The true Steve Gartin? (So I have an inquiring mind) Was: Free Steve!
hal
In response to Chas' request to "read the fookin material"
Case No. 97M811 & 97M81 2 Division A
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff
v.
STEVE GARTIN, Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT
_________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Gartin. requests this Court dismiss the charges against him based
on the outrageous conduct of governmental officials, and as grounds
states the following:
1. Mr. Gartin currently has two separate cases pending, both involving
violation of a restraining order. The cases involve three restraining
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(my emphasis)
orders issued by this Court in case numbers 96C7386, 96C7387 &
96C7386, and the subsequent filing of Violation of Restraining Order
Charges filed after unlawful Government actions.
***********************************************************************************
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 The genesis of these two cases arose on January 30, 1997 when
deputies with the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department took a report
from Markus Merritt regarding an alleged violation of a restraining
order on that evening. Specifically, Mr. Markus claimed that Mr.
Gartin left a message on Mr. Merritt's answering machine at home
stating This is Steven Gartin. Markus Merritt I know you. I know what
you are and what you do. We’ll have plenty of fun.'' No threats were
made, nor was this message in any way stated in a menacing manner.
*************************************************************************************
---------------------------------
include my comments
Bullshit. The man is an advanced martial artist, in clear violation
of a legal restraining order, and the wording of the above is a
CLEARLY _THINLY_ VEILED THREAT.
end my comment
---------------------------------
Approximately one month later, on February 25. 1997. Mr. Merritt
again contacted Jefferson County Sheriffs Department and reported a
violation of a restraining order on that date. This allegation again
involved messages left on a home answering machine. In three of these
messages. Mr. Gartin asks to speak with his two children. In two of
the messages. Mr. Gartin asks to speak with the brothers of Tamara
Gartin in one message, Mr. Gartin asks to speak with Tamara Gartin.
None of these messages involve threats or violence or anything
resembling threats or violence.
---------------------------------
include my comments
Doesn't matter, still a clear violation of a restraining order. No
excuses valid. I thought someone said he didn't break any laws?
This APPEARS to be an ugly divorce (see below), with a fearful ex-wife
and new husband who can't keep a potential very dangerous man from
bothering them
Additionally, there is no additional information I could find about
the original restraining order against Mr Gartin. Why not?
Also, the sites you referred me to has this list of charges against
Mr. Gartin (see below) but no additional information (that I could
find) about any of them:
QUESTIONS:
The nature of the cause of the original restraining order against Mr.
Gartin by Mr. Merrit, and why Mr. Gartin thought he had the right to
violate that restraining order and leave a thinly veiled threat on his
answering machine. AS I SAID BEFORE, cases like this ALWAYS can be
traced back to one clear (although maybe initially minor) violation in
which the defendent was clearly wrong, but refused to admit it, and
refused to back down, frequently because of some "higher authority".
The nature of the Divorce Case. If in fact, Mr. Gartins divorce, I
would love to hear what his ex-wifes spin on all of this was. Was her
fear of Mr Gartin the reason for the original restraining order. Was
her fear justified?
Yet another restraining order against Mr. Gartin by "Zehnder".
What is the nature of this restraiining order. Haven't been able to
find any additional references.
It appears that all the complaints against the government about the
illegal search and seizure was merely due to a procedural error on
part of the Jefferson County authorities, and I see no evidence
whatsoever about malicious intent or illegal activities. So in other
words, they screwed up, but didn't do anything evil like Mr. Gartin
and Chas would like us to believe.
Chas keeps referring me to Lawsons and Kallinis web sites, but I can
find little there of substance other than lots of unsubstantiated
accusactions (ie ravings) by Mr. Gartin possibly designed to obfuscate
and hide what really happened.
On Kallinis site, Chas says this:
"Anyway- that's some of the story in a nutshell. If you wish, I can
substantiate everything I've said by reference to the official record
presently assembled in the various cases. It is completely and utterly
true that Steve Gartin has not done *anything* illegal- by any stretch
of anyone's imagination. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think Steves own documents about the violation of the restrains
orders clearly indicates that HE DID, IN FACT, BREAK THE LAW. If I
missed something, Chas, some concrete facts to the contrary, something
other than "read the fookin' material" (because one favorite tactic
of anarchists is to obfuscate the truth with endless reams of
bullshit), so how about some real facts? So you promise
substantiation by references. Now please do so.
Hal
01.) U.S. District Court Cases:
95-B-1747, 97-N-1501, 97-D-1036, 97-S-1523 & 01-Z-1145 - 42 U.S.C. §§
1983-5 & 6
02.) Jefferson County Cases:
95DR2718 - Divorce Case
96C7019 - Gartin v. Merritt - Restraining Order Denied
96C7386, 96C7387 & 96C7388 - Zehnder v. Gartin - Restraining Orders
Void
97M811 & 97M12 - People v. Gartin - Void Restraining order violation
01CR1311 (Appeal of 97M811) - Gartin v. People - Restraining orders
void ab initio
03.) Colorado State Appeals Court Case: 96CA0821- Divorce Appeal
04.) Arapahoe County Case: 97M472 - Dismissed
05.) Douglas County Case: 91CR25 - Dismissed
06.) Douglas County Cases: 93CV211 through 93CV233 - Removed to
Federal 95B1747
07.) Adams County Case: 00C10254 - Sisson & Namelle Project
08.) Gilpin County Case: C0062 - Bonilla's evict Mitchell from Mining
Claims
09.) Jefferson County Case: 00 CV 1927 - Bonilla invalidates claim of
lien
10.) Denver County Case: 00CV6032 - Bonilla invalidates claims of lien
11.) Denver County Case:_________- Bonilla Dogs At-Large Case
12.) U.S. Tenth Federal District Case:____________ Carlos Bonilla's
Criminal Case
13.) U.S. 10th District Court of Appeals: 01-Z-1145 & 01-ES-2225
14.) Colorado State Supreme Court Original Writs: 01SA396
Chas
> MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT
Incidentally, that motion written by his lawyer, not by Steve.
You don't usually see public defenders attacking the system and
administrators as being 'outrageous' in their professional conduct, do
you?
> 1. Mr. Gartin currently has two separate cases pending, both involving
> violation of a restraining order. The cases involve three restraining
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have to understand that there were three restraining orders
against him, and all of the people lived in the same house- when he
called his kids, they construed the 'violation' as three separate
instances.
> Bullshit. The man is an advanced martial artist, in clear violation
> of a legal restraining order, and the wording of the above is a
> CLEARLY _THINLY_ VEILED THREAT.
No, what he said was; 'we'll have a summer of fun'- that's lawyer
jargon for a lot of activity in court. Markus Merrit worked in the
legal department of USWest (phone co) and was handling all of the
legal stuff for the Zehnders (in-laws). He had been fucking Tamara
since they met in a race sensitivity course run by the phone company.
There was never any threat by Steve; only threats and little
provocations by Merritt. Markus was used to white guys backing down
from him, cause he's huge. Steve treated him as a sissy, and made it
stick without ever laying a finger on him.
> Doesn't matter, still a clear violation of a restraining order. No
> excuses valid. I thought someone said he didn't break any laws?
> This APPEARS to be an ugly divorce (see below), with a fearful ex-wife
> and new husband who can't keep a potential very dangerous man from
> bothering them
Not a husband; a boyfriend. And one that ultimately spent about a year
in jail, raped her father's estate for tens of thousands of dollars
and is running like a rabbit from the law as we speak.
It wasn't a violation; the court said that the restraining orders
weren't to interfere with his visitation/contact with his children.
The complainants were in contempt of court when they refused contact.
At the least, it wasn't Markus Merrit's place to refuse contact, to
take the children by force (the Golden Recreation Center incident) and
to administer the responses of the dying father-in-law, his
prospective widow or her dimwitted daughter.
> Additionally, there is no additional information I could find about
> the original restraining order against Mr Gartin. Why not?
Probably because it was bogus enough that they aren't very anxious for
anyone to see it.
> The nature of the cause of the original restraining order against Mr.
> Gartin by Mr. Merrit, and why Mr. Gartin thought he had the right to
> violate that restraining order and leave a thinly veiled threat on his
> answering machine.
Merritt tried to intimidate Gartin. He's a 6'4", 240 lb. professional
athlete, but it didn't work. There was no physical contact between
them and Gartin proved that in court.
There was no threat except to pursue legal action- and that made only
after the respondents were in contempt of court by denying him access
to his children.
> AS I SAID BEFORE, cases like this ALWAYS can be
> traced back to one clear (although maybe initially minor) violation in
> which the defendent was clearly wrong, but refused to admit it, and
> refused to back down, frequently because of some "higher authority".
He wasn't 'clearly wrong', and his refusal to back down from his
position is a matter of integrity- a concept you should look up when
you go for more potato chips.
> The nature of the Divorce Case. If in fact, Mr. Gartins divorce, I
> would love to hear what his ex-wifes spin on all of this was. Was her
> fear of Mr Gartin the reason for the original restraining order. Was
> her fear justified?
No. It was a ploy by her attorney; A. Troy Ciccarelli. Mr. Ciccarelli
was caught later making deliberate false submissions to the Federal
Court in this case. He escaped disbarment, but he lost his position
with Karsh & Fulton lawfirm and is presently practicing law with his
sister, out of his hip pocket.
> Yet another restraining order against Mr. Gartin by "Zehnder".
> What is the nature of this restraiining order. Haven't been able to
> find any additional references.
The restraining orders were for the father in law, the mother in law,
their pet rock and Tamara.
No alleging of violence was ever made- they maintained that his
reaction to losing his family might push him over the edge.
> It appears that all the complaints against the government about the
> illegal search and seizure was merely due to a procedural error on
> part of the Jefferson County authorities, and I see no evidence
> whatsoever about malicious intent or illegal activities. So in other
> words, they screwed up, but didn't do anything evil like Mr. Gartin
> and Chas would like us to believe.
No.
You don't have 'mere' procedural error when you send a SWAT team
without a warrant, with no exigent circumstances, without an affidavit
in front of a judge, to the home of a third party.
> Chas keeps referring me to Lawsons and Kallinis web sites, but I can
> find little there of substance other than lots of unsubstantiated
> accusactions (ie ravings) by Mr. Gartin possibly designed to obfuscate
> and hide what really happened.
Nothing to hide- that's why everything is there; warts and all.
> 01.) U.S. District Court Cases:
> 95-B-1747, 97-N-1501, 97-D-1036, 97-S-1523 & 01-Z-1145 - 42 U.S.C. งง
> 1983-5 & 6
Those are Gartin's cases *against* the government actors.
> 02.) Jefferson County Cases:
> 95DR2718 - Divorce Case
> 96C7019 - Gartin v. Merritt - Restraining Order Denied
Yeah- Gartin asked for a restraining order when he found out that
Merritt was abusing Steve's son, Elijah.
> 96C7386, 96C7387 & 96C7388 - Zehnder v. Gartin - Restraining Orders
> Void
> 97M811 & 97M12 - People v. Gartin - Void Restraining order violation
> 01CR1311 (Appeal of 97M811) - Gartin v. People - Restraining orders
> void ab initio
> 03.) Colorado State Appeals Court Case: 96CA0821- Divorce Appeal
> 04.) Arapahoe County Case: 97M472 - Dismissed
> 05.) Douglas County Case: 91CR25 - Dismissed
All charges they've brought have been dismissed except the ones where
a judge finds 'contempt'- and that proceeds without such things as
trials or counsel.
> 06.) Douglas County Cases: 93CV211 through 93CV233 - Removed to
> Federal 95B1747
Yup- Gartin going after the gummit after charges were dismissed as
unfounded.
> 07.) Adams County Case: 00C10254 - Sisson & Namelle Project
Yup- a money laundering scheme to send drug money to the south sea
islands for Carlos Bonilla.
> 08.) Gilpin County Case: C0062 - Bonilla's evict Mitchell from Mining
> Claims
> 09.) Jefferson County Case: 00 CV 1927 - Bonilla invalidates claim of
> lien
> 10.) Denver County Case: 00CV6032 - Bonilla invalidates claims of lien
> 11.) Denver County Case:_________- Bonilla Dogs At-Large Case
> 12.) U.S. Tenth Federal District Case:____________ Carlos Bonilla's
> Criminal Case
Carlos Bonilla is the convicted international drug smuggler, arms
smuggler and perjurer that formed the base for the gummit's case when
he turned confidential informant against all his drug buddies. He's
presently doing time in a segregated snitch unit at FCI. It was the
refusal of he and his crime family to pay legitimate debts to Gartin
that initiated the liens against their property. They needed the
property to pay Harvey Steinberg about $60K when Carlos got busted
with 200 lbs. of marijuana and some guns.
Their lawyer, Glen Anstine, was the one who cooked up as good a
position as they could, considering that he had been legitimizing
drug/gun money for the Bonilla Crime Family for some long time. They
are part of 'La Eme`'- the 'Mexican Mafia' prison gang.
> 13.) U.S. 10th District Court of Appeals: 01-Z-1145 & 01-ES-2225
> 14.) Colorado State Supreme Court Original Writs: 01SA396
It should be obvious with a reading of the timeline that there is
nothing of substance in any of their actions against him, and those
actions he's brought are filled with serious wrongdoing and abuse.
Thanks for posting them-
--
Chas Clements
casemaker
http://home.stx.rr.com/n5wrx/castool1.jpg
(FSG) http://www.kallini.com/gartin/
hal
>hal wrote:
>>
>> CLEARLY _THINLY_ VEILED THREAT.
>
>No, what he said was; 'we'll have a summer of fun'- that's lawyer
>jargon for a lot of activity in court.
Oh, well, that's not what it said, but maybe.
>> AS I SAID BEFORE, cases like this ALWAYS can be
>> traced back to one clear (although maybe initially minor) violation in
>> which the defendent was clearly wrong, but refused to admit it, and
>> refused to back down, frequently because of some "higher authority".
>
>He wasn't 'clearly wrong', and his refusal to back down from his
>position is a matter of integrity- a concept you should look up when
>you go for more potato chips.
Too, funny, actually, I was reading this on my lunch break, and just
as I read that line I had just stuffed another sour cream 'n onion in
my mouth. How did you know?
A word of wisdom if I may: I've learned over the years that sometimes
we must back down, regardless of who is right or wrong. And integrity
ain't worth a tinkers damn when the man is kicking down your door. If
we must lower our gaze and say "yessir masa", so be it, if that is
what it takes to survive. Trying to do battle with the "gummit"
(isn't that what we do after we've lost our teeth?) for years because
of a claim of integrity is just plain foolish.
So you see, I know all about integrity, and I know about survival too.
One is clearly more important than the other. Your friend got his
priorities mixed up.
>
>It should be obvious with a reading of the timeline that there is
>nothing of substance in any of their actions against him, and those
>actions he's brought are filled with serious wrongdoing and abuse.
>Thanks for posting them-
Thanks for the explanations. I hope you realize that I am not
singling you out for any reason (except maybe that you enjoy a good
'verbal' sparring as much as me), or Steve either. This became a
natural extension of the discussion on violence in the mid-east and
religious extremism. I see so very many parallels in extremism in
this country with extremism in other countries faiths and cultures. I
was honestly curious about Steve since I've been hearing so much about
his incarceration and campaign for freedom. My curiosity led me to
some disturbing discoveries that lead me to see many similarities with
Mr. Gartin's movement and movements by religious extremists. I live
in Montana, the home of The Freemen and Ted "The Postal Inspector"
Kazinski" , and I lived in Salt Lake City, the home of The Church of
Blood Atonement, so hopefully you can see why I have become a little
hypersensitive to religious extremism. Again, it is NOT the faith or
religion in general that I see as the problem. Faith obviously gives
people considerable power to withstand adversity, therefore is a
considerable benefit to society, but it is the extremists and
idealogues who exploit religion who are the problem of many of the
problems we face as a people. It is the behavior of extremism that I
condemn. Lots of people do. So my advice to Steve (if I may be so
presumptuous) would be to lighten up on the religious fervor and
rhetoric. It tends to cause people to lump him in with a group that
is not gainly any popularity lately.
Hal
.B.
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:04:36 GMT, wrote:
>
> A word of wisdom if I may: I've learned over the years that sometimes
> we must back down, regardless of who is right or wrong.
This is consistent with your pacifist stance.
>And integrity ain't worth a tinkers damn when the man is kicking down your
door.
That is ESPECIALLY when it is worth a damn.
>If we must lower our gaze and say "yessir masa", so be it, if that is
> what it takes to survive.
If more of the "Founding Fathers" thought like this, we'd still be part of
England.
> Trying to do battle with the "gummit"
> (isn't that what we do after we've lost our teeth?) for years because
> of a claim of integrity is just plain foolish.
But that's what integrity is. Haven't you seen Braveheart? :)
> So you see, I know all about integrity, and I know about survival too.
> One is clearly more important than the other.
Yes.
>Your friend got his priorities mixed up.
I, and others, would argue that it is you who do.
> Thanks for the explanations. I hope you realize that I am not
> singling you out for any reason (except maybe that you enjoy a good
> 'verbal' sparring as much as me), or Steve either.
Well, actually it does appear that you are.
> This became a
> natural extension of the discussion on violence in the mid-east and
> religious extremism. I see so very many parallels in extremism in
> this country with extremism in other countries faiths and cultures.
That may be, but you make a quite liberal (pun intended?) use of the word
"extremism". Maybe it is due to the topic, but there's a whole lot that
appears to be "extreme" to you and not a whole lot left for the middle.
JMObservations,
.B.
Chas
*And now my Comments: Steve Douglas Gartin*
I went over to my Children's Grandparent's House to visit with my
Children. I was appealing the divorce that was supposed to be a legal
separation and had papers for Tamara to read. She asked if Markus
could read them. I had never met Markus, nor heard of him before. He
came out of the house. Markus presented as "Legal Advisor" for Tamara
- "We'll have a summer of fun" is a term lawyers use to allude to the
fact that there will be considerable litigation involved in the
absence of some mitigation or agreement. My comment was to that
effect. Of course you would have no way of knowing that on our first
meeting Markus viewed me as a short old white man and threatened me
accordingly, as I'm sure he has threatened white men all his life. As
an ex-pro football player and a professed "fighter," he stepped up and
did his best to intimidate me on our first meeting. Silat does not
include much "backing up" so it took him a bit at a loss of how to
proceed, so he never actually "threw down" but he did scream and
holler and posture and threaten me for a good half hour. I smiled at
him and suggested that polite conversation would serve everyone's best
interest, but Markus had other plans.
Knowing that he planned to instigate an altercation, I went to the
court the following day to get a restraining order against him. It
was refused. A week later he showed up with my ex-wife at the Golden
Rec Center where I was teaching martial arts. I was teaching my
Children to swim. He created a scene, tried again to pick a fight,
but wouldn't throw a punch - he just wanted to scream and holler and
create a scene at my business. He had called the cops before he came
into the swimming pool and soon four cop cars arrived. Sgt. Moler
arrested me for not having valid Identification in my bathing suit and
conspired with Markus and Tamara to file harassment and menacing
charges against me. Although Markus had active arrest warrants at the
time and the Golden Police were notified of that, he was NOT
arrested. I was. I have not seen my Children since that day. June
18, 1996.
Tamara and Markus then went and got restraining orders against me
based upon these bogus charges that were later disproven in a trial
before a judge although I had paid the jury fee and made a jury
request. The basic accusation is that I am a Christian Constitutional
Patriot with a Freeman mindset and an Eighth Degree Black Belt who
does not believe in the government. I'll address those accusations in
greater detail at another time.
And by the way, the restraining order is NOT legal. I'll also explain
that at another time. The threat was not a threat, simply a statement
that I intended to seek legal recourse, which I did - and that I can
explain in greater detail at another time also.
>
> Approximately one month later, on February 25. 1997. Mr. Merritt
> again contacted Jefferson County Sheriffs Department and reported a
> violation of a restraining order on that date. This allegation again
> involved messages left on a home answering machine. In three of these
> messages. Mr. Gartin asks to speak with his two children. In two of
> the messages. Mr. Gartin asks to speak with the brothers of Tamara
> Gartin in one message, Mr. Gartin asks to speak with Tamara Gartin.
>
> None of these messages involve threats or violence or anything
> resembling threats or violence.
>
> ---------------------------------
> include my comments
>
> Doesn't matter, still a clear violation of a restraining order. No
> excuses valid. I thought someone said he didn't break any laws?
> This APPEARS to be an ugly divorce (see below), with a fearful ex-wife
> and new husband who can't keep a potential very dangerous man from
> bothering them
**and my comments:
The judge who issued the bogus orders stipulated that there would be
nothing that would prevent me from contacting my Children - which is
EXACTLY what I was attempting to do in this instant matter.
> Additionally, there is no additional information I could find about
> the original restraining order against Mr Gartin. Why not?
**and my comments:
Because they were bogus, unserved and invalid.
> Also, the sites you referred me to has this list of charges against
> Mr. Gartin (see below) but no additional information (that I could
> find) about any of them:
>
> QUESTIONS:
>
> The nature of the cause of the original restraining order against Mr.
> Gartin by Mr. Merrit, and why Mr. Gartin thought he had the right to
> violate that restraining order and leave a thinly veiled threat on his
> answering machine. AS I SAID BEFORE, cases like this ALWAYS can be
> traced back to one clear (although maybe initially minor) violation in
> which the defendent was clearly wrong, but refused to admit it, and
> refused to back down, frequently because of some "higher authority".
**and my comments:
The answering machine also contained three prior messages that asked
to speak with my Children. They were standing there listening to me
asking for them and Markus refused to allow them to talk with me.
They were at their GrandMother's house, NOT Markus' - and even the
bogus restraining orders allowed such contact. "Cases like this" is a
bit conclusory, since hal could not possibly know the nuances of this
case.
> The nature of the Divorce Case. If in fact, Mr. Gartins divorce, I
> would love to hear what his ex-wifes spin on all of this was. Was her
> fear of Mr Gartin the reason for the original restraining order. Was
> her fear justified?
**and my comments:
Her fear was of the Government. She was afraid that in standing up
for my Rights, I would bring the Government down on her and the
Children. The reason for the original restraining order was bad
advise from her "Legal Advisor" Markus and her inept attorney Antonio
T. Ciccarelli.
Yes, her fear was justified. I have been hunted, tortured, jailed,
and reduced to abject poverty for having the audacity to petition the
Government for Redress of Grievance. Considering what has happened to
me since then, I think her fears were entirely justified.
> Yet another restraining order against Mr. Gartin by "Zehnder".
> What is the nature of this restraiining order. Haven't been able to
> find any additional references.
**and my comments:
Pastor Zehnder and his lovely wife had a "fear of FAXes." Before I
filed suit on them, I begged them to reason with me from the
Scriptures, since I thought that is what preachers do. I don't care
what faith a person has, so long as they live it and don't affect me
by it. Tamara's Father did not want to just let us get a legal
separation to keep her safe from the Government. He bought her a
lawyer and turned an agreeable separation into an ugly divorce. I
sued him over it. I'll publish the transcripts of the hearing, you'll
understand then.
>
> It appears that all the complaints against the government about the
> illegal search and seizure was merely due to a procedural error on
> part of the Jefferson County authorities, and I see no evidence
> whatsoever about malicious intent or illegal activities. So in other
> words, they screwed up, but didn't do anything evil like Mr. Gartin
> and Chas would like us to believe.
**and my comments:
Whenever the Government can totally ignore the law and launch an all
out offensive based upon false and misleading data, without any due
process safeguards, there is an everpresent danger that People may be
harmed or killed. As the news establishes, lots of People get killed
by cops here in the Denver area under highly questionable
circumstances. Take a look at 18 U.S.C. 241 & 242 and see if you
can't find some illegal activity on the part of Donald L. Estep, the
cop that instigated this debacle.
> Chas keeps referring me to Lawsons and Kallinis web sites, but I can
> find little there of substance other than lots of unsubstantiated
> accusactions (ie ravings) by Mr. Gartin possibly designed to obfuscate
> and hide what really happened.
**and my comments:
The substantiation is within the court's files as attachments to those
filings. "Affidavits of Warrantless Arrests" - police reports and the
like, all official filings. They have no hint of remorse for breaking
the law - they're not hiding anything.
> On Kallinis site, Chas says this:
> "Anyway- that's some of the story in a nutshell. If you wish, I can
> substantiate everything I've said by reference to the official record
> presently assembled in the various cases. It is completely and utterly
> true that Steve Gartin has not done *anything* illegal- by any stretch
> of anyone's imagination. "
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think Steves own documents about the violation of the restrains
> orders clearly indicates that HE DID, IN FACT, BREAK THE LAW. If I
> missed something, Chas, some concrete facts to the contrary, something
> other than "read the fookin' material" (because one favorite tactic
> of anarchists is to obfuscate the truth with endless reams of
> bullshit), so how about some real facts? So you promise
> substantiation by references. Now please do so.
>
> Hal
**and my comments:
Hal, the sister case, 97M472 in Arapahoe County was dismissed on 10
December 2001 because there was no violation, no unlawful acts and
there was a good judge on the case. The Jefferson County case was
heard by one of the most corrupt and criminal judges on the bench.
She takes great pride in castigating men for profit. Whether there is
an actual violation means NOTHING to Jefferson County judges. I don't
want to get off on a "rave" on that subject, but I will present some
evidence to support that fact when I do broach the subject.
By the way Hal, I don't think I am an "anarchist" any more than I am a
"patriot" or a "christian." I have my faith and my opinions, but they
do not fit into any of those categories any better than they fit into
"democrat" - "traitor" or "pagan." My faith and beliefs have not been
labeled yet since they are still in a malleable state; I think
"liberally," but adhere to time-proven "conservative" values. When I
figure out what I am - I'll let you know. 'Til then, don't be laying
any labels on me you can't prove.
> 01.) U.S. District Court Cases:
> 95-B-1747, 97-N-1501, 97-D-1036, 97-S-1523 & 01-Z-1145 - 42 U.S.C. §§
> 1983-5 & 6
I'm alleging a R.I.C.O. Conspiracy to Warehouse People for Profit in
jails and prisons.
> 02.) Jefferson County Cases:
> 95DR2718 - Divorce Case
> 96C7019 - Gartin v. Merritt - Restraining Order Denied
> 96C7386, 96C7387 & 96C7388 - Zehnder v. Gartin - Restraining Orders
> Void
> 97M811 & 97M12 - People v. Gartin - Void Restraining order violation
> 01CR1311 (Appeal of 97M811) - Gartin v. People - Restraining orders
> void ab initio
> 03.) Colorado State Appeals Court Case: 96CA0821- Divorce Appeal
> 04.) Arapahoe County Case: 97M472 - Dismissed
> 05.) Douglas County Case: 91CR25 - Dismissed
> 06.) Douglas County Cases: 93CV211 through 93CV233 - Removed to
> Federal 95B1747
> 07.) Adams County Case: 00C10254 - Sisson & Namelle Project
> 08.) Gilpin County Case: C0062 - Bonilla's evict Mitchell from Mining
> Claims
> 09.) Jefferson County Case: 00 CV 1927 - Bonilla invalidates claim of
> lien
> 10.) Denver County Case: 00CV6032 - Bonilla invalidates claims of lien
> 11.) Denver County Case:_________- Bonilla Dogs At-Large Case
> 12.) U.S. Tenth Federal District Case:____________ Carlos Bonilla's
> Criminal Case
> 13.) U.S. 10th District Court of Appeals: 01-Z-1145 & 01-ES-2225
> 14.) Colorado State Supreme Court Original Writs: 01SA396
>
There's several more cases that should be listed here. I never cared
to be an attorney, nor to represent myself in court, but necessity
sometimes makes it's demands mandatory. Now I'm ready to get back to
the business that got interrupted with all this b.s. Now that I'm old
and decrepit from imprisonment in draconian conditions, I'm thinking
about doing a martial arts video for Old Folks. I'll be finishing the
"Spyderco - Early Days" video pretty soon - it's about level four
priority now.
Thanks for keeping the thread alive. The prison guards enjoyed it.
It will take me a while to read and make replies, but count on me to
do it.
A most glorious day in freedom to you all!
--
Steve Gartin - Political Prisoner #062265 - NOW FREE
hal
>Steve Gartin makes a brief reply to what
>
Hi Steve, welcome back.
>hal wrote:
>
<snip>
>By the way Hal, I don't think I am an "anarchist" any more than I am a
>"patriot" or a "christian."
Unfortunately, how we consider ourselves to be, and how we appear to
others is not always the same. And just saying that others are wrong
in their conclusions does not always let us escape the fact that we
may also be wrong in our actions.
> I have my faith and my opinions, but they
>do not fit into any of those categories any better than they fit into
>"democrat" - "traitor" or "pagan." My faith and beliefs have not been
>labeled yet since they are still in a malleable state; I think
>"liberally," but adhere to time-proven "conservative" values. When I
>figure out what I am - I'll let you know. 'Til then, don't be laying
>any labels on me you can't prove.
OK, fair enough. As I said, I do have an open mind and only want to
determine the truth. That and try to convince the more violent among
us that pacifism has it's time and place.
>
>Thanks for keeping the thread alive. The prison guards enjoyed it.
My pleasure. Always love to keep the guards happy.
>It will take me a while to read and make replies, but count on me to
>do it.
Looking forward to it.
>
>A most glorious day in freedom to you all!
Best regards,
Hal
hal
><hal> wrote in message news:3cb71c65....@news.blackfoot.net...
>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:04:36 GMT, wrote:
>>
>> A word of wisdom if I may: I've learned over the years that sometimes
>> we must back down, regardless of who is right or wrong.
>
>This is consistent with your pacifist stance.
Pacifism most certainly has it's place. What the the concept of Yin
and Yang mean to you?
>
>>And integrity ain't worth a tinkers damn when the man is kicking down your
>door.
>
>That is ESPECIALLY when it is worth a damn.
No, that is when nothing matters but survival.
>
>
>>If we must lower our gaze and say "yessir masa", so be it, if that is
>> what it takes to survive.
>
>If more of the "Founding Fathers" thought like this, we'd still be part of
>England.
Lot's of our Founding Fathers did that when they had to. They played
the game until the time was right. They were smart enough not to tilt
at windmills.
>
>
>> Trying to do battle with the "gummit"
>> (isn't that what we do after we've lost our teeth?) for years because
>> of a claim of integrity is just plain foolish.
>
>But that's what integrity is. Haven't you seen Braveheart? :)
Oh yea. I remember what they did to Wallace. His integrity got him
nothing but a horribly agonizing death and a name in history.
>
>
>> So you see, I know all about integrity, and I know about survival too.
>> One is clearly more important than the other.
>
>Yes.
>
>
>>Your friend got his priorities mixed up.
>
>I, and others, would argue that it is you who do.
What good is integrity if we are not alive/free to exercise it?
>
>
>> Thanks for the explanations. I hope you realize that I am not
>> singling you out for any reason (except maybe that you enjoy a good
>> 'verbal' sparring as much as me), or Steve either.
>
>Well, actually it does appear that you are.
The issue, not the man. The behavior not the belief.
>
>
>> This became a
>> natural extension of the discussion on violence in the mid-east and
>> religious extremism. I see so very many parallels in extremism in
>> this country with extremism in other countries faiths and cultures.
>
>That may be, but you make a quite liberal (pun intended?) use of the word
>"extremism".
Well, I could whip out my thesaurus and find a few synonyms if you
want.
> Maybe it is due to the topic, but there's a whole lot that
>appears to be "extreme" to you and not a whole lot left for the middle.
Perhaps. But you raise a good point. Where would you put the middle
ground in this debate? What is the idealogical opposite of a
"religious extremist", and how would you describe a moderate?
Hal
>
>JMObservations,
>
>.B.
>
>
>
.B.
<hal> wrote in message news:3cb73f80....@news.blackfoot.net...
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:38:08 -0700, wrote:
>
> ><hal> wrote in message news:3cb71c65....@news.blackfoot.net...
> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:04:36 GMT, wrote:
> >>
> >> A word of wisdom if I may: I've learned over the years that sometimes
> >> we must back down, regardless of who is right or wrong.
> >
> >This is consistent with your pacifist stance.
>
> Pacifism most certainly has it's place.
But it seems to *always* be your answer.
> What the the concept of Yin and Yang mean to you?
As relates to this, or in general?
> >>And integrity ain't worth a tinkers damn when the man is kicking down
your
> >door.
> >
> >That is ESPECIALLY when it is worth a damn.
>
> No, that is when nothing matters but survival.
I thought you were all about ideals. Guess it is your ass first though.
> >>If we must lower our gaze and say "yessir masa", so be it, if that is
> >> what it takes to survive.
> >
> >If more of the "Founding Fathers" thought like this, we'd still be part
of
> >England.
>
> Lot's of our Founding Fathers did that when they had to. They played
> the game until the time was right. They were smart enough not to tilt
> at windmills.
Yes, that's them.
For you, where's the line? You don't want to do anything up to the fight,
'cause you want to avoid one. You'll subjugate yourself when there is one
to save your ass. Where exactly is there room for the "right" time?
> >> Trying to do battle with the "gummit"
> >> (isn't that what we do after we've lost our teeth?) for years because
> >> of a claim of integrity is just plain foolish.
> >
> >But that's what integrity is. Haven't you seen Braveheart? :)
>
> Oh yea. I remember what they did to Wallace. His integrity got him
> nothing but a horribly agonizing death and a name in history.
That's all you got out of it? So it's Hal's ass first, everything else
second?
> >> So you see, I know all about integrity, and I know about survival too.
> >> One is clearly more important than the other.
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >>Your friend got his priorities mixed up.
> >
> >I, and others, would argue that it is you who do.
>
> What good is integrity if we are not alive/free to exercise it?
Umm, maybe 'cause it allows many others to be able to do it where they may
not have been able to.
> >> Thanks for the explanations. I hope you realize that I am not
> >> singling you out for any reason (except maybe that you enjoy a good
> >> 'verbal' sparring as much as me), or Steve either.
> >
> >Well, actually it does appear that you are.
>
> The issue, not the man. The behavior not the belief.
hal wrote: "Unfortunately, how we consider ourselves to be, and how we
appear to
others is not always the same. And just saying that others are wrong
in their conclusions does not always let us escape the fact that we
may also be wrong in our actions. "
> >> This became a
> >> natural extension of the discussion on violence in the mid-east and
> >> religious extremism. I see so very many parallels in extremism in
> >> this country with extremism in other countries faiths and cultures.
> >
> >That may be, but you make a quite liberal (pun intended?) use of the word
> >"extremism".
>
> Well, I could whip out my thesaurus and find a few synonyms if you
> want.
You know what I mean and avoid answering.
> > Maybe it is due to the topic, but there's a whole lot that
> >appears to be "extreme" to you and not a whole lot left for the middle.
>
> Perhaps. But you raise a good point. Where would you put the middle
> ground in this debate? What is the idealogical opposite of a
> "religious extremist", and how would you describe a moderate?
Actually, hal, we're talking about you. So where would YOU put those?
GOU RONIN®
>The nature of the Divorce Case. If in fact, Mr. Gartins divorce, I
>would love to hear what his ex-wifes spin on all of this was. Was her
>fear of Mr Gartin the reason for the original restraining order. Was
>her fear justified?
Look, it's all Martha Stewart's fault damn it!
Newsflash:
Steve Gartin broke up with Tara Reid this weekend. The "Van
Wilder" co-star states, "I just couldn't be the woman he wanted me to
be."
Rumour has it Meg Ryan and Rene Zwelliger had a threesome with
him but Steve's lawyer denies it stating, "My client was with Nicole
Cruz and Catherine Zeta Jones all weekend in bed." Rumour has it that
Tom Cruise is furious as it Micheal Douglas. The hotel clerk stated he
saw 4 different women in and out of the room all weekend but then had
to leave as he remembered he was paid hush money.
Martha Stewart was seen in the bushes making napkins with
green leaf patterns and mumbling, "He's mine, mine damn it."
More at 11:00
GOU RONIN® - The Unforgiven...
ICQ# - 49024165
AOL IM - GouRonin
mIRC - #americankenpo - On Dal.net
http://members.tripod.com/~kenpo_ronin/houseofronin.html
Chas
> Oh, well, that's not what it said, but maybe.
The audio tape is in evidence.
> A word of wisdom if I may: I've learned over the years that sometimes
> we must back down, regardless of who is right or wrong.
Ahh.
Who taught you that?
> And integrity
> ain't worth a tinkers damn when the man is kicking down your door.
Ahh.
So *that's* what it takes.
> If
> we must lower our gaze and say "yessir masa", so be it, if that is
> what it takes to survive.
Ahh.
Better a live slave than a dead free man, eh?
> Trying to do battle with the "gummit"
> (isn't that what we do after we've lost our teeth?) for years because
> of a claim of integrity is just plain foolish.
Ahh.
My integrity has to stand before the Lord, and life ain't nothing- we
are eternal.
> So you see, I know all about integrity, and I know about survival too.
> One is clearly more important than the other. Your friend got his
> priorities mixed up.
Hey, glad you cleared that up. We hadn't heard from a sissy in a long
time.
>.......So my advice to Steve (if I may be so
> presumptuous) would be to lighten up on the religious fervor and
> rhetoric. It tends to cause people to lump him in with a group that
> is not gainly any popularity lately.
Yeah; it's been my suggestion to him as well. People are so ready to
internalize a shallow opinion backed by a specious analysis done with
little or no information, that it seems useless to give them more
information than will make their minds lock up and run in little rat
circles.
Take good care,
Bill
>Steve Gartin makes a brief reply to what
>
>A most glorious day in freedom to you all!
Welcome back Steve,
Happy to hear of your freedom!
Bill
Ted Bennett
"Bill" <perk...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:rl7fbu449fjk6pl4q...@4ax.com...
happiness to at least mitigate some of the bad times you've had.
I've been through a very messy divorce myself and no how bad things can
get, I think you've shown admirable restraint and the only thing I can tell
you is that things will get better.
I have a wonderful 4year old daughter and no matter what happens between
you and your ex,(ofukuro) nothing will affect how much your children love
you.
Ted
--
Bloody hell !
Sodding, blimey, shagging, knickers !
Bollocks !
Oh god, I'm English.
Spike BTVS
Kevin
> Thanks for keeping the thread alive. The prison guards enjoyed it.
> It will take me a while to read and make replies, but count on me to
> do it.
> A most glorious day in freedom to you all!
I'm very glad that you are out, Steve, and free to post. Congratulations,
I hope things go well for you.
:o)
Kevin
storys
"Chas" <gryp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CB77DDF...@attbi.com...
> hal wrote:
> > A word of wisdom if I may: I've learned over the years that sometimes
> > we must back down, regardless of who is right or wrong.
> Ahh.
> Who taught you that?
> > And integrity
> > ain't worth a tinkers damn when the man is kicking down your door.
> Ahh.
> So *that's* what it takes.
> > If
> > we must lower our gaze and say "yessir masa", so be it, if that is
> > what it takes to survive.
> Ahh.
> Better a live slave than a dead free man, eh?
>
keep one's integrity no matter what. A breath of fresh air!
..............Tom..................
Batman
>Steve Gartin makes a brief reply to what
>*And now my Comments: Steve Douglas Gartin*
>Thanks for keeping the thread alive. The prison guards enjoyed it.
Now, the guards knew i was just joking about all that buring down the
jailhouse stuff, right? And when i was gunna let some people borrow guns and
go bust ya out ... they knew that was all in jest too right? I mean hell, it
was a buncha canadiens that needed to borrow the guns, they dont know which
end the bullet comes out of!
-jeff (_|_)
Batman
>On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:04:36 GMT, wrote:
>
>>hal wrote:
>>>
>>> CLEARLY _THINLY_ VEILED THREAT.
>>
>>No, what he said was; 'we'll have a summer of fun'- that's lawyer
>>jargon for a lot of activity in court.
>>He wasn't 'clearly wrong', and his refusal to back down from his
>>position is a matter of integrity- a concept you should look up when
>>you go for more potato chips.
>
>Too, funny, actually, I was reading this on my lunch break, and just
>as I read that line I had just stuffed another sour cream 'n onion in
>my mouth. How did you know?
He's tied into your webcam.
>So you see, I know all about integrity, and I know about survival too.
>One is clearly more important than the other. Your friend got his
>priorities mixed up.
It sounds to me like you dont know the first thing about interity. If you can
throw it out the window when the goin gets tough .... its not integrity. End
of story.
>I live
>in Montana, the home of The Freemen and Ted "The Postal Inspector"
>Kazinski" , and I lived in Salt Lake City, the home of The Church of
>Blood Atonement,
Coincidence? Not bloody likely.
-jeff (waterworld is a good show, those critics suck ass)
GOU RONIN®
with their crayola:
>Chas <gryp...@attbi.com> wrote in <3CB739DB...@attbi.com>:
>>Thanks for keeping the thread alive. The prison guards enjoyed it.
>Now, the guards knew i was just joking about all that buring down the
>jailhouse stuff, right? And when i was gunna let some people borrow guns and
>go bust ya out ... they knew that was all in jest too right? I mean hell, it
>was a buncha canadiens that needed to borrow the guns, they dont know which
>end the bullet comes out of!
>-jeff (_|_)
**bang**
Eric Neale
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:38:08 -0700, wrote:
> >But that's what integrity is. Haven't you seen Braveheart? :)
>
> Oh yea. I remember what they did to Wallace. His integrity got him
> nothing but a horribly agonizing death and a name in history.
Well, if we are just talking about the movie, his integrity and
character got his son to sit on the throne of England. (Please don't
flame me if you are British, I did't write the script - that was
Randal Wallace) It was quite an accomplishment for a midevil peasant.
Most people back then got a horribly agonizing death, but to go from
peasant to knight didn't happen very often, and anything more than
that was unthinkable.
Regards,
-Eric
Kallini
Chas
> Most people back then got a horribly agonizing death, but to go from
> peasant to knight didn't happen very often, and anything more than
> that was unthinkable.
He wasn't a peasant. His father (Alan?) was the 'Wallace'; a Welsh
knight (that's what it means). While they weren't wealthy by any
means, his father was an 'authority' that people looked to for
leadership/ righting wrong situations.
His death was particularly horrible because he was an educated man, an
hereditary 'noble' (kinda) that rebelled against the usurper/invader.
The death of 'hanged, drawn & quartered' was about as gruesome and
publicly 'visual' as they could make it.
An aside; it's about my favorite movie- I like the old man with the
big blonde son- when I was taken to jail, it was playing in the intake
tank where I spent the night (retch). Except for a couple of guys
whose own troubles commanded their attention more directly, there
wasn't a dry eye in the house. Very moving to see it with a bunch of
prisoners/detainees.
Badger Jones
>hal wrote:
>> If
>> we must lower our gaze and say "yessir masa", so be it, if that is
>> what it takes to survive.
>
>Ahh.
>Better a live slave than a dead free man, eh?
Hey! Hal's got principles, and if you don't like it... well then he's
got other principles.
>> So you see, I know all about integrity, and I know about survival too.
>> One is clearly more important than the other. Your friend got his
>> priorities mixed up.
>
>Hey, glad you cleared that up. We hadn't heard from a sissy in a long
>time.
LMAO!
Badger Jones
www.cyberus.ca/~badger
"I've come the conclusion that no story cannot be improved upon with a good
cratering." - Ted MacKinnon
Kirk Lawson
> I think Steves own documents about the violation of the restrains
> orders clearly indicates that HE DID, IN FACT, BREAK THE LAW. If I
> missed something, Chas, some concrete facts to the contrary, something
> other than "read the fookin' material" (because one favorite tactic
> of anarchists is to obfuscate the truth with endless reams of
> bullshit), so how about some real facts? So you promise
> substantiation by references. Now please do so.
I believe that the Restraining Order allowed for phone priviliges to the
children.
Peace favor your sword (SFS - Steve For Sheriff)
--
As of 8:45 on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, I live in a nation united.
--
"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of Rec.Martial-Arts
Kirk Lawson
> The nature of the Divorce Case. If in fact, Mr. Gartins divorce, I
> would love to hear what his ex-wifes spin on all of this was. Was her
> fear of Mr Gartin the reason for the original restraining order. Was
> her fear justified?
BTW, Hal, maybe it's news to you but "Restraining Orders" are so
commonly used by women as a weapon trying to hurt or cast in a bad light
that it's become lampooned on Saturday Night Live (See the bit: Gansta
Bitch Barbie).
Wanna make a guy look bad in court during a Child Custody battle? Get a
restraining order on him. No proof needed. Just amble down to the
courts, whip up a story about him being so big and scary, and whammo
instant court weapon.
Wanna put the hurt on your ex hubby? Get a restraining order on them
(one per cracker jack box) and have the police seize the Collector's
Grade M1 and antique knife his father left him when he passed on.
I'm not making this stuff up.
Chas
> I believe that the Restraining Order allowed for phone priviliges to the
> children.
It was framed much more strongly than that by the judge; 'This is not
to interfere with Mr. Gartin's contact with his children.', would be
an accurate quote.
Markus Merritt was not a principal in that household, and arrogated to
himself some decisions about the children that were in contempt of
that order by the judge, as well as his position as a boyfriend, not
the father. Gartin's motions about their contempt of the court's
orders went nowhere; complaints by his detractors were granted even
without evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
A lot of the administrative people didn't want to seem prejudiced by
going against an interracial couple- particularly one which included
the daughter of the leader of the largest Lutheran congregation West
of the Mississippi living in sin in the pastor's house. USWest didn't
want to expose it's negligence with private information from it's
legal clients. The banks didn't want to expose their fiduciary
negligence; the IRS didn't want to expose it's failure to follow even
the most elementary rudiments of their own procedure,....... it was
simply much more convenient to silence Gartin by putting him in jail.
Little did they realize that they had picked a fight with a lifelong
martial artist who understands large database management for
publication, research and investigation- and who buys electrons by the
barrelsful.
Remember the Texas Ranger aphorism; 'you can't stop a man who knows
he's right, and just keeps on comin'.'
Chas
> BTW, Hal, maybe it's news to you but "Restraining Orders" are so
> commonly used by women as a weapon trying to hurt or cast in a bad light
> that it's become lampooned on Saturday Night Live (See the bit: Gansta
> Bitch Barbie).
It was hilarious- you know, if you're not the one going to jail over
it.
They could come up with no threats, no actions, no intimation of any
whiff of possibility of any violence. They had to depend on a fantasy
called; "He loves his children so much that taking them away from him
might lead to some sort of something somewhere sometime against
somebody- and we're fucking him so bad, we're afraid it may well be
us".
> Wanna make a guy look bad in court during a Child Custody battle? Get a
> restraining order on him. No proof needed. Just amble down to the
> courts, whip up a story about him being so big and scary, and whammo
> instant court weapon.
What was just a guffaw was the huge former professional football
player telling the judge that the little pleasant guy over there had
just scared the peepee out of him without ever saying a word, much
less touching him. It was instantly a giggle all over the courtroom,
even from spectators.
> Wanna put the hurt on your ex hubby? Get a restraining order on them
> (one per cracker jack box) and have the police seize the Collector's
> Grade M1 and antique knife his father left him when he passed on.
couple it with a little clear eyed guy asking the judge if he was in
charge of ecclesiastical matters (because some of the stipulations
presented by her lawyer included religious conditions), and he was not
a very popular guy.
Courts run on agreed-upon lies. There are conventions between lawyers
of any stripe, the judge and the system that are based on
knowledgeable untruths. When Gartin stepped up and wouldn't let them
lie, they didn't know anything to do but assault him and imprison him
in the hopes that he couldn't infect any of the other sheeple.
Roy Thomson
who were granted lands in Scotland by King David 1 in the first half of the
twelfth century. <Le Waleys> (as you say, meaning of Wales) became
Wallace after they came north along with their feudal superiors the
Fitzalans (who became the Stewarts - being the King's stewards) William
Wallace was indeed educated, it is said that his motto was "Dico tibi verum,
libertas optima rerum" (I tell you truly, liberty is the best of things).
The reason for his exemplary demise was that (unlike Bruce) he refused to
shift his allegiance and would not bend his knee to Edward Plantagenet of
England - even when offered <the King's peace> in defeat. Having been
Guardian of Scotland, he had risen as high as any man could - not of blood
royal, but was not ennobled. As the second son of a knight he would not
have qualified for the dubious privilege of being beheaded - which was
extended to nobles. His was the fate of the common outlaw.
As a Scot I am always a little perplexed that our greatest heroes were not
Scots. Mentioning this fact in well-oiled company can provoke impromptu
martial demonstrations :-)
Roy
"Chas" <gryp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CB98EB4...@attbi.com...
Batman
>hal wrote:
>> If
>> we must lower our gaze and say "yessir masa", so be it, if that is
>> what it takes to survive.
>
>Ahh.
>Better a live slave than a dead free man, eh?
nope. but thanks for playing hal. hand your pecker in at the door. You are
not qualified to be a man.
-jeff (IH)