Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Conspiracy Nation Vol. 01 Num. 63
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 1 Num. 63
======================================
("Quid coniuratio est?")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[From an interview with Linda Thompson on the *For the People*
radio show, Feb. 11, 1994. Host is Chuck Harder.]
[Continued...]
CHUCK HARDER: Uh, I think, I think it's important to point out
here also that last night, *60 Minutes*, which is the mainstream
press, went out just a little tiny bit on a limb -- and I praise
CBS for doing it although they are, they're part of the problem
most nights. Uh, you know, and they talked about the congressman
who "told it like it is." {1}. And he says, you know, you go out,
you start telling the truth and suddenly, you're not gonna get
re-elected because they won't raise money for you.
LINDA THOMPSON: Well then you also have congressmen that, for
instance, we've had some congressmen who have been active in
trying to get something done about Waco. And coincidentally, two
of those congressmen's children were arrested on drug charges.
This is... and I have had one congressman's legislative aid call
me and tell me that he *was* threatened! So, this is the kind of
thing that we're seeing: even if you've *got* an honest
congressman trying to do something, the pressure is put on him
too! That's pretty significant pressure when they start comin'
after your kids or they threaten your life or your family's life,
or you know for a certainty that you can never get re-elected
because you're going to be defeated by *money* alone. This is
what's happened. That's how our Congress has been taken over, is
by the people with the money.
HARDER: And I think it's important also to say (and I wanna thank
you very much for the call, "T.K."), but it's also -- Linda, you
know this -- the Internal Revenue Service, as they have done to
us, they have been with us now for a year. Uh, their audit
procedures started a year ago. And there have been 3 different
IRS auditers that have been engaged, one way or another. Uh, they
are on what is called, in the auditing business, a "fishing
trip." Uh, they've already determined nothing's wrong. But
they're still "fishing." {2}.
A "fishing trip" like they are on can, by the time it's all over
with, cost us $100,000.
THOMPSON: It can cost you that in nothing but trying to prove you
did nothing wrong.
HARDER: Right. And, you know, after you spend $100,000 and they
finally go away, they are convinced that they hurt you to the
tune of $100,000. And that's what's going...
THOMPSON: And they *have* hurt you.
HARDER: Yeah.
THOMPSON: That's a very powerful weapon.
HARDER: We'll be back.
[...commercial break...]
HARDER: We are back. Linda Thompson is our guest, and we're
taking your calls at 1-800-TALK-YES. Or, you can try us at 904-
397-1500.
O.K. Linda, you are back on the air. Are you there?
THOMPSON: Yes. Hi.
HARDER: O.K. Good. Let's go to uh, let's conference in right now.
Huntington, West Virginia. Bill, go ahead.
BILL: Hi, Linda. Hi, Chuck.
HARDER: Hi.
THOMPSON: Hi.
BILL: I had a question about the Waco situation. Is it possible
that somebody could bring a civil suit against Janet Reno at all?
I mean, maybe a class action suit? {3}.
THOMPSON: Well, I have. And you don't want a class action. That's
one thing, I want to take the opportunity while you've got such a
huge audience here to explain.
When you bring a lawsuit against a company -- for instance, we've
all heard of class action lawsuits against General Motors, this
kind of thing -- the person bringing the lawsuit does not want
[it] to be a class action. Because if I were to, as a single
individual, sue a large entity like General Motors over a
defective part in a car and win, all the other 10,000 people that
bought that car can then individually sue, too, and get the same
amount of money I did. Because I've already set the precedent for
them, and that's another 10,000 guys that could each bring their
suit and automatically win.
So what happens is, when you sue on a case like that, General
Motors would be the one that makes it into a class action.
Because what they want to do is have to settle *everybody's*
claim in one lawsuit, because it costs them less money *and* they
end up paying out less money. You notice that, whenever there's a
class action lawsuit, the attorneys get most of the money, they
get half the money. And then the remainder of the money is
distributed amongst 10 or 20 thousand plaintiffs! And everybody
gets maybe, 10, 15 dollars. That's nothing. That's peanuts.
That's why the *defendants* are the ones that want it to be a
class action suit. *You*, as a plaintiff, the person bringing the
case, you *never* wanna be a class action. (Unless you're an
attorney and you want the money!)
Um, but an actual plaintiff: you wanna go individually against
that entity, win a *pile* of money, and then let all the other 9
million Americans, or how many are affected, *also* then file
their own cases all over the country. They already have your case
that set the precedent, that has made the rule that has said,
"You won." O.K.?
HARDER: By the same token, let me squeeze this in: If you do file
an individual suit and you *lose*, it does not prevent somebody
else from "comin' back." [i.e. filing their own suit of similar
nature]
THOMPSON: That's right. And the government can argue, "Well, this
person lost," but you've always got the opportunity to say, "Well
my circumstances are different. It's not the same case. I'm a
different plaintiff. I can still sue."
But if the other person *wins*, then you identify with that person
and say, "I'm just *exactly* like this guy that just won. And he
got," you know, "5 million. I should too." And then the
government's on the defensive. They have to prove why not.
But it makes it eminently easier for the plaintiff, and *much*
more difficult for the defendant, if it's *not* a class action.
BILL: Let me ask you: Did you say you filed suit?
THOMPSON: Yes.
BILL: Who do you represent?
THOMPSON: Myself.
BILL: Yourself?
THOMPSON: Uh-huh [affirmative]. I... You have to have "standing"
in a case. For instance, an average citizen, it's very difficult
to find a basis to sue the government on, when you aren't
directly involved. For instance, if you're not a Branch Davidian
in Waco, even though all of us as American citizens, our rights
are being affected by this case and the things that are going on,
that's not good enough to bring a lawsuit over it. The court'll
kick you out and say, "Well you aren't directly affected by
that." So you don't have what's called "standing."
Well I have standing, because while I was down there I was held
at a roadblock and an ATF agent held a machine gun at my head for
20 minutes and they illegally searched my car. They took property
out of my car. They detained me for 2 hours and questioned me at
a tent alongside this roadblock without probable cause, never
filed charges, and eventually let us go.
And stole some film from us. I got a picture of this ATF agent
holding a machine gun at my head! And was able to smuggle it out
of there successfully; I hid it behind the glove box of the car
before they searched the car.
Now that's my standing. I was directly affected by the entire,
illegal operation that was going on in Waco. That ATF agent
wouldn't have been in the roadblock legally, period. He wasn't
there legally. And he was only there because of everything that
led up to the Waco siege and because of the direct involvement of
the executive branch. That gives me the right to sue everybody
that had anything to do with it. And that's why, what I'm doing.
(to be continued)
-----------------------<< Notes >>-------------------------------
{1} "...the congressman who 'told it like it is.'" I saw this *60
Minutes* episode. To my recollection, the congressman he is
referring to is Luis Gutierrez(sp?) from Chicago.
{2} "...still 'fishing.'" Just like the highwaymen. They also go
"fishing." For example, they put up signs lowering the speed
limit because there is "road construction." So you slow down,
form a single lane, and the people behind you are tailgating you,
etc. "Come on, you moron! There's no 'road construction!'"
A while later, you come to another "reduce speed" because
there is "road construction." So you again slow down, form a
single lane, and the people are tailgating you, etc. "Come on,
you moron! There's no 'road construction!'"
Then again, you come to another "road construction" situation.
The sign says to reduce your speed to 45 m.p.h. But there is
nobody *doing* any "road construction!" Here is your big mistake.
A half mile ahead, there is a highwayman, fishing for taxes. But
you figure, "Well, if I actually see anybody working, I'll slow
down." A quarter-mile later, you see up ahead that there *really*
are men working up ahead. So of course, you slow down. *But it is
too late*! The highwayman has laid his trap well. He already has
you on his radar.
Conclusion of tale: The highwayman demands you pay the $75 in
cash. *But* if you have "too much" cash, the highwayman will not
like that either.
{3} Regarding bringing a lawsuit against Reno, etc. UPI has
reported recently that Koresh's relatives have indeed filed a
$153 million lawsuit against Janet Reno and others. [From the For
the People *News Reporter*, July 11, 1994, page 1.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name"
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et
pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9
