On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:21:39 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

I have just received a long and detailed hand-written letter from
William K. Smith, written to me from his prison cell. The letter is
surprising because Smith describes himself as a high-tech computer
software engineer. He asks if I am familiar with the Internet and
offers me space on his website.

His website is at http://www.stormbringer.tv/

All the details of his court case are on his website. He is a young
man who has been sentenced to 262 months, which is 13 years, in
federal prison for nothing more than possession of guns.

Well, not quite, Sam. He was sentenced for being a *felon* in
possession of guns.

According to the judge, the weapons included "a tremendous amount of
firearms, military hardware, gas masks, ammunition, handguns, assault
rifles, a shotgun".

Technicalities aside, we're to believe that the real owner of all this
hardware was a single mother who had recently moved out and, after he
ripped the phone out of the wall (in her new digs) during an
altercation, requested a restraining order against Smith ?

Mike Murray wrote:
Technicalities aside, we're to believe that the real owner of all
this
hardware was a single mother who had recently moved out and, after he
ripped the phone out of the wall (in her new digs) during an
altercation, requested a restraining order against Smith ?

Yes.

I am sure everyone well knows, there is no way anyone "except" a male could own weapons. Since single mothers have absolutely no right whatsoever to protect/defend themselves.

Besides that, this was just prior to "y2k" and I would have to say there were a great many people stock piling weapons, supplies & rations. I am not the least bit surprised to find that this "single mother" was doing the same around that period of time.

Let's face facts. The "government" had a hard on for the guy ever since they found out he had hacked the Alexandria EOC (Emergency Operations Centre) trunking system and was carrying around an "HT" (handie talkie) programmed with their system on it (the lieutenant used Smith's own HT to call in on the system to the dispatch supervisor on duty, in order to check and to make sure the ID had never been seen/used on the system before).

They did not spend all that money to find some long haired hippy type computer hacker throwing a monkey wrench into the works of a multi-million dollar EOC radio system. The "single mother" complaint against Smith was all they needed to go in and bust the door down, then claim "he let us in" and that they were allowed into his premises.

Now, does that sound like a rational explanation for a person who knew full well that Alexandria Police were already out to get him? (of course it does).

Sounds reasonable enough to me.

I have some ocean front property in Arizona if you're interested too.

William K. Smith - 4600 Duke Street - alexandria virginia was railroaded, plain and simple. The Alexandria Police Department broke in, without a warrant I might add, and illegally searched the premises. Which renders all of the evidence (every single bit) found/confiscated "Fruit of the poison tree" as the result of an illegal search and seizure, and therefore, inadmissable as evidence (but, we know it didn't work that way now don't we). Now there's a fact for you. The government agents/cops lied/purjered themselves, but, then there is no real surprise there (at least not for me).

The single mother" was angry over a previous disagreement (and worked for the property management company of 4600 Duke Street Alexandria Virginia) because they had moved in together, and he had refused to vacate the shared apartment, thereby forcing her to move to another unit after said disagreement. Which sounds a lot like the "single mother" set him up, by moving out, not removing her belongings, then sending the cops armed with complete detailed info about the weapons. Otherwise how could they "know" that they would find anything after they broke the door down. The "single mother" then refused to testify as to the ownership of said "weapons". I don't know about you but, I know when I smell a rat. I also know there is a whole lot that stinks about this case, and it has "government" written all over it (my personal favorite and most trusted group of individuals). I for one, will definitely sleep better knowing these type of folks are "looking out" for me.

None of these items "the judge" listed, "tremendous", or not, is illegal, to own, or possess. The "military hardware" to which you refer is radio equipment and he was, and is an amateur radio operator, and a military historical collector (military hardware indeed). During the pre "y2k" period gun sales increased very significantly that, and you can see all of these items readily available at gun shows across the country on any given weekend.

My understanding is, that it's 320 months (26.67 years). Now that also sounds perfectly reasonable for having a stock pile for "y2k". Especially one that didn't even belong to you. Not!

peace,

haans

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:40:32 +0100, haansgruber
wrote:


Mike Murray wrote:-
Technicalities aside, we're to believe that the real owner of all-
this-
hardware was a single mother who had recently moved out and, after he
ripped the phone out of the wall (in her new digs) during an
altercation, requested a restraining order against Smith ?-

I am sure everyone well knows, there is no way anyone "except" a male
could own weapons. Since single mothers have absolutely no right
whatsoever to protect themselves.

A single mother with "a tremendous amount of
firearms, military hardware, gas masks, ammunition, handguns, assault
rifles, a shotgun"? Looks more like whoever collected this stuff was
getting ready to *attack* somebody, not defend their little home.

Besides that, this was just prior to "y2k" and I would have to say
there were a great many people stock piling weapons, supplies &
rations.

Those old COBOL programs were dangerous, all right.

I am not the least bit surprised to find that this "single
mother" was doing the same around that period of time.

Yeah, a lot of people paying heavy bucks for an arsenal call the cops
to get it confiscated. Even if your theory were true, why wouldn't
she take most of her hardware and leave just one or two items for the
cops to find? That's enough to put a convicted felon back in the can.

Now, does that sound like a rational explanation for a person who knew
full well that Alexandria Police were already out to get him? (of
course it does).

Now, a rational felon "who knew full well that the Alexandria Police
were already out to get him" would (a) raise holy hell when his
girlfriend started assembling her military style arsenal and (b) make
damn sure it was gone if the girl-friend moved out, especially after
she filed a restraining order. So, either way, this guy wins no prize
for rationality.

Sounds reasonable enough to me.

I have some ocean front property in Arizona if you're interested too.

Haans, I realize you probably paid quite a bit for this property and
are disappointed the ocean was really your neighbor's hot tub, but you
ain't gonna unload it here.

Desperate, deranged, psychotic people, do desperate, deranged, psychotic things in drunken stupors. I cannot profess to speak for, nor can I possibly know the precise psyche of an alcoholic "single mother" who had a flair for drama in her life, a completely dysfunctional family (including her alcoholic mother, and both daughters), not to mention a daughter with a cocaine dealing boyfriend who "turned states evidence" causing the possibility of retribution against anyone who associated with them, or that location. (the reason SHE purchased the shotgun to begin with). You see, I have a rather intimate knowledge of the facts leading up to this, as in; prior to William Smith even meeting "single mother". As well as first hand knowledge of the purchase of the majority of the firearms and "military hardware" as you "so eloquently" continue to refer to it (which it was not).

Not if he had been lead to believe (by his PO - a government official) he was within the law, as well as the terms of his parole/probation:
Smith had informed his PO (while on probabtion/parole) that there were weapons on the shared premises (she made no comment, nor did she tell him it was/might be illegal to be in a home with firearms [not a military arsenal - the only thing military was radio equipment - I see you have selective reading syndrome?] neither did she (Smith's PO) relay that "constructive possession" of said weapons might be a problem under the law being a prior felon). Regardless of other people's reasoning behind COBOL & the supposed threat of "y2k" some people rather than take a chance, prepared for the possibility (despite what you might express here today) (even the government made extensive y2k preparations at extreme taxpayer expense I might add). So, you only lose credibility when you make such statements (pull the budget records for the federal government task force to oversee and minimalize the threat posed by y2k). It is very easy now in retrospect to look back (and say well, nothing happened - hind sight is 20/20).

An individual' has the right to keep and bear arms. As I already stated there was no miltary hardware otherwise it would be specifically listed (it was listed ONLY as "hardware" for a reason, because it was not illegal to possess). Correct me if I am wrong but, people also have the presumtion of innocence ("Looks more like whoever collected this stuff was getting ready to *attack* somebody"). Does a specific number of weapons determine a criminal intent? If so, please enlighten me as to how many so I can advise people I know to remove the proper number from their "collections". No crime had been committed yet you suggest one was eminent by your above statement.

I can assure you personal attacks will prove fruitless.

Your argument is absurd, a single mother can't possibly own this tremendous amount of weapons therefore it's only logical that this felon was the one who did. That sounds like a prosecutor attempting to bolster the criminal acts of "the gang" illegal entry, illegal search & seizure. Who would support the violation of a person's rights? Who? Only those who are on the elite side of the legal system. No person in their right mind would support criminal acts by government agents any more than they would criminal acts by a fellow citizen. Those checks and balances were supposedly put into place in order to protect against encroachments by government (just like this one). Imagine that.

Let me ask you this smart guy, if he was a felon how did he purchase these weapons? Most of the weapons were purchased from gun stores where full information disclosure and valid state ID is required? A tremendous amount, I believe you keep repeating.

I seem to recall an old saying: be careful of your support of a tyrant, for you might one day find those same hands at your own throat.

peace,

haans

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:43:34 +0100, haansgruber
wrote:

Mike Murray Wrote:

Yeah, a lot of people paying heavy bucks for an arsenal call the cops
to get it confiscated. Even if your theory were true, why wouldn't
she take most of her hardware and leave just one or two items for the
cops to find? That's enough to put a convicted felon back in the can.

Desperate, deranged, psychotic people, do desperate, deranged,
psychotic things in drunken stupors. I cannot profess to speak for, nor
can I possibly know the precise psyche of an alcoholic "single mother"
who had a flair for drama in her life, a completely dysfunctional
family (including her alcoholic mother, and both daughters), not to
mention a daughter with a cocaine dealing boyfriend who "turned states
evidence" causing the possibility of retribution against anyone who
associated with them, or that location. (the reason SHE purchased the
shotgun to begin with). You see, I have a rather intimate knowledge of
the facts leading up to this, as in; prior to William Smith even
meeting "single mother". As well as first hand knowledge of the
purchase of the majority of the firearms and "military hardware" as you
"so eloquently" continue to refer to it (which it was not).

"Military hardware" was the judge's term. I can't comment on stuff
you may know first-hand (that wasn't mentioned in the online documents
on the website Sam cited).

Now, a rational felon "who knew full well that the Alexandria Police
were already out to get him" would (a) raise holy hell when his
girlfriend started assembling her military style arsenal and (b) make
damn sure it was gone if the girl-friend moved out, especially after
she filed a restraining order. So, either way, this guy wins no prize
for rationality.

Not if he had been lead to believe (by his PO - a government official)
he was within the law, as well as the terms of his parole/probation:
Smith had informed his PO (while on probabtion/parole) that there were
weapons on the shared premises (she made no comment, nor did she tell
him it was/might be illegal to be in a home with firearms [not a
military arsenal - the only thing military was radio equipment - I see
you have selective reading syndrome?] neither did she (Smith's PO)
relay that "constructive possession" of said weapons might be a problem
under the law being a prior felon).

His informing the PO and her response or lack of same was, of course,
documented and brought up in court? From what I've read, Smith had
served seven years for an earlier offense. Somebody with that amount
of time in jail doesn't know a whole lot more than the average schmuck
about what the law says regarding felons and firearms?

Regardless of other people's
reasoning behind COBOL & the supposed threat of "y2k" some people
rather than take a chance, prepared for the possibility (despite what
you might express here today) (even the government made extensive y2k
preparations at extreme taxpayer expense I might add). So, you only
lose credibility when you make such statements (pull the budget records
for the federal government task force to oversee and minimalize the
threat posed by y2k). It is very easy now in retrospect to look back
(and say well, nothing happened - hind sight is 20/20).

And just as easy to reach back in time to invent a reason to account
for why this woman might have wanted an arsenal for her personal use.
Was her earlier concern for Y2K documented? Had she told neutral
parties that she was so concerned about Y2K that she was loading up on
weapon? Did she testify to this in court?

A single mother with "a tremendous amount of
firearms, military hardware, gas masks, ammunition, handguns, assault
rifles, a shotgun"? Looks more like whoever collected this stuff was
getting ready to *attack* somebody, not defend their little home.

An individual' has the right to keep and bear arms. As I already stated
there was -no miltary hardware- otherwise it would be specifically
listed (it was listed ONLY as "hardware" for a reason, because it was
not illegal to possess). Correct me if I am wrong but, people also have
the presumtion of innocence ("Looks more like whoever collected this
stuff was getting ready to *attack* somebody"). Does a specific number
of weapons determine a criminal intent? If so, please enlighten me as
to how many so I can advise people I know to remove the proper number
from their "collections". No crime had been committed yet you suggest
one was eminent by your above statement.

Bull. My statement had nothing to do with this collection being
criminal or the Constitutional right of a non-felon to possess it. I
was indicating that the extensive nature of the arsenal doesn't lend
support for the idea that it was for self defense. A single woman
concerned about a daughter's druggie ex-boyfriend might buy a shotgun,
a pistol, but gas-masks, assault rifles... Just doesn't add up.

Your argument is absurd, a single mother can't possibly own this
tremendous amount of weapons therefore it's only logical that this
felon was the one who did.

Not impossible. My argument was that it's unlikely, that it smells
fishy, not that it's impossible.

Let me ask you this smart guy, if he was a felon how did he purchase
these weapons? Most of the weapons were purchased from gun stores where
full information disclosure and valid state ID is required? A tremendous
amount, I believe you keep repeating.

Why, if I were a felon living with a cooperative girlfriend and I
wanted to buy weapons from gun stores, I'd have *her* buy 'em for me.
Wouldn't you? Now you say, "most". But we all now there are other
venues for purchasing the occasional item that local gun stores might
not carry.

I seem to recall an old saying: be careful of your support of a
tyrant, for you might one day find those same hands at your own
throat.

Lot of old sayings might apply here.

peace,

haans

So, then if "she" bought them as you suggest here. Then they are hers by the laws of ownership and clearly not his (which was his contention from the very beginning). The occassional item gun stores might not carry are generally not illegal to own, otherwise it's pretty risky for both parties to that transaction (and more often than not are "setup" by government agents such as in the Randy Weaver case at Ruby Ridge and John Delorean in order to create crime where none existed, sort of make work). Second the government has gas masks. Does that somehow "add up" in your mind? I can see you have a fairly significant amount of brainwashing (fairly severe). I can do anything government can do. They are "supposedly" the servant of the people. When did you ever have a servant who was superior to you, who could do things you were forbidden to do? I rest my case. You're one of these folks who will attempt to make irrational comments and points, appear rational. To suit your side of the argument. The government prepared for "y2k" the populous had every right, as well as every reason to follow suit. I also notice you never touched the part of the argument where I said you were a typical lawyer/prosecutor with your slanted comments. I also rest my case. It's also obvious you're not reading the material here (perhaps you only want to hear yourself talk?) (I already stated she did not testify in court when I made the statement she had quite probably/possibly set him up). I can see it is not only pointless to attempt to reason/debate with you. It is also quite fruitless. I can see which side of the law you're on ... The band of criminals known as government. Government is the disease masquerading as the cure. It's a scam based upon force and coercion. Theft cannot be legitimized, it's not the services I have a problem with, it's the methods in which they sustain themselves which I do. Violence only serves to undermine morality. The amount of crime is directly proportionate to that of government force, as it increases, so does crime and violence. Government is based upon force of arms, submit to government dicates, or risk the wrath of government's armed agents of force. If it is right for government to "steal" and "kill," then why isn't it right for individuals to persue the same actions on their own?

peace,

haans

Mike Murray wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:43:34 +0100, haansgruber
wrote:

Mike Murray Wrote:

Yeah, a lot of people paying heavy bucks for an arsenal call the cops
to get it confiscated. Even if your theory were true, why wouldn't
she take most of her hardware and leave just one or two items for the
cops to find? That's enough to put a convicted felon back in the can.

Desperate, deranged, psychotic people, do desperate, deranged,
psychotic things in drunken stupors. I cannot profess to speak for, nor
can I possibly know the precise psyche of an alcoholic "single mother"
who had a flair for drama in her life, a completely dysfunctional
family (including her alcoholic mother, and both daughters), not to
mention a daughter with a cocaine dealing boyfriend who "turned states
evidence" causing the possibility of retribution against anyone who
associated with them, or that location. (the reason SHE purchased the
shotgun to begin with). You see, I have a rather intimate knowledge of
the facts leading up to this, as in; prior to William Smith even
meeting "single mother". As well as first hand knowledge of the
purchase of the majority of the firearms and "military hardware" as you
"so eloquently" continue to refer to it (which it was not).

"Military hardware" was the judge's term. I can't comment on stuff
you may know first-hand (that wasn't mentioned in the online documents
on the website Sam cited).

Now, a rational felon "who knew full well that the Alexandria Police
were already out to get him" would (a) raise holy hell when his
girlfriend started assembling her military style arsenal and (b) make
damn sure it was gone if the girl-friend moved out, especially after
she filed a restraining order. So, either way, this guy wins no prize
for rationality.

Not if he had been lead to believe (by his PO - a government official)
he was within the law, as well as the terms of his parole/probation:
Smith had informed his PO (while on probabtion/parole) that there were
weapons on the shared premises (she made no comment, nor did she tell
him it was/might be illegal to be in a home with firearms [not a
military arsenal - the only thing military was radio equipment - I see
you have selective reading syndrome?] neither did she (Smith's PO)
relay that "constructive possession" of said weapons might be a problem
under the law being a prior felon).

His informing the PO and her response or lack of same was, of course,
documented and brought up in court? From what I've read, Smith had
served seven years for an earlier offense. Somebody with that amount
of time in jail doesn't know a whole lot more than the average schmuck
about what the law says regarding felons and firearms?

Regardless of other people's
reasoning behind COBOL & the supposed threat of "y2k" some people
rather than take a chance, prepared for the possibility (despite what
you might express here today) (even the government made extensive y2k
preparations at extreme taxpayer expense I might add). So, you only
lose credibility when you make such statements (pull the budget records
for the federal government task force to oversee and minimalize the
threat posed by y2k). It is very easy now in retrospect to look back
(and say well, nothing happened - hind sight is 20/20).

And just as easy to reach back in time to invent a reason to account
for why this woman might have wanted an arsenal for her personal use.
Was her earlier concern for Y2K documented? Had she told neutral
parties that she was so concerned about Y2K that she was loading up on
weapon? Did she testify to this in court?

A single mother with "a tremendous amount of
firearms, military hardware, gas masks, ammunition, handguns, assault
rifles, a shotgun"? Looks more like whoever collected this stuff was
getting ready to *attack* somebody, not defend their little home.

An individual' has the right to keep and bear arms. As I already stated
there was -no miltary hardware- otherwise it would be specifically
listed (it was listed ONLY as "hardware" for a reason, because it was
not illegal to possess). Correct me if I am wrong but, people also have
the presumtion of innocence ("Looks more like whoever collected this
stuff was getting ready to *attack* somebody"). Does a specific number
of weapons determine a criminal intent? If so, please enlighten me as
to how many so I can advise people I know to remove the proper number
from their "collections". No crime had been committed yet you suggest
one was eminent by your above statement.

Bull. My statement had nothing to do with this collection being
criminal or the Constitutional right of a non-felon to possess it. I
was indicating that the extensive nature of the arsenal doesn't lend
support for the idea that it was for self defense. A single woman
concerned about a daughter's druggie ex-boyfriend might buy a shotgun,
a pistol, but gas-masks, assault rifles... Just doesn't add up.

Your argument is absurd, a single mother can't possibly own this
tremendous amount of weapons therefore it's only logical that this
felon was the one who did.

Not impossible. My argument was that it's unlikely, that it smells
fishy, not that it's impossible.

Let me ask you this smart guy, if he was a felon how did he purchase
these weapons? Most of the weapons were purchased from gun stores where
full information disclosure and valid state ID is required? A tremendous
amount, I believe you keep repeating.

Why, if I were a felon living with a cooperative girlfriend and I
wanted to buy weapons from gun stores, I'd have *her* buy 'em for me.
Wouldn't you? Now you say, "most". But we all now there are other
venues for purchasing the occasional item that local gun stores might
not carry.

I seem to recall an old saying: be careful of your support of a
tyrant, for you might one day find those same hands at your own
throat.

Lot of old sayings might apply here.

peace,

haans

So, then if "she" bought them as you suggest here. Then they are hers
by the laws of ownership and clearly not his (which was his contention
from the very beginning). The occassional item gun stores might not
carry are generally not illegal to own, otherwise it's pretty risky for
both parties to that transaction (and more often than not are "setup"
by government agents such as in the Randy Weaver case at Ruby Ridge in
order to create crime where no existed). Second the government has gas
masks. Does that somehow "add up" in your mind? I can see you have a
fairly significant amount of brainwashing (fairly severe). I can do
anything government can do. They are "supposedly" the servant of the
people. When did you ever have a servant who was superior to you, who
could do things you were forbidden to do? I rest my case. You're one of
these folks who will attempt to make irrational comments and points,
appear rational. To suit your side of the argument. The government
prepared for "y2k" the populous had every right, as well as every
reason to follow suit. I also notice you never touched the part of the
argument where I said you were a typical lawyer/prosecutor with your
slanted comments. I also rest my case. It's also obvious you're not
reading the material here (I already stated she did not testify in
court when I made the statement she had quite probably/possibly set him
up). I can see it is not only pointless to attempt to reason/debate
with you. It is also quite fruitless. I can see which side of the law
you're on ... The band of criminals known as government. Government is
the disease masquerading as the cure. It's a scam based upon force and
coercion. Theft cannot be legitimized, it's not the services I have a
problem with, it's the methods in which they sustain themselves which I
do. Violence only serves to undermine morality. The amount of crime is
directly proportionate to that of government force, as it increases, so
does crime and violence. Government is based upon force of arms, submit
to government dicates, or rish the wrath of government's armed agents
of force. If it is right for government to "steal" and "kill," then why
isn't it right for individuals to persue the same actions on their own?

peace,

haans

However, none of this is the real issue here. What "is" the issue, is that government violated his "supposed" rights (according to their own insane scribblings) by breaking into the premises without a "supposed" warrant, they thereby rendered all of the "supposed" evidence collected/seized as "fruit of the poison tree," or inadmissable against him in the "supposed" court proceedings (they also lied/purjered themselves in court testimonies). They claimed they were invited in. However, the photos clearly indicate the degree of damage to the door/frame, which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt, that was not the case. So, there was nothing in that apartment which we should then, or now even be discussing, period! The whole trial was illegal from the moment they broke in, in violation of "thier own procedural rules and regulations". That's the entire crux of the case. Nothing more, nothing less. And the police, the courts & government wonder why people lack respect for them. It is because the more brazen they get, the more evident it becomes that they are criminals themselves.

Special thanks to Sam Sloan for bringing this thread into being.

http://www.samsloan.com

Anyone who would like to learn more about a voluntary society please read:

http://voluntaryist.mine.nu

peace,

haans