Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton From: [b l h] at [uiboise.idbsu.edu] (Broward L. Horne) Subject: NOTICE to Federal/State Employees: You are PERSONALLY liable! Date: Sun, 22 May 94 16:37:08 MDT < Picked this flyer up at a "10th Amendment resolution" meeting. I like it. :) Pass it around, especially at those Fed buildings out there. :) > -------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement Personnel, Security and Employees As a public servant, you should be aware that recent litigation has established that you can be held personally liable for a number of acts. Yes, you may be sued for damages. Do you want to place your jobs, and further, your money and family in jeopardy for issuing an order or following an order from one in authority which is an illegal act? Reasonable, logical and law-abiding persons would refuse to do so. We would suggest you read the following cases: Hatori v. Haya 751 F. Sup. 1401 Gallegos v. Haggerty, Northern Dist. of New York 689 F. Sup. 93 Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotic Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971) Fonda v. Gray - Conspiracy - 1983 (CA9) Ca 707 F 2d 435 Williamson v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture 815 F 2d 369 ACLU Foundation v. Barr 952 F 2d 457, 293 U.S. App. D.C. 101 (CA DC 1991) Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General 592 F 2d 588-444 U.S. 903 (1979) Cert. denied YOU SHOULD ALSO BE AWARE A NUMBER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN CHARGED UNDER TITLE 41-8 U.S. CODE RICO ACT. SHOULD YOU BE ASKED TO VIOLATE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, WE WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU CONSIDER YOUR RIGHTS TO REFUSE AND FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AS MANY OTHERS ARE NOW DOING. It is worth remembering that the authors of the Bill of Rights were heavily influenced by Anglo-Saxon legal theories such as Sir William Blackstone, who declared that there were "three absolute rights ... the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty and the right of personal property." Blackstone believed the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of these absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature. Blackstone's ideas became embodied in the Federalist papers, and in the writings of James Madison on property interests, which he defined in quite broad terms. "The Protection of Faculties" - (except from the Federalist #10) "is the object of government" and is being strongly relied on by conservative judges. In its larger and just meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage... (A) man has property in his opinions, and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. "The protection of these faculties" Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 10, "is the first object of government." As Madison might have anticipated, and as modern students of law and history may realize, in the pursuit of its various other objectives, the federal government from time to time treads on these rights and "faculties" and on the natural rights of mankind whose protection is found in the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The words of Justice Louis Brandeis however, offer another view: "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it reaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead. 277 U.S. 438 1928.) To be misled by one who you may think has the authority could cost you your life's savings and bring you into disgrace, so consider your actions before taking action. There are as of now aware many activist organizations which are nationwide, well funded, with the financial backing on occasion of large corporations and wealthy persons or groups with the resources to pursue these actions. 18 U.S.C. $4 which states "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 and imprisoned not more than three years, or both." There is now a long list of legal organizations such as the A.L.C.U. but where they were concerned with the 1st Amendment rights primarily, these organizations are more aggressive and will pursue other constitutional violations! To name a few, American Justice Association, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the Citizens Law Protection Center. United We Stand is also becoming active in some areas and as many young persons have allied with one or a number of the aforementioned, you may expect to be viewed with INCREASING SCRUTINY. This is really a patriotic effort for change and a healthy agenda. There is also a growing sector of law firms, too many to mention, that are in litigation not only suing government employees but the government itself. THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES BECOMING DISENCHANTED WITH THE SYSTEM (WHISTLE BLOWERS) WHO ARE COOPERATING WITH SOME OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ACTIVIST GROUPS. So be aware of your personal choices and actions. Do not hesitate to question orders which may have an adverse effect on you personally. Do not be intimidated to commit an unlawful act. NOTE: The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Grace, et al, 461 U.S., October term, 1982, states as follows: The seizure of publications and harassment of those distributing publications are illegal acts as long as the persons distributing the documents are not disrupting court procedures and if their activities are outside of a courthouse or other public building. AMERICANS FOR PEACEFUL CHANGE