation,
   administrative procedure, tax court, criminal and civil litigation,
   history and much more. These books are constantly updated and revised
   and are worth much more than the price of membership.

 o In addition, NCBA encourages its members to become involved in the
   political process by running for public office or serving on community
   action committees. [Moderator -- remember what happens then? You give
   up your status as a freeman in exchange for limited powers, privileges
   and immunities, under contract (Constitutions) as a Public SERVANT.
   And that's fine, if you really WANT to...]


Political action to many people means writing your congressman and supporting
candidates for public office. To others, it means effective courtroom action.
[Yep!] Another effective action is to participate in an exchange rather than a
commercial bank, in order to regain control of your financial affairs.
[Actually, this should preferably be done BEFORE you engage in any courtroom
action -- it's called "judgment proofing" yourself.]

Mr. Grandbouche established the NCBA without government sanction or license.
His attitude of, "Do what is right and let the consequence follow," has
brought consequences that have resulted in significant victories in the courts
for the NCBA.

First and most importantly, we assert the right to associate without
government identification numbers, licenses or permits. This is a fundamental
right of natural born persons in our free Republic.

Secondly, we assert the natural right to make agreements and contracts between
each other without the permission of bureaucratic would-be masters.

Thirdly, we claim the right to associate and contract privately. The right to
privacy is essential in a free society, and poses a threat only to a corrupt,
prying government.

These three basic rights, combined with NCBA court victories, illuminate the
once dark path leading back to the basics. You can exercise these rights in
two simple steps:

 1. You become a member of the NCBA, which is "a legitimate First Amendment
    association".

 2. You make a private contract with an authorized NCBA associate to receive
    funds from you, buy and sell gold and silver for you and make
    disbursements of federal reserve "notes" and other commodity at your
    direction.

The member using the exchange properly has little need for a commercial
checking account and can remove themselves from direct personal contact with
the destructive federal reserve banks, their only contact with such entities
being indirect and through NCBA. This is political redress against the federal
reserve and an exercise of the right of privacy in financial affairs to which
everyone is entitled.

NCBA services are not available to the general public and are therefore not
subject to public regulations. The National Commidity Exchange exists without
government permission. Any NCE operator will be pleased to act as an agent in
receiving deposits, buying or selling commodity and making disbursements at
the member's direction with the following understandings:

 1. NCE exists to facilitate a member's inherent and inalienable right to
    privacy. You must become an NCBA member and remain one to continue as a
    participant in the exchange.

 2. It is understood that NCE does not exist to shield any illegal activity or
    funds derived from an illegal activity, nor does it provide a shelter from
    lawful obligations.

 3. The contact between you and the NCE agent is a common law contract.
    Accordingly, NCE must conduct transactions with individual, natural born
    persons who are also NCBA members, and may not contract with juristic
    persons, trusts, corporations or other artificial entities.



                          MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

If you are not a member of the NCBA and wish to join, it is necessary to
apply and join as follows. Your membership for the first year includes our
new, currently updated NCBA Freedom Books, Volumes 1 through 5. These books
begin with an analysis of the origin and extent of individual rights, a
discussion of the events and documents preceding the constitutions (state
and federal), the services offered by NCBA, and are filled with dozens of
chapters outlining effective legal actions to reclaim and protect your rights.
They are forwarded to you upon our receipt of your application and fees.

     NEW MEMBERSHIP FEE: 280.00 (1st year only)
     RENEWAL PER ANNUM:  180.00

(We reserve the right to adjust fees)

I am joining NCBA at the new membership rate of 280.00 for the first year.

Total Enclosed_____________________________


In order that we may serve you better and keep you informed about your local
NCBA meetings, we would like to give your name to our local NCBA
representative in your area when applicable. However, we will do so only with
your consent.

        _____ Yes, please give my name to my local representative.

        _____ No, I do not wish to have my name released.


Signed_____________________________________    Date__________________________


Please print clearly:

Name_______________________________________________________________


Address____________________________________________________________


City/State_________________________________________________________


Zip_________________________     Phone_____________________________


Shipping Address other than P.O. Box:

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

(NCBA Freedom Books will be sent UPS unless otherwise specified; therefore,
 we must have a physical address.)

Attention Hawaii and Alaska Applicants: NCBA Freedom Books will be sent to you
BOOK RATE - 4th Class Parcel Post Mail (allow 4-6 weeks for delivery). For 1st
Class Mail, add 10.00.


Areas of Interest:


Please send me more information on the following:


__________ Political Action (caucuses, delegate action, etc)

__________ Mutual Assistance Plan (MAP)

__________ Home Education

__________ How to host an NCBA meeting


How did you learn about the NCBA? We would like to send a thank you note to
the person responsible for sharing the NCBA with you.

____________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________


If you would like to join NCBA but cannot afford to pay the full amount,
please contact us and ask about payment plans.


Mail your completed application to:

National Commodity and Barter Association
8000 E. Girard Ave., Suite 215-S
Denver, CO
80231



**


[This is part 4 of a 4-part posting.]


Rescinding Social Security with Marion and Roger


     In fact, Erie implies that the "commercial  law" or  law  merchant, was
the province of the state at  common  law. This  travesty of decisional law is
the central issue  today  for anyone  wishing  to maintain a status of
sovereign at law,  for  it necessitates  a statement of repudiation by the
person  himself. This  could  be called an equity disclaimer  statement:  "This
natural  person  is by all intents and purposes  a  merchant  and trader  at
law  on a cash basis, without  recourse  to  standard lawful  money, and enjoys
no privilege of limited  liability  for the  payment  of  debts. I deny all
jurisdiction  of  mercantile equity  brought  on  by HJR 192 of June 5,  1933,
expressly  law merchant,  Roman Civil Law, and admiralty law, and demand all
of my rights at the common law.".

(Comment Roger. You don't  enjoy any  limited liability as your debts are paid
through  your  time and labor, the only real things that have value. Don't talk
about the  value  of federal reserve notes but instead talk  about  the time
and labor involved in your obtaining the notes as  compared to the time and
labor expended by the bank in obtaining the notes or  keeping the books while
allowing you to use your own  credit. All  banks  are in violation of the Fair
Trade Laws  because  the notes  cost them so much less time and labor to obtain.
The  Fair Trade  Laws  were implemented so as to not give  unfair  business
advantages  to  one at the expense of another. Wouldn't  you  say that  banks
have unfair business advantages? Ye Gods,  they  list liabilities as assets.)

    A statement of this sort is the  beginning pleading in any case today in
order to establish the  common law  status  of the party in court.

(Comment Roger. I  would  say that  I was a laborer at the common law expending
time and  labor to  obtain the necessaries of life and not a buyer and seller
of commercial  devices to obtain increase (interest) at no  cost.  I know  a
fellow who sold his property but he  insisted  that  the contract be written so
as to show him as the "buyer" of  negotiable  instruments and not the seller.
If I give you my property in exchange for Fed notes am I not buying negotiable
instruments? If they  be negotiable??)

   As mentioned above, the application  of laws is the court's function. If
status of one of the parties  is a  bar to the action, then it must be so
pleaded  by stating  the facts surrounding the case,and the facts surrounding
the law.

(Comment Roger. I hate myself when I do these things.  "Voluntary appearance
may enable a court to obtain jurisdiction. 177 US  230 "defendants  general
appearance is equivalent to  consent".  112 N.H.329."Parties  may not enlarge
the types of cases a court  has been  authorized to hear by the state. 437 US
365 "they can  consent."Rest. Conf.2d sec.32)

    Laws are intended to operate  upon the  privileged person, being a
corporation or otherwise  enfranchised  individual.

(Comment  Roger. When we  the  people  elect representatives to represent us,we
are granting to them a  privilege, and they in turn, cannot grant to their
electors, a  privilege.  Before  the adoption of the 14th Amendment, voting
was  a right  reserved to those who paid for the cost of  keeping  their
representatives  well  fed. The 14th extended the  voting  "franchise" to
non-property owners thus allowing the non  property owners to vote your
property away from you with  no due process of law and changed the Constitution
from a Republican form of government into a Democracy. Now you must revoke the
"franchise"  and exert  your  right.If your public servants can  join  unions
and demand  more pay then why can't the citizens join unions and  say no? The
Maine Constitution says that no privileges shall  ever be  granted  so  how can
my public  servants  "enfranchise"  me?)

There is another fact to surround the law--intent of the  lawmakers.

 (Comment Roger. The "intent" of registering your car is  to
help  you find it in case it is lost. The "intent" of  a  drivers
certificate    of  competency (license) is  to  keep  incompetent
persons  off the public highways. The "intent" of licensing  doc-
tors  is to protect the public from incompetent  doctors,etc.,.))

In  most states law, is the decisional law of the highest  court, if there is a
question between an application of a statute  which would  be  unconstitutional
and one which would not,  the  choice must be in favor of the lawful
application so as to preserve  the statute.  Therefore, in the individual case,
it is far  wiser  to plead  that  the application of a certain statute  in
that  case would violate rights, then to plead that the statute is
unconstitutional  for, one can easily see, the statute may have an application
in some other case, making it a constitutional  law.

(Comment Roger.And if you "consent".)

    It is assumed in our law that the legislators were aware of their limits
and intended no violation  of the supreme law of the land in any enactments.
To  whom then  does a statute apply?

(Comment Roger. It doesn't  apply  to anyone if there was a lawyer (officer of
the court) sitting as  a lawmaker) that is the question for the court's
judgment.)

  Policemen  on the street, or bureaucrats, or agents cannot  decide  for
themselves, and they should be so instructed.

(Comment Roger.  No one can be a judge in their own cause)

 It is the courts which are the  forum for redress of grievance,for only they
can  understand and determine the status of an accused person.

(Comment Roger. If the state is involved they cannot be a judge in their own
cause. The  jury must decide. The judges, being servants, if they  don't
understand the law, must go to the ultimate lawmakers, the people (the jury)
(the servant can not give his own interpretation of the law  handed down to him
by his master. If I hire you to go  in  a straight  line from here to there and
you have an accident, I  am responsible.  But should you go on a route not
authorized  by  me and  have an accident, you are responsible. You were not
obeying my  instructions and therefore were not acting as my  agent))((if the
state  is  a party to the action then the judge  who  is  an officer  of the
state cannot determine the status of the  person. He would be a judge in his
own cause)))((but then again--a  state may not sue in its own name.)))

    The moneys (Comment Roger: The time  and labor) taken by the federal
government from  employers, wage  earners and self employed entrepreneurs under
the  Federal Insurance  Contributions  Act.  S.S., has been ruled  on  by  the
United  State  S.C. 123 times since the  court's  first  decision handed  down
in the Stewart Machine Case, 301 US 548.  With  that many  rulings  on the
subject, there should be  nothing  left  to decide  on  this issue. For the
purpose of this document,  it  is superfluous  to examine all of the topics and
subject matter  the court  has  already decided. However, it is expedient  to
review some of the history and key decisions made by the court over  the past
47  years to provide a basic understanding of  the  central question that must
be answered in this case at this time concerning  this natural person.

     Historical Background.

    Here  are some of the more important case law decisions by the court
pursuant  to  this  issue.    "The provision of the  S.S.A.  by  which Congress
expressly reserved the right to alter,amend,  or  repeal any  provision  of the
act (42 USC 1304) makes  express  what  is explicit in the institutional needs
of the program".  Fleming v  Nestor, 363 US 80.The S.S.S. is a form  of  social
insurance  enacted pursuant to Congress power to spend  money  in aid  of the
general welfare, whereby persons gainfully  employed, and  those  who employ
them, are taxed to permit the  payment  of benefits  to  the retired and
disabled,  and  their  dependents". supra.    "The tax imposed on employers by
title XI of the S.S.A. of  August  14, 1935 satisfies the   Constitutional
requirements that  excise taxes shall be uniform throughout the  U.S.  Stewart
Machine  supra.     "The tax imposed on employees by title IX  of the  S.S.A.
is an excise tax and thus within the power  conferred upon  Congress by  Art.
I,Sect.8 of the Constitution to  lay  and collect duties, imposts and excises,"
Stewart supra.     "Social security benefits are to some degree in the nature
of  insurance, providing present security and peace of mind from fear of  future
lack  of earnings". Weinberger v Wisenfeild 420 US  636.  "The "right"  to S.S.
benefits is in a sense "earned", for the  entire scheme rests on the
legislative judgment that those who in  their productive  years  were
functioning members of  the  economy,  in their  later years, for protection
from the rigors of  the  poorhouse  as well as from the haunting fear that such
a  lot  awaits them  when  journey's  end is near. Fleming  supra. "The  tax
imposed  on employees is an excise tax and thus within the  power conferred
upon Congress by Art. I,Sect 8 of the Const.  Helvering v  Davis supra.  "To
engraft upon the S.S.S. a concept  of  accrued  property  rights would deprive
it of the  flexibility  and boldness   in  adjustment to ever changing
conditions  which  it demands. Fleming supra..    "The purpose of the old age
benefits of  the S.S.A. is to provide funds through contributions  by  em-
ployer and employee for the decent support of elderly workmen who have  ceased
to labor, dependent upon the total wages  which  the employer has received and
the periods is which wages were  paid." S.S.B. v Mierotke 327 US 358    "The
noncontractural interest  of an employee covered by the S.S.A. cannot be
soundly analogized to that  of  the holder of an annuity, whose rights to
benefits  is bottomed  on his contractual premium payments".  Fleming  supra..
"Although each categorical assistance program under the S.S.A. is intended  to
assize the needy. it does not follow that  there  is only one constitutionally
permissible way for a state to approach this important goal. The very
complexity of the problems suggests that  there  will be more than one
constitutionally  permissible method of salving them". Jefferson v Hackney, 406
US  704    "The specificity of the S.S.A. exemptions from its operation, and
the general  nature of the employment definitions therein,  indicates that the
term "employment" and "employee" are to be construed  to accomplish the
purposes of the legislation" US v Silk 331 US  704 "Dance  hall  operators
are not subject to  the  employment  tax imposed  by the S.S.A. in respect with
the bank leader,  who  employs  and discharges musicians, exercises complete
control  over them,  fixes and pays salaries, tells them what and how to  play,
provides  sheet  music  etc.  Bartels v  Birmingham  332  US  126 "Under  26
USC 3121 and 3306 (i) which provide that for  purposes of the F.I.C.A. and
F.U.T.A. respectively, the term "employee" is to be determined under the
"usual common law rules" applicable in determining  the  employer-employee
relationship.  The  question whether  captains  and crewmen on a commercial
fishing  boat  are employees of the owner, is to be determined according to
maritime law  standards  rather  than according to  common  law  standards
governing  land based occupations. US v Webb 397 US  179.(Comment: I thought
there was no federal common law?)    "That Congress, in enacting section 202
(n) of the S.S.A. provision for  termination of  benefits  payable to, or in
certain cases in respect  of,  an alien  deported  on the ground, inter alia,
of  communist  party membership,  was concerned with the acts leading to
deportation, and not with the fact of deportation.  cannot be inferred  from
Congress' failure to apply the termination of benefits  provision to  S.S.
beneficiaries voluntarily residing abroad. Congress  may have  failed  to
consider such persons or may  have  thought their number too slight, or the
permanence of their voluntary residence abroad too uncertain, to warrant the
application of the status of them."Fleming  supra.    "That S.S.benefits are
financed in  part by taxed on a employee's wages does not in itself limit the
power of Congress to fix the levels of benefits under the S.S.A. or the
conditions upon which  they may be paid. Richardson v Belcher 404 US 78

  At this  point it is necessary to include the opinions of the three minority
opinions of the supreme court in the Nestor  case. Remember  that these three
judges were present during the  enactment of the S.S.A., and their dissenting
opinions point out  that the  S.S.S.  was "sold" as insurance. It is in  this
light  that these  three  judges contend that S.S. is a property  right.  The
majority  held that S.S. is welfare. Therefore, the state of  the law
concerning  S.S. at this time is--S.S. is  welfare  and  not insurance.

(Comment Roger. The judges were apparently lawyers and if  they had a hand in
enacting the S.S. program then  the  whole thing  is  in  violation of the
separation  of  powers  doctrine)

The truth is, both sides in the Nestor case are right. The intent and  sales
pitch for S.S. was "insurance." The  contract  written into  law  "Title  42"
is  welfare.  In  the  minority   opinion Black,Douglas, and Brennan, reveal
the fraud and hoax perpetrated upon   all laborers in violation of their
rights. Those  opinions are  attacked and must be read before continuing with
my  remarks as  my  remarks will not be understood until  those  remarks  are
read. Please read the Nestor case before continuing.

 1. The  S.S. Act  may  be amended  or repealed.
 2. It is a  form  of  social insurance.
 3. It  is  a tax.
 4. Employer  and  employee  are taxed.
 5. The foundation of S.S. is founded upon predictions of economic conditions
which must inevitably prove less than  wholly accurate.
 6. The tax is constitutional.
 7. The  tax  is  an excise  tax.
 8. The tax is uniform.
 9. The tax is  an  excise tax  on  business.
 10. S.S. is not an accrued  property  right.
 11. S.S.  changes  constantly.
 12. S.S.benefits  are,  to  some degree, in the nature of insurance.
 13. The right to  S.S.benefits is earned.
 14. The entire scheme rests on the legislative judgment.
 15. The purpose of the old age benefits of the  S.S.A.  is  to provide funds
through contributions  by  employee  and employer.
 16. Employees have no contractual interest in  S.S.
 17. S.S.is intended to assist the needy.
 18. Employee  contributions  are a tax.
 19. Persons required to collect and pay  over taxes  who  willfully  fail or
refuse are liable  to  a  penalty.
 20. Ministers,  members or practitioners  who are  conscientiously opposed
to, or because of religious principles are opposed....may elect to be exempt.
 21. Only covered employees are required  to pay taxes toward the system.
 22. Congress reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal the act.

    Conclusions of Law

    Nowhere in  the history of the S.S. A. has the high court ruled upon  the
issue  of whether or not the withholding from an employee was  an
unconstitutional  tax  on the right of labor. However,  "a  right cannot  be
taxed.The  power to tax is  the  power  to  destroy.." These axioms of law are
relevant in this case because this person claims  the right to labor and to
retain the fruit  thereof.  Can the government  take from a laboring person his
wages, or a  part thereof, by taxing him over his objection and against his
will.? The  answer  is no. Wherefore, then, can an employer  take  funds from
this employee and give it to the general fund of the government?  The answer
is, only by the employee consent which  is  obtained  through the  W-4 form and
the voluntary  application  for and acceptance of the S.S.card.    This
employee volunteered into the S.S.A. by accepting the S.S.card and number, but
why did this natural  person volunteer into the system. Because at the time  I
volunteered, I was told I had to apply for and get a card  before I reached a
certain age or I could not work. I was told it was  a retirement insurance and
it was the law. I did not understand the nature  of  the voluntary income tax
upon my right to  labor.  My government(public servants) told me this by
printing and distributing  pamphlets, etc., extolling the virtues of this
system  and that we could not work unless we had the card, and the  pamphlets
and the people of government told me and others the S.S.S. was an insurance
program. My government 'servants) lied to me and caused me to enter a voluntary
contract or agreement through lies, fraud and deceit, and it has been only
recently that I have regained my capacities and therefore now repudiate this
fraudulent conversion of  my property. I admit to my past incapacities, but
"now  this idiot  doth  obtain his senses" and now reclaims his  status  and
rights. Incapacity: the want of a quality  legally  to  do, give, transmit, or
receive something. In general, the  incapacity ceases  with  the cause which
produces it. If  the  idiot  should obtain  his  senses...incapacity  would be
at an  end."     I  do hereby  declare my incapacity to be at an end and I
contend  that there has been no law passed that requires  any citizen to enroll
in  or  subscribe  to the FICA program. Indeed no  law  could  be passed
requiring such a conversion of property as it would  violate a basic right.  I
further contend that liability for  FICA is not the result of being an
employee, but that the liability is conditioned  upon  receiving a gain, profit
or  privilege.     I contend  that  the  privilege  that  produces  liability
is  the employee's  participation in interstate commerce through the  use of
inland  bills of exchange. This participation in the  use  of bank  credit
cards, checking accounts, and credit  in  nationally chartered  credit
institutions is the corporate  privilege  which reduces   a  citizen  to  the
status  of  member,   subject   or slave.

(Comment Roger. Once again the misunderstanding. It is  not the banks credit
being used. If it was the banks credit then  the person receiving the credit
would be checking up on the credit of the  bank  instead  of  the bank checking
up  on  the  customers credit.When  a  bank lends they create a  liability.
Since  they cannot  assume a liability without also assuming an  asset,  they
list  your promise to pay them back as an asset. The  asset  does not  exist
until you actually "spend" the "money". If I  were  to take out a bank loan and
never use it the bank would have a false bookkeeping  entry.  The "liability"
is the  banks  "promise"  to lend.  The  "asset" is my promise to pay it back
but if  I  never spend it the asset never exists.Don't they say "write yourself
a loan?" Again this issue should be fought on the grounds that  you spent six
months of  your time on earth working to earn the  fed. notes  to  repay  the
bank with  something  that  they  got  for nothing.Fair  Trade Laws.))))

    I contend that I am not  engaged in  interstate  commerce and therefore I
am not  subject  to  the income  tax or the special voluntary S.S.T...

(Comment Roger.  You are  engaged in interstate commerce if you make a  long
distance phone call,out of state, that is))

    I concur that  corporations may be taxed pursuant to Article I, Section 8
of the Constitution and  forced  to pay FICA and income taxes pursuant  to  the
16th Amendment upon a corporate privilege.    I contend however,  that this
conversion of property was never fully explained to me.   If it  had been
explained, I would never have agreed to give  up  my natural  inalienable
right to keep the fruits of my  labor,  nor would I have volunteered to
contribute to the S.S. and/or  income tax  program.

(Comment Roger: The income tax can be  easily  explained  by using the apple
tree and the apples. The tree is  the source  and the apples are the income.
It is the income  that  is taxed and not the source. If you tax the source,
you kill it.)

[Moderator's Note: Okay class, who can name the case citation for the classic
quote, "The power to tax is the power to destroy"?]

Sincerely,


___________________________________


**

Administrivia


Late-breaking headlines: I have just received mail from Paul Southworth
([e-mail]); the updates I uploaded to etext.archive.umich.edu have been
installed. The latest version of the FAQ is dated September 1st, 1993. Also,
archives of the past seven installments are available. All documents are
available by FTP (/pub/Politics/FrogFarm) or via Gopher server.

The list has seen a little more publicity lately, due in part to the four-part
posting "Jurisdiction" on alt.society.sovereign, one of the original George
Gordon lessons transcribed from audiotape. A slightly shamefaced grin; I
received one inquiry for further information from someone who turned out to
already be a subscriber! (I *thought* that name looked familiar... ;)

The suggestion was made by this subscriber that the list be split in two: One
list would be set up which could be advertised to the public at large, which
only sends out short/long FAQs upon request. Naturally, this would cut things
down to people who actually read all the information sent to them and then
still wanted to be on the list. People's requests to join the main list would
then be assessed based on one criteria: "Does it appear that this person will
make a nuisance of themselves if subscribed to the list?" If the answer was
deemed to be in the negative, the person would be welcome aboard, subject to
the usual customary laws regarding private mailing lists.

Much as I like this idea, it requires the effort involved in setting up a more
traditional, automated mailing list. A friend of mine who I consider a
computer Gh0d has told me that it's possible to set up this sort of system
using ELM (the mailer I currently use) and its "alias" capability. After over
three hours with the documentation, I was still in the dark. Luckily, the
subscriber I mentioned previously has offered his assistance, and even without
extra cooperation from system administrators, we'll try to have the list
automated by the time issue #9 comes out.

In response to my query for further information, our first guest on the Frog
Farm this evening is a self-described "caucasian male, 30; card carrying
member of the Libertarian Party; currently a computer consultant." Regarding
his discovery of all things Froggish, he states, "Five years ago I couldn't
shake a sneaking suspicion that politicians were out to make themselves fat
and screw you over in the process.  Little did I know!"

Another subscriber has requested that we devote some topic space to "The
Forgotten Ninth Amendment", as a few authors and researchers have referred to
it, and I will certainly do my best to find some quality information on the
subject to share with the list.


**


[General net.mishmash follows, under the heading "Sex and the Law". Two
serious, the third for amusement value.]


"Multiple Wives OK, But Singles Living Together in Arizona Isn't"

    The eleven-member Arizona Law Enforcement Officer Advisory Council has
ruled that a Colorado City deputy marshal can continue in his job, even though
hissimultaneous marriage to three women violates the state's constitution.  A
previous Court of Appeals decision had ruled that the First Amendment
constitutional right to freedom of religion can be overriden by a "compelling
state interest."  The Council concluded, howeverm that the deputy's polygamy
was not related to the preformance of his duty as a police officer, noting
"there has never been...any determination that polygamy is a practice
inconsistent with the peace and security of the state."  Meanwhile, "living
together" remains a crime in Arizona.

 - citation missing.


--


>From: [e-mail] (Rob Jellinghaus)
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Operation Spanner outlaws consensual S/M in Britain
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 21:56:07 GMT
Lines: 177

I was asked to post the following by [e-mail] (Andrew
Spark) who doesn't have access to a.s.b.  Email should be sent to
him.

Operation Spanner
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

During a routine investigation, police in the UK seized a number of
videos, which turned out to involve gay men in SM sex scenes.
Apparently believing that people must have died they launched a three
year investigation. Believing they had committed no crime, all having
consented to the scenes, many of the men freely gave statements to the
police........

The Following is a (near) transcript of a leaflet issued by 'Countdown on
Spanner' the pressure group campaigning against the current law:

SM: LEGALITY VALIDITY EQUALITY

16 gay men were convicted as a result of a three year police
investigation called Operation Spanner. When they were arrested the
crimes did not actually exist. Under British law it had always been
accepted that consent was a defence against charges of assault in
consenting sex. But as their first trial the Judge - James Rant -
dismissed their consent as "immaterial". This meant that their
consenting acts of SM play were viewed as cold blooded assaults and
the men were sentenced fo prison terms of 3-6 years.

Five of the men appealed, once fo the Criminal Courts where their
sentences were reduced, and lastly and most recently to the Law Lords.
This is the highest Court of Appeal. It is similar to the Supreme
Court except there is no written constitution in Britain and the Law
Lords judgement therefore, is based on previous rulings by judges and
Law Lords. Their judgement was delivered on March 11th 1993. The
Appeal was lost and two men went back to prison.  The Law Lords
judgement contains every myth and popular misconception about SM -
That it is cruel or violent or inherently unsafe or dangerous.
Throughout the 60 page document the submissives/bottoms are portrayed
as "victims" incapable of informed consent. It cites suppression of
"homosexual sadomasochism" as a defence of family values and even
attempts fo justify the convictions on the grounds that SM sex is a
high risk HIV activity. They are not the only SMers in Britain
receiving harassment. Heterosexual couples have been prosecuted under
prostitution laws even though no money was exchanged; gay leather
clubs have been visited by the police; and two weeks after the
judgement a heterosexual/mixed sm-fetish club was raided by the
police.

But the Law Lords did split 3:2 on this decision. Those supporting
the appeal did so in the strongest terms. Lord Slynn of Hadley said,
"it is not for the courts in the interests of paternalism or in Order
to protect people from themselves, to introduce into existing crimes
concepts which do not properly fit there." Not only that but editorials
in the leading "heavyweight" press condemned the decision. On top of this
The Law Commission, a legal advisory body of lawyers, has announced that
it intends to examine the whole issue surrounding consensual sex and assault.

THE APPEAL TO EUROPE

"I find the support given to me and Tony Brown by the demonstrators
and offer sympathisers gives me great strength in overcoming the
trauma of being returned to prison for the "crime" of having
consenting sex with adults. I intend to take his case as far as
possible, and need and welcome the support of both gay and straight
people in eventually obtain justice!" Four of the five men are
committed to taking the case fo Europe and Liberty (a civil rights
pressure group) is funding a case by a gay man, a lesbian and a
heterosexual couple.

A European Court of Human rights ruling is binding for any country
which has signed ifs charter. Britain is one of these signatories and
previous rulings by this court have brought the legislation of gay sex
for N. Ireland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The European
Court, which is not part of the EEC but has 26 European signatories,
can force a country to change ifs laws if if sees fit. Britain, who
has been taken to this court more times than any other member country,
has a good record on obeying the court rulings. But the case of the
four Spanner men will cost money possibly as much as #100,000
($1b0,000) - and may take as long as four years. And while British
SMers ore unifying across sexuality and geographical lines to raise
this money, we need YOUR support.

The courts continual denial of the importance of the men's consented
is the most disturbing aspect of the case. At the appeal Lord Lane
ruled that "the question of consent was immaterial" in cases of
"assaulted" concerning the "satisfaction of a sadomasochistic libido."
The notion that we have no right to choose what we do with our own
bodies will be similar we abortion rights campaigners, rape victims
whose right to say no is frequently questioned in the courts and
children subjected to corporal punishment against their will. The
Spanner case may be the first time this reasoning has been extended to
consenting adult sadomasochists but the logic is the same. According
to the judges we have no right to personal autonomy. Our bodies
belong, not to ourselves but to the state, or to husbands or to
fathers or to some other authority. Therefore consent, or the Lack of
it, is immaterial!

LAW OR LUNACY

The denial of the Spanner defendants rights to choose what to do with
their own bodies has led to a series of ludicrous laws. The judgements
mean that body piercings for decoration are quite legal but for "the
satisfaction of a sadomasochistic libido" are illegal. In practice
this means that you are permitted to get your body pierced if you
experience only pain. If you also experience pleasure, however, a
serious criminal assault has taken place! The Law Lord's opinion in
the Spanner judgement together with recent test cases has confirmed
that it is legal br adults to beat children in their care for purposes
of "lawful correction or chastisement" whilst the same activity
between consenting adults is a criminal assault!  Despite Lord Lane s
assertion that consent is "immaterial" in cases concerning SM several
of the men were convicted of "aiding and abetting" assaults on
themselves! How did these men aid and abet the assaults? Erm. . .
well. . . presumably by consenting to them.  Consent, it seems, is
only "immaterial" when it suits the courts! The courts and police
claim to be trying to protect people from themselves. These legal
absurdities expose the fact that the Spanner Case is not about
"assault" at all but about sex.

COUNTDOWN ON SPANNER

"Every adult who has an interest in defending civil liberties should
be angered by the Spanner judgement. It represents a fundamental
attack on the sexual civil liberties oft every adult in Britain and
every adult thinking of visiting Britain... and in particular, it
has serious implications for sadomasochists, lesbians, gay men,
bisexuals and other sexual minorities."
        Kellan Farshea, Founder of Countdown on Spanner

Founded in duly 1992, it is a mixed sexuality group of SMers and our
supporters. Over 100 people attended the first meeting and we have
initiated the first positive campaign around SM rights in Britain. We
lead a high profile media defence of the Spanner Men and successfully
turned liberal opinion around from one of condemnation of the men to
condemnation of the judgement.

We have brought British SMers together for the first time and
organised Britain's first SM Pride March - which attracted over 750
people. We have picketed the police and the courts, organised a lobby
of the Law Lords and taken our demand for freedom and equality into
the public at large about the effects of the Spanner ruling and how we
can avoid being arrested.  We are hoping to organise regional
fundraising groups for SMers that don't have access to London's SM
scene.

WE NEED *YOUR* HELP- WHAT YOU CAN DO

Spread the word!

Organise a benefit or fundraiser for the Appeal to Europe.

Support the Amnesty International campaign. These men are not eligible
at present for adoption by AI because they were convicted of crimes
that are not gay specific.

Send off for our INFOPAK. It contains a summary of the case and its
implications; a legal guide for SM activities in Britain and how to
avoid arrest; and a list of our activities and merchandise.

Please, Give a donation!!!!!

Countdown on Spanner can be reached via Snail Mail;

C/O Central Station
37 Wharfdale Road
London N1
Great Britain

Please include a SASE.

Meetings are held on the last Sunday of every month at 7.30pm at Central
Station.

Or contact me via e-mail: [e-mail]

--

>From: [e-mail] (David A. Z.)
Organization: Guest of the Free Software Foundation
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex
Subject: U.S. Law
Date: 14 Aug 1993 21:11:10 GMT
Lines: 54


        A short while ago, after visiting a female friend of mine, who
happens to live north of the border, I had to change planes in Detriot,
and was unfortinate enough to get into the slow imigration line which was
in fact long enough to make me a bit nervous about missing my flight.
I guess it was sorta my fault for not relizing there were quick lines
for U.S. citizens and found myself stuck in back of a bunch of cute
french co-eds, traveling together in a small herd, each of which was
haressed/oogled by the people who should have been checking ID's, running
a quick check on the computer, and letting them be on their way, rather
than harassing and oogling them.

        Well, as I said, I was a bit nervous about misisng my flight,
not to mention being nervious about being nervous, because I thought that
meant that they would search my luggage and make me delayed me even more,
which, of course is exactly what they did.

        So after standing around in the "Green" nothing-to-declare line,
and being flagged as either nervous and/or a long haired hippy with
much too much luggage for a 1 week trip, the man in the Green line was
too lazy to do a search himself and threw me into the Red line, with
the assumption that they would search me, although had I actually been
smugling something, I would have made up something to declare so the
people in the Red line would think I got directly into the Red line to
declare something, rather than being bounced from the Green line as I was,
and therefore might not go through my stuff.  I almost did exactly that,
except that I thought I might just barely make my plane if I ran for it
afterwards, which I did, so I'm glad that I didn't decide to pay duty on
something that I hadn't actually bought.  Besides, I hadn't had my luggage
seached at any airport since the time the the chainmail I was carry happened
to look exactly like chainmail to the X-ray machine, and the old man running
the machine insisted on checking it out, tossing it around, and commenting
that "this is so heavy that you could kill someone with this if you hit them
over the head with it," which, although totally bogus, caused me not to
interupt for fear that the man would stop talking long enough to listen to
himself.

        At any rate, the real reason I'm writing this is that while
being searched in the Red line, and being asked lots of stupid questions
("Are all these dirty magazines American?" "I'm not sure where they're
printed, Sir, but I bought them all in the U.S.") the man came across my
rather large collection of sex toys, dildos, vibrators, ropes and velcro
restraints.  Rather than doing the expected thing, which would probably
have been to turn on the vibrators, call over the dogs, and check the
vibrators balancing to see if they were off-weight and therefore hiding
smuggled jewlery or narcotics, the man simply smiled, let me on my
way, and said "You can't leave home without those."

        So next time you go to travel, be sure to carry lots of sex toys,
dildos, vibrators, ropes and restraints.  It's apparantly the official
position of the U.S. government.

        - David A. Z.



--

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7
zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K
uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR
tDNJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8aW1zQHRodW5kZXItaXNsYW5kLmthbGFtYXpvby5t
aS51cz4=
=WIMt
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----