All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 1995 - Bill Cooper
58:38
Raw Intelligence
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The End
The End
Once again, you're listening to the Hour of the Time, and I'm still William Cooper.
work.
Well, I left you last night scurrying for your copies of your Constitution pad, didn't I?
Well, I'm going to read it to you now, ladies and gentlemen, because I trust everybody who would has already looked.
And the rest of you will never look, so I've got to tell you.
And that's unfortunate, but it happens to be the truth.
The United States Constitution, or Constitution for the United States of America, actually, is the proper terminology.
Article 1, Section 8.
To exercise, well, for those of you who never read your Constitution, I better preface this.
The Congress shall have the power.
That's what Article 1, Section 8 is all about.
that Congress shall have the power.
And then enumerates all of the powers that Congress has, and then finally you get to this one.
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district not exceeding 10 miles square as may by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of the government
of the United States and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings and to make all laws which shall be necessary and other needful buildings and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department
Does that make sense to all of you people?
In other words, Congress can only exercise legislation over that which the Constitution gives them the power to do so.
They have no authority to pass any act whatsoever, any act of Congress which has any venue, jurisdiction, or force of law within any of the several states, unless they have perverted the Constitution, subverted the supreme law of the land, and are in fact
in rebellion, in insurrection against the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution for the United States of America.
And also, ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States has no authority whatsoever to require our troops to serve under foreign commanders, under a foreign government, i.e., the United Nations,
In any capacity whatsoever, simply because the Constitution itself forbids it, and second, even if the Constitution did not forbid it, Article 43 of the United Nations Charter was never approved or ratified by the United States of America, and every attempt to do so has failed.
They're scamming you.
Two more of my predictions have come true, ladies and gentlemen.
I said in my book, and I've said it over and over again on this broadcast, that United States military forces would be placed under foreign command under the United Nations to serve as the police force of the world.
I also said two years ago on this broadcast that the United States government would, without any doubt whatsoever, no question, send American soldiers to Bosnia.
It's on tape, it's on record, it's in print, just like all of my other predictions, and it is coming true.
Also, apparently we have embarrassed the army to tears.
They are now going to arraign Michael New and court-martial him.
There is no way he can lose unless his lawyers betray him.
Simply because of the information that I have just given you.
He is not only right, he has the full force of the supreme law of the land and the law behind him.
The only way Specialist Michael Duke can lose in this legal clash, and I'm going to say it again, is if his legal counsel, his lawyers, betray him.
And if you think that's not possible, ladies and gentlemen, you had better think again.
And you had better think real hard.
Take a look around you.
Smell the coffee.
Wake up.
In fact, there's so much fun we can show more than what's left by the radio.
But the danger of the western front makes a difference where we go.
Cinderella and Nutella have a party like they're alone listening to the radio.
Love is on the air tonight and it's on the coast of Coastal Joplin.
Well, if that's your plan tonight, then that's what you'll get.
You'll come to the station.
You'll have permission.
We'll have a song coming through.
You'll know that you're set free.
The way you get free will change our world for you.
You should have a seat for yourself.
You'll come in line if you're ready.
Oh, what you're going to hear right now is from somebody who must have read my book.
What you're going to hear right now is from somebody who must have read my book.
Because I wrote that all of this would happen over five years ago, ladies and gentlemen.
Over five years ago I wrote this.
I was delivering this message in my speeches, and in my lectures, and in my workshops.
It's titled, Another Coincidence?
On the eve of the elections, with the crime bill ban on military-style guns a major issue in dozens of close races, a quiet guy from Colorado shoots up the White House.
The gun was a Chinese-made SKS, not on the crime bill's banned list, but no longer legal to import and illegally converted under the 1991 crime bill by adding a folding stock and high-capacity detachable magazine.
It was almost predictable because these ill-timed, some would say perfectly timed incidents so often carry the message that is currently highest on the anti-gun agenda. some would say perfectly timed incidents so often carry the Thank you.
The staple was right over the word I was trying to read.
The press and Handgun Control Incorporated are crowing that the White House shooting shows how right those politically threatened congressmen were to ban so-called assault weapons.
Someone has said once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.
In 1962, with Senator Tom Dodd's mail-ordered gun ban beginning to move, President John F. Kennedy and a Dallas police officer were killed with mail-ordered guns.
The day the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the Dodd bill, two votes were changed and the bill came out because Martin Luther King was murdered.
Two months later, the day the House was expected to kill the bill, Senator Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.
The bill became law.
In 1984, with an armor-piercing bullet ban pending and Uzis under fire, James Huberti kills 21 at a San Ysidro McDonald's armed with an Uzi rifle loaded with rare iron-cored armor-piercing 9mms, though most were killed by his shotgun.
A couple of years later, Michael Ryan killed 16 people in Hungerford, England with an AK-47S, for which he had been licensed unusually quickly and easily.
That resulted in a law requiring owners to destroy such guns, required pump and semi-auto shotguns to be arsenal-altered to two shots, and even demanded registration of double-barrel shotguns.
Exactly the same thing then happened with similar results in Australia.
In January 1989, with model assault weapons legislation from HCI, that's Hand Gun Control Incorporated, having been filed in several states, and with the California Attorney General already having asked police for evidence to support his planned assault weapon ban, Patrick Purdy killed five kids and wounded 31 on a Stockton, California school guard using an AK-47S.
And folks, this happened just Almost two months after I stated that some lunatic with a history of mental illness would do exactly what Purdy did.
With the Senate scheduled to vote on an assault weapons ban, Joseph Westbecker killed eight and wounded fourteen with an AK-47S in a Louisville plant September 14th, 1989.
When Lee Pine killed 14 women at a Canadian college with a Ruger Mini-14, Canada's laws were further tightened.
In 1990, with four votes pending on semi-automatic bills in both houses of the United States Congress, a guy with a long criminal record, one James Powell, killed eight people at a Jacksonville, Florida, GMAC office with a .30 caliber M1 carbine.
On October 16, 1991, the day before the United States House was scheduled to vote on a bill banning assault weapons and over seven shot magazines, Joe Joe Hennard used 15 and 17 round pistols to shoot 42 people, killing 21 in Killeen, Texas.
There have been many other such cases, as many as five within a year, each seeming to come at the best time for anti-gunners to pass legislation by dancing in fresh blood.
Never mind the fact that if any of the victims had been armed, the perpetrators would have been killed before they could have done much damage.
If the availability of military-style guns were the culprit, we would have been seeing such mass murders regularly throughout American history.
For there's never been a time when the Army's small arms from recent wars weren't common.
The 30-shot M1 carbine Paul used at the GMAC office has been as common as Chevrolet's for 51 years.
And inexpensive, I might add, until recently.
High-capacity 9mm pistols have been plentiful for 60 years.
AR-15s and AK-47s have been abundant for 20 to 30 years.
Why have almost all the horrible incidents with these guns occurred within just the last 10 years and only, only within days of major handgun legislation coming before Congress for only within days of major handgun legislation coming before Congress for a Is it possible that some of these incidents could have been created for the purpose of disarming the people of the free world?
Absolutely right!
I said so in my book.
I've been saying it for years.
I've set it behind every podium from which I have ever spoken.
In every lecture and in every workshop that I have ever conducted.
This article, ladies and gentlemen, was written by Neil Knox.
Big wig with the NRA.
Okay.
In fact, in my book, you'll find an article of his, which, with his kind permission, I published as the chapter entitled, Lessons from Lithuania.
I had intended to write a big, long chapter of many pages to deliver the same message that he did in a very short few paragraphs.
And so I ask his permission to take the place of the leading thief, one that I was going to write since he said it so well.
The American Bar Association.
Most of you don't even know what it is.
Those of you who do, if you know what it is, probably know what I'm going to tell you.
This is from the June issue of the Tucson Business, June 1995, by Lionel Waxman.
It isn't every day that you sue the Supreme Court, but that's just what I did, he says.
A few years ago, when I was practicing law in Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court brought forth a new regulatory and disciplinary scheme for lawyers in that state.
The program violated lawyers' rights in about ten ways, including denial of due process.
It violated federal law.
It violated the state and federal constitutions.
It was a disaster.
Hardly the kind of thing you would expect the state's highest court to promulgate.
But there it was.
In mild consternation, a few of us huddled.
What can we do about this?
The consensus was that we should just keep quiet about it.
The representative opinion being, hey, I've got a wife and kids.
Don't get me into this!
But a few of us decided that if we couldn't protect our own rights, whose rights could we protect?
So one fine day, nine of us filed suit against our state Supreme Court and the federal district court, alleging federal questions at issue.
Our case was received seriously by the federal court.
The full weight of the state was then arrayed against us.
The State Attorney General and all his troops were determined to spare no effort to defeat us.
Okay, fair enough.
We expected that.
Then, out of left, and I do mean left, field, something happened we did not expect.
The American Bar Association, the ABA, entered the case as amicus against us.
This meant that the ABA intervened as a so-called friend of the court, offering advice and opinion to the court on matters it considered to be of public interest.
Filing of amicus briefs is not a privilege reserved exclusively to the ABA, but it is rarely done by others because it costs big money.
If they are lucky enough not to be involved in litigation, most organizations do not go looking for such an action.
But, as we were soon to find out, the ABA is not just any organization.
And as a lawyer, I wonder why it took him so long to figure that out.
As soon as the ABA filed against us, the playing field definitely tilted.
Suddenly, our thoughtful judge became impatient with us.
Suddenly, our reasoned and well-constructed points were tedious to him.
Suddenly, he was dismissive of our most serious allegations.
He wanted the case settled, if possible, but out of his court, and regardless of the outcome.
He tried to bang some heads together in an effort to gain agreement, but then finally ruled against us.
We appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Again, we were offered short shrift by usually judicious, well-respected judges.
We were nine lawyers, fighting the combined might of the state's finest as well as the American Bar Association.
Conferences were held, during which the judges made it clear they wanted to make decisions on this hot potato, about as much as they wanted to jump off the roof of the courthouse.
We were running out of money.
And unlike all the lawyers on the other side, we were not getting paid to fight this fight.
Going on to the United States Supreme Court seemed out of the question.
We made our best deal, which turned out to be a shameful one, and limped home wondering what hit us.
And now I know.
What hit us was the American Bar Association.
You see, when they enter a case, they almost always get their way.
Why?
Are they always right?
I don't think so.
Are their lawyers so much better?
No, they use the same local lawyers anyone else would use.
But, the American Bar Association has one advantage in federal court that no one else in the world has.
They are the organization past which all candidates for the federal judiciary must pass for appointment or elevation.
In other words, ladies and gentlemen, the American Bar Association, a private membership group, decides who will be presented for Senate confirmation and who won't.
Can you say, conflict of interest?
Ostensibly, the reason the American Bar Association approval is required Is that this group of lawyers has the special expertise to judge the qualification of federal judges.
Can you say loudly, conflict of interest?
For years, the ultra-liberal American Bar Association has owned the filter through which federal judges must pass, not just for appointment, but for elevation.
Now, can you scream, conflict of interest?
That is a colossal amount of power to put in the hands of a small, unelected group who may be put up in nomination for the same positions which they are the sole judges.
You might well think they would be so jealous of preserving that awesome power that they would allow nothing to jeopardize it.
The framers of our Constitution provided that federal judges be appointed for life to insulate them from political influence, and they knew nothing of any American Bar Association, nor could they predict it or foresee it.
Yet over the years, the ABA has consistently felt free to file amicus briefs in federal actions when it pleases them.
Very few people know that the American Bar Association has managed to put a leash on every federal judge in the nation.
Now that you know, can you really scream, CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
Certainly the time is long overdue for somebody to cut that leash.
So, And now, ladies and gentlemen, what I'm going to read you now is an excerpt from a Marxist left-wing analysis of the power and influence of the Council on Foreign Relations.
So, if you think that those of us who have been telling you what these people really represent and what they're up to are off the mark and it's some kind of a right-wing psychosis, wait till you hear this, because this is written by Marxist screaming left-wing socialist radical nuts.
It's called the Imperial Brain Trust, the Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy.
And I'm going to read this to you as a book review.
It's by Lawrence H. Choup and William Mintner.
And this is just an excerpt from the introduction, pages three through seven.
And I quote verbatim, over 50 years ago, in the wake of the First World War, a group of wealthy and influential Americans decided to form an organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, as it was subsequently named, was designed to equip the United States of America for an imperial role on the world scene. was designed to equip the United States of America for Great Britain had dominated world politics during the 19th century, not only through its colonial empire, but also through an even wider informal sphere of influence.
In a thorough, similar fashion, so felt these American leaders would the United States play a dominant role in the years following the war.
But in 1919, the United States was not yet adequately... You know, I think I skipped something here, folks.
I'm going to start over.
Sentences are very, the letters are very small, the sentences are very close together and I'm sitting in some dim light right now.
So let me start over to make sure that I do not give this any short shrift and that you get the full meaning.
Over fifty years ago, in the wake of the First World War, a group of wealthy and influential Americans decided to form an organization.
The Council on Foreign Relations, as it was subsequently named, was designed to equip the United States of America for an imperial role on the world scene.
Great Britain had dominated world politics during the nineteenth century, not only through its colonial empire, but also through an even wider informal sphere of influence.
In a similar fashion, so felt these American leaders would the United States play a dominant role in the years following the war.
But in 1919, the United States was not yet adequately prepared for world leadership, as was well illustrated by the conclusions surrounding the issue of United States membership in the League of Nations.
Even the leaders of opinion had been unable to arrive at a common understanding of the part the United States should take in world affairs.
The Council on Foreign Relations would help remedy this defect by keeping its members in touch with the international situation and devoting itself to a continuous study of the international aspects of America's political, economic, and financial problems, it would develop a reasoned American foreign policy.
As one early statement of Ames ambitiously stated, the Council on Foreign Relations plans to cooperate with the government and all existing international agencies and to bring all of them into constructive accord.
The Council on Foreign Relations still exists today, more than half a century later, yet it is hardly a household word.
Even many of those Americans who are relatively well informed about foreign policy recognize it.
If at all.
Only as the organization which publishes Foreign Affairs magazines.
Do you understand the meaning of that, folks?
Even those people who are relatively well informed about foreign policy only recognize the name as the publisher of Foreign Affairs Magazine.
Wait until you hear what they're into.
The Council is rarely mentioned in the press or on television.
The number of articles, scholarly or otherwise, devoted to its activities is minuscule.
Even if one adds together the output of over 50 years, the lack of public attention might suggest that the Council's importance does not match its original ambitious goals.
One might conclude that it had become simply another discussion group, or a specialized research organization of little interest except to its own members, and not particularly important to the overall picture of United States foreign policy formation.
But such a conclusion would be profoundly mistaken.
Reading the occasional references to the Council that do appear from time to time, one gets quite a different picture.
New York Times, quote, the Council's membership includes some of the most influential men in government, business, education, and the press, end quote.
The CFR, quote, for nearly half a century has made substantial contributions to the basic concepts of American foreign policy, end quote.
The Council's leadership is the, quote, foreign policy establishment of the United States, end quote.
Peter Schrag, the Council is, quote, the ultimate organization of the Eastern Establishment, end quote.
Theodore White, quote, the Council counts among its members probably more important names in American life than any other private group in the country, end quote.
Marvin and Bernard Kalb, The Council is, quote, an extremely influential private group that is sometimes called the real State Department, end quote.
Strong words.
Richard Barnett.
Membership in the Council is, quote, a rite of passage for an aspiring national security manager, end quote.
As several of the quotes imply, just the names of members give an impressive picture of Council importance.
The current council chairman is David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan Bank.
That's circa 1977.
A man with incredible personal wealth and financial power, Wall Street lawyer Alan W. Dulles, a council director for over 40 years, helped establish the Central Intelligence Agency and direct it with his brother, John Foster, also a council member.
Ran the Department of State.
Diplomatic superstar Henry A. Kissinger was a council protege who began his career in foreign affairs as a rapporteur for a council study group.
Kissinger later told council leader Hamilton Fish Armstrong, who had played a key role in Kissinger's rise to power, quote, you invented me, end quote.
The list could easily be prolonged with eminent financiers, Wall Street lawyers, Ivy League scholars, and high government officials.
In short, a galaxy of quote, establishment end quote figures.
It is such, excuse me, it is such intriguing indications of the Council's significance that led us to a more detailed investigation of this little-known organization.
Our results show that the Council on Foreign Relations, despite its relative public obscurity, plays a key part in molding United States foreign policy.
In the Council, the leading sectors of big business get together with the corporate world's academic experts to work out a general framework for foreign policy.
Since the Second World War, at the latest, the Council has had remarkable success in getting its point of view across to the government, regardless of the administration in office.
As government officials, Council members have implemented policies as experts.
They have generally succeeded in keeping public debate in line with respectable views, but they are by no means omnipotent.
The decline of United States power faces them with new problems.
Defeat in Indochina, and the new independence shown by Japan, Western Europe, and the oil-producing countries.
They are resourceful, however, and are presently busy thinking up new ways to maintain United States predominance and to convince the American people that such a role is best for everyone.
That the Council is little known is thus not a sign of insignificance, but rather points to its mode of operation.
The men at the top meet and work out together the general direction of policy, the limits of respectable debate.
Through a complex network of channels, the content and tone of their discussion reach the policymakers and the leaders of opinion.
Eventually, they may reach those of us who take an interest in what our country is doing in the world, but we may have little idea that what comes to be a natural climate of opinion was carefully fostered and guided, for the process is not public.
Council members are selected by the Council's leadership, and the meetings are confidential.
As the New York Times expressed it, except for its annual public Elihu Root lectures, the Council's talks and seminars are strictly off the record, and indiscretion can be grounds for termination or suspension of membership." Despite this conscious secrecy, it is possible to find out something about what the Council is and does.
Putting together bits and pieces from many sources and searching out references to Council activities and government archives, we have put together a picture of the inner workings and significance of the Council.
Our conclusions challenge the conventional interpretations of policy formation.
As dispersed among a wide variety of groups, In contrast to this view, we will show in the pages to follow the leading role played by the Council on Foreign Relations in the sector of society it represents, the corporate upper class.
We believe that the process itself is not only undemocratic, but that the results have been and are against the interests of both the majority of the American people and of the people of the world.
I suggest, ladies and gentlemen, that you all read the book.
I read it years ago.
It was published in about 1977, I believe, 76 or 77.
It's entitled The Imperial Brain Trust, The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy.
Don't go away.
I shall return. I shall return.
I shall return.
I shall return.
Article 1, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to coin money.
To coin money.
Regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin and fix the standard of weights and measures.
To coin money.
I wonder what part of to coin money Congress does not understand.
I wonder what part of to coin money you don't understand.
I wonder what part of to coin money the sheeple do not understand.
And it doesn't stop there.
Doesn't even stop there, ladies and gentlemen.
Article 1, Section 10.
And listen carefully.
Article 1, Section 10.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, grant letters of marquee, or reprisal, coin money, emit bills of credit.
Listen carefully.
Make anything but gold and silver coin a tender and payment of debts.
Do you understand?
If you understand, you had better understand that Congress is in direct conflict with the Constitution.
The Federal Reserve is in direct conflict and, in fact, is subverting the Constitution and has debased the coinage of the United States of America and is, in fact, printing counterfeit money.
If you understand that, you also understand it's going to come crashing down at some future date and you need some real money.
Call 1-800-289-2646 to get your hands on some real money.
1-800-289-2646.
See, I've been telling you for years, ladies and gentlemen, they tore up the Constitution in little bitty shreds and threw it down the toilet long, long ago.
When are you going to discover that?
Almost everything that is being done in this country today is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional.
You should not just form militias because I or anyone else urges you to.
you You should form militias because it is your duty.
Your duty.
The insurrection has already taken place.
It's just a matter of time before the full consequence of that insurrection comes down around our ears.
1-800-289-2646 Do it.
289-2646.
Do it, and do it now.
Do it, and do it and do it now.
Do it, and do it now.
Tell them that you're a steady listener to the hour of the time, and you'll get red carpet VIP treatment.
I guarantee it.
Oh yeah.
You guys don't know.
You just don't know, do you?
I don't know why you don't know, but you just don't know, do you?
No, sir.
And I'm going to give you something else.
Remember what I just read you?
Article 1, Section 10, the Constitution for the United States of America, quote, no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.
More proof that the Constitution is not in effect, ladies and gentlemen.
You see, the state of Maryland just signed a pact with the United Nations.
Bypass the federal government altogether, Maryland, the state of Maryland, just signed a pact with the United Nations, and your state is going to do it next.
The United Nations is making treaties with states.
See, the pact was a treaty.
What did I just read to you?
Article 1, Section 10.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.
Grant letters of marquee or reprisal.
They can't even emit bills of credit.
Now states, the state of Maryland, has made a treaty with the United Nations.
Believe it or not, Maryland has become the only state in history to sign a separate accord with the United Nations.
They threw the trash can out the window and everybody in the state of Maryland let them do it with not even a whimper!
Are there any Americans in the state of Maryland?
Is there anyone in the state of Maryland who has ever read the Constitution for the United States of America?
Or better yet, is there anyone in the state of Maryland who even gives a damn about the Constitution for the United States of America?
Don't your state legislators and your governors know anything?
do they even know that it exists you know this sets a precedent of the United Nations ignoring what is the left of America's national sovereignty by making separate treaties with individual states you
You know that this was ignored by the press?
The controlled press?
The communist news networks?
Because it's in their best interest.
It will help bring about world government sooner.
Including the Washington Post.
The announcement was made by Governor Paris Glendening, Democrat, of course, screaming liberal frico-socialist rat of Maryland, August 5th, 1995, in a signing ceremony in Baltimore.
Under this accord, Maryland and the World Health Organization, WHO, pledged to help make people healthy.
That sounds bland and benign, doesn't it?
Oh, I can just see some of you little sheeples out there yawning over this, but to begin with, folks, nations, not individual states, are supposed to deal with the United Nations.
See, Maryland is a part of the United States of America, but Maryland signed the treaty with the World Health Organization on its own.
The governor says, and I quote, We are pleased to join the World Health Organization to develop innovative programs that will address the health needs of underserved people in Maryland.
End quote.
Now because of that, ladies and gentlemen, if you live in the state of Maryland, you could find that your health care and the medicine that you are allowed to take and the health treatment that you are allowed to seek will be dictated by the United Nations World Health Organization.
And it even gets more sinister.
Listen to this.
Here's what he continues with.
Quote, Merging our talents and experience will lead to preventive strategies that address social as well as health problems.
End quote.
The governor said.
Quote, Maryland has extensive public and private expertise in public health policy and programming.
said Michael Jan Close, medical doctor of the World Health Organization who signed the accord on behalf of the United Nations.
Maryland now wishes to expand its resources through joint projects addressing health services to underserved populations throughout the world." Can you believe this, Blarney?
Somebody hung upside down by their heels and kissed the stone in Maryland.
And now they're flabbing the Blatherwocky out onto us.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is tantamount to treason.
If you live in the state of Maryland, you had better do something about that.
If you don't, it means you don't care.
And if you don't care, you're going to get what you deserve as a deserving part of the not caring.
Now, what about the right to peaceably assemble and the right to free speech?
Well, something has happened, ladies and gentlemen.
Oh boy, with the Fully Informed Jury Association.
You see, they've been standing around courthouses, passing out their little Fully Informed Jury Association booklets on public property, exercising their right to free speech.
and other rights, which they thought they had.
But you see, when they did that in Nevada, some of them were arrested, and the trial has been set for November the 7th in Reno, Nevada.
On July 19th, attorney Nancy Lord called Don Doig from Reno, where she and the prosecuting attorneys in the Yvonne Regas jury tampering case were in conference with the judge to see if October 3rd would be an acceptable date for Larry Dodge and perhaps Don as well to attend and probably where she and the prosecuting attorneys in the Yvonne Regas jury tampering case were in conference with the
These people were charged with jury tampering for simply handing out the fully informed jury booklets to people entering and leaving the courthouse.
With the fully informed jury association conference 3 set to begin October 6th, Don felt obliged to say that October 3rd would be a real strain and that we would prefer another date.
The next nearest date acceptable to all was November 7th, and it is now so scheduled.
As both the front page and the Nevada State News section in the winter-spring issue of the Fully Informed Jury Association activist stressed, This case is of vital importance both to the Fully Informed Jury Association as an organization, and to the First and Sixth Amendments, as well as to Yvonne Regas.
That's because it's a freedom of speech issue, ladies and gentlemen, and a loss would mean another big bite out of that freedom, which in turn would mean a severe restriction on the Fully Informed Jury Association's ability to inform jurors about the real meaning of one's right to trial by jury, and it would land Yvonne in jail for up to several months.
Yvonne Regas is the one who was charged.
The more immediate issue connected with the trial is how to keep First and Sixth Amendment defenders from diminishing the chances that Yvonne will prevail.
Nancy Lord is very worried that fully informed jury association activists and others may try to leaflet the jurors, which could not only lead to their arrest and trial and charges similar to those Yvonne faces, but caused the judge to use every opportunity to prevent the defense from making a strong case, such as but caused the judge to use every opportunity to prevent the defense from making a strong case, such as refusing to allow Larry or Don to take the stand, granting motions in Lenine requested by the prosecutors, etc., much as did Judge
As she points out, the jurors will be leafleted anyway, and almost certainly by the prosecution, which will have to show the jurors the evidence in order to make their case.
Thank you.
You see, in order to make their case, the prosecution is going to have to give each juror a fully informed jury association booklet that they hand out telling them what their rights as jurors really are.
If they don't, they can't make their case.
Once the true or false brochure has been entered into evidence, the floor will be open to discussion of its contents, so the jurors will get a short course in the doctrine of jury nullification in the courtroom.
This makes leafleting outside redundant as well as dangerous and potentially counterproductive.
So we join Nancy in her plea to those who plan to attend, please do not leaflet.
Do not give anything to anyone entering or leaving the courthouse during this trial in Reno, Nevada.
A peaceful, quiet and orderly demonstration, punctuated with posters, followed by an equally quiet and orderly few days of court-watching would be both appropriate and effective.
Remember, the fate of a very brave woman who shunned all sorts of pressure to plea bargain is at stake, along with all the ideological issues.
Please also remember, folks, that this trial will not be cheap, and Yvonne Regas is representing all of us.
She is fighting for all of our liberties.
Nancy has enlisted the help of some of the nation's top attorneys to help her win this one, and even though they're not charging full fare, it's going to be an expensive affair.
Nancy Regas, or excuse me, Yvonne Regas, is not O.J.
Simpson.
So if you feel Yvonne deserves acquittal, and are that the fate of FEJA, Fully Informed Jury Association, is at stake, and are that the First and Sixth, and thus all other portions of the Bill of Rights, are worth saving, you can help, even if you cannot attend the trial.
You can help by sending a generous donation as soon as possible to Lawyers for Liberty.
for the Yvonne Regas Defense Fund.
Make sure you say that it is for the Yvonne Regas Defense Fund.
If you don't, it could go for anything, folks.
So send it to Lawyers for Liberty, not to be used for anything other than the Yvonne Regas Defense Fund, care of Nancy Lord, 1718 Peachtree Street, Northwest Suite 499.
That's 1718 Peachtree Street, Northwest Suite 499, Atlanta, Georgia.
Bet you couldn't guess that one, especially if you read Gone with the Wind, could you?
30309.
That's Lawyers for Liberty.
To be used only For the Yvonne Regas Defense Fund, care of Nancy Lord, 1718 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 499, Atlanta, GA 30309.
You can also help by going to, well, never mind.
Suite 499, Atlanta, Georgia, 30309.
You can also help by going to, well, never mind.
It's over.
Now, if you didn't get that address, folks, don't call us and take us away from our research.
Buy the tape.
You can help our funding here also.
And funds are getting low, so buy something.
I don't care what it is.
Just do it.
Oh, also, something that you all might like to have that we have just come into our possession
We have the official Central Intelligence Agency report entitled, The Holocaust Revisited, a Retrospective Analysis of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Complex, complete with reconnaissance photographs of the camps at different times during the war.
It is particularly revealing in light of the recent revisionist accounts compared with the official accounts compared with the Jewish accounts.
This sort of puts things in a light that you can see with your own eyes and make up your own mind.
I make no judgments.
I merely offer this to you for $15 per copy.
If you would like, make all checks or money orders payable to Annie, A-N-N-I-E.
A portion of that will go to the researcher who dug this up in his research assignment.
As always, we try to help those who help us.
It's the Central Intelligence Agency Official Report.
The Holocaust Revisited.
A Retrospective Analysis of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Complex.
Complete.
With reconnaissance photographs of the camps at various times during the war and the analysis of the Central Intelligence Agency on the Holocaust.
Again, I make no judgment.
We merely offer this to you for your own research and consideration.
May check or money order payable to Annie in the sum of $15.
Fifteen dollars.
Send them to the Intelligence Service.
Do not put the Intelligence Service on your check or money order.
This is what the address is on the outside of your envelope.
The Intelligence Service, PO Box 1420, Sholo, Arizona, 85901.
That's $15.00.
Sholo, Arizona 85901 That's $15 Make check or money order payable to Annie A-N-N-I-E Send them to the intelligence service Post office box 1420 Sholo, Arizona If you miss that address, stay tuned at the end of the broadcast.
When all the music and everything is finished, they will repeat the address again.
Now, let me show you what's happening in the Internet world.
Recently, the FBI and federal agencies invaded America online.
And even today on American Online, if you mention certain phrases or words in any of the forums or chat rooms, as they call them, everything comes to a halt and freezes up.
While they make an attempt to identify you before you can sign off and get out of there, And they're going around the country seizing computers and computer disks and hard disks and related computer equipment under the guise that these people have been trying to sell or post or spread child pornography on America Online.
The real tricky part of this, folks, is they're not arresting people.
Is that a clue?
Can you read clue, clue, clue?
Oh yes, Big Brother is here and he's watching you.
Because of this, we are recommending that if you have an AOL account, close it, get out, tell them why, and don't ever go back.
There are plenty of internet providers, there are plenty of providers of email services, most of them are cheaper too.
And besides that, the press recently reported that the National Science Foundation has turned over Internet Domain Name Registration to Network Solutions Incorporated of Herndon, Virginia.
But they failed to note some interesting connections, ladies and gentlemen.
And I mean really interesting.
You see, NSI was purchased in May by Scientific Applications International Corporation, SAIC of San Diego.
It's a two billion, with a B, two billion dollar company indicted by the Justice Department on ten felony counts for fraud in managing a Superfund toxic cleanup site.
They pleaded guilty, and they were sued by the Justice Department for civil fraud on an F-15 fighter contract, and that's not all.
Listen to who the board members are.
My old boss, Admiral Bobby Ray Inman.
I worked for him when he was not an Admiral at CPAC.
He was also the former National Security Agency head.
He was also the head of the Office of Naval Intelligence.
I worked for him in Naval Intelligence.
He was the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Also Melvin Laird, Nixon's Defense Secretary, and retired General Max Thurman, Commander of the Panama Invasion.
Recently departed board members include Robert Gates, former Central Intelligence Agency Director, William Perry, current Secretary of Defense, and John Douche, the current CIA Director.
Current SAIC government contracts include re-engineering information systems at the Pentagon.
Automation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's computerized fingerprint identification system, and building a national criminal history information system.
I suggest you read Orwell's 1984 again, and this time read it a little more carefully.
Good night, ladies and gentlemen, and God bless you all.
▲
Export Selection