Saturday, May 18, 2013

AMERICA'S 'FIRST' FAMILY: Rags to Riches

KILLED BY DRONES, AFGHANISTAN
DEMOCRACY IN AFGHANISTAN, LIBYA ET AL SOVEREIGN NATIONS WHERE THERE IS MUCH TO BE RAPED, PILLAGED AND PLUNDERED, COURTESY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S BILLIONAIRES AND TRILLIONAIRES AND QUADRILLIONAIRES, NEW ZILLIONAIRES TO BE ANNOUNCED ~
DRONES ARE IN AMERICA'S SKIES

   
 THE YIN AND THE YANG



SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT UP & FALL DOWN, FALL DOWN, FALL DOWN INTO THE ABYSS: COVER UP THE MURDERING, MURDERING, MURDERING


PATSY ~McVEY

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON GUILTY OF TREASON, MURDER

JANET RENO, GUILTY OF TREASON, MURDER
CLINTONS, ET AL, NO MERCY

CLINTONS' WACO GENERAL GUILTY OF TREASON, MURDER
A psychological profiler who had worked as chief FBI negotiator at Waco, Texas — site of The Branch Davidian siege, Van Zandt noted the date of the attack — April 19, 1993 — was exactly two years to the day deaths at Waco occurred ~ http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html ATF agent 

http://stopmakingsense.org/2012/08/14/nobel-winners-press-nbc-to-cancel-wesley-clarks-war-based-reality-show/ 

 

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/snag_2.html

ARMAGEDDON IN WACO, TEXAS

 

 

Wednesday, August 22, 2012, Ruby Ridge: The Age of State Terrorism Begins  ~ Sara Weaver has forgiven the people responsible for murdering her mother Vicki and younger brother Samuel twenty years ago ..

Samuel, Vicki, Sara, Rachel Weaver Enemies of the State
Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper who shot Vicki in the head while she was holding a ten-month-old infant, is still being sheltered by the Regime that employed him.
If he were any part of a man, Horiuchi would make a pilgrimage to Sara’s home in Montana to express remorse for the crimes he committed against her family .. Shortly before he murdered Vicki on August 22, 1992, Horiuchi attempted to murder her husband, Randy Weaver – a man who had done nothing to harm any living soul. Acting under “rules of engagement” that were tantamount to a murder warrant, Horiuchi shot Randy in the back, attempting to kill him instantly by severing his spinal cord.
 
 

Massacre at Ruby Ridge, The Wall Street Journal, June 30, 1995, p. A14.  Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report By James Bovard~ The 1992 confrontation between federal agents and the Randy Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has become one of the most controversial and widely discussed examples of the abuse of federal power. The Justice Department completed a 542-page investigation on the case last year but has not yet made the report public. However, the report was acquired by Legal Times newspaper, which this week placed the text on the Internet. The report reveals that federal officials may have acted worse than even some of their harshest critics imagined.  http://www.stormfront.org/ruby.htm


FBI agents arrested Schweitzer in 1996, sparking an 81-day standoff in Montana between federal agents and holed-up Freemen. The standoff ended peacefully .. "Patriot" Profile #3 .. Every Man a King: The Rise and Fall of the Montana Freemen, Last Modified May 6, 1996.  Copyright May 1996 by Mark Pitcavage. No duplication or commercial use of this document may be made without the express consent of the author.  http://archive.adl.org/mwd/freemen.asp

.. MT Freemen found dead in prison cell Posted: Sep 21, 2011 6:21 AM by CBS-KKTV/Denver Post  Updated: Sep 21, 2011 6:26 AM

http://www.kaj18.com/news/ex-leader-of-mt-freemen-group-found-dead-in-prison-cell/#_

 

118 F.3d 221: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jeffrey Lynn Spruill, Defendant-appellant ~ United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 118 F.3d 221, Argued April 10, 1997.Decided July 1, 1997, http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/118/221/587082/


ARGUED: David Wayne Bouchard, Bouchard & Smith, Chesapeake, VA, for Appellant. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge MICHAEL wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINS and Senior Judge BUTZNER joined.

MICHAEL, Circuit Judge:
1
During the early morning hours of April 22, 1995, defendant Jeffrey Lynn Spruill made over two hundred threatening phone calls to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) offices in Norfolk, Virginia. Spruill was convicted on three counts of making threatening phone calls in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). Section 844(e) is part of Chapter 40 of the federal criminal code, which regulates the "Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage of Explosive Materials." Spruill argues that he can be convicted under § 844(e) only if the threats concerned the use of fire or explosives. We agree. Because counts two and three of his indictment did not charge this essential element of the offense, we vacate Spruill's convictions on those counts. We affirm his conviction on count one, rejecting his argument that there was insufficient evidence of a "true" threat. Accordingly, the case is remanded for resentencing and other housekeeping details.
2
Jeffrey Spruill lived alone in a trailer in Chesapeake, Virginia, when the events in this case took place. As he often did, Spruill spent the evening of April 21, 1995, at home by himself watching television. The bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, which occurred just three days before, dominated television news coverage that night. Spruill had two or three drinks of vodka as he watched TV. He listened as Attorney General Janet Reno appeared and talked about the Oklahoma City bombing. Spruill felt that Reno was responsible for deaths that occurred at two earlier incidents involving the federal government in Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Spruill became enraged, believing that Reno was hypocritical for saying that those responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing would be held accountable. Spruill's wrath intensified as he watched "Crossfire" on CNN because a guest on that program was discussing how the FBI infiltrates white supremacy groups. Spruill later told the FBI that he is a white supremacist.
3
To vent his anger against the federal government, Spruill decided to call the FBI and the ATF. At about 12:35 that same night, Spruill began calling the listed phone numbers for those agencies in Norfolk, Virginia. As Spruill explained at trial, "when I heard Mrs. [sic] Reno, you know, I just hit the roof. And I--all my emotions just came out. And I just wanted to get it off my chest. I just wanted to get it off my chest. They will probably arrest me for harassment, but at least I got it off my chest." J.A. 144. From midnight through the rest of the night and morning of April 22, 1995, Spruill made over two hundred calls to the FBI and the ATF. Spruill kept drinking while he called; he switched from vodka to beer and drank a six-pack.
4
Susan Buckley, a security complaint assistant for the FBI, answered Spruill's first calls. Buckley said that during these calls Spruill ranted "about how Janet Reno was a murderer and was responsible for all of this, and just rambl[ed]." J.A. 47. Spruill became progressively more angry as he called again and again, never spending more than a minute or two on the line. Spruill's first round of calls to the FBI (all answered by Buckley) continued until 6:30 a.m.
5
During the same period (from about 1:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Spruill made several dozen calls to the ATF. The calls were taken by Tracey Waldron, who works for a telephone answering service. Waldron said that Spruill was short-tempered as early morning arrived. At about 6:30 a.m. Waldron
6 picked the line back up and he [Spruill] had started talking to me again, and that's when he started telling me that--how would I like to be blown up and that, you know, he could blow the building up.... And that's when I patched him through to Michael Moore, the agent that was on call.
7
J.A. 58.
8
After the call was patched through to ATF Special Agent Michael Moore at his home, Moore talked to Spruill for about twenty minutes. Special Agent Moore recounted the thrust of Spruill's message:
9 [A]s the conversation progressed, the caller [Spruill] told me that ... this was just the beginning, that more buildings would be blown up, and maybe even the Federal Building here in Norfolk, Virginia. And basically he just[kept] reiterating that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred because of the Waco, Texas fire ... that was ordered by Janet Reno and carried out by the ATF and the FBI.
10
J.A. 66. When Spruill said, "this was just the beginning," Moore believed "that this was ... a warning of things to come, meaning more buildings would be blown up or more people would be hurt." J.A. 67-68. Spruill indicated that the federal building in Norfolk would be an easy target "because it was so accessible to the general public, to just drive a car bomb right in and just leave it." J.A. 68. Spruill ended the conversation by directing his venom at Special Agent Moore, saying "that he [Spruill] could tell [Moore] was a nice little black agent and that [he] would get [his] some day also." J.A. 72. As soon as Spruill hung up, Moore called the FBI and informed the agency of a possible bomb threat to the Norfolk federal building. In response, authorities searched the building for a bomb, beginning around 7:30 a.m.
11
Meanwhile, Spruill had redirected his calls to the FBI. When FBI computer specialist Deborah Williams arrived at work around 7:30 a.m., she answered the phone and Spruill was on the line. Using a "very forceful[ ]" tone, Spruill
12 started talking about the 17 deaths of the children in Waco, Texas, and how Janet Reno--that Oklahoma was a payback for those deaths, and that Janet Reno was a murderer and those deaths were her responsibility. He further went on to say that he was a--that he knew who I was and that he could find out where all the bureau people lived, the FBI people lived ... that he knew where my boss Larry Torrence lived. And he told me that he [Spruill] was a white supremacist, and that the ATF and the FBI and the Federal Building should be--should watch out for the cars.
13
J.A. 84-85. Spruill gave Deborah Williams his name and address. Yolanda Williams, another security complaint assistant for the FBI, came to work at 8:00 a.m. and immediately began to take calls from Spruill. He called about twenty-five more times between 8:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. The FBI began recording Spruill's calls at around 10:00 a.m. because it believed he was making serious threats.
14
The tape recordings are replete with Spruill's references to the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. At one point Spruill discussed fertilizer and diesel fuel, the key ingredients used in Oklahoma City. He instructed Yolanda Williams to ask Larry Torrence, Special Agent in charge, whether using two tons or four tons of fertilizer would make a difference in the force of an explosion. Spruill repeatedly made comments (all recorded) such as "we're in every city," J.A. 249, "our time to strike is fast ... approaching," J.A. 248, and "[w]e're gonna [ ] come after you," J.A. 252. A final example from the recordings underscores the looming nature of Spruill's threats:
15 Burnt them up [in Waco]! Hey! Did you--did you see what happened in Oklahoma City! I'm telling you it's coming. It's coming. It's coming and tell Larry [Torrence] whatever he thinks is totally f---ing irrelevant, and he--is he--we have some of his agents on--we have their names and addresses.
16
J.A. 250.
17
Later in the morning on April 22, 1995, Yolanda Williams turned the phone over to Special Agent Kevin Kenneally, who continued to answer Spruill's calls until he stopped making them around 12:30 p.m. Shortly thereafter, the FBI sent a SWAT team to Spruill's trailer where he was arrested.
18
Spruill was indicted on May 19, 1995. Count one of the indictment charged that Spruill, during his conversation with Special Agent Moore, threatened to bomb the federal building in Norfolk.1 Count two charged Spruill with threatening Special Agent Larry Torrence, but it did not allege that the threat concerned the use of fire or explosives.2 Counts three and four charged Spruill with threatening FBI agents and employees during his conversations with Yolanda Williams and Special Agent Kenneally, but those counts also failed to allege that Spruill threatened harm by means of fire or explosives.3 Spruill waived his right to a jury and was tried by the district court. The court found him guilty on counts one, two, and three but not guilty on count four.
19
Before sentencing the district court directed that Spruill be evaluated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244(a) so the court could decide whether he suffered from a mental disease or defect that would affect his sentence. After a hearing the court found that Spruill was suffering from a mental defect and that instead of being sent to prison he should be committed for treatment. The court therefore committed Spruill to the custody of the Attorney General for five years with the direction that he be hospitalized for care and treatment in a suitable facility. See 18 U.S.C. § 4244(d). Spruill appeals his conviction.
20
Spruill first argues that 18 U.S.C. § 844(e) only applies to threats concerning the use of fire or explosives. As a result, Spruill says his convictions on counts two and three must be vacated because those counts failed to charge an essential element, "by means of fire or an explosive." Section 844(e) provides:
21 Whoever, through the use of the mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of commerce, willfully makes any threat, or maliciously conveys false information knowing the same to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made, or to be made, to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or unlawfully to damage or destroy any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property by means of fire or an explosive shall be imprisoned for not more than five years or fined under this title, or both.
22
18 U.S.C. § 844(e) (emphasis added).
23
Spruill argues that § 844(e) describes a single offense with five elements: (1) willfully (2) making a threat or conveying false information about an attempt (3) by mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of commerce (4) to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual or damage or destroy property (5) by means of fire or an explosive. Simply put, Spruill contends that the statute prohibits bomb threats.
24
The government argues that § 844(e) prohibits two distinct offenses, each with four elements. According to the government the first offense covers threats against individuals: (1) willfully (2) making a threat or conveying false information about an attempt (3) by mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of commerce (4) to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual. The second offense covers bomb threats against property: (1) willfully (2) making a threat or conveying false information about an attempt (3) by mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of commerce (4) to damage or destroy property by means of fire or an explosive. Thus, the government contends that § 844(e) prohibits (1) threats of any kind against individuals and (2) bomb threats against property.
25
Spruill filed a pretrial motion to dismiss counts two, three, and four of the indictment because they did not allege that the threats concerned the use of fire or explosives. The district court denied the motion, holding that the threatened use of fire or explosives was an element of the offense if the defendant threatened to damage or destroy property, but not if he threatened an individual. Fire and explosives, the court explained,
26 are the most obvious ways in which property could be damaged. It's not necessarily going to be damaged in the same way that an individual would be injured, so it makes sense that the fire or explosive would apply to the building and that that would not be a necessary element of a threat to an individual.
27
J.A. 30. Spruill renewed the motion at trial before a different judge, and it was again denied.
28
Although § 844(e) has been on the books for more than twenty-five years, this is the first case to address whether the phrase "by means of fire or an explosive" is an essential element of every offense under that section. We conclude that it is.4
29
We begin with the language of the statute to see whether Congress has spoken clearly. See Norfolk and W. Ry. Co. v. American Train Disp. Ass'n, 499 U.S. 117, 128, 111 S.Ct. 1156, 1163, 113 L.Ed.2d 95 (1991). As we will explain, the language of § 844(e) is not entirely clear, but it tends to support Spruill's interpretation.
30
We repeat the nub of the parties' contentions. The government says that § 844(e), properly read, has two distinct prongs. The "or" between "intimidate any individual" and "unlawfully to damage or destroy any building," the government argues, indicates that a threat against an individual is a separate and distinct offense. Thus, the element "by means of fire or an explosive," which follows the enumeration of the property types covered by § 844(e), modifies only the offense of making a threat against property. Spruill, on the other hand, argues that the "or" simply indicates that there are two types of bomb threats covered by the statute, threats against individuals and threats against property. The phrase "by means of fire or an explosive" modifies both types of threats.
31
Looking just at the four corners of the section, we think Spruill's reading makes more sense. It seems unlikely that Congress would put two distinct offenses--making a threat of any kind against an individual and making a bomb threat against property--within the same section of the criminal code. We do concede that Spruill's reading is not as clear as it could be: if there was a comma before "by means of fire or an explosive," the comma would clearly signal that the language following it made up a separate element that applies to the whole section. To reach the government's reading, however, we would have to take a much greater leap from the statutory language. The government's interpretation would be somewhat more persuasive if there was a comma before "or unlawfully to damage" to signal the start of a separate and distinct offense. For the government's reading to make real sense, however, "by means of fire or an explosive" should come between "damage or destroy" and "any building." The relevant language would thus read, "damage or destroy by means of fire or an explosive any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property." Congress instead tacked on the language "by means of fire or an explosive" at the end, where it can be read as applying to the whole section. In sum, after studying the language of § 844(e), we believe that Spruill's interpretation has more textual support, but we recognize that there is some degree of ambiguity.
32
We turn then to the legislative history, which confirms that "by means of fire or an explosive" is an essential element of the single offense addressed in § 844(e), that is, a bomb threat. Section 844(e) was enacted in 1970 as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. See Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, H.R.Rep. No. 91-1549, reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4007 [hereinafter House Report]. Title XI of the act (current §§ 841-848) was passed to "strengthen[ ] the Federal criminal law with respect to the illegal use, transportation or possession of explosives." House Report, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4011. According to the House Report, section 844 "sets the penalties for violation of the regulatory provisions of this chapter and creates certain offenses pertaining to the unlawful use of explosives." House Report, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4045. In explaining § 844(e) the House Report says plainly that the section was only intended to outlaw threats concerning explosives:
33
Section 844(e) is a revision of present § 837(d) of title 18, United States Code. It is designed to deal more specifically with bomb threats and to increase the penalties applicable to such threats. The penalty is increased from a maximum of 1 year imprisonment or a fine of $1,000 or both to a maximum of 5 years imprisonment or a fine of $5,000 or both.
34
Because of the increased penalty, and because of the particularly severe problems caused by bomb threats, § 844(e) is confined to information or threats concerning explosives. The section makes it an offense to threaten, or convey false information known to be false, about attempts to kill, injure, or intimidate any person, or unlawfully to damage or destroy any building or property.
35
Id. at 4045-46 (emphasis added).5 The legislative history makes it clear that the phrase "by means of fire or an explosive" applies to the whole section, not just to threats to damage property.
36
The particular location of § 844(e) in the code supports our reading. Section 844(e) is found in Chapter 40 of the federal criminal code, which regulates the "Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage of Explosive Materials." Section 842, for example, prohibits certain importation, manufacture, and sale of explosive materials. Section 844, entitled "Penalties," describes the penalties for violations under Chapter 40. The provisions immediately before § 844(e) (§§ 844(a), (b), (c), and (d)) and those immediately after (§§ 844(f), (g), (h), (i), and (j)) all deal with violations concerning explosives. Yet the government contends that § 844(e), in addition to describing another offense concerning explosives, describes a separate offense that does not concern explosives. The location of § 844(e) makes this argument easy to refute. We would not expect to find, in the midst of a chapter regulating explosives, a section that prohibits both bomb threats against property and threats of all kinds against individuals.
37
Based on the foregoing analysis, we hold that "by means of fire or an explosive" is an essential element of a § 844(e) offense.
38
The indictment here did not allege that Spruill's threats in counts two and three concerned the use of fire or explosives, although § 844(e) was cited. We now consider the consequences of this failure to charge an essential element of the § 844(e) crime. " 'It is elementary that every ingredient of crime must be charged in the bill, a general reference to the provisions of the statute being insufficient.' " United States v. Hooker, 841 F.2d 1225, 1228 (4th Cir.1988) (quoting Hale v. United States, 89 F.2d 578, 579 (4th Cir.1937)). The government argues that even if the indictment is defective, "the evidence adduced at trial clearly established threats by means of explosives in each count." Brief for Appellee at 13. In other words, the government argues that the flaw in the indictment was harmless error. It is well established, however, that failure to recite an essential element of the offense in the indictment is not amenable to harmless error review. In Hooker, for example, a jury convicted the defendant on three counts of conspiracy, including conspiracy to commit a RICO offense. The count of the indictment charging the RICO conspiracy failed to allege that the activities affected interstate commerce, an essential element of a RICO offense. See Hooker, 841 F.2d at 1227. Sitting en banc in Hooker, we concluded that the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause precluded the government's harmless error argument, and we vacated the conviction on the RICO count even though the jury had been properly instructed on the element requiring an interstate commerce connection. "Neither instructions nor a petit jury verdict can satisfy after the fact the Fifth Amendment right to be tried upon charges found by a grand jury." Id. at 1232.
39
Hooker controls here. Only in count one did the grand jury indict Spruill for the offense proscribed by § 844(e): making a threat that concerns the use of fire or explosives. The failure to charge an essential element of the crime in counts two and three is not harmless error.6 "This court, sitting en banc, has left no room for doubt as to the law in this circuit concerning the requirements of a constitutionally adequate indictment. Every essential element of an offense must be charged in the body of an indictment, and the inclusion of a reference to the statute will not cure the failure to do so." United States v. Daniels, 973 F.2d 272, 274 (4th Cir.1992) (citing Hooker ). We therefore vacate Spruill's convictions on counts two and three of the indictment.
40
Spruill also appeals his conviction on count one of the indictment, which charged him with making a threat to damage the Norfolk federal building "by means of fire and explosives" during his telephone conversation with ATF Special Agent Moore. Spruill's argument is that the evidence is insufficient to establish that his threat to blow up the Norfolk federal building was a "true" threat. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on a criminal conviction, we must sustain the verdict "if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it." Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). This case also requires us to bear in mind that the trier of fact, and not the reviewing court, " 'resolves any conflicts in the evidence presented, and if the evidence supports different, reasonable interpretations, the [trier of fact] decides which interpretation to believe.' " United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (quoting United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir.1994)).
41
As Spruill points out, § 844(e) proscribes only "true" threats. "The prosecution must establish a 'true threat,' which means a serious threat as distinguished from words as mere political argument, idle talk or jest." United States v. Leaverton, 835 F.2d 254, 256 (10th Cir.1987) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary) (internal quotation marks omitted). Context is important. See Leaverton, 835 F.2d at 256 ("In determining whether words were uttered as a threat the context in which they were spoken must be considered."). Spruill argues that his "drunken ramblings," when considered in context, "were an expression of his political and philosophical beliefs[and] not a true threat." Brief for Appellant at 11-12.
42
After reviewing the trial record, we conclude that there was substantial evidence to establish that Spruill's call to Special Agent Moore (as charged in count one) was a true threat rather than political rhetoric, idle talk, or jest. Moore received Spruill's call only because Tracey Waldron, who was answering calls for the ATF, felt that the threat was serious enough to justify patching the call through to Moore, at home, at six-thirty in the morning. In the midst of his ramblings Spruill warned Moore that "maybe even" the federal building in Norfolk would be blown up, "simply because it was so accessible to the general public, to just drive a car bomb in and just leave it." J.A. 68 (Moore testimony). Spruill kept repeating that Oklahoma City was vengeance for Waco and that more buildings would be blown up. Finally, Spruill made it hatefully personal, calling Moore a "nice little black agent" who "would get [his] some day." J.A. 72. Faced with these comments, Moore decided to play it safe and report the call as a bomb threat. At the end of the bench trial the district court made a factual determination that this call to Special Agent Moore was a true threat. This finding is a reasonable interpretation of the events, and it is supported by the substantial evidence we have just outlined. We therefore affirm Spruill's conviction on count one of the indictment.
43
We affirm Spruill's conviction on count one of the indictment because his words were a true threat. We vacate his convictions on counts two and three because those counts failed to charge an essential element of the § 844(e) offense, that the threat concerned the use of fire or explosives. Because the conviction on count one remains in place, we remand for resentencing on that count. On remand the district court is also instructed to dismiss counts two and three of the indictment without prejudice so that the government may reindict and reprosecute Spruill on those counts if it chooses. See United States v. Hooker, 841 F.2d 1225, 1233 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. Hayes, 775 F.2d 1279, 1283 (4th Cir.1985).
44
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
1 Count one read as follows:
On or about April 22, 1995, at Norfolk, Virginia, in the Eastern District of Virginia, JEFFREY LYNN SPRUILL, the defendant, by means and use of an instrument of commerce, that is, a telephone, willfully threatened, during a conversation with Special Agent Michael Moore of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), to unlawfully damage or destroy a building, specifically, the Federal Building, in Norfolk, Virginia, by means of fire and explosives.
(All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(e).)
J.A. 10.
2 Count two read as follows:
On or about April 22, 1995, between approximately 7:30 and 7:45 a.m. in Norfolk, Virginia, in the Eastern District of Virginia, JEFFREY LYNN SPRUILL, the defendant, by means and use of an instrument of commerce, that is a telephone, willfully threaten [sic], during a conversation with Computer Specialist, Deborah L. Williams, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual, specifically identified as Larry Torrence, Special Agent in Charge of the Norfolk FBI Office, located in Norfolk, Virginia.
(All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(e).)
J.A. 11.
3 Count three read as follows:
On or about April 22, 1995, beginning at approximately 10:00 a.m., in Norfolk, Virginia, in the Eastern District of Virginia, JEFFREY LYNN SPRUILL, the defendant, by means and use of an instrument of commerce, that is, a telephone, willfully threatened, during a conversation that occurred with Security and Complaint Assistant, Yolanda E. Williams, of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, to attempt to kill, injure, or intimidate certain individuals, specifically: special agents and employees of the Norfolk Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Office, Norfolk, Virginia.
(All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(e).)
J.A. 12. Count four similarly charged Spruill for his telephone conversation with Special Agent Kenneally on April 22, 1995.
4 We expect the issue is novel for a simple reason: up to now the government appears to have used the section only to prosecute bomb threats. See, e.g., United States v. Tibbetts, 565 F.2d 867, 869 (4th Cir.1977) (telephone bomb threat); United States v. Leaverton, 835 F.2d 254, 257 (10th Cir.1987) (fake letter bomb); United States v. Candelaria, 704 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir.1983) (telephone bomb threat); United States v. Hicks, 495 F.2d 137, 137 (D.C.Cir.1974) (referring to § 844(e) as "Bomb Threats Act"; (telephone bomb threat)); cf. United States v. Fears, 450 F.Supp. 249, 253 (E.D.Tenn.1978) (concluding that bomb threat to person's home would be a threat to an individual under § 844(e))
5 The legislative history does not mention threats concerning the use of fire because § 844(e) prohibited only threats "by means of an explosive" when it was enacted in 1970. See Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, 957 (1970). The Anti-Arson Act of 1982 amended § 844(e) to prohibit arson threats as well, changing the section to read, "by means of fire or an explosive." Anti-Arson Act of 1982, Pub.L. No. 97-298, 96 Stat. 1319 (1982) (emphasis added)
6 Moreover, unlike in Hooker, the trier of fact here did not make a finding on the element of the offense missing from the indictment. In this case the trial judge agreed with the motion judge's earlier ruling that the government did not have to prove that the threats charged in counts two, three, and four concerned the use of fire or explosives. Therefore, although the judge found Spruill guilty of making threats, he did not find that the threats concerned fire or explosives. See J.A. 135-137; 174 ( [Counsel for Spruill]: "Now, the other three counts, besides my old argument, they got to show that it was by bomb or--"; The Court: "I'm ruling against that. Move along on that.")

REMOVE IMMEDIATELY FROM THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ... ~~PROSECUTING THE CRIMES OF HYPER-EMPIRE

Michele Bachmann
SIGN THE PETITITONhttp://act.credoaction.com/sign/bachmann_intel_comm/?sp_ref=1095143.4.84.e.361.2&source=mailto_sp

From Jeffrey Spruill, ET AL ~ To John Boehner ET AL ~ Representative Michele Bachmann is the Tea Party's queen of crazy.  So what kind of a signal does it send that she's on the House Intelligence Committee where she has access to sensitive national security information? ... In 2006, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann became the first Republican woman to be elected to represent Minnesota in the U.S. House of Representatives .. self - proclaimed “Constitutional Conservative”  ..  Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Financial Services Committee .. has been given keen insight into the current housing crisis and credit crunch ..

Prosecuting the Crimes of Hyper-empire


I recently happened to watch Paul Newman’s desperate plea to the jury in the movie Verdict. It is a piece of visionary poetry worth memorizing.

You know, so much of time is just lost.

We say, Please, God, tell us what is right; tell us what is true.

And there is no justice: the rich win, the poor are powerless.

We become tired of hearing people lie.
 
And after a time, we become dead… a little dead.

We think of ourselves as victims… and we become victims.

We become… we become weak.

We doubt ourselves, we doubt our beliefs.

We doubt our institutions. And we doubt the law.

But You ARE the law. Not some book… not the lawyers… not the, a marble statue… or the trappings of the courts.

See, those are just symbols of our desire to be just. They are… they are, in fact, a prayer: a fervent and a frightened prayer.

In my religion, they say, “Act as if ye had faith… and faith will be given to you.”

IF… if we are to have faith in justice, we need only to believe in ourselves. And ACT with justice. I believe there is justice in our hearts.

… the above is similar to how Martin Luther King Jr. ended his otherwise fiery sermon and history lesson, “Beyond Vietnam – a Time to Break Silence.”

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/prosecuting-the-crimes-of-hyper-empire/  

Prosecuting the Crimes of Hyper-empire

... Jay Janson: I would never say I am opposed to American crimes, because until recently, I had assumed that everyone, unless a criminal, was opposed to homicidal crime, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators. Same applies to saying I oppose something that has already become universally condemned, like imperialism. As a schoolboy, I was taught to hate and scorn Germans for their Nazi Reich, and the Japanese and Italians for their empires, which were invading neighboring nations and killing people. Kids didn’t hear about imperialism. Looking back, I find it an example of our purposeful dis-education, that British, French, Dutch, Belgian, Spanish, Portuguese and early American invading, enslaving and colonizing of non white peoples was not taught to be hated or scorned as despicable, but rather accepted as just a part of the history of European and American accomplishments of ‘manifest destiny’ that were of course not always entirely laudable ....

.. I have a great respect for people who devote much of their life, and especially their golden years, to social justice, planning for a better world for future generations rather than just soaking up sun on a Floridian beach in winter or dancing the evenings away on colossal cruise ships. Now in his eighties, Jay Janson is one of these people desiring an improvement in the human condition for everyone ....

.. In the last year of the Eisenhower administration and the first of the Kennedy’s, wife and I are having a wonderful time with our two little kids in sunny San Juan, Puerto Rico, working under one the greatest musicians of all time, Pablo Casals, enjoying the warm Latin culture, the sea and breezy air, when I happened to notice something contradictory in the news reports about how the US was bombing in Laos to ‘help” protect a government, which the French were no longer able to keep from being overthrown. I had happened to notice the beginning of our mercilessly dropping of more bombs on the tiny defenseless nation of Laos, than all the bombs dropped during the whole of World War Two. Once, interested, the whole disgusting US betraying of its WW II Vietnamese allies against the Vichy French/Japanese occupation of their country became shockingly apparent to me. The greater shock was that all my family and friends considered me duped by communist propaganda. I had assumed that if a simple, slow thinking guy like me could notice this obvious horror of horrors, others would be aware of it more quickly, once alerted to the lies. I was wrong. No one around me was interested to think it through — all except my mom, who had not finished grade school and never learned not to think ....

.. TO BE CONTINUED ...


Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now Campaign

"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own Government...I cannot be silent." – Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://prosecuteuscrimesagainsthumanitynow.blogspot.com/

First goal is to frighten with prosecution anyone calling for or fomenting war or military attack on an other nation in violation of International/National Law Nuremberg Principle # 6 regarding Crimes Against Peace, thus inhibiting and preventing, new wars from being created. This would include media war mongering, by serious discussions of pros and cons of a US military attack or unlawful sanctions. Simultaneously, arrest and indictment for present/past Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes


The Missing Quote from the King Memorial by Don DeBar
Fifteen quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. are carved into his memorial on the Washington Mall, but perhaps his harshest indictment of the United States is absent: “…I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.” The omission is glaring at a time when the U.S. is engaged in even more wars than during Dr. King’s era. “Nor is there any mention that America's wars are the cause of economic hardship at home.”

President Barack Obama invoked the words of Dr. King – some of them – without even mentioning war.”

"US Wars Meant to Maintain Unjust Predatory Overseas Investments! Look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the country. This is a role our nation has taken, … refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. This is not just. "   Martin Luther King Jr.

http://blackagendareport.com/content/missing-quote-king-memorial 



AMERICA-ISRAEL COMMIT GENOCIDE ~~ APARTHEID IS EXPLOTATION: José Efraín Ríos Montt = GUATEMALAN GENOCIDE

Raining Hell Freezing Over, ITS' coming for the contemporary fraudulent progressive so called modern day human beings.  Calling themselves conservatives, and liberals too, left or right, does not erase the acts are genocide.

Ike now in the hot seat, José Efraín Ríos Montt tried for genocide in Guatemala City and found guilty,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/guatemalas-rios-montt-genocide-conviction-omen-for-us-presidents-and-their-hired-assassins/5335555


RONALD REAGAN AT LONG LAST, tried for genocide!

HUMAN FILTH KARL ROVE TURD BLOSSOM for his butt buddy? "W" et al, all that are on Chomsky's lists from the beginning to the updated new insane genocide 'leaders of the modern free world'.

POTUS BARRY O'SOETERO
Hell is getting ready to rain freezing ice on the worst country on earth since the military industrial complex stole the sane brains, and it is named USA.  Apartheid is what the INJUSTICE IS, that is, the court system and "law" in the US is an apartheid.  EXPLOITATION?!

The Public Employees' Retirement System [PERS] is an APARTHEID.

But, the GREEN AGENDA 21, AND GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR:

GENOCIDE, 'MERICANS.  I've submitted filings, in the International Criminal Court, ICC, for the apartheid and genocide.  We're going forward now, but we must clean up our past otherwise we are the same as all past evil empire building conquerors.

America MUST come out of the closet STOP hiding out in hunting clubs with the Dick Cheneys and other dicks that are not healthy organs for US.


Friday, May 17, 2013

Psychopath

OHIO 2008
When Obama entered the White House in early 2009, he walked away from a Senate where a shield law he advocated for had just started to take shape. Before long, though, his own administration asked for Congress to make adjustments before it ended up on the president’s desk. That original law would, in theory, put in place safeguards that would help prevent journalists from being compelled to testify who their sources are. Once in the White House, though, Obama did an about face.

http://rt.com/usa/obama-shield-bill-law-453/

Hack USA



When the computer acts like it has another human working the command center, there are so many questions to be answered.  How did so many pop ups get before the viewer!  What about the constant moving of the computer screen.  Hey, what!  Now more virus clean up programs - and still a visit to the IT expense for undoing whatever the gulag has decided to 'own'.

The US Government Might Be the Biggest Hacker in the World

Cyber crime is big business in the US. It’s used to spy, steal, harass competition, political opponents, or to stage an attack and blamed it on a foreign enemy.

Is the government in on this crime industry? Yes, and in bigger ways than you can imagine…

This trend is enabled domestically by an institutionally corrupt US legal system and a police state which are fast working to shut and jail security consultants and white hat hackers who help to expose security flaws and government hegemony over cyber space. The reason for this is because the state wants to be able to operate in secret – as the world’s biggest and most prolific hacking machine. In other words, the US government want hackers to exist, but only hackers who are on their payroll.

Still not convinced? According to McAfee, the United States is home to the largest number of botnets or “zombie armies – a hive of computers that are used to generate spam, relay viruses and flood networks and servers with excessive requests to cause it to fail – in the world, and even control remote overseas servers used to hack other computers worldwide.

Want more? Data from Germany’s Deutsche Telekom shows that more attacks against its networks come from the US.

Obama will tell his people that the Chinese are responsible for this hack, or that one. Still think that the US is not the number one cyber threat to the planet in 2013?
Read this shocking report…

The United States government is investing tens of millions of dollars each year on offensive hacking operations in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the computers of its adversaries, Reuters reports.

According to an in-depth article published Friday by journalist Joseph Menn, the US and its Department of Defense contractors are increasingly pursuing efforts to hack the computers of foreign competitors, in turn exposing a rarely discussed aspect of the nation’s clandestine cyber operations.

In a time when the government continues to prosecute alleged domestic computer criminals — so much so that demands for technology law reform have been rampant as of late — Menn says the US is guilty of spending millions on discovering, identifying and exploiting previously unknown security flaws, often gaining unfettered access to the systems and networks of international targets.

As a result, the US has become one of the world’s top players in regards to wreaking havoc over the Internet — even as calls to investigate foreign hackers increase in Congress.

On Tuesday, a bipartisan supported proposal was introduced in Congress specifically to protect US commercial data from being compromised by foreign hackers. According to Menn, however, the American government is just as guilty of cybercrimes as the countries it warns against in introducing the “Deter Cyber Theft Act.”

Even as the US government confronts rival powers over widespread Internet espionage, it has become the biggest buyer in a burgeoning gray market where hackers and security firms sell tools for breaking into computers,” Menn wrote.

In his report, Menn explained that a large chunk of the country’s current cyber endeavors does not rely on defensive strategy as one might imagine, but instead involves offensive operations launched with the intent of causing harm on the computers of adversaries.

Menn wrote defense contractors “spend at least tens of millions of dollars a year” on simply researching exploits that, if pursued, could put the eyes and ears of the American intelligence company essentially anywhere in the world.

And although the US has not officially gone on the record to acknowledge these shadowy operations, Menn wrote that the nation’s most well-known cyber endeavor — the Stuxnet worm that targeted Iranian nuclear plants — is just one example of the budding attempts to attack foreign entities.

Computer researchers in the public and private sectors say the US government, acting mainly through defense contractors, has become the dominant player in fostering the shadowy but large-scale commercial market for tools known as exploits, which burrow into hidden computer vulnerabilities,” he wrote.

In their most common use, exploits are critical but interchangeable components inside bigger programs. Those programs can steal financial account passwords, turn an iPhone into a listening device or, in the case of Stuxnet, sabotage a nuclear facility.”

Menn cited several defense contractors and government officials — many speaking on condition of anonymity — who admitted the increasingly dominant role the US government has in pursuing research on these exploits and using them to attack rival networks.

According to the report, “Reuters reviewed a product catalogue from one large contractor, which was made available on condition the vendor not be named. Scores of programs were listed. Among them was a means to turn any iPhone into a room-wide eavesdropping device. Another was a system for installing spyware on a printer or other device and moving that malware to a nearby computer via radio waves, even when the machines aren’t connected to anything.”

These contractors, he wrote, spend upwards of $100,000 on licensing single operations to governments, including the US. The result has been the development of a thriving industry, largely underground, where exploits are bought and sold before patches are developed to protect against intrusions. These “zero-day exploits”— labeled as such because developers are unaware of the flaw until it’s announced — fetch big bucks from contractors, governments and hackers.

And as the demand for these exploits increases, so do the players in the game. One example cited by Menn is Atlanta-based Endgame Inc., which recently brought in $23 million in funding courtesy of Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. But as early as 2011, Endgame and similar entities have been on the radar of hacktivists hell-bent on exposing the largely unknown doings of defense contractors.

When the loose-knit hacking collective Anonymous investigated security consultants HBGary in 2011, they uncovered only the tip of an intricate iceberg made up of former federal employees and other intelligence workers being paid boatloads to give governments exploits that could be used to their advantage. Project PM, the open-source online think tank started by former Anonymous collaborator Barrett Brown, discussed Endgame and its associates in great detail.

From a Business Week article cited by Brown:

Endgame executives will bring up maps of airports, parliament buildings and corporate offices. The executives then create a list of the computers running inside the facilities, including what software the computers run, and a menu of attacks that could work against those particular systems. Endgame weaponry comes customized by region — the Middle East, Russia, Latin America and China — with manuals, testing software and ‘demo instructions.’ There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other US allies.”

Last year Brown was arrested on unrelated counts and remains in custody six months later with an eventual trial still a ways before him. The US government has since subpoenaed Internet host Cloudflare for records pertaining to Project PM, and has equated the website as a criminal enterprise.

Project PM served as a forum through which defendant Brown and other individuals sought to discuss their joint and separate activities and engage in, encourage, or facilitate the commission of criminal conduct online,” the government alleged when it fought back attempts from the current Project PM administrator to quash that subpoena.

Brown fired back from prison: “It makes it much more obvious that this investigation and the charges against me has to do with our successful research into what may be criminal activities by firms close to the government.”

If convicted on all counts — more than one dozen including threatening a federal agent andsharing a hyperlink — Brown could be sentenced to 100 years in prison.

It is virtually impossible to conclude that the obscenely excessive prosecution he now faces is unrelated to that journalism and his related activism,” Glenn Greenwald wrote earlier this year for The Guardian.

Meanwhile, Menn admitted that other investigative computer work — specifically discovering exploits like the one Endgame thrives off of — is an endeavor that discourages people outside of the government and defense industry from entertaining.

Most companies, including Microsoft, Apple Inc. and Adobe Systems Inc, on principle won’t pay researchers who report flaws, saying they don’t want to encourage hackers,” he wrote. “Those that do offer ‘bounties,’ including Google Inc. and Facebook Inc., say they are hard-pressed to compete financially with defense-industry spending.”

Andrew Auernheimer, a 26-year-old independent security researcher, was recently sentenced to 41 months in prison for identifying and disclosing a harmless exploit on the servers of AT&T that allowed anyone with the know-how to collect the email addresses of thousands of Apple iPadusers. After he was convicted, Auernheimer wrote for Wired that the selective prosecution of some security researchers will deter future hackers from ever disclosing exploits, even critical ones that effect national security.

In an age of rampant cyber espionage and crackdowns on dissidents, the only ethical place to take your zero-day is to someone who will use it in the interests of social justice. And that’s not the vendor, the governments, or the corporations — it’s the individuals,” he wrote. “In a few cases, that individual might be a journalist who can facilitate the public shaming of a web application operator. However, in many cases the harm of disclosure to the un-patched masses (and the loss of the exploit’s potential as a tool against oppressive governments) greatly outweighs any benefit that comes from shaming vendors. In these cases, the antisec philosophy shines as morally superior and you shouldn’t disclose to anyone.”



“London’s cosmopolitan country estate” ~GOOGLE-BERG!?

http://www.infowars.com/google-berg-global-elite-transforms-itself-for-technocratic-revolution/

Eric Schmidt. Image: Wikimedia Commons





In numerous speeches, including those made at Google Zeitgeist, Schmidt has outlined his vision for a collectivist, permanently networked world in which individuality and privacy are ostracized and those who refuse to sign up to the new religion of transhumanism are shunned as sub-human savages.



Thursday, May 16, 2013

OFFENSIVE: LISTEN ONLY AS AN ADULT, more likely than not guaranteed to offend

http://campraxix.wordpress.com/category/clif-high/



E4 – March 24, 2012 – The Grand Penis Conspiracy (warning…bound to offend, adults only…)

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2e14pdyrby09er3/wujo3242012peniscon.mp3


Healing cannot begin until we know what the disease is at the root.


PENIS MUTILATION: FORESKIN NIPPING IS TO FORCE AN UN-DEVELOPED BRAIN & NOT WHOLE BONDING WITH FEMALES = 'SOCIETY' GOING "CRIMINALLY INSANE"!?


click>http://campraxix.wordpress.com/category/clif-high/ <<AUDIO VITAL LISTENING FOR ADULTS


CGI's oldBuck: Obama's Killer profile or why he likes to kill!  Posted By: Susoni, Date: Thursday, 16-May-2013

       When Barack Obama orders the US military to attack people in another country, whether in a war or by using an illegal drone strike, he knows that people, including innocent men, women and children (called 'collateral damage'), will be killed. How can he do this? When Benjamin Netanyahu orders Israeli military attacks on unarmed Palestinians, he knows that innocent men, women and children will be killed. How can he do this? When corporate executives, such as Hugh Grant (chief of Monsanto) and Gregory R. Page (boss of Cargill), make decisions that deprive people - including those in Africa, Asia and Central/South America - of the means of economic survival, they know that people will be exploited and killed. How can they do this?

        It takes someone with a particular psychological profile to kill people. Most of us cannot do it even when ordered to do so. Studies have shown that even in combat situations under enemy fire many soldiers either do not shoot or 'aim to miss'.

        People who deliberately kill have suffered an extraordinary level of terror and violence during their own childhood and this leaves them particularly badly emotionally damaged. This might be concealed behind a good-looking face and/or a superficially pleasant personality. So what is the psychological profile of a killer, whether political leader, corporate executive, terrorist or someone who commits murder on our streets? Careful scrutiny and analysis reveals that these individuals share at least 23 feelings/attributes most of which are invisible to casual observation.

See 'Why Violence?' http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence

I will identify just twelve here.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/testforum.cgi?noframes;read=277003