From: "Oceanfront Viking Motel" 
To: 
Subject: Is this for real?
Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 1:25 AM

This came in my email and seemed to good to be true have you heard of
it?

Subject: Enumerated Powers

Amendment to the Enumerated Powers

1). All Laws, Acts, Regulations, and Executive Orders shall cite the
specific authorizing section of this Constitution.

2). Any Law, Act, Regulation, or Executive Order failing to cite the
specific section shall be null and void.

3). No Treaty shall render any part of this Constitution void.

4). All Supreme Court decisions shall cite the specific section of this
Constitution upon which they are based.

5). These provisions shall be retroactive to Jan 1. 1787.

Matd20{at}excite.com

* * * * * * * * * * *

From: "Mike Lorrey" 
To: 
Subject: "It's in the Fine Print"
Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 3:52 PM

In response to Vin's column on the Patient's Bill of Rights Act, I'd like
to address the primary problem faced by insurance customers: fine print
creep. Just as the internet and computers increase the ability of any one
individual to publish their opinions, they also seem to contribute to this
form of contract 'feature creep', where corporate lawyers get to think up
ever more complex ways of stating as confusingly as possible that their
company is "going to screw you no matter what you do and there is
nothing you can do about it, and everyone is doing it so you have no other
options".

Moreover, how many people do you know that actually read the entirety of
every contract they are presented with on the internet for every download
or service or purchase? We all just click 'I Accept' and get on with our
lives. We don't have time or the money to have all of these contracts gone
over by a lawyer who is on our side, nor is there any 'robo-lawyer' on the
internet to interpret these contracts for you.

HMO contracts are exactly the same. You can tell what part of the contract
has the sphincter violating clauses too, by how small the fine print is and
how close to the back of the contract it is. You know you are being screwed
if they put all that stuff in the back and have you just sign up front, and
no matter what, they will figure out some way to claim you were not
covered.

Everyone is getting like that. For example, last year, my mother, who is an
exec at a local hospital, was walking down the hall to deliver a patient's
chart back to a doctor when she tripped on a heavy coating of floor wax,
fell on her arm and received a spiral fracture on her humerus bone, which
took 9 months to heal, requiring a plate and screws. The state workman's
compensation office denied coverage, claiming that "she could have
fallen anywhere."

The purpose of the PBORA is essentially to give us back some of the rights
that were taken away from us when congress passed its original HMO
legislation. I don't see this as a bad thing, nor is it 'inventing' rights.
I wish that congress would give us back a lot more of our rights.
Furthermore, if this contractomania is going to continue, we will need a
bill to require that all contracts be written in 6th grade newspaper level
english, or at least some standard that says that the grammatical grade
level of a contract cannot exceed the rated comprehension of the signors or
their legal representatives, or else it is invalid.

Mike Lorrey

* * * * * * * * * * *

From: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: It's About the Trust, Stupid
Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 5:37 PM

Dear TLE,

Michael Lorrey's very interesting article mentioned a Supreme Court case
"U.S. v. Urquidez-Verdugo" involving the definition of "the
people" as used in the U.S. Constitution.

I was interested in learning more about the decision, but I searched for it
in vain. It turns out Mr. Lorrey accidently transposed the name. It's
really "United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez". Fascinating reading,
and bears directly on a long-running argument about who "the
people" in the second amendment are.

Thanks as always.

JCS

* * * * * * * * * * *

From: "Mike Lorrey" 
To: 
Cc: ; 
Subject: Re: It's About the Trust, Stupid
Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 5:50 PM

jsimon{at}daewoous.com wrote:

> Dear TLE,
>
> Michael Lorrey's very interesting article mentioned a Supreme Court 
> case "U.S. v. Urquidez-Verdugo" involving the definition of "the 
> people" as used in the U.S. Constitution.
>
> I was interested in learning more about the decision, but I searched 
> for it in vain. It turns out Mr. Lorrey accidently transposed the 
> name. It's really "United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez". Fascinating 
> reading, and bears directly on a long-running argument about who "the 
> people" in the second amendment are.
>
> Thanks as always.

Thanks for the correction. I've seen it written of in both forms, and I
think that I subconciously alphabetized the two names when I wrote the
essay (then again, after the era of Rodham-Clinton, these hyphenated names
really annoy me). This decision is indeed of paramount importance, which is
likely why it is so assiduously ignored by the media and politicians. I
consider this, along with US v Lopez and the slowly arriving US v. Emerson
to be a trinity of cases to cite in future public interest lawsuits seeking
the repeal of many thousands of state and federal regulations about gun
control and many other issues. I just wish we had more lawyers on our side
to do the vast amount of pro bono work that would be required. We need gun
rights groups to focus far more on these court cases than on trying to
bribe politicians with campaign contributions.

Mike Lorrey
Lebanon, New Hampshire
"Live Free or Die, Death is Not The Worst of Evils"
  General John Stark,
  hero of the Battle of Bennington

* * * * * * * * * * *

From: "jjodle" 
To: "John Taylor" 
Subject: Dr. Ruwart -- FDA Commissioner?
Date: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:16 PM

Dear John:

Recently, I was pleasantly surprised to see Dr. Mary J. Ruwart gracing the
front cover of the July issue of Life Extension magazine. Seems the good
doctor has applied for the job of Commissioner of the FDA. Libertarians of
long standing know that the LP gave her serious consideration as Andre
Marrou's Vice-Presidential running mate back in '92, but that she lost out
to Doctor Nancy Lord. I also know that she is one of the witnesses that Dr.
Lord used to defeat the FDA in the Rodger Sless case.

I have never met Dr. Ruwart, but I have read her book, Healing Our World:
The Other Piece of the Puzzle. I know the cover, with it's silly Chinese
Yin-Yang symbol makes her look like some sort of New Age, 'touchie-feelie'
type. Judging from her book she, none the less, possesses a great deal of
common sense, respect for libertarian principles and the Constitution --
all of which are sorely missing at the FDA.

The real question is: Does Dr. Ruwart have the strength, the intelligence,
dare I say it, the ovaries to deal with a deeply entrenched, corrupt,
self-serving, less than loyal government bureaucracy? Or will she be Yes,
Ministered? {Anyone familiar with PBS' satirical Yes, Minister knows how
easily a well-meaning, but nonetheless, naive political appointee is easily
out maneuvered by his support staff.

I hope she gets her chance to reform the FDA as it is another one of those
lawless, don't give a damn about the Constitution, out-of-control agencies
that is in dire need of privatization. Actually the current leadership is
in dire need of some no-nonsense jail time as they are currently in
contempt of court and in defiance of Congress.

Speaking of FDA lawlessness, in the late nineties a fellow libertarian by
the name a Durk Pearson brought a First Amendment case against the FDA,
demanding his right to print truthful, non misleading information, that is
derived from the most prestigious peer reviewed journals {such as the
Journal of the American Medical Association or the New England Journal of
Medicine} on the outside of dietary supplements. The FDA lost the case in
an 11-0 decision. {Pearson vs. Shalala, 164 F. 3d 650, 656} {see Victory
for Freedom of Speech at
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/july99-cover.html} and was ordered to
bring its regulations into compliance with the First Amendment. The FDA,
being a power-crazed government agency, did not take this lying down. It
appealed and on Feb. 2, 2001 it once again lost the case {=ECWhat's Wrong
With the FDA?=EE, Life Extension Magazine, May 2001,
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/may2001_cover_pearson2_1.html}.

In the early nineties, Congress passed the Nutritional Labeling and
Education Act which provided that vendors of vitamin and mineral
supplements could print truthful, non-misleading info on their products.
Later, Congress also passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act
which also permitted the same thing.

The FDA -- much as F Troop [ATF] -- has been known to use a SWAT team
against its fellow citizens who {Rodger Sless, for one example and
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag96/sept96_freedom.html for another story
involving the Life Extension Foundation}. I wish Dr. Ruwart luck in her
attempt to become the next Commissioner. Somebody needs to bring this
agency to heel.

Story about Dr. Ruwart:
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/july2001_cover_ruwart.html> Dr.
Ruwart's Curriculum Vitae:
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/july2001_cover_ruwart_curriculum.html>

Sign the on-line petition:
http://www.lef.org/cgi-bin/contactRep.cgi?action=start&cr_text_id=3>

Take care everyone,
James J Odle
jjodle{at}earthlink.net

Will someone please tell me why the FDA needs a SWAT Team? Are food and
drug companies running amok through out the land?

---