Forwarded message:

Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 19:50:49 -0800 From: Blanc <blancw@cnw.com> Subject: Re: effective GACK fighting

Vlad the Mad wrote:

...

hence, I think we need to rely more on the courtroom-- it's the only "language" that bureacrats understand. extremely expensive, but more effective. it forces us to put our money where our mouths are. "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" and a lot of cash as well. the PRZ case proves the public can support such a campaign. also tactics as used by Softwar such as the FOIA attack approach. .......................................................

I'm agreeing with Vlad (euwwwww), mainly because I've had the same idea for a long time, about the effect of winning intellectual battles in a courtroom. This is a prime location for the airing-out of ideas, clarification of concepts, and making decisive conclusions about what is/is not the right way for governming bodies to behave, to do, to treat citizens, in relation to the original ideal (and could that ideal be clarified even further, for those who still don't get it?). It would require some 'real' libertarian lawyers of the kind cpunks could support.

I also agree. It is high time those of who believe in our rights put their money where our mouth is. But, why do we need a lawyer? We have the right to represent ourselves, why let somebody who has a intimate stake in the status quo represent us? Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. Also, let's start something relating to the 2nd. We should also move to have an amendment which requires all existing and future legislation pass constitutional review *prior* to being voted into existance. We should also move to have an amendment that *requires* government employees be responsible for their actions on a individual basis and eliminate the protection that Congress has put in place, that is *not* in the Constitution. We should further move to have the seizure laws revoked because they are not constitutional. The drug laws should also be attacked on that level as well. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|