232 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
232 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 1 Num. 63
|
||
======================================
|
||
("Quid coniuratio est?")
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
[From an interview with Linda Thompson on the *For the People*
|
||
radio show, Feb. 11, 1994. Host is Chuck Harder.]
|
||
|
||
[Continued...]
|
||
|
||
CHUCK HARDER: Uh, I think, I think it's important to point out
|
||
here also that last night, *60 Minutes*, which is the mainstream
|
||
press, went out just a little tiny bit on a limb -- and I praise
|
||
CBS for doing it although they are, they're part of the problem
|
||
most nights. Uh, you know, and they talked about the congressman
|
||
who "told it like it is." {1}. And he says, you know, you go out,
|
||
you start telling the truth and suddenly, you're not gonna get
|
||
re-elected because they won't raise money for you.
|
||
|
||
LINDA THOMPSON: Well then you also have congressmen that, for
|
||
instance, we've had some congressmen who have been active in
|
||
trying to get something done about Waco. And coincidentally, two
|
||
of those congressmen's children were arrested on drug charges.
|
||
|
||
This is... and I have had one congressman's legislative aid call
|
||
me and tell me that he *was* threatened! So, this is the kind of
|
||
thing that we're seeing: even if you've *got* an honest
|
||
congressman trying to do something, the pressure is put on him
|
||
too! That's pretty significant pressure when they start comin'
|
||
after your kids or they threaten your life or your family's life,
|
||
or you know for a certainty that you can never get re-elected
|
||
because you're going to be defeated by *money* alone. This is
|
||
what's happened. That's how our Congress has been taken over, is
|
||
by the people with the money.
|
||
|
||
HARDER: And I think it's important also to say (and I wanna thank
|
||
you very much for the call, "T.K."), but it's also -- Linda, you
|
||
know this -- the Internal Revenue Service, as they have done to
|
||
us, they have been with us now for a year. Uh, their audit
|
||
procedures started a year ago. And there have been 3 different
|
||
IRS auditers that have been engaged, one way or another. Uh, they
|
||
are on what is called, in the auditing business, a "fishing
|
||
trip." Uh, they've already determined nothing's wrong. But
|
||
they're still "fishing." {2}.
|
||
|
||
A "fishing trip" like they are on can, by the time it's all over
|
||
with, cost us $100,000.
|
||
|
||
THOMPSON: It can cost you that in nothing but trying to prove you
|
||
did nothing wrong.
|
||
|
||
HARDER: Right. And, you know, after you spend $100,000 and they
|
||
finally go away, they are convinced that they hurt you to the
|
||
tune of $100,000. And that's what's going...
|
||
|
||
THOMPSON: And they *have* hurt you.
|
||
|
||
HARDER: Yeah.
|
||
|
||
THOMPSON: That's a very powerful weapon.
|
||
|
||
HARDER: We'll be back.
|
||
|
||
[...commercial break...]
|
||
|
||
HARDER: We are back. Linda Thompson is our guest, and we're
|
||
taking your calls at 1-800-TALK-YES. Or, you can try us at 904-
|
||
397-1500.
|
||
|
||
O.K. Linda, you are back on the air. Are you there?
|
||
|
||
THOMPSON: Yes. Hi.
|
||
|
||
HARDER: O.K. Good. Let's go to uh, let's conference in right now.
|
||
Huntington, West Virginia. Bill, go ahead.
|
||
|
||
BILL: Hi, Linda. Hi, Chuck.
|
||
|
||
HARDER: Hi.
|
||
|
||
THOMPSON: Hi.
|
||
|
||
BILL: I had a question about the Waco situation. Is it possible
|
||
that somebody could bring a civil suit against Janet Reno at all?
|
||
I mean, maybe a class action suit? {3}.
|
||
|
||
THOMPSON: Well, I have. And you don't want a class action. That's
|
||
one thing, I want to take the opportunity while you've got such a
|
||
huge audience here to explain.
|
||
|
||
When you bring a lawsuit against a company -- for instance, we've
|
||
all heard of class action lawsuits against General Motors, this
|
||
kind of thing -- the person bringing the lawsuit does not want
|
||
[it] to be a class action. Because if I were to, as a single
|
||
individual, sue a large entity like General Motors over a
|
||
defective part in a car and win, all the other 10,000 people that
|
||
bought that car can then individually sue, too, and get the same
|
||
amount of money I did. Because I've already set the precedent for
|
||
them, and that's another 10,000 guys that could each bring their
|
||
suit and automatically win.
|
||
|
||
So what happens is, when you sue on a case like that, General
|
||
Motors would be the one that makes it into a class action.
|
||
Because what they want to do is have to settle *everybody's*
|
||
claim in one lawsuit, because it costs them less money *and* they
|
||
end up paying out less money. You notice that, whenever there's a
|
||
class action lawsuit, the attorneys get most of the money, they
|
||
get half the money. And then the remainder of the money is
|
||
distributed amongst 10 or 20 thousand plaintiffs! And everybody
|
||
gets maybe, 10, 15 dollars. That's nothing. That's peanuts.
|
||
|
||
That's why the *defendants* are the ones that want it to be a
|
||
class action suit. *You*, as a plaintiff, the person bringing the
|
||
case, you *never* wanna be a class action. (Unless you're an
|
||
attorney and you want the money!)
|
||
|
||
Um, but an actual plaintiff: you wanna go individually against
|
||
that entity, win a *pile* of money, and then let all the other 9
|
||
million Americans, or how many are affected, *also* then file
|
||
their own cases all over the country. They already have your case
|
||
that set the precedent, that has made the rule that has said,
|
||
"You won." O.K.?
|
||
|
||
HARDER: By the same token, let me squeeze this in: If you do file
|
||
an individual suit and you *lose*, it does not prevent somebody
|
||
else from "comin' back." [i.e. filing their own suit of similar
|
||
nature]
|
||
|
||
THOMPSON: That's right. And the government can argue, "Well, this
|
||
person lost," but you've always got the opportunity to say, "Well
|
||
my circumstances are different. It's not the same case. I'm a
|
||
different plaintiff. I can still sue."
|
||
|
||
But if the other person *wins*, then you identify with that person
|
||
and say, "I'm just *exactly* like this guy that just won. And he
|
||
got," you know, "5 million. I should too." And then the
|
||
government's on the defensive. They have to prove why not.
|
||
|
||
But it makes it eminently easier for the plaintiff, and *much*
|
||
more difficult for the defendant, if it's *not* a class action.
|
||
|
||
BILL: Let me ask you: Did you say you filed suit?
|
||
|
||
THOMPSON: Yes.
|
||
|
||
BILL: Who do you represent?
|
||
|
||
THOMPSON: Myself.
|
||
|
||
BILL: Yourself?
|
||
|
||
THOMPSON: Uh-huh [affirmative]. I... You have to have "standing"
|
||
in a case. For instance, an average citizen, it's very difficult
|
||
to find a basis to sue the government on, when you aren't
|
||
directly involved. For instance, if you're not a Branch Davidian
|
||
in Waco, even though all of us as American citizens, our rights
|
||
are being affected by this case and the things that are going on,
|
||
that's not good enough to bring a lawsuit over it. The court'll
|
||
kick you out and say, "Well you aren't directly affected by
|
||
that." So you don't have what's called "standing."
|
||
|
||
Well I have standing, because while I was down there I was held
|
||
at a roadblock and an ATF agent held a machine gun at my head for
|
||
20 minutes and they illegally searched my car. They took property
|
||
out of my car. They detained me for 2 hours and questioned me at
|
||
a tent alongside this roadblock without probable cause, never
|
||
filed charges, and eventually let us go.
|
||
|
||
And stole some film from us. I got a picture of this ATF agent
|
||
holding a machine gun at my head! And was able to smuggle it out
|
||
of there successfully; I hid it behind the glove box of the car
|
||
before they searched the car.
|
||
|
||
Now that's my standing. I was directly affected by the entire,
|
||
illegal operation that was going on in Waco. That ATF agent
|
||
wouldn't have been in the roadblock legally, period. He wasn't
|
||
there legally. And he was only there because of everything that
|
||
led up to the Waco siege and because of the direct involvement of
|
||
the executive branch. That gives me the right to sue everybody
|
||
that had anything to do with it. And that's why, what I'm doing.
|
||
|
||
(to be continued)
|
||
|
||
-----------------------<< Notes >>-------------------------------
|
||
{1} "...the congressman who 'told it like it is.'" I saw this *60
|
||
Minutes* episode. To my recollection, the congressman he is
|
||
referring to is Luis Gutierrez(sp?) from Chicago.
|
||
|
||
{2} "...still 'fishing.'" Just like the highwaymen. They also go
|
||
"fishing." For example, they put up signs lowering the speed
|
||
limit because there is "road construction." So you slow down,
|
||
form a single lane, and the people behind you are tailgating you,
|
||
etc. "Come on, you moron! There's no 'road construction!'"
|
||
A while later, you come to another "reduce speed" because
|
||
there is "road construction." So you again slow down, form a
|
||
single lane, and the people are tailgating you, etc. "Come on,
|
||
you moron! There's no 'road construction!'"
|
||
Then again, you come to another "road construction" situation.
|
||
The sign says to reduce your speed to 45 m.p.h. But there is
|
||
nobody *doing* any "road construction!" Here is your big mistake.
|
||
A half mile ahead, there is a highwayman, fishing for taxes. But
|
||
you figure, "Well, if I actually see anybody working, I'll slow
|
||
down." A quarter-mile later, you see up ahead that there *really*
|
||
are men working up ahead. So of course, you slow down. *But it is
|
||
too late*! The highwayman has laid his trap well. He already has
|
||
you on his radar.
|
||
Conclusion of tale: The highwayman demands you pay the $75 in
|
||
cash. *But* if you have "too much" cash, the highwayman will not
|
||
like that either.
|
||
|
||
{3} Regarding bringing a lawsuit against Reno, etc. UPI has
|
||
reported recently that Koresh's relatives have indeed filed a
|
||
$153 million lawsuit against Janet Reno and others. [From the For
|
||
the People *News Reporter*, July 11, 1994, page 1.]
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail
|
||
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name"
|
||
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the
|
||
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
|
||
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et
|
||
pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9
|
||
|
||
|