```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7474-S7479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         HEARINGS ON TERRORISM

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Subcommittee on Terrorism of the 
Judiciary Committee was scheduled to have hearings on terrorism today.
  Those hearings could not be held because the Senate was in session 
continuously from 9 a.m. with rollcall votes of 9 minutes. So those 
hearings had to be postponed. They are going to be held on Thursday, 
June 8.
  A good many people came from substantial distances. I expressed our 
regrets that we could not hold the hearing. But it was not possible to 
do so. But I did tell them that the statements which had been submitted 
would be put in the Record at this time so that their prepared 
statements could at least be read by Members of the Senate or those 
interested in reading them.
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of attorney 
John W. DeCamp, the statement of Mr. Norman Olson, the statement of Mr. 
Leroy Crenshaw, and the statement of the Militia of Montana be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

     Memorandum from: Senator John W. DeCamp, Atty.
     To: Sub Committee on Terrorism, U.S. Senator Judiciary 
         Committee.
     Re: Testimony to Committee.
       To paraphrase an old saying. . . . ``Five months ago I 
     couldn't spell `Militia' and now I represent one.''
       It was five months ago I agreed to PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE 
     TO the leaders of the Montana Militia on a dozen felonies. 
     Why? I felt the felony charges involved open and shut first 
     amendment issues of freedom of speech, assembly and right to 
     petition Government issues, and have learned a wealth of 
     information since that time--particularly in light of the 
     Oklahoma bombing and the anti-militia movement.
       Before I go too much further, let me give brief background 
     on myself and let me answer the first questions that press 
     and your staff asked of me.
       Question: Are you a white supremacist?
       My wife is Vietnamese--one of the Boatpeople. Our four home 
     made AMERASIAN children are the four most beautiful and 
     talented mixed race children on the planet. My business 
     partner is African-American. My Comptroller is Indian from 
     Bombay & my legal associates over the years have been mostly 
     Jewish. You make your own conclusions.
       Question: Are these militias dangerous?
       Absolutely yes, and absolutely no.
       First, the media and MOST OF US have made the same 
     fundamental error (``Cat Bagging'' I call it) as was made 
     during the McCarthy Era, during the Vietnam War Protest 
     Movement, and during Watergate.
       That is, we lump all the Militias, the So Called Patriot 
     groups, and Tax Protesters and Free Men & Survivalist Groups 
     together as identical cats and then put them all into one 
     bag.
       Second, we SELECT An individual or entity that is simply 
     off the spectrum in their beliefs, one not tethered to 
     reality and attribute those horrible characteristics to all 
     the militias. In short, we ``demonize'' them. Quickly, they 
     are all labeled as white supremacist, racist, anti-
     government, paranoid revolutionaries fixing to blow up the 
     world.
       The truth is that there is as much diversity among these 
     groups as there is among religious groups. As a young boy, I 
     remember sitting in the front pew and hearing the Priest in 
     my small town of 1,800 people explain why the Protestants 
     were all going to hell. And, on Monday morning at school my 
     best friend, a Protestant kid named Jimmy, would explain to 
     me that his preacher had told him the same thing about us 
     Catholics the day before.
       It has been my observation that many of these groups--
     particularly the ones I considered not tethered to reality--
     are a bit like the Priest and the Preacher * * *. That is, 
     much of their effort is devoted to explaining to their 
     members why the other group are not real patriots, or why Bo 
     Gritz or John Trochman are really C.I.A. agents.
       In truth, most of the militia groups--Montana Militia, 
     Oklahoma Militia, New Hampshire Militia--could be classified 
     as middle of the road among hard conservatives. What do I 
     mean?
       Ten, twenty and thirty years ago they are the individuals 
     who were clamoring for ``Law and Order.'
       I suppose it is ironic, some might say poetic, that what 
     many of them sought, ``Law and Order'' has now come to pass 
     in a FORM they deem to be excess * * * that is too much 
     oppressive law and abuse of the Constitution. And ``order'' 
     has become what they fear to be ``a new world order.'' And 
     thru speaking out, they want everyone to know this attitude 
     on their part and their fears and concerns.
       But are they dangerous?
       They are a political movement. All political movements are 
     dangerous to some other political movement they run counter 
     to.
       That is how our system of government evolves * * * thru 
     political conflict and wars fought with words instead of 
     bullets and fought in the press and from the bully pulpit 
     instead of on the battlefield.
       Ultimately, that is the only truly distinguishing feature 
     separating our 200-year-old political system from all others 
     that went before it. Namely, the ability thru verbal conflict 
     and battle for our system to reverse itself (revolution) and 
     go in an opposite direction without the necessity of a 
     violent revolution.
       But are they physically dangerous or a threat to our 
     Government or our Constitution?
       You judge * * * but do it on the facts, not on innuendo or 
     the words of the natural enemies of these militias, namely, 
     other political groups opposed to their philosophy.
       To the best of my knowledge, there are no reported 
     incidents of any significance of militias being involved in 
     any of the following:
       1. Drive by shootings.
       2. The drug trade.
       3. Use of children for pornography, pedophilia & drug 
     couriers.
       4. Gang wars.
       5. Auto theft.
       6. Murder, rape, robbery, trafficking in illegal arms.
       If militias are involved in these somebody is not reporting 
     them. And I doubt that.
       For benefit of those who might differ with me on this, I 
     would point out that in each of the incidents you might be 
     familiar with, Gordon Kahl, Radny Weaver, Waco, the events 
     were initiated by the Government in an attempt to serve 
     usually misdemeanor warrants on contested tax matters using 
     overwhelming force and what in hindsight seems rather poor 
     judgement.
       In short, an analysis by you will show that the militias 
     themselves have been the victim of violence rather than the 
     perpetrator or initiator.
       As an example to prove my point, I challenge this committee 
     to examine the most notorious & deadly event in American 
     history involving U.S. marshals * * * namely, the Gordon Kahl 
     shoot-out 12 years ago in which about a half-dozen marshals 
     were shot, and Kahl escaped resulting in the largest manhunt 
     in American history.
       Have the courage to OBJECTIVELY examine this event--same 
     with Waco--, and you will begin to understand the origins of 
     the militia movement, their disenchantment and fear of law 
     enforcement and Government.
       Whether you believe Kahl was the most notorious and crazy 
     tax
      protester in American History or whether you believe he was 
     a martyr responsible for triggering the militia movement, 
     it is only by understanding this case in depth that you 
     can understand the origins of the Militia movement.
       Question: Are you, John DeCamp, a member of a militia?
       Sure, about twenty-five years ago I was a member. We called 
     it the United States Army. We had training sessions and 
     exercises in a place called Vietnam. I was an Infantry 
     Captain there specially assigned to a man named Bill Colby. 
     Bill subsequently became my friend, Godfather, advisor and 
     Legal Associate on a case or two. Bill was the individual who 
     insisted I write the book, the Franklin Coverup--which book 
     resulted in some of the Militias asking me to represent them. 
     You may remember Bill as the former head of a group called 
     the C.I.A., Central Intelligence Agency.
       So, since Colby told me to write my book the Franklin 
     Cover-up; and since the book resulted in my representing the 
     Montana militia and being here today, I suppose I'm here 
     because of the C.I.A. just kidding. . . .
       My Militia leader, a chap named McNamara, told us in 
     Vietnam that we were winning; that our government was sincere 
     . . . and a lot of other nice things that inspired us to get 
     our heads blown off. Then a couple weeks ago, I understand 
     Mr. McNamara told the world that he was only ``funnin'' us 
     when he told us those things during the war. McNamara said 
     that he or our other leader Lyndon knew all along that they 
     were lying to us. [[Page S7475]] 
       That is the about the same thing those war protesters were 
     saying twenty-five years ago. But twenty-five years ago Mr. 
     McNamara and Lyndon said the war protesters were lying and 
     Mr. McNamara and Lyndon tried to suspend their right to 
     criticize or question government. Lyndon tried to beat their 
     heads in, lock them up and shut them up using government 
     agencies. Now, I get a little gun-shy when I see the 
     Government taking the same approach to the Militias today. 
     Instead of raiding them, threatening them, indicting them for 
     what they say and believe, let's keep open minds and listen 
     to their arguments the same as any other political debate.
       Who knows, we might discover that ``truth lies somewhere in 
     the middle'' as it frequently does in all things in life.
       There is no proof at this point, nor any indication of 
     proof, that the militias themselves--unlike Vietnam war 
     protesters--have blown up any buildings, media and political 
     innuendo to the contrary notwithstanding.
       Question: How should government treat the militias?
       The same as any other political movement or group. Give 
     them the full benefit of the First Amendment. Let the war be 
     fought in the press and with words. The legitimate ones will 
     survive and maybe evolve. In open debate, any crazies will 
     self-destruct.
       The only real danger from the militias is if you try to 
     suspend pieces of the Constitution to shut them up or destroy 
     them.
       For God's sake . . . for America's sake . . . don't rip off 
     a corner of our Constitution to address a crisis or threat 
     that has yet to be proven to even exist.
       Three times in my short life, I have watched panic set in 
     with Government Leaders. Those three times are: McCarthyism, 
     Vietnam war protest movement, Watergate.
       Each time, government reacted by trying to suspend our 
     Fundamental First Amendment Rights.
       McCarthyism: I remember * * * teachers taking loyalty oaths 
     * * * neighbors questioning and accusing their neighbor or 
     competitor of being a Communist. J. Edgar being given free 
     reign to suspend the Constitution. And everybody was paranoid 
     about their neighbor.
       Vietnam war protesters: I sure remember that. First 
     reaction was to try to shut them up. That simply resulted in 
     violence.
       Watergate: My hero Dick Nixon panicked and for his own 
     security also tried to rip off a corner of the Constitution 
     and shut up his critics. That resulted in a brutal First 
     Amendment ``caning.''
       But, in each case, it was not the Government which saved 
     the Constitution for the people; rather it was the free and 
     unfettered press using their First Amendment which saved the 
     Constitution from the Government abuse.
       That First Amendment--and the free press and robust and 
     wild and wooly free speech it promotes--is our ultimate check 
     and balance to preserve the Constitution.
       Whether it is Edward R. Murrow exposing McCarthy as a 
     Charlatan; or the New York Times daring to print the Pentagon 
     Papers; or, God Forbid, the Washington Post taking on Nixon 
     and the entire government in Watergate, it has been the press 
     operating under the First Amendment that has saved our 
     Constitution and Americans from Government abuse rather than 
     the Government saving our Constitution from press or American 
     citizen abuse.
       So what ever you do, don't overreact and trade pieces of 
     our Constitution for an instant solution to some perceived 
     but unproved problem.
       Let me conclude by simply saying this: the best way to 
     understand the militias, their motives, their agenda, their 
     danger or their benefit to America is to understand their 
     origins.
       And, you can only understand their origins if you will as a 
     governing body publicly, openly and thoroughly examine Waco 
     and Gordon Kahl and Randy Weaver.
       This is what we ask of you. An open, public, above-board 
     Senate examination of those events that will help re-
     establish, no matter the outcome of that objective 
     examination, trust and credibility in our Government agencies 
     when they speak.
                                                                    ____

          (From The Alanson Armory: Wolverines, May 24, 1995)

                     Testimony of Mr. Norman Olson

       Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The 
     following statement will attempt to answer the question of 
     the legitimacy and the need of the citizen militia.
       Not only does the Constitution specifically allow the 
     formation of a Federal army, it also recognizes the inherent 
     right of the people to form militia. Further, it recognizes 
     that the citizen and his personal armaments are the 
     foundation of the militia. The arming of the militia is not 
     left to the state but to the citizen. However, should the 
     state choose to arm its citizen militia, it is free to do 
     (bearing in mind that the Constitution is not a document 
     limiting the citizen, but rather limiting the power of 
     government). But should the state fail to arm its citizen 
     militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
     becomes the source of the guarantee that the state will not 
     be found defenseless in the presence of a threat to its 
     security. It makes no sense whatsoever to look at the 
     Constitution of the United States or that of any state for 
     permission to form a citizen militia since logically, the 
     power to permit is also the power to deny. If brought to its 
     logical conclusion in this case, government may deny the 
     citizen the right to form a militia. If this were to happen, 
     the state would assert itself as the principle of the 
     contract making the people the agents. Liberty then would 
     depend on the state's grant of liberty. Such a concept is 
     foreign to American thought.
       While the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 
     acknowledges the existence of state militia and recognizes 
     their necessity for the security of a free state; and, while 
     it also recognizes that the right of the people to keep and 
     bear arms shall not be infringed, the Second Amendment is not 
     the source of the right to form a militia nor to keep and 
     bear arms. Those rights existed in the states prior to the 
     formation of the federal union. In fact, the right to form 
     militia and to keep and bear arms existed from antiquity. The 
     enumeration of those rights in the Constitution only 
     underscores their natural occurrence and importance.
       According to the Tenth Amendment, ultimate power over the 
     militia is not delegated to the Federal government by the 
     Constitution nor to the states, but resides with the people. 
     Consequently, the power of the militia remains in the hands 
     of the people. Again, the fundamental function of the militia 
     in society remains with the people. Therefore, the Second 
     Amendment recognizes that the militia's existence and the 
     security of the state rests ultimately in the people who 
     volunteer their persons to constitute the militia and their 
     arms to supply its firepower. The primary defense of the 
     state rests with the citizen militia bearing its own arms. 
     Fundamentally, it is not the state that defends the people, 
     but the people who defend the state.
       The second line of defense of the state consists in the 
     statutory organization known as the National Guard. Whereas 
     the National Guard is solely the creation of statutory law, 
     the militia derives its existence from the inherent 
     inalienable rights which existed before the Constitution and 
     whose importance are such that they merited specific 
     recognition in that document. While the National Guard came 
     into existence as a result of legislative activity, the 
     militia existed before there was a nation or a constitutional 
     form of government. The militia consisting of people owning 
     and bearing personal weapons is the very authority out of 
     which the United States Constitution grew. This point must be 
     emphasized. Neither the citizen's militia nor the citizen's 
     private arsenal can be an appropriate subject for federal 
     regulation. It was the armed militia of the American colonies 
     whose own efforts ultimately led to the establishment of the 
     United States of
      America! While some say that the right to keep and bear arms 
     is granted to Americans by the Constitution, just the 
     opposite is true. The Federal Government itself is the 
     child of the armed citizen. We the people are the parent 
     of the child we call government. You, Senators, are part 
     of the child that We The People gave life to. The 
     increasing amount of Federal encroachment into our lives 
     indicates the need for parental corrective action. In 
     short, the Federal government needs a good spanking to 
     make it behave.
       One other important point needs to be made. Since the 
     Constitution is the limiting document upon the government, 
     the government cannot become greater than the granting power, 
     that is the servant cannot become greater than his master. 
     Therefore, should the Chief Executive or other branch of 
     government, or all branches together act to suspend the 
     Constitution under a rule of martial law, all power granted 
     to government would be canceled and defer back to the 
     granting power, the people. Martial law shall not be possible 
     in this country as long as the people recognize the Bill of 
     Rights as inalienable.
       Since the power of self defense and the defense of the 
     state is ultimately vested in the people, there is no 
     possible way that a Governor or the Chief Executive of the 
     United States, or any legislative body can ``outlaw'' the 
     citizen militia for to do so would rob inherent power from 
     the people. If that were to happen, our entire form of 
     government would cease.
       Historically, we have found that the Governor's militia, 
     that is the National Guard, is intended to reduce the need 
     for the citizen militia. Simply, if the National Guard did 
     it's job in securing the state, the citizen militia would not 
     emerge. That it has emerged so dramatically seems to indicate 
     that the people do not feel secure. Simply stated, the 
     growing threat of centralized Federal government is 
     frightening America, hence the emergence of the citizen 
     militia. When government is given back to the people at the 
     lowest level, the citizen militia will return to its natural 
     place, resident within the body of the people. Civil war and 
     revolution can be avoided by re-investing governing power to 
     the people.
       To summarize: Citizen militia are historic lawful entities 
     predating constitutions. Such militia are ``grandfathered'' 
     into the very system of government they created. The 
     Constitution grants no right to form militia, but merely 
     recognize the existing natural right of all people to defend 
     and protect themselves. The governments created out of well 
     armed and free people are to be constantly obedient to the 
     people. Any attempt to take the means of freedom from the 
     people is an act of rebellion against the people.
       In order to resist a rebellious and disobedient government, 
     the citizen militia must [[Page S7476]] not be connected in 
     any way with that government lest the body politic loose its 
     fearful countenance as the only sure threat to a government 
     bent on converting free people into slaves.
                                                                    ____

    Testimony of Leroy Crenshaw Before the Senate Committee on the 
                        Judiciary, May 25, 1995

       Good Morning Chairman Hatch and Distinguished Members of 
     this Committee.
       My name is Leroy Crenshaw, and I would request that this 
     Committee accept my prepared statement as a part of the 
     record of these proceedings.
       I was born and raised in the beautiful State of Alabama, 
     and I now live and teach school in the great State of 
     Massachusetts. I have a faithful and supporting wife and we 
     have raised six fine children.
       We all feel privileged to have been born in these times 
     when the promise of our forefathers has begun to spread to 
     all races, colors, and creeds, of our countrymen. Ironically 
     however, these times have evolved all too soon into conflicts 
     between my countrymen of all races and the officers of their 
     government. For many of my friends who are not Black 
     Americans, these times have brought circumstances into their 
     lives that have no memorable precedent. For me and my wife, 
     we see emerging official conduct that is all too reminiscent 
     of earlier days of ``us'' and ``them'' that Black Americans 
     have known as their daily diet since our country began. We 
     welcome our white brethren to our sides in this time of 
     burgeoning oppression.
       During recent times, we ordinary Americans have experienced 
     repeated episodes of authoritarian confrontation provoked and 
     executed by our federal government. We have witnessed with 
     horror as each of our individual rights, as enumerated in the 
     first Ten Amendments to our Constitution, has fallen to 
     attack by our federal government at the highest levels. We 
     have repeatedly attempted redress through our courts, through 
     our elected Representatives and Senators, and through 
     pleading with the agencies of our government, all to no avail 
     after a consistent pattern of restatement of our issues into 
     ``non-issues'', in order to avoid dealing with the substance 
     of our complaints.
       We have witnessed our federal Government make itself a 
     party to the collapse of our banking and Savings and Loan 
     institutions.
       We have witnessed our Government commit our young men to 
     foreign military adventurism upon false premise, and upon an 
     usurped authority.
       We have all been victims of federal incursion into our 
     private financial affairs to the point of our right invasion 
     of the sanctity of our family domain, under the guise of 
     routing out fraud by us working Americans.
       We have witnessed out right and provable lies told to the 
     records of our federal courts by the judges appointed to 
     these high positions.
       We have witnessed our own President disclaim our Bill of 
     Rights as ``radical'' liberties to be granted to ordinary 
     people.
       We have witnessed one Vice President (Quayle), along with 
     at least one Attorney General (Barr), attempt to convince us 
     to abandon our right to jury trials in all criminal cases and 
     an civil case in excess of twenty dollars (1990-1991).
       We have discovered that the CIA, the Department of Justice, 
     and the DEA, along with other agencies of government have 
     worked in concert to engage and profiteer from drug 
     trafficking.
       We have witnessed the compromise of the sovereignty of our 
     state governments by federal funding schemes that always 
     contain a myriad of control strings.
       We have witnessed our community controlled school systems 
     invaded by ``better idea'' federally funded concepts that 
     offer no rational solutions, except mind conditioning of our 
     young into ``interdependent'' concepts that scorn the virtue 
     of self reliance and fundamental education.
       We have witnessed repeated instances when officers of our 
     federal government, acting under color of federal law, have 
     committed multiple crimes against us, in the form of actual 
     violence, and in the form of `white collar' extortion, theft, 
     embezzlement, and provable fraud.
       We have witnessed the consistent official forgiving of 
     these crimes without any authority under our Constitution to 
     grant these officers any reprieve for their offenses against 
     our laws and our Constitution.
       We have studied our Law, and we have found there our 
     fundamental rights still stated to be ``protected''.
       We also have found within our Constitution, the 
     prescription for dealing with these perversions to our 
     security that trouble us so much.
       We find in the First Amendment to the Constitution that the 
     Congress shall pass no law abridging our right ``peaceably to 
     assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of 
     grievances.'', but Congress has passed such laws.
       We find the Second Amendment constitutionally prescribed 
     protection of our individual duty to take arms if need be in 
     defense of our Constitution, to be under attack by our own 
     Congressmen.
       We find in the Fourth Amendment, our protection of our 
     right to be secure in our homes from official threats against 
     our persons, our papers, and our effects, against searches 
     and seizures upon non-existent or warrantless incursions into 
     our private domains, but we know of repeated incidents of 
     just such incursions into the homes of persons who are later 
     found to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and some 
     of such persons have died as a result.
       We find in the Fifth amendment that none of us is to be 
     deprived of our life, without due process of law, but we know 
     now of many unarguably innocent people who have been killed 
     by our federal officers who knew of the innocence of their 
     victims before their killing acts.
       We find in the Fifth Amendment that none of us is to be 
     deprived of our liberty without due process of law, but we 
     know that many of us have been imprisoned upon trumped up 
     charges that are ultimately shown to have been knowingly 
     brought upon fraudulent grounds.
       We find in the Fifth Amendment that none of us is to be 
     deprived of our property without due process of law, but we 
     know that many of us has had his cash, possessions, and 
     future means of earning a living, seized without any 
     opportunity to oppose such seizure before the fact.
       We find in the Fifth Amendment that each of us is entitle 
     to obtain ``just compensation'' as payment from our 
     government before our property of any sort is taken for 
     public purposes, but our government is depriving us of that 
     which is ours upon a daily basis without any payment what so 
     ever.
       For all the above findings, the officers of our government 
     are acting in clear repugnance to our Constitution. Those in 
     government who control the course of redress within our 
     institutions know that we have suffered these crimes under 
     our Constitution. Yet, they do nothing, and these facts 
     constitute a condition of officials acting in insurrection 
     and rebellion against our Constitution, as meant in section 3 
     of the Fourteenth Amendment.
       We all know that should our government fail to immediately 
     purge itself of such manner of conduct, that we each are 
     empowered by Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
     suppress any such manner of insurrection and rebellion--at 
     the expense of our National Treasury.
       Now let us all understand:
       That we the people have always had, and still possess, the 
     right, the duty, and the power, to ``effect [our] Safety and 
     Happiness.''
       That, ``Prudence . . . will dictate that Governments long 
     established [such as ours] should not be changed for light 
     and transient causes; and . . . all [our] experience has 
     shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils 
     are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the 
     forms to which [we] are accustomed. But when a long train of 
     abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object 
     evinces a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism, it 
     is [our] right, it is our duty, to throw off such government 
     [or usurping officers within], and to provide new Guards for 
     [our] future security.''
       ``Such has been the patient sufferance of [my countrymen]; 
     and such is now the necessity which constrains [us] to alter 
     [our present state of oppression].'' To this end, we have 
     commenced to keep and bear our Arms upon common respect and 
     allegiance to the defense of our Constitution, and to those 
     long suffering public servants of our government who are 
     compelled to remain silent while a small arrogant elitist 
     sect wield powers never granted to them by us, and destroy 
     our nation.
       My humble message to this panel is that we know you and 
     your counterparts in the House of Representatives are aware 
     of these problems, and your sworn duty to suppress those 
     federal officials acting against us. We urge you to do your 
     duty. We shall not fail to do ours.
       Thank you all for your kind attention.
                                                                    ____

                                               Leroy Crenshaw,

                                    Springfield, MA, May 25, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Goldberg,
     Subcommittee on Terrorism, Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I come before this subcommittee on 
     terrorism to state my views, establish for the record the 
     basic concepts behind the Militia movement, and for all 
     American's who are unable to receive justice from a system 
     that is bogged down in red tape and corruption.
       First, I speak for myself. My dealings with the Internal 
     Revenue Service [IRS] began at a time when I was personally 
     involved with two deaths in my immediate family. One was our 
     daughter, the other was my wife's mother. The IRS claimed we 
     owed an additional $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 in taxes. This 
     figure skyrocketed from that level to $12,000.00 after 
     application of penalties and fines. Upon advice of the 
     federal judge who heard our case, we paid nothing pending a 
     class action suit against the tax shelter. The IRS 
     subsequently closed down the tax shelter, and all 
     participants who were assessed additional taxes, fines, and 
     penalties, by the IRS for their good faith money management. 
     As I said, at that time I was under stress, having just lost 
     two loved ones, and so we paid the $12,000.00. We were given 
     forms to complete that we were told would allow the debt to 
     be forgiven. However, nothing has come of this assurance to 
     date. The forms were returned to the IRS, and we made several 
     telephone calls on this matter only to be told that no one 
     knew anything about this. Justice has not been served in our 
     matter, and I petition this chamber to launch an 
     investigation and return to myself and every other individual 
     that has been targeted by the IRS any and all moneys that 
     have been taken under duress and threat of 
     prosecution. [[Page S7477]] 
       Another case is that of Thomas M. Read v. The United States 
     of America, et al. This case went to the U.S. Supreme Court 
     upon dismissals all along the way (Supreme Court Docket No. 
     92-1952). Thomas Read, and his wife Sandy, had been hounded 
     for six and one-half years by corrupted federal court 
     appointees in the Northern California bankruptcy system. 
     Neither Read, nor his wife, has any connection to any 
     bankruptcy--except by the fraudulent and false claims lodged 
     under Connecticut law against them. In October of 1986, Read 
     underwent a two week jury trail, and he and his wife were 
     found to have been completely innocent of the allegations 
     lodged against them. It was a jury trial, and the jury 
     determined that the plaintiff, a bankruptcy trustee, was 
     guilty of knowingly inducing the Reads into a fraud, a tort 
     offense under Connecticut law. But the trustee ran to his 
     bankruptcy judge in California, and sought and received a 
     ``Permanent Injunction'' against the Reads from ever acting 
     upon their judgment upon the issues he (the trustee) had 
     brought to trial in Connecticut Superior Court. The case had 
     not been removed to federal jurisdiction--because a prior 
     federal action brought against the Reads had resulted in an 
     abstention by the federal courts of exercise of federal 
     jurisdiction over this case, and also because the time 
     limitations for removal to federal jurisdiction had long 
     since expired. Mr. Read was not aware of the corruption that 
     existed in the Northern California bankruptcy system, and 
     filed an appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the 
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court 
     misstated facts, and proceeded to proclaim bankruptcy 
     trustees immune from personal liability upon the false 
     premise that they possessed ``derived judicial immunity'' 
     (This case was mentioned in Rodney Stitch's Book Defrauding 
     America, pp. 109 and 110), even though these trustees do not 
     function in a judicial capacity. The Reads had already 
     suffered a $346,000.00 loss resulting from the years of 
     fraudulent suit, and ultimately suffered a complete financial 
     collapse, in 1989.
       Since that time, Mr. Read has been railed upon by our 
     federal courts when he has stated the facts of this case. The 
     fact remains, a jury determined that court appointees did 
     conceive and work in concert to perpetrate a fraud upon the 
     Reads. If our government, in order to serve the public, must 
     commit acts constituting torts against ordinary citizens and 
     protect its appointed federal actors, then the government 
     assumes the burden of justly compensating the damaged parties 
     under the Fifth Amendment Taking Clause. In this case, and 
     many others, it did not.
       Finally we come to the militia movement. Because of all of 
     the above incidents, and many more, the citizens of this 
     country have become disenchanted, skeptical, and suspicious, 
     of our federal government on all levels. I, myself, am not a 
     member of any militia, but having been involved in a dispute 
     with the government in the form of the IRS, and having seen 
     many friends who have become involved in incidents that were 
     not of their making or choosing, I have come to realize that 
     we must force our elected officials to do our bidding because 
     they refuse to respond to us. I must conclude that, since 
     there is so much corruption in government, and there seems to 
     be no way that the ``good guys'' can be differentiated from 
     the ``bad guys'', by the government, then, we have to 
     eliminate the ``bad guys'' ourselves. I am here to advise you 
     that the American people are waking up, and these awakening 
     Americans are seeing the truth of our times. They are seeing 
     many of you, and many of your colleagues, lie and deceive us 
     without even a thought of remorse.
       The militia movement started because the majority of the 
     politicians are not telling the truth and the people have no 
     redress for their grievances. The politicians are liars and 
     the news media are purveyors of these lies as if they were 
     the truth. The militia movement is comprised of ordinary 
     every day people who love their country and the way of life 
     that is slowly being sucked away by government officers 
     acting upon an usurped authority. You were all put in office 
     by people who are in the militia, who are teachers, like 
     myself, and who are more likely than ever to be unemployed 
     individuals due to unconstitutional laws passed by this 
     Congress, and Executive Orders signed into law that should 
     never see the light of day.
       Certain actions by the ATF, CIA, IRS, and other federal 
     agencies have brought attention to themselves and their 
     ``Jack booted thugs'' by the few who need to be eliminated 
     from the ranks of federal government. There is no justice if 
     the ones who shoot nursing mothers and dogs, and little 
     children in the back, later get promoted instead of 
     prosecuted. Case in point is Special Agent Potts. Let's get 
     some justice for the American people by putting this murdered 
     (Potts) in jail. We don't want him promoted, we want him, and 
     others of his ilk, out of office, with NO benefits, NO 
     retirement, and NO chance of ever later acquiring them. If a 
     public officer dishonors his oath to defend and protect the 
     Constitution, that officer should relinquish any rights he or 
     she thought that were theirs, but instead it is the people of 
     America who end up relinquishing their individual rights. 
     That IS a crime. People who break the law need to be 
     punished, that includes politicians, judges, trustees, or 
     anyone who has acted in violation of the public trust.
       The terrorism that has been perpetrated against America, 
     has been against all Americans. How dare they insinuate that 
     loyal Americans would stoop to hurt other Americans. Yet, 
     individuals in the person of Ms. Janet Reno, have the nerve 
     to sit there and act indignant about charges spoken against 
     her on the Waco massacre. Make no mistake, it was a massacre, 
     and I doubt if the truth will ever be told because of the 
     corruption and graft that permeates the entire justice 
     system. These harsh words, but not nearly as harsh as the 
     reality that American citizens endure each day.
       There is today in America, a resurgence of loyalty and if 
     you are not corrupt, if you work for the people, and if you 
     uphold the Constitution, you have nothing to fear from 
     anyone, much less a militia movement. Unfortunately, payoffs, 
     underhanded money deals, corruption and illegal use of the 
     power of office is the rule rather than the exception. Some 
     believe that the only terrorism instigated in this country 
     today, has been at the hands of government officials. I don't 
     see the people of this country putting up concrete barriers 
     around their homes. This country was founded on the premise 
     that the government worked for the people, not the other way 
     around. If we are being denied access to our ``elected 
     officials'' what is the next step? The saying ``A guilty mind 
     needs no accuser'' applies here! Only the guilty flee, when 
     no one pursues.
       If Larry Nichols and Terry Reed are wrong in their 
     accusations of massive drug trafficking against Mr. Clinton, 
     let's put them in jail after a fair trial. But, if as we all 
     suspect, they are truthful, let's put Mr. Clinton on the 
     line, Impeach and prosecute and do not under any circumstance 
     allow him to grant immunity or to pardon anyone. Is this too 
     much to ask? I ask all of you, how many members of Congress 
     as well as judges, etc., would remain in office of forced to 
     be held accountable to the laws of the ordinary man.
       As a black man born and raised in Alabama, I've been 
     subjected to things most Americans only read about in History 
     books. Now, today, in this country, land of the free home of 
     the brave, white Americans are beginning to be subjected to 
     the same types of discrimination and random acts of violence 
     that are really not targeted at any one group, but at all 
     Americans who love their country and are trying to get rid of 
     the corruption and graft that lines our courtrooms and legal 
     professions. The few bad applies do spoil it for the ``good 
     guys'' every time.
           Sincerely,
     Leroy Crenshaw.
                                                                    ____

Excerpt From Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial 
        Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, November 6, 1991

       Hamilton described another bankruptcy-related killing, in 
     which attorney John Scott was murdered as his charges of 
     bankruptcy corruption started to threaten the established 
     racketeering enterprise and the involved federal judges, 
     trustees and law firms. Someone killed Scott near Austin, 
     Texas.

              giving themselves immunity from their crimes

       Federal judges of the Ninth Circuit held that the private 
     trustees, including embezzler Charles Duck, who committed the 
     nation's worst Chapter 11 corruption, were officers of the 
     court, and were therefore immune from liability. Federal 
     judges, therefore, held that a citizen has no claim against 
     an officer of the court (i.e., trustee, attorney, judge, or 
     one of their employees) arising from the criminal acts of 
     that federal official, even though the acts are criminal and 
     inflict enormous harm upon an innocent person. They held in 
     effect that officers of the court could inflict any type of 
     outrage upon the public, and the public has no remedy.
       One of the many people victimized by the judicial 
     corruption was Thomas Read of Connecticut. Read had not 
     sought relief in Chapter 11, but was affected by Charles 
     Duck, and the federal judges seeking to protect the admitted 
     embezzler. Read obtained a Connecticut judgment against Duck. 
     Bankruptcy Judge Alan Jaroslovsky of Santa Rosa, who had 
     protected Duck's criminal activities, issued an injunction 
     forever barring Read from enforcing the judgment. Read argued 
     that the injunctive order exceeded the judge's authority. 
     Read filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy 
     Appellate Panel (composed of Chapter 11 judges. The appellate 
     panel rendered a published decision:
       ``Federal judges, seeking to protect these criminal acts 
     and themselves, have rendered decisions holding that 
     ``judicial immunity not only protects judges against suit 
     from acts done within their jurisdiction, but also spreads 
     outward to shield related public servants, including trustees 
     in bankruptcy.''
       ``This circuit has adopted a . . . rationale stating that a 
     trustee or an official acting under the authority of the 
     bankruptcy judge is entitled to derived judicial immunity 
     because he is performing an integral part of the judicial 
     process. . . . a trustee, who obtains court approval for 
     actions under the supervision of the bankruptcy judge, is 
     entitled to derived immunity.
       ``It is well settled that the trustee in bankruptcy is an 
     officer of the appointing court. Courts other than the 
     appointing court have no jurisdiction to entertain suits 
     against the trustee, without leave from the appointing court, 
     for acts done in an official capacity and within his 
     authority as an officer of the court. . . . It is . . . 
     axiomatic that the Trustee, `as a trustee in bankruptcy [and] 
     as an official acting under the authority of the 
     [[Page S7478]] bankruptcy judge, is entitled to derived 
     judicial immunity because he is performing an integral part 
     of the judicial process.'
       ``Sound policy also mandates immunizing the trustee. The 
     possibility that we would hold trustees personally liable for 
     judgments rendered against them in their representative 
     capacity would invariably lessen the vigor with which 
     trustees pursue their obligations. Immunity is essential 
     because, as Judge Learned Hand noted, ``to submit all 
     officials, the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden 
     of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would 
     dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most 
     irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties. 
     . . . Accordingly, we hold that the trustee [Charles Duck], 
     acting under the authority of the court, is entitled to 
     derived judicial immunity.''
       As the judicial involvement in the Chapter 11 corruption 
     surfaced, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a 
     judgment\103\ protecting judges against responsibility for 
     their criminal acts. The Ninth Circuit rendered the decision 
     holding that regardless of any criminal conduct committed 
     against the public or an individual by a judge or person 
     acting on his behalf, such as a trustee, the public had no 
     remedy against the judges, or anyone acting with the judges. 
     The need for these self-protective and unconstitutional 
     decisions is rapidly increasing as federal judges are heavily 
     implicated in some of the worst criminal activities ever 
     exposed in the history of the United States. Worse judicial 
     corruption has yet to be described.
       Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court enlarged upon the 
     protection against their own criminal acts (and they may need 
     this protection shortly). The Supreme Court Justices held in 
     Stump v. Sparkman\104\ that a judge could deliberately commit 
     unlawful, unconstitutional, and corrupt acts upon a citizen, 
     destroy personal and property rights, and be immune from 
     financial liability. This decision was repeatedly stated by 
     U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel, San Francisco, as I sought 
     relief against California and federal judges.
       The Constitution and statutes disagree with judge-made law, 
     federal civil rights statutes and constitutional rights to 
     seek relief clearly do not provide immunity to federal judges 
     when they violate clear and settled civil and constitutional 
     rights, or against corrupt or criminal acts, and who inflict 
     harm upon any member of the American public.
       In Stump v. Sparkman the judge entered into a conspiracy, 
     ordering a young girl permanently sterilized. The Supreme 
     Court held that the girl had no remedy against the judge, as 
     the public's welfare requires that a judge be free to 
     exercise his duties without fear of the consequences. That is 
     a farce, and the public's welfare isn't protected by 
     protecting crooked judges.
                                                                    ____

    Appearance Before the Senate Subcommit- tee on Anti-
                        Terrorism, May 25, 1995

       Not only is it a pleasure to have this opportunity to 
     define for your and America who and what the militia is, what 
     they stand for and why all Americans have the constitutional 
     obligation to participate in patriotic or militia groups, but 
     it is also saddening that this opportunity arose out of the 
     Oklahoma tragedy.
       Contrary to popular opinion, the Militia Of Montana does 
     not base its existence upon the legal definition of militia. 
     The foundation for the right to exist is clearly a First 
     Amendment issue, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, 
     as a private organization. At this time there are 
     approximately ten million American citizens participating in 
     patriot/militia activities in all fifty states, with the 
     numbers growing steadily every day.
       The Militia Of Montana, created by a few loyal American 
     citizens, has become a national ``guide-post'' for newly 
     founded patriot groups.
       Why people need to participate in militia/patriot 
     organizations and activities is best shown in the Declaration 
     of Independence. It is too lengthy to read at this time, 
     however it speaks for itself and for American patriots. We 
     would like to request that this document be entered into the 
     permanent record at this time, as a partial support document 
     to our statements.
       The Declaration of Independence gives excellent insight and 
     explanation as to why individuals go to extreme measures when 
     flagrant injustices continue by ``out of control'', 
     oppressive public servants. This same restrictive oppression 
     is once again rearing its ugly head, only this time in 
     America.
       The following are just a few examples as to why American 
     citizens are becoming more and more involved in militia/
     patriot organizations:
       The high Office of the Presidency has turned into a 
     position of a Dictator through the abusive use of Executive 
     Orders and Directives. This must be stopped. The Senate and 
     the House of Representatives have been stripped of their 
     power and authority and act only as mouth pieces for ``public 
     policy''. When the President over rules the Congress by 
     Executive Order, Senators and Representatives wonder why 
     their constituents are so upset.
       When government corruption, fraud, deception and secret 
     government theft has not been tried and adjudicated, Senators 
     and Representatives wonder why their constituents are so 
     upset.
       When government plans and authorizes the assassination of 
     87 Americans in their home and church, or directs the sniper 
     to kill a mother while holding her infant in her arms and 
     then awards those responsible with a job promotion, Senators 
     and Representatives wonder why their constituents are so 
     upset.
       When government takes private property from American 
     Citizens to protect the kangaroo rat, Senators and 
     Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset.
       When government law enforcers, dressed like local gang 
     members in total black, bust down your door, often the wrong 
     door, Senators and Representatives wonder why their 
     constituents are so upset.
       When the President, Senate and House of Representatives 
     infringed upon the Second Amendment, are attempting to 
     infringe upon the Fourth Amendment (H.R. 666) and are now, 
     through these hearings, contemplating on infringing upon the 
     First Amendment, Senators and Representatives wonder why 
     their constituents are so upset.
       When private interest groups like ``The World Government of 
     World Citizens'' can sell their own stamps and their own 
     passports to their own members and the government allows and 
     accepts them as valid, contrary to the law, Senators and 
     Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset.
       When government allows our military to be ordered and 
     controlled by foreigners, Senators and Representatives wonder 
     why their constituents are so upset.
       When government allows foreign armies (some of whom are 
     using them to kill their own citizens) to train in our land, 
     Senators and Representatives wonder why their constituents 
     are so upset.
       When government allows the military to label patriots as 
     the enemy, Senators and Representatives wonder why their 
     constituents are so upset.
       When government defines human beings as a biological 
     resource under ecosystem management, Senators and 
     Representatives wonder why their constituents are so upset.
       When government sends billions of dollars in aid to foreign 
     countries while there are millions of homeless and starving 
     Americans, Senators and Representatives wonder why their 
     constituents are so upset.
       When government forces Americans to work over five months 
     to pay their income taxes alone, Senators and Representatives 
     wonder why their constituents are so upset.
       When government refuses to hold hearings on government 
     sanctioned abuses, Senators and Representatives wonder why 
     their constituents are so upset.
       When government tampers with and destroys evidence needed 
     to solve a crime, Senators and Representatives wonder why 
     their constituents are so upset.
       When government now considers the very idea of infringing 
     upon the people's rights of freedom of speech, assembly and 
     the right to redress, Senators and Representatives wonder why 
     their constituents are so upset.
       ``The Law perverted and the police powers of the state 
     perverted along with it!! The law not only turns from its 
     proper-purpose, but made to follow a totally contrary 
     purpose, the law becomes the weapon of every kind of greed.
       Instead of checking crime the law itself becomes guilty of 
     the evils it is supposed to pursue.
       Since this is now true, it is a grave and serious fact. 
     Moral duty to my fellow man requires us to call these facts 
     to the attention of our fellow citizens.''
       These were the words of a French Patriot, Frederick 
     Bastiat, in 1884 as he watched his nation move into Socialism 
     and an oppressive police state.
       These are identical concerns echoed today by the militia/
     patriot groups and organizations. These groups and 
     organizations represent lawyers, doctors, soldiers and 
     laborers.
       Militia/patriot organizations are not terroristic, 
     aggressive or offensive in structure or design. We have, and 
     presently deplore and denounce the senseless act of violence 
     that took place in Oklahoma. We have and will continue to 
     assist in any manner to apprehend all persons that may have 
     planned or carried out that deed. At whatever level they may 
     hide.
       Militia/patriot groups are only aggressive in our means by 
     which we educate a docile American public. Our singular 
     mandate, which is public and overt, is the preservation of 
     the Constitution of the United States (a Republic), as it was 
     founded and the Sovereignty of this great nation.
       Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives the people would like to know where and when 
     it will end? Will it end with America turning into a 
     Socialist Republic (which we all know is the end result of a 
     Democracy)? Or, will you do your duty to fulfill your oath 
     which all of you took to defend this country from all enemies 
     foreign and domestic?
       If you decide to fulfill your oath the first thing you must 
     do is stop relying upon rumor and gossip. Do not rely upon 
     the press or other organizations which have their own 
     agendas. Rely upon your own investigations.
       As one example, we would like to refer you to the 
     Congressional Record of the 92d Congress, First Session, Vol. 
     117, No. 189, Monday, December 6, 1971, House of 
     Representatives. Congressman John R. Rarick (D-La.) exposed 
     the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) vast world-wide spy 
     network. According to Congressman Rarick the ADL provides 
     information to the press which accepts it as truth, 
     Congressman Rarick also stated the [[Page S7479]] ADL uses 
     its information ``to suppress free speech and discussion and 
     to influence public thought and sentiment of an unsuspecting 
     citizenry.''
       Lo and behold what do we now have? Legislation that will 
     suppress freedom of speech and discussion.
       In 1983 the Department of Justice (DOJ) paid the ADL 
     $20,000 in taxpayers' money to produce a report on so-called 
     ``hate groups''. The DOJ refused to publish the report 
     because it was so sensationalized that the DOJ could not 
     consider it credible. The ADL went ahead with it's own 
     copyright and published the report anyway, feeding it to the 
     press. The DOJ forced the ADL to relinquish the copyright. 
     Now the ADL is once again feeding the press lies, rumor and 
     gossip which the press accepts as gospel.
       The press then takes this mis-information, rumor and 
     gossip, sensationalizes it to spin a tale until it grows and 
     grows so out of proportion that the press starts scrambling 
     to create a better story than the other guy. Law enforcement, 
     military and government officials then pick up on it 
     believing in a literal ``feeding-frenzy'' of the press. This 
     has become a story that had lost control and those who do not 
     investigate it for themselves are totally irresponsible, 
     especially law makers.
       As we are now witnessing, Americans are questioning the 
     press. This is evidenced by the phenomenal growth of the 
     patriot/militia movement.
       As this patriotic awareness expands, millions of Americans 
     will expect a new view from a more responsive government. A 
     new re-birth of responsibility from a government that has 
     strayed from it's ``job-description'' as mandated by the 
     Constitution. A government created by the people and for the 
     people. Not the limited few.
       May God be with all America as he watches over the 
     shoulders of you who write her laws. A nation can survive 
     it's fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive 
     treason from within.
       America has nothing to fear from patriots maintaining 
     ``vigilance.'' She should, however, fear those that would 
     ``outlaw'' vigilance.
     

                          ____________________
```