[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7474-S7479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HEARINGS ON TERRORISM
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Subcommittee on Terrorism of the
Judiciary Committee was scheduled to have hearings on terrorism today.
Those hearings could not be held because the Senate was in session
continuously from 9 a.m. with rollcall votes of 9 minutes. So those
hearings had to be postponed. They are going to be held on Thursday,
June 8.
A good many people came from substantial distances. I expressed our
regrets that we could not hold the hearing. But it was not possible to
do so. But I did tell them that the statements which had been submitted
would be put in the Record at this time so that their prepared
statements could at least be read by Members of the Senate or those
interested in reading them.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of attorney
John W. DeCamp, the statement of Mr. Norman Olson, the statement of Mr.
Leroy Crenshaw, and the statement of the Militia of Montana be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
Memorandum from: Senator John W. DeCamp, Atty.
To: Sub Committee on Terrorism, U.S. Senator Judiciary
Committee.
Re: Testimony to Committee.
To paraphrase an old saying. . . . ``Five months ago I
couldn't spell `Militia' and now I represent one.''
It was five months ago I agreed to PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE
TO the leaders of the Montana Militia on a dozen felonies.
Why? I felt the felony charges involved open and shut first
amendment issues of freedom of speech, assembly and right to
petition Government issues, and have learned a wealth of
information since that time--particularly in light of the
Oklahoma bombing and the anti-militia movement.
Before I go too much further, let me give brief background
on myself and let me answer the first questions that press
and your staff asked of me.
Question: Are you a white supremacist?
My wife is Vietnamese--one of the Boatpeople. Our four home
made AMERASIAN children are the four most beautiful and
talented mixed race children on the planet. My business
partner is African-American. My Comptroller is Indian from
Bombay & my legal associates over the years have been mostly
Jewish. You make your own conclusions.
Question: Are these militias dangerous?
Absolutely yes, and absolutely no.
First, the media and MOST OF US have made the same
fundamental error (``Cat Bagging'' I call it) as was made
during the McCarthy Era, during the Vietnam War Protest
Movement, and during Watergate.
That is, we lump all the Militias, the So Called Patriot
groups, and Tax Protesters and Free Men & Survivalist Groups
together as identical cats and then put them all into one
bag.
Second, we SELECT An individual or entity that is simply
off the spectrum in their beliefs, one not tethered to
reality and attribute those horrible characteristics to all
the militias. In short, we ``demonize'' them. Quickly, they
are all labeled as white supremacist, racist, anti-
government, paranoid revolutionaries fixing to blow up the
world.
The truth is that there is as much diversity among these
groups as there is among religious groups. As a young boy, I
remember sitting in the front pew and hearing the Priest in
my small town of 1,800 people explain why the Protestants
were all going to hell. And, on Monday morning at school my
best friend, a Protestant kid named Jimmy, would explain to
me that his preacher had told him the same thing about us
Catholics the day before.
It has been my observation that many of these groups--
particularly the ones I considered not tethered to reality--
are a bit like the Priest and the Preacher * * *. That is,
much of their effort is devoted to explaining to their
members why the other group are not real patriots, or why Bo
Gritz or John Trochman are really C.I.A. agents.
In truth, most of the militia groups--Montana Militia,
Oklahoma Militia, New Hampshire Militia--could be classified
as middle of the road among hard conservatives. What do I
mean?
Ten, twenty and thirty years ago they are the individuals
who were clamoring for ``Law and Order.'
I suppose it is ironic, some might say poetic, that what
many of them sought, ``Law and Order'' has now come to pass
in a FORM they deem to be excess * * * that is too much
oppressive law and abuse of the Constitution. And ``order''
has become what they fear to be ``a new world order.'' And
thru speaking out, they want everyone to know this attitude
on their part and their fears and concerns.
But are they dangerous?
They are a political movement. All political movements are
dangerous to some other political movement they run counter
to.
That is how our system of government evolves * * * thru
political conflict and wars fought with words instead of
bullets and fought in the press and from the bully pulpit
instead of on the battlefield.
Ultimately, that is the only truly distinguishing feature
separating our 200-year-old political system from all others
that went before it. Namely, the ability thru verbal conflict
and battle for our system to reverse itself (revolution) and
go in an opposite direction without the necessity of a
violent revolution.
But are they physically dangerous or a threat to our
Government or our Constitution?
You judge * * * but do it on the facts, not on innuendo or
the words of the natural enemies of these militias, namely,
other political groups opposed to their philosophy.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no reported
incidents of any significance of militias being involved in
any of the following:
1. Drive by shootings.
2. The drug trade.
3. Use of children for pornography, pedophilia & drug
couriers.
4. Gang wars.
5. Auto theft.
6. Murder, rape, robbery, trafficking in illegal arms.
If militias are involved in these somebody is not reporting
them. And I doubt that.
For benefit of those who might differ with me on this, I
would point out that in each of the incidents you might be
familiar with, Gordon Kahl, Radny Weaver, Waco, the events
were initiated by the Government in an attempt to serve
usually misdemeanor warrants on contested tax matters using
overwhelming force and what in hindsight seems rather poor
judgement.
In short, an analysis by you will show that the militias
themselves have been the victim of violence rather than the
perpetrator or initiator.
As an example to prove my point, I challenge this committee
to examine the most notorious & deadly event in American
history involving U.S. marshals * * * namely, the Gordon Kahl
shoot-out 12 years ago in which about a half-dozen marshals
were shot, and Kahl escaped resulting in the largest manhunt
in American history.
Have the courage to OBJECTIVELY examine this event--same
with Waco--, and you will begin to understand the origins of
the militia movement, their disenchantment and fear of law
enforcement and Government.
Whether you believe Kahl was the most notorious and crazy
tax
protester in American History or whether you believe he was
a martyr responsible for triggering the militia movement,
it is only by understanding this case in depth that you
can understand the origins of the Militia movement.
Question: Are you, John DeCamp, a member of a militia?
Sure, about twenty-five years ago I was a member. We called
it the United States Army. We had training sessions and
exercises in a place called Vietnam. I was an Infantry
Captain there specially assigned to a man named Bill Colby.
Bill subsequently became my friend, Godfather, advisor and
Legal Associate on a case or two. Bill was the individual who
insisted I write the book, the Franklin Coverup--which book
resulted in some of the Militias asking me to represent them.
You may remember Bill as the former head of a group called
the C.I.A., Central Intelligence Agency.
So, since Colby told me to write my book the Franklin
Cover-up; and since the book resulted in my representing the
Montana militia and being here today, I suppose I'm here
because of the C.I.A. just kidding. . . .
My Militia leader, a chap named McNamara, told us in
Vietnam that we were winning; that our government was sincere
. . . and a lot of other nice things that inspired us to get
our heads blown off. Then a couple weeks ago, I understand
Mr. McNamara told the world that he was only ``funnin'' us
when he told us those things during the war. McNamara said
that he or our other leader Lyndon knew all along that they
were lying to us. [[Page S7475]]
That is the about the same thing those war protesters were
saying twenty-five years ago. But twenty-five years ago Mr.
McNamara and Lyndon said the war protesters were lying and
Mr. McNamara and Lyndon tried to suspend their right to
criticize or question government. Lyndon tried to beat their
heads in, lock them up and shut them up using government
agencies. Now, I get a little gun-shy when I see the
Government taking the same approach to the Militias today.
Instead of raiding them, threatening them, indicting them for
what they say and believe, let's keep open minds and listen
to their arguments the same as any other political debate.
Who knows, we might discover that ``truth lies somewhere in
the middle'' as it frequently does in all things in life.
There is no proof at this point, nor any indication of
proof, that the militias themselves--unlike Vietnam war
protesters--have blown up any buildings, media and political
innuendo to the contrary notwithstanding.
Question: How should government treat the militias?
The same as any other political movement or group. Give
them the full benefit of the First Amendment. Let the war be
fought in the press and with words. The legitimate ones will
survive and maybe evolve. In open debate, any crazies will
self-destruct.
The only real danger from the militias is if you try to
suspend pieces of the Constitution to shut them up or destroy
them.
For God's sake . . . for America's sake . . . don't rip off
a corner of our Constitution to address a crisis or threat
that has yet to be proven to even exist.
Three times in my short life, I have watched panic set in
with Government Leaders. Those three times are: McCarthyism,
Vietnam war protest movement, Watergate.
Each time, government reacted by trying to suspend our
Fundamental First Amendment Rights.
McCarthyism: I remember * * * teachers taking loyalty oaths
* * * neighbors questioning and accusing their neighbor or
competitor of being a Communist. J. Edgar being given free
reign to suspend the Constitution. And everybody was paranoid
about their neighbor.
Vietnam war protesters: I sure remember that. First
reaction was to try to shut them up. That simply resulted in
violence.
Watergate: My hero Dick Nixon panicked and for his own
security also tried to rip off a corner of the Constitution
and shut up his critics. That resulted in a brutal First
Amendment ``caning.''
But, in each case, it was not the Government which saved
the Constitution for the people; rather it was the free and
unfettered press using their First Amendment which saved the
Constitution from the Government abuse.
That First Amendment--and the free press and robust and
wild and wooly free speech it promotes--is our ultimate check
and balance to preserve the Constitution.
Whether it is Edward R. Murrow exposing McCarthy as a
Charlatan; or the New York Times daring to print the Pentagon
Papers; or, God Forbid, the Washington Post taking on Nixon
and the entire government in Watergate, it has been the press
operating under the First Amendment that has saved our
Constitution and Americans from Government abuse rather than
the Government saving our Constitution from press or American
citizen abuse.
So what ever you do, don't overreact and trade pieces of
our Constitution for an instant solution to some perceived
but unproved problem.
Let me conclude by simply saying this: the best way to
understand the militias, their motives, their agenda, their
danger or their benefit to America is to understand their
origins.
And, you can only understand their origins if you will as a
governing body publicly, openly and thoroughly examine Waco
and Gordon Kahl and Randy Weaver.
This is what we ask of you. An open, public, above-board
Senate examination of those events that will help re-
establish, no matter the outcome of that objective
examination, trust and credibility in our Government agencies
when they speak.
____
(From The Alanson Armory: Wolverines, May 24, 1995)
Testimony of Mr. Norman Olson
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The
following statement will attempt to answer the question of
the legitimacy and the need of the citizen militia.
Not only does the Constitution specifically allow the
formation of a Federal army, it also recognizes the inherent
right of the people to form militia. Further, it recognizes
that the citizen and his personal armaments are the
foundation of the militia. The arming of the militia is not
left to the state but to the citizen. However, should the
state choose to arm its citizen militia, it is free to do
(bearing in mind that the Constitution is not a document
limiting the citizen, but rather limiting the power of
government). But should the state fail to arm its citizen
militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
becomes the source of the guarantee that the state will not
be found defenseless in the presence of a threat to its
security. It makes no sense whatsoever to look at the
Constitution of the United States or that of any state for
permission to form a citizen militia since logically, the
power to permit is also the power to deny. If brought to its
logical conclusion in this case, government may deny the
citizen the right to form a militia. If this were to happen,
the state would assert itself as the principle of the
contract making the people the agents. Liberty then would
depend on the state's grant of liberty. Such a concept is
foreign to American thought.
While the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
acknowledges the existence of state militia and recognizes
their necessity for the security of a free state; and, while
it also recognizes that the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed, the Second Amendment is not
the source of the right to form a militia nor to keep and
bear arms. Those rights existed in the states prior to the
formation of the federal union. In fact, the right to form
militia and to keep and bear arms existed from antiquity. The
enumeration of those rights in the Constitution only
underscores their natural occurrence and importance.
According to the Tenth Amendment, ultimate power over the
militia is not delegated to the Federal government by the
Constitution nor to the states, but resides with the people.
Consequently, the power of the militia remains in the hands
of the people. Again, the fundamental function of the militia
in society remains with the people. Therefore, the Second
Amendment recognizes that the militia's existence and the
security of the state rests ultimately in the people who
volunteer their persons to constitute the militia and their
arms to supply its firepower. The primary defense of the
state rests with the citizen militia bearing its own arms.
Fundamentally, it is not the state that defends the people,
but the people who defend the state.
The second line of defense of the state consists in the
statutory organization known as the National Guard. Whereas
the National Guard is solely the creation of statutory law,
the militia derives its existence from the inherent
inalienable rights which existed before the Constitution and
whose importance are such that they merited specific
recognition in that document. While the National Guard came
into existence as a result of legislative activity, the
militia existed before there was a nation or a constitutional
form of government. The militia consisting of people owning
and bearing personal weapons is the very authority out of
which the United States Constitution grew. This point must be
emphasized. Neither the citizen's militia nor the citizen's
private arsenal can be an appropriate subject for federal
regulation. It was the armed militia of the American colonies
whose own efforts ultimately led to the establishment of the
United States of
America! While some say that the right to keep and bear arms
is granted to Americans by the Constitution, just the
opposite is true. The Federal Government itself is the
child of the armed citizen. We the people are the parent
of the child we call government. You, Senators, are part
of the child that We The People gave life to. The
increasing amount of Federal encroachment into our lives
indicates the need for parental corrective action. In
short, the Federal government needs a good spanking to
make it behave.
One other important point needs to be made. Since the
Constitution is the limiting document upon the government,
the government cannot become greater than the granting power,
that is the servant cannot become greater than his master.
Therefore, should the Chief Executive or other branch of
government, or all branches together act to suspend the
Constitution under a rule of martial law, all power granted
to government would be canceled and defer back to the
granting power, the people. Martial law shall not be possible
in this country as long as the people recognize the Bill of
Rights as inalienable.
Since the power of self defense and the defense of the
state is ultimately vested in the people, there is no
possible way that a Governor or the Chief Executive of the
United States, or any legislative body can ``outlaw'' the
citizen militia for to do so would rob inherent power from
the people. If that were to happen, our entire form of
government would cease.
Historically, we have found that the Governor's militia,
that is the National Guard, is intended to reduce the need
for the citizen militia. Simply, if the National Guard did
it's job in securing the state, the citizen militia would not
emerge. That it has emerged so dramatically seems to indicate
that the people do not feel secure. Simply stated, the
growing threat of centralized Federal government is
frightening America, hence the emergence of the citizen
militia. When government is given back to the people at the
lowest level, the citizen militia will return to its natural
place, resident within the body of the people. Civil war and
revolution can be avoided by re-investing governing power to
the people.
To summarize: Citizen militia are historic lawful entities
predating constitutions. Such militia are ``grandfathered''
into the very system of government they created. The
Constitution grants no right to form militia, but merely
recognize the existing natural right of all people to defend
and protect themselves. The governments created out of well
armed and free people are to be constantly obedient to the
people. Any attempt to take the means of freedom from the
people is an act of rebellion against the people.
In order to resist a rebellious and disobedient government,
the citizen militia must [[Page S7476]] not be connected in
any way with that government lest the body politic loose its
fearful countenance as the only sure threat to a government
bent on converting free people into slaves.
____
Testimony of Leroy Crenshaw Before the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, May 25, 1995
Good Morning Chairman Hatch and Distinguished Members of
this Committee.
My name is Leroy Crenshaw, and I would request that this
Committee accept my prepared statement as a part of the
record of these proceedings.
I was born and raised in the beautiful State of Alabama,
and I now live and teach school in the great State of
Massachusetts. I have a faithful and supporting wife and we
have raised six fine children.
We all feel privileged to have been born in these times
when the promise of our forefathers has begun to spread to
all races, colors, and creeds, of our countrymen. Ironically
however, these times have evolved all too soon into conflicts
between my countrymen of all races and the officers of their
government. For many of my friends who are not Black
Americans, these times have brought circumstances into their
lives that have no memorable precedent. For me and my wife,
we see emerging official conduct that is all too reminiscent
of earlier days of ``us'' and ``them'' that Black Americans
have known as their daily diet since our country began. We
welcome our white brethren to our sides in this time of
burgeoning oppression.
During recent times, we ordinary Americans have experienced
repeated episodes of authoritarian confrontation provoked and
executed by our federal government. We have witnessed with
horror as each of our individual rights, as enumerated in the
first Ten Amendments to our Constitution, has fallen to
attack by our federal government at the highest levels. We
have repeatedly attempted redress through our courts, through
our elected Representatives and Senators, and through
pleading with the agencies of our government, all to no avail
after a consistent pattern of restatement of our issues into
``non-issues'', in order to avoid dealing with the substance
of our complaints.
We have witnessed our federal Government make itself a
party to the collapse of our banking and Savings and Loan
institutions.
We have witnessed our Government commit our young men to
foreign military adventurism upon false premise, and upon an
usurped authority.
We have all been victims of federal incursion into our
private financial affairs to the point of our right invasion
of the sanctity of our family domain, under the guise of
routing out fraud by us working Americans.
We have witnessed out right and provable lies told to the
records of our federal courts by the judges appointed to
these high positions.
We have witnessed our own President disclaim our Bill of
Rights as ``radical'' liberties to be granted to ordinary
people.
We have witnessed one Vice President (Quayle), along with
at least one Attorney General (Barr), attempt to convince us
to abandon our right to jury trials in all criminal cases and
an civil case in excess of twenty dollars (1990-1991).
We have discovered that the CIA, the Department of Justice,
and the DEA, along with other agencies of government have
worked in concert to engage and profiteer from drug
trafficking.
We have witnessed the compromise of the sovereignty of our
state governments by federal funding schemes that always
contain a myriad of control strings.
We have witnessed our community controlled school systems
invaded by ``better idea'' federally funded concepts that
offer no rational solutions, except mind conditioning of our
young into ``interdependent'' concepts that scorn the virtue
of self reliance and fundamental education.
We have witnessed repeated instances when officers of our
federal government, acting under color of federal law, have
committed multiple crimes against us, in the form of actual
violence, and in the form of `white collar' extortion, theft,
embezzlement, and provable fraud.
We have witnessed the consistent official forgiving of
these crimes without any authority under our Constitution to
grant these officers any reprieve for their offenses against
our laws and our Constitution.
We have studied our Law, and we have found there our
fundamental rights still stated to be ``protected''.
We also have found within our Constitution, the
prescription for dealing with these perversions to our
security that trouble us so much.
We find in the First Amendment to the Constitution that the
Congress shall pass no law abridging our right ``peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.'', but Congress has passed such laws.
We find the Second Amendment constitutionally prescribed
protection of our individual duty to take arms if need be in
defense of our Constitution, to be under attack by our own
Congressmen.
We find in the Fourth Amendment, our protection of our
right to be secure in our homes from official threats against
our persons, our papers, and our effects, against searches
and seizures upon non-existent or warrantless incursions into
our private domains, but we know of repeated incidents of
just such incursions into the homes of persons who are later
found to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and some
of such persons have died as a result.
We find in the Fifth amendment that none of us is to be
deprived of our life, without due process of law, but we know
now of many unarguably innocent people who have been killed
by our federal officers who knew of the innocence of their
victims before their killing acts.
We find in the Fifth Amendment that none of us is to be
deprived of our liberty without due process of law, but we
know that many of us have been imprisoned upon trumped up
charges that are ultimately shown to have been knowingly
brought upon fraudulent grounds.
We find in the Fifth Amendment that none of us is to be
deprived of our property without due process of law, but we
know that many of us has had his cash, possessions, and
future means of earning a living, seized without any
opportunity to oppose such seizure before the fact.
We find in the Fifth Amendment that each of us is entitle
to obtain ``just compensation'' as payment from our
government before our property of any sort is taken for
public purposes, but our government is depriving us of that
which is ours upon a daily basis without any payment what so
ever.
For all the above findings, the officers of our government
are acting in clear repugnance to our Constitution. Those in
government who control the course of redress within our
institutions know that we have suffered these crimes under
our Constitution. Yet, they do nothing, and these facts
constitute a condition of officials acting in insurrection
and rebellion against our Constitution, as meant in section 3
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We all know that should our government fail to immediately
purge itself of such manner of conduct, that we each are
empowered by Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to
suppress any such manner of insurrection and rebellion--at
the expense of our National Treasury.
Now let us all understand:
That we the people have always had, and still possess, the
right, the duty, and the power, to ``effect [our] Safety and
Happiness.''
That, ``Prudence . . . will dictate that Governments long
established [such as ours] should not be changed for light
and transient causes; and . . . all [our] experience has
shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils
are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the
forms to which [we] are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object
evinces a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism, it
is [our] right, it is our duty, to throw off such government
[or usurping officers within], and to provide new Guards for
[our] future security.''
``Such has been the patient sufferance of [my countrymen];
and such is now the necessity which constrains [us] to alter
[our present state of oppression].'' To this end, we have
commenced to keep and bear our Arms upon common respect and
allegiance to the defense of our Constitution, and to those
long suffering public servants of our government who are
compelled to remain silent while a small arrogant elitist
sect wield powers never granted to them by us, and destroy
our nation.
My humble message to this panel is that we know you and
your counterparts in the House of Representatives are aware
of these problems, and your sworn duty to suppress those
federal officials acting against us. We urge you to do your
duty. We shall not fail to do ours.
Thank you all for your kind attention.
____
Leroy Crenshaw,
Springfield, MA, May 25, 1995.
Hon. Robert Goldberg,
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I come before this subcommittee on
terrorism to state my views, establish for the record the
basic concepts behind the Militia movement, and for all
American's who are unable to receive justice from a system
that is bogged down in red tape and corruption.
First, I speak for myself. My dealings with the Internal
Revenue Service [IRS] began at a time when I was personally
involved with two deaths in my immediate family. One was our
daughter, the other was my wife's mother. The IRS claimed we
owed an additional $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 in taxes. This
figure skyrocketed from that level to $12,000.00 after
application of penalties and fines. Upon advice of the
federal judge who heard our case, we paid nothing pending a
class action suit against the tax shelter. The IRS
subsequently closed down the tax shelter, and all
participants who were assessed additional taxes, fines, and
penalties, by the IRS for their good faith money management.
As I said, at that time I was under stress, having just lost
two loved ones, and so we paid the $12,000.00. We were given
forms to complete that we were told would allow the debt to
be forgiven. However, nothing has come of this assurance to
date. The forms were returned to the IRS, and we made several
telephone calls on this matter only to be told that no one
knew anything about this. Justice has not been served in our
matter, and I petition this chamber to launch an
investigation and return to myself and every other individual
that has been targeted by the IRS any and all moneys that
have been taken under duress and threat of
prosecution. [[Page S7477]]
Another case is that of Thomas M. Read v. The United States
of America, et al. This case went to the U.S. Supreme Court
upon dismissals all along the way (Supreme Court Docket No.
92-1952). Thomas Read, and his wife Sandy, had been hounded
for six and one-half years by corrupted federal court
appointees in the Northern California bankruptcy system.
Neither Read, nor his wife, has any connection to any
bankruptcy--except by the fraudulent and false claims lodged
under Connecticut law against them. In October of 1986, Read
underwent a two week jury trail, and he and his wife were
found to have been completely innocent of the allegations
lodged against them. It was a jury trial, and the jury
determined that the plaintiff, a bankruptcy trustee, was
guilty of knowingly inducing the Reads into a fraud, a tort
offense under Connecticut law. But the trustee ran to his
bankruptcy judge in California, and sought and received a
``Permanent Injunction'' against the Reads from ever acting
upon their judgment upon the issues he (the trustee) had
brought to trial in Connecticut Superior Court. The case had
not been removed to federal jurisdiction--because a prior
federal action brought against the Reads had resulted in an
abstention by the federal courts of exercise of federal
jurisdiction over this case, and also because the time
limitations for removal to federal jurisdiction had long
since expired. Mr. Read was not aware of the corruption that
existed in the Northern California bankruptcy system, and
filed an appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court
misstated facts, and proceeded to proclaim bankruptcy
trustees immune from personal liability upon the false
premise that they possessed ``derived judicial immunity''
(This case was mentioned in Rodney Stitch's Book Defrauding
America, pp. 109 and 110), even though these trustees do not
function in a judicial capacity. The Reads had already
suffered a $346,000.00 loss resulting from the years of
fraudulent suit, and ultimately suffered a complete financial
collapse, in 1989.
Since that time, Mr. Read has been railed upon by our
federal courts when he has stated the facts of this case. The
fact remains, a jury determined that court appointees did
conceive and work in concert to perpetrate a fraud upon the
Reads. If our government, in order to serve the public, must
commit acts constituting torts against ordinary citizens and
protect its appointed federal actors, then the government
assumes the burden of justly compensating the damaged parties
under the Fifth Amendment Taking Clause. In this case, and
many others, it did not.
Finally we come to the militia movement. Because of all of
the above incidents, and many more, the citizens of this
country have become disenchanted, skeptical, and suspicious,
of our federal government on all levels. I, myself, am not a
member of any militia, but having been involved in a dispute
with the government in the form of the IRS, and having seen
many friends who have become involved in incidents that were
not of their making or choosing, I have come to realize that
we must force our elected officials to do our bidding because
they refuse to respond to us. I must conclude that, since
there is so much corruption in government, and there seems to
be no way that the ``good guys'' can be differentiated from
the ``bad guys'', by the government, then, we have to
eliminate the ``bad guys'' ourselves. I am here to advise you
that the American people are waking up, and these awakening
Americans are seeing the truth of our times. They are seeing
many of you, and many of your colleagues, lie and deceive us
without even a thought of remorse.
The militia movement started because the majority of the
politicians are not telling the truth and the people have no
redress for their grievances. The politicians are liars and
the news media are purveyors of these lies as if they were
the truth. The militia movement is comprised of ordinary
every day people who love their country and the way of life
that is slowly being sucked away by government officers
acting upon an usurped authority. You were all put in office
by people who are in the militia, who are teachers, like
myself, and who are more likely than ever to be unemployed
individuals due to unconstitutional laws passed by this
Congress, and Executive Orders signed into law that should
never see the light of day.
Certain actions by the ATF, CIA, IRS, and other federal
agencies have brought attention to themselves and their
``Jack booted thugs'' by the few who need to be eliminated
from the ranks of federal government. There is no justice if
the ones who shoot nursing mothers and dogs, and little
children in the back, later get promoted instead of
prosecuted. Case in point is Special Agent Potts. Let's get
some justice for the American people by putting this murdered
(Potts) in jail. We don't want him promoted, we want him, and
others of his ilk, out of office, with NO benefits, NO
retirement, and NO chance of ever later acquiring them. If a
public officer dishonors his oath to defend and protect the
Constitution, that officer should relinquish any rights he or
she thought that were theirs, but instead it is the people of
America who end up relinquishing their individual rights.
That IS a crime. People who break the law need to be
punished, that includes politicians, judges, trustees, or
anyone who has acted in violation of the public trust.
The terrorism that has been perpetrated against America,
has been against all Americans. How dare they insinuate that
loyal Americans would stoop to hurt other Americans. Yet,
individuals in the person of Ms. Janet Reno, have the nerve
to sit there and act indignant about charges spoken against
her on the Waco massacre. Make no mistake, it was a massacre,
and I doubt if the truth will ever be told because of the
corruption and graft that permeates the entire justice
system. These harsh words, but not nearly as harsh as the
reality that American citizens endure each day.
There is today in America, a resurgence of loyalty and if
you are not corrupt, if you work for the people, and if you
uphold the Constitution, you have nothing to fear from
anyone, much less a militia movement. Unfortunately, payoffs,
underhanded money deals, corruption and illegal use of the
power of office is the rule rather than the exception. Some
believe that the only terrorism instigated in this country
today, has been at the hands of government officials. I don't
see the people of this country putting up concrete barriers
around their homes. This country was founded on the premise
that the government worked for the people, not the other way
around. If we are being denied access to our ``elected
officials'' what is the next step? The saying ``A guilty mind
needs no accuser'' applies here! Only the guilty flee, when
no one pursues.
If Larry Nichols and Terry Reed are wrong in their
accusations of massive drug trafficking against Mr. Clinton,
let's put them in jail after a fair trial. But, if as we all
suspect, they are truthful, let's put Mr. Clinton on the
line, Impeach and prosecute and do not under any circumstance
allow him to grant immunity or to pardon anyone. Is this too
much to ask? I ask all of you, how many members of Congress
as well as judges, etc., would remain in office of forced to
be held accountable to the laws of the ordinary man.
As a black man born and raised in Alabama, I've been
subjected to things most Americans only read about in History
books. Now, today, in this country, land of the free home of
the brave, white Americans are beginning to be subjected to
the same types of discrimination and random acts of violence
that are really not targeted at any one group, but at all
Americans who love their country and are trying to get rid of
the corruption and graft that lines our courtrooms and legal
professions. The few bad applies do spoil it for the ``good
guys'' every time.
Sincerely,
Leroy Crenshaw.
____
Excerpt From Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial
Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, November 6, 1991
Hamilton described another bankruptcy-related killing, in
which attorney John Scott was murdered as his charges of
bankruptcy corruption started to threaten the established
racketeering enterprise and the involved federal judges,
trustees and law firms. Someone killed Scott near Austin,
Texas.
giving themselves immunity from their crimes
Federal judges of the Ninth Circuit held that the private
trustees, including embezzler Charles Duck, who committed the
nation's worst Chapter 11 corruption, were officers of the
court, and were therefore immune from liability. Federal
judges, therefore, held that a citizen has no claim against
an officer of the court (i.e., trustee, attorney, judge, or
one of their employees) arising from the criminal acts of
that federal official, even though the acts are criminal and
inflict enormous harm upon an innocent person. They held in
effect that officers of the court could inflict any type of
outrage upon the public, and the public has no remedy.
One of the many people victimized by the judicial
corruption was Thomas Read of Connecticut. Read had not
sought relief in Chapter 11, but was affected by Charles
Duck, and the federal judges seeking to protect the admitted
embezzler. Read obtained a Connecticut judgment against Duck.
Bankruptcy Judge Alan Jaroslovsky of Santa Rosa, who had
protected Duck's criminal activities, issued an injunction
forever barring Read from enforcing the judgment. Read argued
that the injunctive order exceeded the judge's authority.
Read filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel (composed of Chapter 11 judges. The appellate
panel rendered a published decision:
``Federal judges, seeking to protect these criminal acts
and themselves, have rendered decisions holding that
``judicial immunity not only protects judges against suit
from acts done within their jurisdiction, but also spreads
outward to shield related public servants, including trustees
in bankruptcy.''
``This circuit has adopted a . . . rationale stating that a
trustee or an official acting under the authority of the
bankruptcy judge is entitled to derived judicial immunity
because he is performing an integral part of the judicial
process. . . . a trustee, who obtains court approval for
actions under the supervision of the bankruptcy judge, is
entitled to derived immunity.
``It is well settled that the trustee in bankruptcy is an
officer of the appointing court. Courts other than the
appointing court have no jurisdiction to entertain suits
against the trustee, without leave from the appointing court,
for acts done in an official capacity and within his
authority as an officer of the court. . . . It is . . .
axiomatic that the Trustee, `as a trustee in bankruptcy [and]
as an official acting under the authority of the
[[Page S7478]] bankruptcy judge, is entitled to derived
judicial immunity because he is performing an integral part
of the judicial process.'
``Sound policy also mandates immunizing the trustee. The
possibility that we would hold trustees personally liable for
judgments rendered against them in their representative
capacity would invariably lessen the vigor with which
trustees pursue their obligations. Immunity is essential
because, as Judge Learned Hand noted, ``to submit all
officials, the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden
of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would
dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most
irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties.
. . . Accordingly, we hold that the trustee [Charles Duck],
acting under the authority of the court, is entitled to
derived judicial immunity.''
As the judicial involvement in the Chapter 11 corruption
surfaced, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a
judgment\103\ protecting judges against responsibility for
their criminal acts. The Ninth Circuit rendered the decision
holding that regardless of any criminal conduct committed
against the public or an individual by a judge or person
acting on his behalf, such as a trustee, the public had no
remedy against the judges, or anyone acting with the judges.
The need for these self-protective and unconstitutional
decisions is rapidly increasing as federal judges are heavily
implicated in some of the worst criminal activities ever
exposed in the history of the United States. Worse judicial
corruption has yet to be described.
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court enlarged upon the
protection against their own criminal acts (and they may need
this protection shortly). The Supreme Court Justices held in
Stump v. Sparkman\104\ that a judge could deliberately commit
unlawful, unconstitutional, and corrupt acts upon a citizen,
destroy personal and property rights, and be immune from
financial liability. This decision was repeatedly stated by
U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel, San Francisco, as I sought
relief against California and federal judges.
The Constitution and statutes disagree with judge-made law,
federal civil rights statutes and constitutional rights to
seek relief clearly do not provide immunity to federal judges
when they violate clear and settled civil and constitutional
rights, or against corrupt or criminal acts, and who inflict
harm upon any member of the American public.
In Stump v. Sparkman the judge entered into a conspiracy,
ordering a young girl permanently sterilized. The Supreme
Court held that the girl had no remedy against the judge, as
the public's welfare requires that a judge be free to
exercise his duties without fear of the consequences. That is
a farce, and the public's welfare isn't protected by
protecting crooked judges.
____
Appearance Before the Senate Subcommit- tee on Anti-
Terrorism, May 25, 1995
Not only is it a pleasure to have this opportunity to
define for your and America who and what the militia is, what
they stand for and why all Americans have the constitutional
obligation to participate in patriotic or militia groups, but
it is also saddening that this opportunity arose out of the
Oklahoma tragedy.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Militia Of Montana does
not base its existence upon the legal definition of militia.
The foundation for the right to exist is clearly a First
Amendment issue, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly,
as a private organization. At this time there are
approximately ten million American citizens participating in
patriot/militia activities in all fifty states, with the
numbers growing steadily every day.
The Militia Of Montana, created by a few loyal American
citizens, has become a national ``guide-post'' for newly
founded patriot groups.
Why people need to participate in militia/patriot
organizations and activities is best shown in the Declaration
of Independence. It is too lengthy to read at this time,
however it speaks for itself and for American patriots. We
would like to request that this document be entered into the
permanent record at this time, as a partial support document
to our statements.
The Declaration of Independence gives excellent insight and
explanation as to why individuals go to extreme measures when
flagrant injustices continue by ``out of control'',
oppressive public servants. This same restrictive oppression
is once again rearing its ugly head, only this time in
America.
The following are just a few examples as to why American
citizens are becoming more and more involved in militia/
patriot organizations:
The high Office of the Presidency has turned into a
position of a Dictator through the abusive use of Executive
Orders and Directives. This must be stopped. The Senate and
the House of Representatives have been stripped of their
power and authority and act only as mouth pieces for ``public
policy''. When the President over rules the Congress by
Executive Order, Senators and Representatives wonder why
their constituents are so upset.
When government corruption, fraud, deception and secret
government theft has not been tried and adjudicated, Senators
and Representatives wonder why their constituents are so
upset.
When government plans and authorizes the assassination of
87 Americans in their home and church, or directs the sniper
to kill a mother while holding her infant in her arms and
then awards those responsible with a job promotion, Senators
and Representatives wonder why their constituents are so
upset.
When government takes private property from American
Citizens to protect the kangaroo rat, Senators and
Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset.
When government law enforcers, dressed like local gang
members in total black, bust down your door, often the wrong
door, Senators and Representatives wonder why their
constituents are so upset.
When the President, Senate and House of Representatives
infringed upon the Second Amendment, are attempting to
infringe upon the Fourth Amendment (H.R. 666) and are now,
through these hearings, contemplating on infringing upon the
First Amendment, Senators and Representatives wonder why
their constituents are so upset.
When private interest groups like ``The World Government of
World Citizens'' can sell their own stamps and their own
passports to their own members and the government allows and
accepts them as valid, contrary to the law, Senators and
Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset.
When government allows our military to be ordered and
controlled by foreigners, Senators and Representatives wonder
why their constituents are so upset.
When government allows foreign armies (some of whom are
using them to kill their own citizens) to train in our land,
Senators and Representatives wonder why their constituents
are so upset.
When government allows the military to label patriots as
the enemy, Senators and Representatives wonder why their
constituents are so upset.
When government defines human beings as a biological
resource under ecosystem management, Senators and
Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset.
When government sends billions of dollars in aid to foreign
countries while there are millions of homeless and starving
Americans, Senators and Representatives wonder why their
constituents are so upset.
When government forces Americans to work over five months
to pay their income taxes alone, Senators and Representatives
wonder why their constituents are so upset.
When government refuses to hold hearings on government
sanctioned abuses, Senators and Representatives wonder why
their constituents are so upset.
When government tampers with and destroys evidence needed
to solve a crime, Senators and Representatives wonder why
their constituents are so upset.
When government now considers the very idea of infringing
upon the people's rights of freedom of speech, assembly and
the right to redress, Senators and Representatives wonder why
their constituents are so upset.
``The Law perverted and the police powers of the state
perverted along with it!! The law not only turns from its
proper-purpose, but made to follow a totally contrary
purpose, the law becomes the weapon of every kind of greed.
Instead of checking crime the law itself becomes guilty of
the evils it is supposed to pursue.
Since this is now true, it is a grave and serious fact.
Moral duty to my fellow man requires us to call these facts
to the attention of our fellow citizens.''
These were the words of a French Patriot, Frederick
Bastiat, in 1884 as he watched his nation move into Socialism
and an oppressive police state.
These are identical concerns echoed today by the militia/
patriot groups and organizations. These groups and
organizations represent lawyers, doctors, soldiers and
laborers.
Militia/patriot organizations are not terroristic,
aggressive or offensive in structure or design. We have, and
presently deplore and denounce the senseless act of violence
that took place in Oklahoma. We have and will continue to
assist in any manner to apprehend all persons that may have
planned or carried out that deed. At whatever level they may
hide.
Militia/patriot groups are only aggressive in our means by
which we educate a docile American public. Our singular
mandate, which is public and overt, is the preservation of
the Constitution of the United States (a Republic), as it was
founded and the Sovereignty of this great nation.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate and House of
Representatives the people would like to know where and when
it will end? Will it end with America turning into a
Socialist Republic (which we all know is the end result of a
Democracy)? Or, will you do your duty to fulfill your oath
which all of you took to defend this country from all enemies
foreign and domestic?
If you decide to fulfill your oath the first thing you must
do is stop relying upon rumor and gossip. Do not rely upon
the press or other organizations which have their own
agendas. Rely upon your own investigations.
As one example, we would like to refer you to the
Congressional Record of the 92d Congress, First Session, Vol.
117, No. 189, Monday, December 6, 1971, House of
Representatives. Congressman John R. Rarick (D-La.) exposed
the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) vast world-wide spy
network. According to Congressman Rarick the ADL provides
information to the press which accepts it as truth,
Congressman Rarick also stated the [[Page S7479]] ADL uses
its information ``to suppress free speech and discussion and
to influence public thought and sentiment of an unsuspecting
citizenry.''
Lo and behold what do we now have? Legislation that will
suppress freedom of speech and discussion.
In 1983 the Department of Justice (DOJ) paid the ADL
$20,000 in taxpayers' money to produce a report on so-called
``hate groups''. The DOJ refused to publish the report
because it was so sensationalized that the DOJ could not
consider it credible. The ADL went ahead with it's own
copyright and published the report anyway, feeding it to the
press. The DOJ forced the ADL to relinquish the copyright.
Now the ADL is once again feeding the press lies, rumor and
gossip which the press accepts as gospel.
The press then takes this mis-information, rumor and
gossip, sensationalizes it to spin a tale until it grows and
grows so out of proportion that the press starts scrambling
to create a better story than the other guy. Law enforcement,
military and government officials then pick up on it
believing in a literal ``feeding-frenzy'' of the press. This
has become a story that had lost control and those who do not
investigate it for themselves are totally irresponsible,
especially law makers.
As we are now witnessing, Americans are questioning the
press. This is evidenced by the phenomenal growth of the
patriot/militia movement.
As this patriotic awareness expands, millions of Americans
will expect a new view from a more responsive government. A
new re-birth of responsibility from a government that has
strayed from it's ``job-description'' as mandated by the
Constitution. A government created by the people and for the
people. Not the limited few.
May God be with all America as he watches over the
shoulders of you who write her laws. A nation can survive
it's fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive
treason from within.
America has nothing to fear from patriots maintaining
``vigilance.'' She should, however, fear those that would
``outlaw'' vigilance.
____________________