L. Neil Smith's
Number 64, January 31, 2000
Stupor Bowel Hangover

Letters to the Editor

by Our Readers
Send Letters to TLE@johntaylor.org

Letter from Terence Geoghegan

Letter from James J. Odle

Letter from Timothy L. Krahling, Sr.

Letter from Victor Milán

Letter from Ray Ledford

Letter from Jack Jerome

Letter from Dr Peter Wilhelm

Letter from Terence Geoghegan

January 15, 2000


Such a shame that James J. Odle, in his otherwise lucid "Shysters!", felt compelled to shut off his brain and blame it all on the lawyers.

Fact: America has the highest standard of living in the world.

Fact: America's government, as bad as it is, interferes far less in the affairs of business than almost any other government. (Don't take my word for it -- ask John Stossel.)

Fact: as bad as the assault on Constitutional liberties is in this country right now, you'd still rather live here than any of the other places I've lived. (Or that you have lived, for that matter.)

Fact: America has more lawyers, per capita, than those countries with lousy standards of living, lousy civil rights, and lots of government.


Terence Geoghegan ≤tg@goodjudgment.net>

Life Member, Provisional NRA
Member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Member, Citizens' Gun Rights Alliance
Member, Libertarian Party

The Law Offices of Frederick H. Bysshe, Jr.
10 South California Street
Ventura, CA 93001
(805) 648-3224
(805) 653-0267 (fax)

Back to the top

Letter from James J. Odle

A Reply to a Critic
By James J. Odle <jodle@primenet.com>

I knew when I wrote "Shysters!" [Jan. 15, 2000, Libertarian Enterprise], that I might be in for a little abuse from the legal community and Mr. Terence Geogehagn, does not disappoint! [see above -- ed.]

Dear Terrance:

How is it possible for someone to write a lucid article with his brain shut off? Inquiring minds want to know! Are not these mutually exclusive concepts?

Nevertheless, I understand your resentment — I did attack your profession. If my article left you with the impression that I believe that a) all lawyers are shysters; or that b) the legal profession is entirely responsible for all of our social ills then that is my error.

Two other professions that have contributed to the decline of freedom in this country are the teaching profession and so-called network 'news' casters. No, I do not blame all of our social ills on lawyers, teachers and news casters, either. But this doesn't mean that legal profession is not in dire need of some reform.

I can't help but observe that while your resent the overall tone of my article, you failed to address a single issue I raised. Your response amounts to 'America: love it or leave it.' Am I to infer that you are in substantial agreement with everything I say, but that you resent me pointing it out? Does the truth hurt? Am I entirely correct in all of my assertions? Surely I must have erred somewhere. I'm not a lawyer, after all.

What exactly is an 'outlawyer' anyway? Does the term derive from the word 'outlaw?' Are you, perhaps, admitting to being some sort of criminal? Inquiring minds want to know!

Do you think that I am incapable of seeing weaknesses in my own article? Had you written an intelligent critique, containing relevant criticisms you might have pointed out that my arguments about the War of Drugs, etc creating an environment that provides powerful inducements toward criminal misbehavior, do not satisfactorily explain Columbine. You might have asserted that I may not fully understand the trial process. You might have suggested that trials are much like the game of Chess - that trial lawyers must use strategy, together with moves and counter-moves. That along with this comes Rules of Evidence, and Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure which together are supposed to protect the interests of the parties involved. You might have offered up some such argument. But No! You present me with a list of unsubstantiated, highly debatable 'facts' that do not address anything I said.

I am sure that John Stossell is a splendid human being. I am not familiar with his work as I have only seen one of his shows. He deserves high marks for being good enough to have his shows advertised in the Laissez Faire book catalogue - especially when he is compared to Clinton ass-kisser Dan Rather.

Now, I like to think of myself as a fair person. So, in the spirit of fairness and objectivity, I will admit that not all lawyers are shysters. There are attorneys who are doing God's Work in attempting to protect and enhance our freedom. Some of these attorneys are:

Dr. Nancy Lord Johnson, who defeated the FDA in the Roger Sless. A case where the FDA attempted to prosecute a man for a non-existent crime;

Larry BeCraft, who defeated the IRS, when that agency prosecuted Franklin Sanders, et al.; and

Jonathon Emord, who defeated the FDA in a freedom of speech case.

The lawyers within Judicial Watch and the Landmark Legal Foundation, who are attempting to bring justice to the Clinton Administration, have earned honorable mention, also. And I am sure that there are others as well.

There you have it. My free admission that it is possible to be both a lawyer and a worthwhile human being at the same time!

Now the question becomes: What makes a lawyer a shyster in the first place?

My dictionary defines the term as follows: 1) a lawyer who uses unprofessional or questionable methods; and 2) in slang, sense of shady, disreputable.

I have a few additional criteria of my own. You know a lawyer is really a shyster when:

  • He treats the Bill of Rights as if our rights were bestowed upon us the way a king bestows upon a serf a privilege; or
  • He treats the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the separation of powers, with complete and utter contempt; or
  • He deliberately exceeds his lawful authority; or
  • He conducts his practice without regard to fundamental principles of honesty, morality or decency; or
  • He ignores the plain, ordinary meaning of commonly used words when used in the Constitution or the law in order to advance a personal crusade; or
  • He operates under the principle that he is free to do anything that the Supreme Court allows him to get away with; or
  • He knowingly files a frivolous lawsuit. The attorney who harassed McDonalds on behalf of the woman who spilled hot coffee in her lap, is a shyster!; or
  • He doesn't wish to be held personally accountable for the consequences when he files a frivolous lawsuit and looses; or
  • He willingly writes or enforces an unconstitutional law.

As you can see, most of my contempt is reserved for government lawyers. I am pleased to see that you work in the private sector.

If you have been an observer of the political scene for any time at all you know that the most common profession among our so-called 'law makers' in Washington is what? Lawyer. You know that these Congress-critters have nothing but complete disdain for the Constitution. Dr. Ron Paul is an exception. But then, he is not a lawyer. You also know that Congress-critters do not read the legislation they vote on. It is therefore irrational to expect them to write it. They don't have the time or the inclination. So who is doing the actual writing of all these irrational, unconstitutional laws if it is not members of the legal profession? I also know that somewhere in the law making process, there is supposed to be some sort of review to insure that laws pass constitutional muster. Who is sitting in on the review panels if not members of the legal profession? So, we have lawyers willingly aiding and abetting politicians in the passage of unconstitutional laws. Why do these lawyers do this? Afraid of loosing their so-called jobs? You know, the 'Ve Vas just vollowing orders!' excuse went out with the Nuremberg trials.

In Texas, there is currently a wrongful death lawsuit being brought on behalf of the survivors and family members of the Branch Davidian holocaust. The judge has ordered the Department of Justice to turn over all evidence to the opposing counsel more than once. So far, the government attorneys have, using delaying tactics, failed to comply. Will any of these government attorneys be held personally accountable for their deliberate delaying tactics? I doubt it. If any fines are imposed, it will be the tax payer who picks up the tab. Will any of them spend a single night in jail for their obvious contempt of court? No. That wont happen either.

In 18 US Code, there is a law that says that whenever a government employee abuses the rights of the people, that he can be criminally prosecuted. How many government attorneys have been prosecuted under that law? I don't know of a single case. Do government attorneys circle the wagons and shield the miscreant when one of their own misbehaves and someone attempts to bring him to justice?

A judge in Cincinnati, recently threw out that municipality's gun law suit. Will any of the attorneys who brought the case have to pay any compensation, out of their own pockets, to the gun manufacturers? No. Nor will they be disbarred for their willingness to harass and impede the operation of a lawful business. Once again, if any fines are imposed, it will be the taxpayer who picks up the tab.

April 15 is approaching quickly. Are you not aware that the requirement that private individuals file income tax returns is in direct conflict with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? Sixteenth Amendment or no Sixteenth Amendment. Where are the attorneys working to remedy the situation? Why don't judges simply throw out the charge when such cases are brought before them? Why do government attorneys bring such cases in the first place? Why has this blatant unconstitutional law remained on the books year after year after year?

In my article I demonstrated the unconstitutionality of Social Security and other such programs. You did not disagree. So I have to ask, where are the attorneys attempting to repeal these programs on legal grounds? I don't see them unless they are working within the CATO Institute or some such organization.

In the book, To Harass Our People, by Congressman George Hansen, there is the story of a couple who sent in their mortgage payment. The postal service mistakenly delivers it to the IRS. The IRS cashes it. Ten months go by. The bank calls up and asks, "Where is our money?" The answer, "We paid you." "No you didn't!" The couple investigates and discovers that it was the IRS that cashed the check. The couple asks, "Why did you cash the check? We didn't owe you anything. Here's proof! Give us back our money!" They produced the proof and the IRS can't find anything wrong with the presentation. Nevertheless, the IRS refused to refund the money. The couple takes them to court. The couple wins and the judge orders the IRS to refund the money. But the judge also denies that the couple is entitled to any compensation for legal fees or court costs. Why? Sovereign immunity. The government and its agents can not be held accountable for their misdeeds unless the government first agrees to be sued. And which profession is it that wrote such a silly law? The legal profession. And who did the couple have to fight with? Government attorneys.

If you have read anything by James Bovard, particularly Lost Rights or Freedom in Chains, you know that the record of governmental abuse and irrationality is excessively tyrannical. And which profession is it that is walking in lockstep with the bureaucrats, working with and justifying their actions? Why, it is the legal profession.

You know, there is a maxim in law that silence implies consent. When government attorneys abuse their power or the law and other attorneys remain silent then they are consenting to the abuse. In regard to frivolous law suits, where are the attorneys demanding that the lawyers filing such suits cease and desist or face disbarment proceedings?

When the legal profession as a whole remains silent when some of their brethren abuse power or their fellow citizens without raising a ruckus of any kind, then they are consenting and encouraging such abuse.

Robert Heinlein once suggested that a man shoots his own rabid dog. He doesn't expect his neighbor to do the job for him. So where are the attorneys attempting to clean-up the legal and moral mess some of their brethren have been creating? Why does it take someone like me to point out such abuse?

The United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations take up yards of shelf space. The CFR contains 50 volumes, the last time I looked. And this doesn't take in consideration potentially conflicting state and local laws. In short, businesses are highly regulated. I know. I used to enforce some of those vary regulations. The only thing the government doesn't do, as far as I can tell, is decide what market a business may serve or station a representative on the Board of Directors. If we do, in fact, have the highest standards of living in the world, it will be in-spite of the legal profession, not because of it.

Take care,
James J. Odle <jodle@primenet.com>

Back to the top

Letter from Timothy L. Krahling, Sr.

First Lady To Stay With Clinton
By Marc Humbert
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2000; 8:39 p.m. EST

BUFFALO, N.Y. –– Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Tuesday to "spend the rest of my life" with President Clinton ...

[An unidentified White House source reports that Secret Service agents assigned to the President immediately put him on a suicide watch. -- Tim]

Timothy L. Krahling, Sr. <tkrahlin@erols.com>

Back to the top

Letter from Victor Milán

Hey, gang!

In case you missed this jewel of evidence about Amerika's internal army of occupation (dba police depts), a snip from a Carl Rowan piece in the 1/24/00 Wash TIMES:

On Jan. 1, 2000, the chief was prominently displayed in The Washington Post, taking credit for a 66 percent drop in police shootings during 1999, as compared to 1998. He credited his new lethal-force policy and expanded training for the reduction. The chief cited 32 police shootings in 1998 and 11 for 1999. Nonsense. In each year, the police fired their weapons approximately 60 times, but the public would have no way of knowing that the numbers being massaged are in those who were hit by the gunfire. The "reduction" is actually in MPD marksmanship.

Victor Milán <vicmilan@ix.netcom.com>
Government and freedom: simply incompatible

Back to the top

Letter from Ray Ledford

Dear John,

Don't EVER do that again! What is it you did wrong, you ask? You dated TLE #63 thusly:

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE ......................... January 15, 1900

I was reading this late at night when everyone else was asleep. I almost hurt myself trying to supress the natural inclination to laugh. I've a good mind (it's a loaner) to write an article expressing my opinion on this and various sundry matters!

Pro libertate,
Ray Ledford <rledford@mindspring.com>

Back to the top

Letter from Jack Jerome

John, thanks for printing my screeds on a quasi-regular basis. I appreciate the spirit and tone that your magazine has, and I don't mind reading articles that have been written by Vin (why would anyone complain?), but I have an idea. (great!) Go back to the best of previous letters by the readers and respond to them at some length. I would appreciate the feedback, and I think my fellow Libertarians may enjoy your (and other contributors') diatribes. Just think how quick you could slap another ish together!

Personally I like the letters as much as the articles in TLE, so I was happy to see them moved to the front of the mag. I am sure that many of your esteemed readers fancy themselves wordsmiths of some calibre (.357 at least). What better way to reward them than by having their views dissected by the finest free thinkers on the planet!

Just an idea.

Your partner in freedom

Jack Jerome

[So, whaddaya' folks think? Would you like to see a feature piece, of some yet-to-be-determined configuration, based on letters to the editor, past and/or present? Personally speaking, I just don't get nearly enough "hate mail" to suit my tastes. Are you guys passing TLE along to our "enemies" (I hope so) as well as to our "friends?" Let us know what you think! Drop us a line at <TLE@johntaylor.org>! Do it today! -- ed.]

Back to the top

Letter from Dr Peter Wilhelm

we are and have been for a very long time been under attack by a vast left wing (socialis/communist)conspiracy which well knows where the root of political power is (the armed People (the militia)) and are seeking to kill those roots in America logic and reason do not work against the anti gun groups because marxism is a religion, and their objective is total civilian disarmament of the world (see un policy statements at the un website and statements by comrade koughing anus the sec gen. etc and other traitors)

this is a war against marxists socialists communists and their objective: the total slavery of the world

the schools/education must be taken back / returned to the people

the youth of america must be trained in arms

the principles of freedom and morality must be brought back to the education system --

the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be enforced and there must be teeth in the enforcement

"Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." -- Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.
Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3 <<the nea is a member of the democratic socialists>>

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." -- Bill Clinton, USA Today, 11 March 1993, pg. 2a

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. -- Mao Zedong (1893-1976), founder of the People's Republic of China. "Problems of War and Strategy," speech, 6 Nov. 1938 (published in Selected Works, vol. 2, 1961).

Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat. -- Hermann Goering (1893-1946), German Nazi leader, air marshal. Alleged radio broadcast, Summer 1936, on the Four-Year Plan.

The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

"A disarmed populace is easy to control."

"Disarming the people is the most effective way to enslave them."

so·cial·ism (so'she-liz*em) noun
1. a. A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community. b. The theory or practice of those who support such a social system.
2. The building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory

socialism (noun)
reformism: liberalism, socialism, radicalism
government: syndicalism, socialism, guild socialism, Fabianism, statism
joint possession: nationalization, public ownership, state ownership, socialism, communism, collectivism
philanthropy: common good, socialism, communism

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened" -- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate

Marxism is a religion. To the believer it presents, first, a system of ultimate ends that embody the meaning of life and are absolute standards by which to judge events and actions; and, secondly, a guide to those ends which implies a plan of salvation and the indication of the evil from which mankind, or a chosen section of mankind, is to be saved. -- Joseph A. Schumpeter (1883?1950), Austrian-American economist. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, ch.1 (1942)

Dr Peter Wilhelm <pdwil45@airmail.net>

Back to the top

Next to advance to the next article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 64, January 31, 2000.