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 (pauls@umich.edu); 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: robj@netcom.com (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 phas@siva.bris.ac.uk (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: phas@siva.bris.ac.uk -- >From: daz@gnu.ai.mit.edu (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-----