Re: effective GACK fighting (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>]

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      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|