From the land of 10,000 lakes and 30,000 bars November 1994
(formerly the NEWS FROM DETROIT)
EDITORIAL
Steve Langer sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ultrix)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard disclaimers apply. In addition, the author makes no guarantees
concerning the grammatical accuracy of his writing. Submitted text files must
be in raw ASCII, compressed tar (file.tar.Z) or PK Zip format. Image files must
be in GIF89 (or older), PostScript or compressed (see above) versions of same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On last month's Fix;
the answer to last month's Fix,
"Illegal immigrants: return them, let them starve here, or
grant them full rights and priveleges (whatever are left)?"
is
Most of you wrote
Personally, I think that there is an interesting lesson to be learned by
the contrast between California and Texas on this issue. Texas has a much
longer border with Mexico than California, yet California seems to have
a much harder time with illegal immigrants. It's a matter of perspective.
Californians see the illegals as a threat, while Texans see them as a
resource. To be blunt, in Texas you have lots of employers willing to hire
illegal aliens illegally and make them work for peanuts. A largely apathetic,
if not supportive, remainder of the citizens tolerate the practice. In
California you have similar selfish employers, but a larger portion
of the citizenry who (to their heart's credit, if not their brain's),
insist on trying to make life "fair". These "liberals" don't seem to
realize that their largesse with other people's money leads to inflation,
higher taxes and unemployment as companies flee the state to escape
punitive taxation.
Should the illegals be deported? Of course. Will they come back into the
country the next day? Sure. Does Joe taxpayer owe them a chunk of his
paycheck? I don't think so. There is a point to Prop. 187 which bothers me
though. It would create yet another ID card that people would have to carry
on their person to prove their state citizenship (Achtung! Ver are your
papersss?!). Curiously, the lack of such a card would entitle one to stand
in line to get illegal immigrant benefits. Geez, why doesn't the INS just
post agents at these new welfare offices and deport the applicants?
It used to be that immigrants came to this country for equality of
oppurtunity. They rose or fell on their own efforts, and the nation
prospered. Now, with the aid of those citizens already here, illegals
are coming to this nation demanding equality of outcome, regardless of
their personal efforts. We have numerous historical examples of this
philosophy, most to the east of the old Iron Curtain.
On Campaign Strategies;
It is an interesting fact that while the public says it wants to see
candidates debate the issues, they vote for the Party that makes a career
of scandal mongering, the Democrats. Proof? Well the Dems hold a majority
almost everywhere. What? Oh, you mean proof that Dems are more hungry for
scandal than Reps. Ok;
a. '92 Rep. Christine Todd-Whitman defeats incumbant New Jersey Dem. Govnr.
Jim Florio. Within 2 weeks, Florio demands her recall for alleged
campaign improprieties by her campaign manager.
b. '90 Rep. Engler defeats incumbant Michigan Dem. Govnr. Blanchard.
Within 3 months a recall petition is started. Reason? Why, the
foolish public elected a Rep. Isn't that reason enough?
c. '92 Texas Dem. Govnr. Ann Richards attacks Kay Bailey Hutchison's
campaign for the Senate on the grounds that she used publicly paid
employees to make her vacation travel arrangements. Richard's
attacks notably stopped when Hutchison pointed out that Richard's
personal office and home are decorated with flowers paid for out
of state coffers.
.
.
. you get the point
How is the GOP responding to this barrage in an election? Why, they
made a contract with America. It says this (abbreviated);
- Force Congress to live under the laws it passes on the rest of us.
- Cut 1/3 of congressional staffers
- cut the congressional budget
- Balanced budget amendmant and line item veto
- Stop violent criminals
- Welfare reform
- Protect our kids
- Tax cuts for familys
- Strong national defense
- Raise senior citizens earning limit
- Roll back govt. regulation
- Legal reform
- Term limits
You may or may not agree with these specific goals, but do you see
any mention of the House Bank Scandal, the House Post Office Scandal, Keating
Five, Whitewater, the personal habits of Ted Kennedy or Dan Inouaye? If
Reps. are using these arguments in local races, they are not getting covered
in the national press. No, the GOP has made an effort to actually run
_on the isues_ because they believe that it is not good enough to vote
against someone unless you have a reason to vote _for_ someone else.
Personally, I think the contract was a mistake. Polls show that voter
support for Reps. has been eroding ever since the contract's debut.
Why? Simple really. Now Dems. actually have a target to take aim at and
criticize. They don't really need to go on record with an alternative
because the GOP was wrong. Joe Voter really doesn't need a reason to
vote _for_ something. He proved this most recently in 1992 by
firing George Bush and he's proven it in every city, state and national
election this century. The Reps. have utterly failed to learn this.
The true lesson, of course, is this; you have to stand for principles and
don't go back on them once they've gotten you elected, but you also
have to honestly annhilate your opponent's ideas and/or character when
there is just cause.
On the Results:
YOU FOOLS! What have you done? Don't you realize that Bill's mission
to save the planet is now at risk? Thank God the East coast is awash
with shrinks. At least Mass., Virginia and Wash. D.C. had the moral
courage to reelect those pillars of decency Ted Kennedy, Rich Robb and
Marion Berry. Perhaps therein lies hope.
But seriously ...
Evidently Garrison Keillor was right to be worried about a nation
of soreheads last month. And the carnage could have been even greater
had the Republican contract not given Dems. the targets they needed
to attack. It is a curious, but nevertheless true observation born
out by political pollsters during every election that a generic
candidate always gets better ratings than the incumbant. That is, you
ask Joan voter who she likes better, Dem. incumbant A or unknown Rep.
B, and Joan will pick B. However, as soon as a name is attached to B,
along with some background, B's negatives start to increase. In other
words, familiarity breeds contempt. Rather like romance. But let's
take a look as some pivotal states;
Mass: Ted Kennedy survived
New York: Cuomo lost
Virgina: Robb held on
Florida: Chiles scraped over Jeb Bush
Illinois: Rostenkowski finally bit it
Texas: George Bush Jr. beat Ma Richards
California: Pete Wilson held on, but so did Feinstein
Wash: The de-Folyater's were victorious
Given this, it may be a bit premature to attend a wake for the Dem.
party. Yet, it has to send a stinging message to the White House when
not ONE SINGLE INCUMBANT REPUBLICAN LOST. And recall that this is the first
time since FDR that the Rep.'s have controlled both houses. Ouch.
So how will we be governed in the next two years? Well, expect Congress
to get even more polarized (for once I agree with the major media pundits).
There is tremendous resentment on the Dem. side and a sense of "in your
face" on the Rep. side. There will be precious little bipartisanship. As
a result, most bills will be voted on purely along party lines and Clinton
will feel compelled to veto them. Since the Reps. don't have a veto proof
majority, the result will be gridlock. In '96, gridlock will again be a
major campaign issue, but this time it will be the Reps who bemoan it
because it will be their initiatives that get blocked. The Dems and
Clinton will say they saved us. Meanwhile, many folks here were sweating
about the appearence next year of Health Care II. After this Tuesday, they
all heaved a big sigh of relief.
[Oh, and I know many of my liberal readers are probably tearing their
[hair out right now because they can't understand my mixed review of
[this election. Perhaps I'm not the idealogue they think? Naaa
On Prop. 187:
Recall last month when I mentioned that the California Supreme Court
has already delared the bill unConstitutional? Well, guess what? The
day after it passed overwhelmingly, the state Court ordered a halt to
all enforcment measures. Furthermore, US Ambassador to Mexico Jimmy
Jones, a Clinton appointee, apoligised to the Mexican president today
(NPR, Nov. 9) and said not to worry about Prop. 187 because;
"... it was a mistake that will be corrected by the courts."
So do you California readers understand this?! It doesn't matter what
you vote for because it was a mistake. I repeat last month's advice.
Renounce your US citizenship, you'll no longer be taxed and you'll
enjoy all the welfare bennies of a citizen. Of course you'll no longer
be able to vote, but since your vote doesn't count anyway, who cares?
On the Media Reaction;
One of the prereqs for becoming a journalist must be schizophrenia.
Today's (Nov. 13) _New York Times_ is replete with reasons for the
downfall of the Dems. last Tuesday and what it means for the US future.
On page one of Sec. 4, the explanation for the Rep win is that for once,
Reps have good candidates. Then the op-ed page of the same section calls
Newt Gingrich an
"... authoritarian racist bigot in the mold of Gov. Wallace."
and a similar piece was done on soon to be Senate Majority Leader Bob
Dole. As Frank Scripter is fond of saying, "I'll give my opponent either
side of an argument, but damnit, he can't have both."
On page 8 of section one, writer Steve Erlanger foretells that a GOP
Congress will result in cooler relations with Russia and maybe even a
resumption of the cold war. Geez. Mr. Erlanger, do you know who was in
office when the Berlin wall went up? When we went into Vietnam, had the
Cuban Missile Crisis, or who sat in the Oval office during the invasion of
Afghanistan? Mr. Erlanger, do you know who re-normalized relations with
China, or led Russia to the negotiating table so that his successor could
preside over the demolition of the Berlin Wall?
To a liberal journalist, reality is a small white bird tweeting
in a meadow. These people have such incredible reality filters that
if they somehow actually _see_ suffering, they go to a charity ball in
Hollywood, New York or Wash. D.C. wearing a colored ribbon and call that
compassion. These damn fools cannot bring themselves to understand one
simple, fundemental truth; US voters fired George Bush because their quality
of life is declining. They would have fired Clinton for the same reason, but
since they couldn't, they took out their anger on Clinton's party.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see the New York Times suddenly reverse
itself and favor term limits in the next election. The editors will
say they were for term limits all along, but the readers, given the
decline of U.S. intelligence, were just too dumb to notice.
On Who voted for Whom:
Exit poll data from New York Times Nov. 13. Voting trend percentages
Dem Rep
Single Men 52 48
SIngle Women 66 34
Married Men 44 56
Married Women 48 52
Men 18-30 52 48
Women 18-30 56 44
Men 30-45 43 57
Women 30-45 51 49
Men 45-60 46 54
Women 45-60 56 44
Men >60 49 51
Women >60 53 47
Income under
15k/year 62 38
15-30k 52 48
30-50 k 49 51
50-70k 46 54
over 70k 47 53
Non-high school grad 68 32
High school grad 52 48
Some College 47 53
BS 49 51
Post BS 45 55
PhD 54 46
East 52 48
Midwest 44 56
South 45 55
West 59 41
Pretty much what you'd expect. Women are more liberal
than men, and the richer and more educated you are, the more likely you
are to be conservative. One interesting point is how much
more liberal single women are than married women, which may go some way
towards explaining why they're still single. In fact, those numbers are
very similar to the numbers for non-high-school grads and incomes under
15k/year. This indicates to me that these are probably unwed mothers who
never finished high school and are on public assistance. However, without
cross-tab data, I cannot verify this.
Another interesting point is that conservatism increases with education
until one gets a PhD. Then, presumably, one goes into academia and lives
off of grants and as we all know, all beggars preach that others should
give. This being one of the fundemental tenants of liberalism, they then
vote Democratic. I've often thought that all recipients of public money
should be disallowed from voting, since this is an inherent conflict of
interest. Of course, this will never happen.
On Feminism;
The other day, some of the female residents were bad-mouthing their
boyfriends, the glass-ceiling and men in general. They made sure I was
aware of the discussion, as I was the only male in sight and there were
three of them, I guess they felt safe. It seems that their biggest gripe
is that men are too materialistic and concerned with furthering their
careers.
"Ok", I said, "Who are all of you dating or married to?"
All of them named other residents or newly made staff.
"Ok", said I again, "Now who is Frank, Eric, etc. married to?"
They named women who I know are nurses, interior decorators, some
have no college education at all.
I launched.
"You've just pointed out a trend I've seen at Madison, MSU, Detroit
and here. Women, with few exceptions, marry up or equal as a means
of securing a comfortable, materialistic existence and/or possibly
as a means of furthering their own careers. Of the four-five hundred
couples I know, I can count on one finger an example of a female MD
marrying down. Yet you yourselves have just listed the significant
others of the male residents here and _none_ of them are on an equal
educational or socio-economic plane with their men. Perhaps when
feminism reaches the point when a female Mayo resident is as likely to
marry her male Volvo mechanic as the Clinic Pres., all of you will have
the credibility to disparage men as being wickedly materialistic."
The female residents left the room after that.
GUEST EDITORIAL
[It's been said that I sometimes come down too hard on the govt.
[so here is an editorial from a more mild mannered source.
The Punishment of the Wise
by Timothy Haight
_Network Computing_, Nov. 1 1994
I'm writing this in Sep., but you're reading it in Nov. Meanwhile, some
distressing bills are going through Congress. They may well be law by the
time you read this. The bills, sponsored by Sen. Leahy and Represen.
Edwards, which are based on an FBI proposal, require the phone companies
to redesign the national digital phone network so that police can tap
calls more easily.
Four aspects of this plan bother me. First, it's expensive. The Feds
have authorized 1/2 a billion dollars to pay for this, but the phone
companies say it will cost a lot more. Fixing call forwarding alone
is supposed to cost over $1 billion. Second, it seems obvious to me
and many experts that systems that are easier for the police to tap
will be easier for industrial spies to tap. Third, while defenses against
govt. abuse were added to the bill by people who remember wiretap abuses
25 years ago, these protections are mostly procedural, and bureacrats are
paid to circumvent them. Fourth, it initiates a really nasty process.
In the future, to avoid expensive retrofits, we can expect phone carriers
to build in easy access at the outset. Allowing for wiretapping will
become a design principle.
These bills have a chilling effect on designers of technology. Design
in security at your own risk. Next year it may be outlawed and you won't
be able to sell it.
It's Oct. now and the Digital Telephony bill has passed both houses and
Clinton is expected to sign it. Telecom security will become harder to
achieve and phone service will cost more.
Over 2300 years ago Plato wrote,
"The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in govt.
is to live under the government of worse men."
The bills supporters claim that its provisions won't be extended to
on-line communications. Sure. When they are, I hope we just don't watch the
bills slide by next time.
LETTERS
1. From Geza Erdos, one of my old lab mates in Detroit. Geza is a visiting
post-doc from Hungary and while he is not yet a citizen of this country,
his children are (since they were born here).
From geza@earthvision.svsu.edu Mon Nov 7 22:52:34 1994
Hi Steve
Some thoughts on your 'monthly fix' on immigration. I
am not qualified to say anything about it -I am not a citizen and even
not a green card holder - but I guess I have special insight on the problem.
Just to refresh your memory, I am living here for 11 years now. I always
been here legally, and pay taxes, most of the time more then the Big "3"
all together (State, Federal and FICA). I even payed those taxes which I
cannot benefit from at all (FICA).
More, I have two boys (US citizens) whom for some years I couldn't even
get an exemption on my tax return (see NR1040), they just cannot
be counted even if they are American. So I do not think I am
living off anybody's tax dollars, rather I think I support some of the
needy of America. So, as I see, the press the politicians, and about
everybody mix up two very different problems:
1. Immigration, as it is governed by well established laws,
would not be a problem if the laws are observed and evenly applied.
(Just admit a certain level of immigration is very usefull, you
really do not want to see that 'bell curve' shift way far left).
Furthermore, controlled immigration would not drain tax dollars, I
never drained.
2, Violation of the borders of a recognised and historically
established country (what I do not know, why the press and
politicians call it 'illegal immigration', it is not immigration
but complete disregard of a country's laws, therefore a criminal act)
and everywhere around the world is sanctioned with deportation and/or
prison terms, even in countries where the immigration laws are
more relaxed than here. Basically I do not comprehend how anyone
can obtain rights to something in an illegal way. I dont think an
American citizen has rights like that. Like, the constitutional
right to bear arms may not support one's right to keep a gun that
he or she has stolen or does it, please set me straight! So you
dont need new laws just enforce what you already
have, like your constitution.
The bottom line, you have no immigration problem, you have law
enforcement problem. Patrol your border, enforce your laws, make sure who
came illegaly is going to be deported and repeated offenders will pay
dearly for breaking your laws. The legal immigrants are cheap targets, in
the last few decades laws mostly limited the immigration of those who would
not need public assistance at all and focused on the so called family
reunification programs (see cubans, south-east asians, latinos, indians
and so on). The rules and priorities have to be clarified, do you want
immigration to be a resource for America or do you want to be a
dumping-ground for everything that comes. And finally, it is not a good
idea to mix up two existing problems, which relate to each other only
marginally or not at all.
I am sure immigration is a great resource to this country just
have to use it wisely.
Geza
[Since you're a legal immigrant the motivation for this question, Cal-
[fornia's Prop. 187, does not apply to you, nor does the discussion
[that this question was intended to generate. Furthermore, I too
[know a little about being an immigrant. I had the joy of being considered
[a Michigan resident for taxation purposes, yet was forced to pay
[out state college tuition because despite living there for 8 years,
[I was not a land owner or permanent job holder, thus not entitled to
[resident tuition.
[
[Prop. 187 asked a very simple question,
[ "Do you want to pay for the welfare, health care and education
[ of people who are here illegally?"
[
[ Well, do you? I have long been a staunch advocate of legal immigration
[for the very reasons you suggest, among others. I have been fairly
[vocal in the Young Scientists Network in fighting those who would
[ban immigration of scientists to make a better market for those already
[here, though I _am_ smart enough to know this is against my own best
[interests. You can ask L. Townsend about this. It just goes to show
[how truly selfish and conservative I am ;-)
[
[As for how the law looks at the legality of the right to keep and
[bear stolen arms, that's easy. All arms in the possesion of the
[people are stolen and should be returned to the loving and caring
[Feds. Geez Geza, I thought I told you that.
2. Keeweenaw Paul informs us of a new Mosaic home page that all well
informed citizens simply must read.
From pecampbe@mtu.edu Wed Nov 9 10:08:13 1994
>Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.misc
>From: chamer@ag.com (Christian Hamer)
>Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 09:48:20 EDT
Condoms and other sexual items, as well as relevant information, are now
available on the World Wide Web from Condom Country at URL:
http://www.ag.com/condom/country
Along with its product line, Condom Country also provides its customers
with information content, such as government statistics on AIDS,
instructions on how to use a condom, and a chart on the average male penis
length. Interested customers should try out the above URL or send e-mail
to: "condom.info@ag.com".
Condom Country is a service of The Access Group, a Cambridge, MA company
that specializes in publishing electronic catalogs over the Internet.
******************************************************************************
* Christian Hamer (chamer@ag.com) 586 Putnam Avenue *
* Vice President Cambridge, MA 02139 *
* The Access Group (617) 441-9173 *
* http://www.ag.com/ag.html info@ag.com *
* Check out Condom Country at: http://www.ag.com/condom/country *
******************************************************************************
3. From Arizona Matt
From birkholz@indirect.com Thu Nov 17 20:24:17 1994
Received: from dagobah (slip176.indirect.com) by Vela.ACS.Oakland.Edu with SMTP
[...]
Illegal immigrants, deport them, shoot them, or give them
full rights and privelages?
As with most "dilemmas" (so-called), the answer is obvious if you keep
sight of your (libertarian) principles. Give _everyone_ full _rights_.
Give _no one_ any _entitlements_.
Matthew Birkholz
birkholz@midnight.com
4. And Texas Tom
From ApogeeTom@aol.com Sun Nov 20 17:58:08 1994
> Illegal immigrants, deport them, shoot them, or give them
full rights and privelages?
Give them a way to, once caught, pay their last year's tax, take the
immigrant test, and become citizens at that point (or else tear down the
Statue of Liberty--I believe they are a huddled mass of a sort). It would
require a probation officer of a type. If they don't want to do that, deport
them. They are breaking the law by earning income and not paying taxes.
That, or deport them, then shoot them, then give them the full rights and
privileges of dead people.
Tom
5. Dave Gay writes from merry old England
From dgay@ricx.royal-institution.ac.uk Mon Nov 21 08:52:56 1994
>
> Illegal immigrants, deport them, shoot them, or give them
> full rights and privelages?
>
The problem with illegal immigrants (especially in Southern California)
is that they are used like slave labor. They are payed in cash and do
not pay taxes. This means they do not pay for the services they
receive. The real problem is that they do succeed in getting jobs.
The best way to deal with this problem is to eliminate their source of
revenue. To do this I propose this very radical approach. Anybody
caught taking advantage of illegal immigrants (hiring them without
paying taxes, and not paying at least minimum wage, etc.), should lose
their right to be a US citizen. The illegal immigrant should them be
given full rights as a US citizen or become a permanent resident that
can then be naturalized.
This weekend marked the beginning of a new age in Great Britain. There
is now a national Lottery. The proceeds of which will go to the arts,
heritage and charities. The effect of this will be like the Michigan
--More--(46%)
lottery (which helps fund the schools) where the proceeds go to
reducing the treasury funding of the beneficiaries. With this new age,
it is still impossible on Sunday to buy fish and chips at all, or beer
between 3 and 7 on Sunday afternoons!
London (what the media say):
It is quite interesting to read the British interpretation of the US
mid-term elections. They way the Government works over here is a bit
different. The prime minister is elected by the parlement, which is
like the speaker of the House. The other house (House of Lords) is
appointed by the Queen. Now the assumption here is that Clinton won't
be able to get anything done now that the Republicans control both
houses of Congress. The problem really is that he couldn't get anything
done while the Democrats controlled Congress, so there is nothing new
there.
There was an interesting interview with Stephonopolis by the BBC
(Clinton's mate, I mean friend). He was asked why the pedominately
"Democratic" press was so hard on him. Steph... said that he did not
believe the press was "Democratic" and that they were not being fair
with all the wonderfull accomplishments that Clinton has made as
President. The actual accomplishments were never actually mentioned!
For those of you who are looking for a replacement to Baseball, the
test series between England and Australia is about to start. I would
not recommend cheering for England, since the result of which would be
like cheering for the Cubs. It will only lead to dissappointment.
The problem with England is their lack of variety in bowling (pitching
for the baseballites). It is like having a team of slowish fastball
pitchers.
In cricket, a full test match takes 5 days and can end in a draw (the game
is not really finished not that the scores are even). Most baseball fans
would not like this.
Cheers,
Dave
6. The GE of MTU speaks.
From cescript@phy.mtu.edu Tue Nov 22 02:54:24 1994
Hey Steve!
> "Illegal Immigrants: Deport them, let them starve here, or
> give full citizenship and rights (whatever are left) to any
> who reach US soil?"
Hehehehe... You're gonna love this one... ;-)
Give 'em all a rifle and 500 rounds of ammo, then send them right
back to wherever they came from. Tell the dictator/asshole in charge
that if he's going to continue sending his problems our way, we'll
send them right back; tougher and meaner to boot. (This would be
particularly useful for the times when Castro lets his criminals and
lunatics out and send them to the US. Go for it Fidel, we'll send
them back to you, armed... ;-).
> Michigan;
>
> 1. Oct. 3, Petoskey: Outside the room where the Northern Michigan
> Regional Militia is meeting stands a poster of a 1935 quote by Adolf
> Hitler extolling the virtues of gun control. Inside, Ray Southwell
> warns that Clinton is moving to disarm the U.S. His proof:
I heard that the first time this group met, the State Police were
out there taking down license plate numbers. Then it occurred to
me... By doing so, the the State Police were willfully intimidating
these folks as they exercised their Right to peaceably assemble (as
guaranteed by the 1st Amendment). Since there were 2 or more out
there, this constitutes a conspiracy. In fact, such action is a
violation of 18 USC 242 (I've highlighted the relevant section):
18 USC Sec. 241. "Conspiracy against rights of citizens":
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
or
"If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
"They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more
than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be
subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life."
I think I'll have to pass this little tidbit along to Ray
Southwell. It'd be nice to see the State boys have their leash
yanked back.
--Charles
QUOTE(s) OF THE MONTH
Ted Kennedy reminds one of a manatee in a suit.
-- Anon. Rep. pollster
We will cooperate, but we will not compromise.
-- Soon to be House Speaker Newt
Gingrich with a new definition
of cooperation.
FIX OF THE MONTH
"Since the last election clearly proves that American's are poorly
educated, what can be done to improve the schools?"
NEWS
Minn;
1. Twin Cities, Nov. 16 : A modern day Jack the Ripper is stalking the
streets of the Cities. Eight prostitutes in two years have been found
murdered in the same grisly manner, although the police will not release
exact details. A lone female social worker has finally convinced the
police that the killings are indeed the work of one man and they have
gone on record for requesting help from FBI serial killer specialists.
California;
1. San Francisco, Nov.1: While stumping on behalf of the Dem challenger
to Rep. Govnr Pete Wilson, VEEP Algor said that when Wilson was a US
senator, he proved his racism by voting for more restrictive immigration
laws. Wilson responded that indeed he did, and Algor was one of the
sponsors of that bill.
Virginia;
1. Alexandria, Oct. 28: Algor sucked on his toes yet again during a
campaign rally for Chuck Robb, the Dem running against Oliver North
for one of Virginia's US senate seats. Said Algor,
"North is just cozing up to his extra chromosome pals in the
Rep. right wing, he won't represent you."
Well, it turns out that the "extra chromosome pals" is a reference
to mentally handicapped people, usually those with Down's Syndrome.
The American Society for Down's Syndrome promptly demanded an apology
for this slight, particularly when it was uttered during Down's Syndrome
Awareness Week.
[I can really relate to Algor on this. I can never keep all the
[sensitivity/awareness/sincere weeping with white-male guilt
[weeks straight myself.
Florida:
1. Nov. 3 NPR; Paul Hill, the defendant in the slaying of an abortion doctor,
was found quilty in Florida today and could get Florida's electric
chair. Hill, a former minister, acted as his own attorney on the grounds
of justifiable homicide. Hill also says that if put to death, he will become
a martyr in the pro-life cause.
Interestingly enough, the National Organization for Women (NOW) president
Patricia Ireland has said that NOW is against the death penalty in Hill's
case. Is this because NOW doesn't want Hill to be martyred? Why no, nothing
that cynical. Ireland said,
"... by the state killing him, it sends a message that homicide is
sometimes justified and continues the cycle of violence. Taking
a life is never justified."
[Uhh ... what?
[Course this line of reasoning from Ireland should not come as a surprise
[to long time readers who are aware that Ireland has a husband and children
[in Florida and a lesbian lover in Wash. D.C. Adultery? Of course not.
[Just another broad minded lifestyle choice.
[Now a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Penis) having a wife and mistress, that
[would be adultery, you see, because it continues the oppression of women,
[minorities, children, and small furry creatures.
Wash D.C.;
1. Physics Today, Sep: Last year I reported on an impending experiment
by the US Navy to use sonar to measure the temperature of the world's
oceans to test for global warming. Basically, there is a deep channel in
the oceans (called SOFAR for Sound Fixing And Ranging) that is an ideal
sound pipe. By sending a sonar pulse around the world and measuring its
time of travel, one can compute the speed of sound which is temperature
dependant. Well, last year a preliminary test took place at Heard Island
in the south Indian Ocean. Predictably, the Green Peace types went ballistic
and wrote to the L.A. Times that the test killed 2/3 of a million marine
mammals and the full power test would probably wipe out all life in
the seas. Despite the Times printing a complete retraction several days
later, the Navy cannot get the permits to run the tests. By the
way, the peak power that was going to wreak this havoc, 260 Watts.
[Long time readers should be noting a trend here. William Happer,
[former DOE chair, was fired by Algore for daring to suggest an
[experiment that would prove once and for all if ozone thinning
[is leading to more UV over N. America. Now we cannot do definitive
[tests on global warming without making whales go deaf. Convenient.
[
[Thus, in the absence of data, we must assume the worst and ban
[internal combustion engines, just to be safe.
2. Nov. 12: Clinton today ordered a unilateral halt to US enforcement
of the weapons embargo against Bosnia. It remains to be seen what the
UN will do now.
[Attaboy BILL! Maybe that Rep. landslide taught you something after
[all. This is absolutely the best thing you could have done.
[Course now, you'll probably do 3 dumb things to make up for it.
3. Nov. 16: The Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan announced another
0.75 % increase in short term interest rates today, a move which will
likely curtail home and car purchases for many. It is not clear what
signs of imminent inflation the Fed is trying to curtail.
4. Oct. Physics Today; The next Federal budget is a mixed bag for
physics finding. The breakdown;
a. NSF to get $3.3 billion, a 13% increase, the lion's share going to
upgrading University research equipment and completing construction
on LIGO (the laser interferometry gravitational observatory).
b. Department of Energy gets $984 million, a 39% cut with most of that
coming from the deceased SuperCollider and CEBAF.
c. NIST (the Natl. Inst. of Standards and Technology) gets $854 million,
a 64 % increase. Most will go to the expansion of industrial techniques.
d. NASA, at $14 billion, will get a 1% cut.
Net News;
1. From my old home, a not unexpected turn of events
From feustel@netcom.com Tue Nov 1 08:25:08 EST 1994
Article: 13459 of alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Live Fire Practice Raids in Detroit Neighborhoods
[taken from libernet digest on 10/29/94]
Cops launch mock raids and provoke real concerns
Some Cass Corridor [a bad neighborhood in Detroit] residents were
jarred out of bed by gunfire and explosions in an abandoned building
behind their apartments last month.
Most frightened tenants stayed inside. But some poked their heads out
their windows to see what all the commotion was; others went outside to
investivate [sic] what was happening. Not to worry, police assured
frightened tenants. The web of men scaling the walls of the vacant
four-story apartment house were merely police officers practicing
antiterrorist maneuvers.
Residents complained to police and, four weeks later, still haven't
gotten the answers to why such drills are being performed in their
backyard--and why they aren't forewarned.
"It was horrible," said Debbie Spencer, a resident of the 600 block of
West Willis. "There were gunshots, hand grenades, men up on the roof
shooting tear gas. They said they were using fake bullets, but it sure
didn't sound like fake bullets ot me. It was scary," she said.
"It wasn't a normal shooting; we are used to that," said Diane Haley,
caretaker of the 19-unit Willis street apartment house. "It was like a
war zone. The building shook."
Karen McLeod, director of the Cass Corridor Neighborhood Development
Corp., called Mayor Dennis Archer at home a couple days later to find
out why the drills were being staged in a residential area without
warning. Archer referred her complaint to the Police Department, which
has not responded.
"I think this is typical of the way people regard the corridor and the
people who live here," McLeod said of the police action [good term for
it]. "I don't think they would do this in Rosedale Park."
On Wednesday, Detroit Deputy Police Chief Benny Napoleon defende dthe
mock raid. More than 80 officers in the Police Department's special
response unit participated in the drills that were done in conjunction
with the Army and other federal agencies. He said such mock raids are
recognized police procedures.
"Barricaded gunmen and hostage-taking happens in neighborhoods, so
these are the types of places we need to train in," Napoleon said. "we
need realistic venues because we have realistic problems." [like an
armed populace]
Napoleon said few residents were warned of the raids because the law
enforcement agencies did not want to attract a crowd that could disrupt
the drill. He insisted the drills, which use explosives to open doors,
posed no danger to residents.
The first drill happened on West Alexandrine on Sept. 30 about 10:30
p.m. The next night, police staged another practice two blocks away at
a vacant six-story building in the 600 block of Selden. That time, a
fire broke out on the fourth floor that was extinguished within 30
minutes.
Residents at the 24-unit Coronado Apartments, some of whom were alerted
to the impending drill by police, saw it all.
The apartment building reopened its doors in 1992 after the Cass
Corridor Development Corp. poumped $2 million of city, state and
federal funding into its renovation. Only a 20-foot wide driveway
separates the Coronado from the Selden practice site. Resident Kathy
Taylor said her 15-year-old son Paulee and a friend jumped into a
closet when the gunshots started about 7 p.m. on the second night.
2. They slipped another one through while I wasn't looking. Longtime
readers will recognize this as a continuation of the Digital Telephony
Bill. From alt.politics.usa-constitution
Unanimous Nod For Wiretap Bill
[from Technology & Liberty]
[By Clark Matthews ]
[in The Spotlight November 7th, 1994]
The so-called Wiretap Access Bill, S. 2375, passed at 10:30 PM. on
Friday, October 7th,1994, with "the unanimous consent" of the U.S.
Senate. It is likely to be signed by President Clinton by the time you
read this. Two days previously, on October 5th, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed the identical bill, H.R. 4922, by an overwhelming
margin. There was no floor debate on the bill in either house. There
was no reading of the bill. In fact, the final Senate vote happened so
quickly that observers watching C-SPAN actually missed it.
Nevertheless, a Senate vote unanimously passing the "Wiretap Access
Bill" is recorded as having occurred at 10:30 PM, October 7,1994.
MANUFACTURING 'CONSENT'
FBI Director Louis Freeh personally visited every U.S. senator to lobby
for the bill. I've even heard reports that Janet Reno accompanied Freeh
for some of these little chats. Nevertheless, several senators
positioned themselves to stop the vote on the bill, notably Howard
Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Patrick Leahy
(D-Vt.). All of them placed "holds" on the bill in the days before the
final vote. These "holds" permitted any of them to prevent a vote and
stop the bill in its tracks. But none of them did. Each of these
senators received a personal visit from FBI Director Louis Freeh in
the days before the senate recessed for the fall elections. and none
of them exercised their right to stop the bill. So there were no
objections at 10:30 pm on Friday, October 7th, only "unanimous
consent." No one in the Senate voted for the Wiretap Access Bill (or
against it). No one left any fmgerprints. Ask your senators and
they'll tell you no one's responsible. We shall see. In the end, this
unstoppable bill slithered silently onto the books in the contemptible
tradition of the 16th Amendment, the Federal Reserve Act and many other
landmark frauds and fixes that have dearly cost our country's liberty,
treasury and sovereignty. Late at night and out of sight, no one was
responsible for passing the bill. And no one is to blame. A few days
after this grubby victory, FBI Director Louis Freeh spoke at the annual
A1 Smith dinner in New York City. Flush with his success with the
Wiretap bill-and with the amazing silence of key congressmen and
senators after Freeh's personal visits-Clinton's FBI director compared
himself favorably with J. Edgar Hoover. The audience gave up a big
laugh for America's "reinvented" Hoover sans perfume, ponies, peignoirs
and roommate Clyde, of course.
DIGITAL TYRANNY
The Wiretap Access Bill, as critics call it, was proposed by the FBI and
Janet Reno's Justice Department as the "Digital Telephony and Privacy
Improvement Act" of 1994. The bill took its language from the
computerized features of automatic, remote-controlled surveillance and
eavesdropping equipment that is now being built into America's new
telephone networks to spy on citizens. Freeh's and Reno's "Privacy
Improvement Act" had nothing whatever to do with improving people's
privacy. Instead, it aimed at eliminating people's privacy by
effectively converting citizens' telephones into remote-activated
listening devices and call-tracing systems. The Wiretap Access Bill
simply legalizes these surveillance devices that are already in use in
large parts of our country. It also forces taxpayers to pay $500
million for them. The Wiretap Access Bill effectively eliminates the
bothersome Constitutional requirement that the FBI obtain court
authorization to tap your phone or bug your house through your
telephones. That's because your local telephone company can't tell what
the devices are doing and, therefore, can't know whether the
surveillance is legal or not.
AUTOMATIC GESTAPO
You see, the new equipment is remote-activated and it's designed to be
installed on the telephone network (not in phone company offices). It
gathers much of the same information about your calls that your phone
company does-but the FBI (or whoever) clearly doesn't want your tele-
phone company to know what information it's gathering. Or how much it's
gathering. So the devices run "encrypted" to conceal what they're doing
from telco employees, some of whom might become alarmed by the extent of
federal surveillance or start asking troublesome questions
about court orders and warrants. Even if your friends at the phone
company were interested in safeguarding your rights, they will
probably soon discover the same fundamental truth learned by citizens
in places like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: It's not a good idea
to ask questions about court orders when it comes to secret police
surveillance operations. The question of court orders for surveillance
is further subverted by the bill's requirement that your local phone
company provide instantaneous, contemporaneous wiretapping capabilities
to the FBI. It seems our rapidly "reinvented" government wants instant
gratification-it has no time for trivialities like presenting court
orders.
--
Dave Feustel N9MYI Internet:
3. I still get down every now and again by the fact that I'm not doing
real physics, so on the theory that misery loves company ...
From pfs@aip.org Sun Nov 13 10:44:48 EST 1994
Article: 1900 of sci.physics.research
Originator: baez@guitar
**********************************************************************
This is a "Physics News Update" distributed by Phillip Schewe of AIP
Public Information. For those who want to receive PNUPs via email,
mail listserv@aip.org with a blank subject line and the command "add
physnews" in the body, and you will be added to the distribution list.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SSC STAFF? A year after Congress
shut down the nascent supercollider, the number of scientists and
technicians dropped from 1100 to less than 100. About a fourth are
jobless. Some have returned to academe. Former SSC director Roy
Schwitters is now a physics professor at the University of Texas.
About half of those who have found jobs are working outside particle
physics. Some examples: Cas Milner, who had worked on the
Gamma-Electron-Muon (GEM) detector at the SSC, now works at the
TIAA-CREF pension fund. Kate Morgan (also formerly with GEM)
moved on to Citicorp. (Science, 28 October 1994.)
4. From our resident legal scholar, Keeweenaw Paul, a means to actually
_own_ your land. [This is not obvious to those of you who think this
foolish.]
From pecampbe@mtu.edu Mon Nov 7 20:00:29 1994
It is possible to take allodial title to your land. The title is called a
land patent. It gives allodial title to the property. This means absolute
ownership. They can't take your land away from you and it is free from
zoning restrictions. Federal Land Bank and some other agencies and companies
have been patenting their land left and right lately. Also, property taxes
are not allowed on patented land. In fact, paying them may actually destroy
your land patent status!
This patenting business is currently being tested by Richard Delene, of
the famous "Delene vs. the gestapo, err, Michigan DNR" case.
I won't get into details too much. Anyone who wants my collected material
can E-mail me and request a copy. The details are very, very long. I don't
feel it is worth wasting the bandwidth to have the newsletter cluttered with
it all (about 500K). Instead, I've given a short "what's involved" and
list of the rights the land patent gives you.
How to do it, from Acres, USA:
HOW ... WHERE ... TO OBTAIN CERTIFIED FEDERAL LAND PATENT (FLP)
FARM PROPERTY: Send Certified Legal Description of Property (from the County
Treasurer or, Register of Deeds, and Town, Plat Map (from Register of Deeds
or County Recorder) then circle your Property(s) on Plat Map(s) ... Your
Property(s) may be in one or more Sections and/or Counties. (1 FLP per land
Parcel) Be sure to request CERTIFIED COPY of FLP.
Record FLP + Declaration of Land Patent + Deed. If desk clerk refuses to
file ... use procedure outlined above by Paul Tomas. Clerk is bonded to per-
form "ministerial duties"... NOT "Judicial".
Certified FLP supersedes ALL CLAIMS. Bank must prove Title to land per #25
p.4. ALTA insures only "good title" per #32 p.5. Bank claims ceased March 3,
1893 - FOREVER BARRED per #12-14 pgs.2&3.
ALL STATE COURTS LACK JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LAND PATENTS issued per
TREATY LAW = Superior Status can NOT be overruled ... even by U.S. Supreme
Court! (See A on the Treaty Power, p. 1)
CITY PROPERTY: Can also be "patented" ... obtain Range and Township Numbers
from City Engineer + total Certified Legal Description of lot/Property (ob-
tain FLP as above) ... Record with a Declaration of Land Patent + Certified
FLP + Declaration of Homestead attached and marked "Exhibit A & B"...on Dec-
laration of, Land Patent write: "Attached hereto are Exhibits A & B". Regis-
ter of Deeds or County Recorder then Records in "Real Estate" file. [179]
CONTACT: FAMILY FARM PRESERVATION, Box 2587, Hwy. M, Tigerton, Wis. 54486.
A recent "case" involving land patents:
LAND PATENT STOPS BIDDING AT SHERIFF SALE
In a recent case, Robert Deardorff of Indianapolis, Ind. had filed a DEC-
LARATION OF LAND PATENT with a certified copy of the original patent. In a
Sheriff s Sale, which took place last August, Mr. Deardorff and and a wit-
ness went to the Sheriffs Sale and met with the sheriff. He had previously
warned the sheriff that if he went ahead with the Sheriff s Sale, he would
go to the U.S. Attorney and swear out a warrant for his arrest for Criminal
Trespass on his Land Patent. However, the sheriff's counsel advised him to
go ahead with the Sheriff's Sale anyway. So, on the day of the sale and
while he and a witness were in the sheriff's office, he called the Federal
Clerk of Courts and told him what was happening.
The Federal Court Clerk, told Mr. Deardorf that, if the sheriff went
ahead and sold the property, with a Land Patent on it, that inside of three
days, there would be a U.S. Marshall there to arrest the sheriff. Mr. Dear-
dorf then told the sheriff this, word for word.
Later, at the sale, the sheriff told the bidders, including the bank's
attorney, that there was a Land Patent on the property and that if they
bought it, they could never be able to get a clear title and would never be
able to get a loan on the land. As a result. no one bid. Under Indiana Law,
when no bids are placed on a property, the property reverts back to the
owner after 4 p.m. the same day. No new Sheriff's Sale was ever scheduled
and there is no pending action of any kind in the courts. (Robert Deardorff,
7002 N. Graham Rd., #128 Indianapolis, IN. 46220; Phone (317)325-2505).
[187]
The following is a memorandum defining the rights under land patents somewhat
succinctly:
LAND PATENTS, EJECTMENTS, AND ESTOPPEL
1. In case of ejectment, where the question is who has the legal title, the
patent of the government is unassailable. Sanford v Sanford, 139 US 642.
2. The transfer of legal title (patent) to public domain gives the trans-
feree the right to possess and enjoy the land transfered. Gibson v Chouteau,
80 US 92.
3. A patent for land is the highest evidence of title and is conclusive as
against the government and all claiming under junior patents or titles.
United States v Stone, 2 Us 525.
4. The presumption being that it (patent) is valid and passes the legal
title. Minter v Crommelin, 18 US 87.
5. Estoppal has been sustained as against a municipal corporation (county).
Beadle v Smyser, 209 US 393.
6. A court of law will not uphold or enforce an equitable title to land as
a defense to an action of ejectment. Johnson v. Christian, 128 Us 374: Doe v
Aiken, 31 FED. 393.
7. When congress has prescribed the conditions upon which portions of the
public domain may be alienated (to convey, to transfer), and has provided
that upon the fulfillment of the conditions the United States shall issue a
patent to the purchaser, then such land is not taxable by a state. Sargent v
Herrick & Stevens, 221 Us 404: Northern P,R. Co. v Trail County , 115 US
600.
8. The patent alone passes land from the United States to the grantee and
nothing passes a perfect title to public lands but a patent. Wilcox v Jack-
son, 13 Peter (US) 498.
9. Patents and other evidences of title from the UNited States government
are not controlled by state recording laws and shall be effective, as
against subsequent purchasers, only from the time of their record in the
county. Lomax v. Pickeriniz, 173 US 26.
10. In federal courts the patent is held to be the foundation of title at
law. Fenn v Holmes, 21 Howard 481.
11. Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles
emanating from the United States and the whole legislation of the govern-
ment, in reference to the public lands, declare the patent to be the supe-
rior and conclusive evidence of the legal tide. Until it issues, the fee is
in the [183] government, which by the patent passes to the grantee, and he
is entitled to enforce the possession in ejectment. Bagnell v. Broderick. 13
Peter (US) 436.
12. In ejectment the legal title must prevail, and a patent of the United
States to public lands pass that title; it can not be assailed collaterally
on the ground that false and perjured testimony was used to secure it. Steel
v St. Louis Smelting and Refining Co., 106 US 417.
13. A patent certificate, or patent issued, or confirmation made to an
original grantee or his legal representatives of the grantee or assignee by
contract, as well as by law, Hogan v Pace, 69 US 605.
14. In federal courts, the rule that ejectment cannot be maintained on a
mere equitable title is strictly enforced, so that ejectment cannot be
maintained on a mere entry made with a register and receiver, but only on
the patent, since the certificates of the officers of the land department
vest in the locator only equitable title. This rule prevails in the federal
courts even when the statute of the state in which the suit is brought pro-
vides that a receipt from the local land office is sufficient proof of title
to support the action. Langdon v Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74: Carter v Ruddy, 166
US 493.
15. The plaintiff in ejectment must in all cases prove the legal title to
the premises in himself, at the time of the demise laid in the declaration,
and evidence of an equitable title will not be sufficient for a recovery.
The practice of allowing ejectments to be maintained in state courts upon
equitable titles cannot effect the jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States. Fenn v Holme, 21 Howard 481. [184]
16. Under USCA Constitution, Article 4, section 3, clause 2, Congress, in
exercise of its discretion in disposal of public lands, had power, by this
section, to restrict alienation of homestead lands after conveyance by
United states in fee simple, by providing no, such lands shall become liable
to satisfaction of debts contracted prior to issuance of patent. Ruddy v
Rossi, (1918) 248 US 104.
17. Patents are tied to the Bible, in Genesis 47 by way of the word as-
signed in italicized print. Also note in later verses the beginning of
sharecropping. BC 1701.
18. The right to the ownership of property and to contract with respect of
its use is unalienable. Golding v Schubac, 93 U.S. 32: Seville v C I , 46
U.S. 495.
19. Parties in possession of real property have the fight to stand on their
possessions until compelled to yield to the rule title determined by trial
by jury. 47 Am. Jur. 2d 45.
20. Giving a note does not constitute payment. Echart v Commissioners,
C.C.A. 42 F2d 158; 283 U. S. 140.
21. Actual or threatened exercise of power over the property of another is
coercion and duress which will render the payment involuntary. Cleveland v
Smith, 132 US 318.
22. Property value means the price the property will command in the market,
or its equivalent in lawful money. PeQple v Hines, 89 P. 858, 5 Cal. App.
122 [185]
23. Neither a town nor its officers have any right to appropriate or inter-
fere with private property. Mitchell v City of Rockland, 45 Me. 496.
24. A state may provide for the collection of taxes in gold and silver
only. State Treasurer v Wright, 28 Ill. 509: Whitaker v Haley, 2 Ore. 128.
25. Taxes lawfully assessed, are collectible by agents in money and notes,
cannot be accepted in payment. Town of Frankfort v Waldo, 128 Me. 1.
26. There must he strict compliance with statutory requirements to divest
property owners of their property titles for non payment of taxes. McCarthy
v Greenlawn Cem., 158 Me. 388.
27. At common law there was no tax lien. Cassidy v Aroostook, 134 Me. 34.
28. A tax on real estate to one not the owner is not valid. Barker v Blake,
36 Me. 1. [186]
[source unknown..I don't know what [186] and [187] mean because I don't have
the original document]
These are the regional offices for the Bureau of Land Management:
ALASKA:
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Anchorage Federal Office Building
701 "C" Street, Box 13
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
ARIZONA:
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
3707 N. 7th. Street
P.O. Box 16563
Phoenix, Arizona 85011
CALIFORNIA:
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of land Management
Federal Office Building
2800 Cottage Way, Rm. E-2841
Sacramento, California 95825
COLORADO (KANSAS):
United States Department of the Inten@or
Bureau of Land Management
1037 20th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
IDAHO:
United States Department of the Inten*or
Bureau of Land Management
Federal Building
550 West Fort Street
P.O. Box 042
Boise, Idaho 83724
MONTANA (NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA):
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Granite Tower
222 North 32nd Street P.O.Box 30157
Billings, Montana 59107
NEVADA:
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Federal Building, RO()m 3008
300 Booth Street P.O. Box 12000
Reno, Nevada 89520
NEW MEXICO (Oklahoma):
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Joseph M. Montoya Federal Bldg.
South Federal Place
P.O.Box 1449
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
OREGON (WASHINGTON)
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
825 N.E. Multnomah Street, P.O. Box 2965
Portland, Oregon, 97208
UTAH:
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
University Club Building
136 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111
WYOMING (NEBRASKA)
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
2515 Warren Avenue
P.O. Box 1828
Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82003
ALL OTHER STATES
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office
350 South Pickett Street
Alexandria, Virginia, 22304.
Last Updated 04/14/95.© 1996 PPSA Consulting
Webmaster@cybermaze.com