Subject: Michigan Militia Corps Weekly Update (4-1)
From: steinpor <steinpor@wheel.ferris.edu>


Please excuse any typos as this text is converted from a fax.

Weekly Update
Volume 4, Issue 1
January 8, 1997


Fed Computers Will Have Your Number
Your privacy is being eroded as new health care technology
grows.
Target No.1 is your Social Security number.
By James P. Tucker Jr.

The once-sacred Social Security number should be used as the
"unique identifier" of patients as their records go into computers to 
be used in the telemedicine age, according to experts.
"Telemedicine" has much to support it. If you are struck by an
automobile in any city, and left unconscious, physicians have your
complete medical history at their fingertips via computer, promoters of 
the plan say.
Obviously, this information helps in treating you.
But the recommendation from more than 80 organizations of health
care providers and other professional groups meeting in Washington to use
your Social Security number follows a grim trail which we have been pursuing
for more than a decade.
Ultimately, when your medical history is recorded on computers
at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), you will stand naked
before Big Brother. Computers will know about your personal income, medical
history and driving habits. And they will "talk" to each other.
When Elizabeth Dole was President Ronald Reagan's secretary of
transportation, she announced a plan to computerize all state drivers
licenses. Again, the cause was good: saving lives and limbs.
Many drivers - including big-rig truckers - would hold licenses
in several states. If their driving killed people and a state lifted their
license, they had plenty more.
Now, if a killer driver applies for a license in any state, it
can be immediately determined that he had serious convictions elsewhere
and the license denied.
So far, so good.
But, immediately after the announcement, we asked Mrs. Dole if the
Transportation Department computer would be linked up with the Internal
Revenue Service computer and she replied, "Oh, yes."
So the IRS, HHS and Transportation Department will be talking to each
other about your medical history, finances and driving habits.
There will be much prattling about protecting "privacy" as there has
been for decades.
Hundreds of IRS employees had been snooping - without reason - on
taxpayers confidential returns. Some were curious about celebrities,
others snooped on their neighbors. And all demonstrated the effectiveness of
"safeguards."
The experts recommendation that Social Security numbers be used was
forwarded to the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics,
which is charged with advising HHS on health information standards. Health 
care representatives also called for coordination of terminology and data-set
developers toward a comprehensive framework.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 calls
for adoption of information management standards to improve the
operation of the health care system and reduce administrative costs. 
"Specific solutions and focused action plans, however, are critical to the 
implementation of information standards and widespread adoption of 
computer-based patient record systems," said Paul Tang, MD, chairman of 
the meeting.
Computer-based patient records provide electronically maintained
information about an individual's lifetime health status and facilitate
access to data stored in multiple, dispersed locations when authorized
by a patient. This provides complete and accurate data for continuity of
care, experts said. Computer-based records provide clinical reminders and
alerts, linkages with knowledgeable sources for support in making health-care
decisions, and data for outcomes research and improved management of the
health care system, they said.
[Ed. Note: The potential for abuse is being totally ignored and
experience proves that if the opportunity exists, it will happen.)


OK Grand Jury will Probe Bombing

The people of of Oklahoma City have spoken: they want a grand jury
investigation into the bombing that rocked America.
By Tom Valentine

On Christmas Eve, an Oklahoma state appellate court overruled a
lower court and opened the way for an Oklahoma county grand jury 
investigation into the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
By a 3-0 vote the appeals court said the lower court was wrong to
refuse the plea of state legislator Charles Key to circulate a petition
calling for a special county grand jury to investigate both the bombing,
which took 168 lives, and the investigation by the FBI. The federal
investigation has been criticized as a cover-up by numerous local
investigators, including a local television news crew.
Key now needs to obtain 5,000 signatures on a petition to force
the grand jury call.
The mainstream media has ignored this important story, but in
Oklahoma City the news is hot.
KTOK radio, the leading talk station in Oklahoma City conducted
a listener survey and was stunned to learn that 90 percent favored the
idea of convening a county grand jury. Station management assumed the local
sentiment was opposed to any challenges of the way the feds have handled the
entire case.
The words "foreknowledge" by the feds and "cover-up" as well as
"obstruction of justice" are said to be flowing over the local airwaves
since the news broke Christmas Day.
Whistleblower Pat Briley is a local resident who has been
independently investigating the case. Briley, earlier in December, said
that there can be no doubt about a cover-up by the FBI agents in charge of
the investigation. He actually named a key agent and alleged that proof
exists that this agent falsified the reports of witness interrogations.
Briley pointed out that the same kind of allegation - falsifying
testimony of witnesses - has erupted in the Vincent Foster case and one
witness is suing the FBI over the matter.
For example, Briley told us that a witness who works in a store
in the Regency Towers building, which is near the Murrah building and
sustained some damage by the blast has informed the FBI that Tim McVeigh 
and a John Doe came into the store about 8:30 the morning of the blast. 
The bomb, or bombs, exploded shortly after 9 am.
The FBI agents did not accept the testimony and tried to
convince the witness that what was observed was "impossible." The witness 
stood by the story.
Local attorneys, speaking on radio and television talk news
shows, said the Justice Department would most likely not allow the county to
have an effective grand jury probe. Many suspect the federal government would
invoke a gag order, already imposed on witnesses by U.S. District Judge 
Richard Matsch hearing the case in Denver.
Briley says that such use of the "gag" has apparently already
occurred. A police officer who observed federal helicopters in the
vicinity of the Murrah building prior to the bomb blast and who has a 
videotape of FBI agents talking about a "failed operation" the day after 
the blast, has been suddenly subpoenaed as a key witness and hence 
placed under the gag rule.
Apparently things are getting a lot hotter, not cooling off, as
officials of the federal, state and local governments had hoped.


Make Courts Accountable

Judicial Imperialism can be defined as judges issuing rulings
based on their whims (or biases) rather than relying on the written words of
the Constitution and the intent of the framers. Congress has let judges get
away with this type of behavior for too long.
This was a problem foreseen by the framers and discussed in the
debates at the 1787 constitutional convention. Their concerns were well-
founded as many court decisions since attest. The Constitution - not
supreme Court decisions - is the law of the land.
The framers intended the judiciary to be the weakest branch of
government and, therefore, the least dangerous to the political rights
provided in the Constitution. The judiciary was not supposed to have
influence over either the sword (executive branch) or the purse
(Congress), and have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.
The idea that the supreme Court has the authority to be the final
word on the Constitution defies the intent of those who devised the
unique form of limited constitutional republic by which this nation is
governed. It also defies common sense.
When functioning properly, the legislative, executive and
judicial branches are supposed to act as a check and balance against each 
other to prevent the federal government from becoming tyrannical. The 
practice of allowing a supreme Court decision to have the last word 
implies the ridiculous notion that the framers intended a system of 
government run by judicial dictatorship.
The supreme Court is also supposed to be a check against Congress. It
should be voiding any laws it deems are contrary to the Constitution. If
it was doing so, a lot of laws would be wiped from the books, starting with
the gun-grabbing Brady law, the so-called anti-Terrorist law and so forth.
if Congress reviewed decisions of the supreme Court to determine
whether it held to original intent or not, then Congress could advise
that rulings by the supreme Court are applicable only to litigants.
Congress, too, is bound by the Constitution. It should only pass laws
applying the principle of original intent and the rules of construction.
If the American people were educated to the fact that the decisions of the
court are not the law of the land, the Court's (current) power to make law
unfettered would ultimately be curtailed. The public outcry would be so
great, and budding law school students, who are now told to believe that
the high court has the authority to have the final word, would pick up the
banner.
Often the supreme Court assumes jurisdiction over areas which should
be left to the states.
The Supreme Court's Roe V. Wade decision, which led to abortion on
demand, is a prime example. In that decision the court invented the
heretofore unknown concept of the right to privacy. There was nothing in
the intent of the framers of past court decisions to imply it was left to
the Court to decide when life begins.
The framers also talked about misfeasance which was wrongful exercise
of lawful authority, and malfeasance which was official misconduct.
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote that he could never
understand why, for years, justices during Monday morning conferences
could not come up with the fourth vote required for the supreme Court to
decide to review the lower court decision that men could be compelled to
serve in Vietnam.
Douglas reasoned that if the Supreme Court had once decided to hear a
case to determine whether President Harry Truman could take over
railroads during the Korean war - a case relating to the property rights of
railroad owners -- the court should hear a case involving the refusal of 
men to be drafted and be put in harm's way since no greater private property
exists than a man's life.
The Federalist Papers discussed how the judicial branch is supposed
to function. No. 78 explains the power of the court to review statutes
or acts of Congress to determine if they adhere to the Constitution. Judges
are supposed to be expositors, explaining the intent of the framers. The
introduction of sophistry, or personal biases and caprices into their
opinions, constituted judicial activism.
Alexander Hamilton addressed the problem of wayward judges in
Federalist Paper 81: He said there was not one syllable in the
Constitution which directly empowers judges to construe laws in the spirit 
of the Constitution or give them any greater latitude. Judges must follow
the rules of construction.
Hamilton's solution was for Congress to impeach unruly judges. He
stressed the "important constitutional check which the power of
instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of 
determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the 
members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security."
It is also a myth that federal judges are entitled to life-time
terms. The language of Article III of the Constitution reads: "The
Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices 
during good Behavior..."
The Federalist Papers explain this: "The standard of good behavior
for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy is certainly
one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of
government...
in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and
oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient
which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and
impartial administration of the laws." It is time for Congress to start checking
judicial imperialism and for the supreme Court to check imperialism by
the legislative branch.


Police Seek Greater Powers in Undertaking Traffic Stops
By Joseph T Hallinan, Newhouse News Service

Washington - In a little-noticed trend, police around the country are
increasingly able to intrude into that most American of sanctuaries: the
automobile. In two recent Supreme Court decisions - and in a third that
is expected to be decided shortly - police have argued for powers that
affect virtually anyone stopped for a traffic ticket. The Court has ruled 
that police may pull you over for the most minor of traffic infractions - a
dead bulb over your license plate, for instance - even when the stop is a
pretext to conduct a search of your car.
And, in a separate case, the court ruled that during such a routine
traffic stop the police may ask to search your car without first telling
you the stop is over and you are free to go. In most cases, unless the
police see something illegal in plain view (a gun or drugs, for instance), 
they do not have the right to search without your permission.
If, as expected, the court sides with police in a pending case,
Maryland v. Wilson, police conducting a traffic stop will get the OK to
order not only the driver, but all passengers to get out of the car. Taken
individually, legal experts and advocates say, these cases may not
appear to be a big change, but collectively, they say, these cases raise 
police intrusiveness to a new level. "When you put (these cases) together,
these things make a line and the line shows increasing power of police over
people in their cars," said David A. Harris, professor of law at the 
University of Toledo.
Police organizations say their intrusions place a minimum burden on
most motorists and are warranted by the danger officers face. Allowing a
police officer to ask all occupants to step out of the car would allow
an added measure of safety and that's all they're asking for. They say that
they're not saying an officer can question them, detain them, frisk
them, any of that.
James J. Baxter, president of the National Motorists Association,
contends that abuse of motorists by police is far more common than most
people believe and that expanded powers will only increase the potential
for abuse.
Betty D. Montgomery, Ohio's attorney general, said, "I think that
most motorists understand that at the point the ticket is given they're
free to go."
Barter disputed this point. He said most motorists are cowed by a
police officer's authority "and feel very much like they're subordinate
to whatever the officer requests."
"If the person is actually bold enough to say no they are then
threatened with the likelihood of sitting there for hours," he said,
while police obtain a warrant or drug dog.
That is what happened to Robert Wilkins, a black attorney from
Washington, who was stopped for speeding four years ago by Maryland
State Police on his way home from a funeral. After Wilkins told police they
had no right to search the car without arresting him, he was made to wait 
half an hour while police obtained a drug-sniffing dog. Then he and his 
family were made to stand in the rain while the dog sniffed the car. 
No drugs were found and Wilkins was given a $105 speeding ticket.

The Grand Rapids Press. Sunday, January 5, 1997

***

To subscribe to the Weekly Update, put out weekly by Michigan Militia
Corps
state command, simply send a message conveying that to jeffs@gr.cns.net.
The Weekly Update is archived at the Michigan Militia Corps web page at:
http://mmc.cns.net

***
