PICKS OF THE FANS!
MAY 20, 2000.
CLICK TO READ!
Click. BUYING A JUDGESHIP by Sherman H. Skolnick
Click. SECRET BILDERBERGER MEETING LOCATED.
Click. IS THERE AN ANTI-MISSILE GAP?
Click. NET RADAR? WATCH OUT!
Click. URGENT HELP NEEDED! RAIDS IN PHOENIX!
Click. THE BOMP! San Diego hit man.
By Sherman H. Skolnick
If you want a car, you buy it. Or, if you are a thief, you
steal it. Business is business. And crime is crime. We
presume everybody understands that. It seems
fundamental in a real world.
And what about public positions? If you want to be a
judge, you, or your friends, buy the job. Or, if you and
your friends are crooks, you procure the judgeship by
blackmail. Yes, there are honest judges in America, but
they are an endangered species. [And we have to
someday post a story just about that and how some
judges in really important matters have been murdered
and the Establishment does not deal with that.]
As a court reform group, Citizen's Committee to Clean
Up the Courts, we have been greatly interested in two
topics for more than 40 years. (1) How does one become
a judge? and (2) In the court rulings that we suspect are
tainted, "bought", or just plain crooked, one of the
tip-offs is the judge, or panel of judges, issues a ruling
containing judicial perjuries, that is, lies they insert based
on supposed "facts", not in the record, but made up by
the Judges out of the air. [A Chief Federal Appeals Judge
from Chicago that does that is the subject of a previous
story of mine. See "Chief Crook in Microsoft Mess".]
Starting about 1966, from various sources, we made up a
list of "prices" to procure a judgeship in a major venue,
like Chicago. To become a state judge in the local court,
such as Cook County [or Crook County] where Chicago
is. The price at that time was 50 thousand dollars
reportedly donated to a key and appropriate official of
the Chicago Bar Association, the lawyers mafia union.
[Now the filling of vacancies on the bench, temporary or
otherwise, leading later to permanent positions, is done
through a Judge on the Illinois Supreme Court, the state's
highest tribunal. More about that later.]
To "buy" a chair in the U.S. District Court, such as in a
sizeable town like Chicago, in 1966, was 250 thousand
dollars, "donated" or "contributed" to the Senior U.S.
Senator from Illinois who makes the pitch to the
President who generally appoints according to such an
order from the Senior Senator, especially if it is from the
same political cabal.
For a judgeship on a federal appeals court, like in
Chicago, that covers appeals from federal district courts
in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana---well, the price was a
million dollars or then and now, "sky is the limit". Now
those were 1966 prices, and the "costs" have gone up
plenty since then.
Why would someone, or his cronies for him, pay 50
thousand dollars to be a local state judge? First of all, it
beats trying to make a living in the law factories (that is
what we call them) and running up and back to the
different courthouses and courtrooms. But more to the
point, it enables the would-be judge to take care of his
political and financial confederates. And since all too
often, justice is for sale in America, it enables a person to
become a judge and live above his regular income,
through pay-offs of some kind, whether in cash or
property, perhaps offshore. [At the time of Shakespeare,
litigants made judges rich by giving them gold buttons for
a favorable ruling.]
Suppose there were no morality, no laws against thievery
and corruption. There you are, the Judge. You are sitting
at a table, or Bench, and on the Bench is a matter
awaiting your handling, worth a half a million dollars. So
what if 25 thousand dollars, or less, falls off the table,
into your suitcase. In business, it would be called a
commission, a finders fee, or a referral fee.
The really big bucks cases are in the U.S. District Court,
such as Chicago, Los Angeles, New York. It would not
be unusual for a multi-million dollar matter to be on the
docket of such a Judge. In the federal courts, you are
appointed for life. Federal Judges "shall hold their Offices
during good Behavior" so says the U.S. Constitution,
Article III, Section 1. For many years it was up to the
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee what was
"good Behavior" to be determined, rarely invoked during
the history of the nation by way of Articles of
Impeachment. That power has now been unlawfully
delegated to be determined by a "club" of judges called
the Judicial Council of the Circuit. That is, the appellate
circuit encompassing the particular U.S. District, such as
7th Circuit, Chicago headquartered.
In recent years, the different Judicial Councils referred
matters for impeachment to the House Judiciary
Committee, against basically honest judges who by their
rulings, angered America's secret political police, the FBI,
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and CIA.For
similar reasons, two black U.S. District Judges were
removed by Impeachment, one in New Orleans and
another in Florida. In Nevada was removed a federal
district judge by a frame-up. He dared pronounce the
apparent truth from the Bench, that the Organized Crime
Strike Force of the U.S. Justice Department were
themselves criminals and mobsters in Nevada. A Latino
federal judge in California dared pronounce, based on the
evidence before him, that the INS and the FBI were the
American Gestapo. Luckily, he beat back the Justice
Department's framed-up criminal charges against him,
but it took a piece out of his life.
Why would a band of "businessmen" get together and
"buy" a chair on the federal appeals court, such as in
Chicago? And pay one million dollars (in 1966 dollars) or
ten million dollars or more in year 2000 dollars? Most all
the cases that try to go beyond the federal appeals courts
require the petitioner, or loser in the appeals court, to beg
the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. It is done by
"knocking on the door" and imploring the high court to
open the door. Called Petition for Certiorari. In a recent
term of the U.S. Supreme Court, on the first day of
Court, 1600 such begging petitions were pending on their
docket. The high court judges being old and tired, or
lazy, or indifferent, refused ALL 1600 petitions. Most
every one, by collect telegram from the Clerk of the high
court, with just one word "Denied", no explanation given.
Really? No merit in 1600 petitions?
So for most cases, the various federal appeals courts are
the end of the line. Hence, it is wise to buy a chair there.
Many of the federal appeals judges own and operate
banks, are tied to banks and other financial entities. We
call them Banker-Judges. They do NOT disqualify
themselves when their financial links are litigants in their
court. Guess who wins in their crooked court? [In the
1960s and 1970s, our work led to the jailing for bribery
of the highest sitting federal judge in U.S. history. When
we accused a 7th Circuit Federal Appeals Judge, to his
face, of bribery, he called a press conference. On all the
media, this Banker-Judge, Otto Kerner, Jr., (former
Illinois Governor), called me a "liar". He tried to get a
fellow judge to jail me for "contempt of court". He died
an ex-convict, convicted as I accused him. The current
federal appeals judges are so angered by our work, they
have unlawfully barred me and a TV Show associate of
mine, from all the federal courts in the 7th Circuit.]
A cynical reality: often after we have fingered a crooked
judge publicly, the Establishment, acting just like the
mafia, throws away the judge. He is no longer useful to
fix cases. Suddenly the local prosecutors remind
themselves that the judge in question does not pay his
proper income taxes and such. So they send him to jail.
No sensible crook would bother to bribe an
already-fingered corrupt judge.
A hard to find book, published about 1962, is "The
Corrupt Judge" by Joseph Borkin. He points out from
specific, documented examples, the few times in U.S.
history that federal judges were removed from the Bench
were when the judge got in the middle between two
sizeable financial entities. The competing forces crushed
the Judge like a bug. But an underdog, such as a patent
owner suing a huge corporation for violating his patent,
gets nowhere accusing a judge of crooked rulings. [In
1963, our group originally was called the Committee to
Protect Patent Owners.] In Chicago, the Banker-Judges
on the Federal Appeals court in three separate appeals on
the same basic case, overturned a district court jury's
verdict, including massive fraud, against Sear Roebuck &
Co., in an important patented tool case. The
Banker-Judges had a financial interest interlocked with
Sears and did NOT disqualify themselves.
In Chicago, a divorce case has led to a supposed federal
investigation of possible judicial bribery in procuring
judgeships. The estranged wife claimed her husband
bought his chair on the local state court for 20 thousand
dollars of the family money. The possible bribery probe
target has been the Chief Judge of the Illinois Supreme
Court, highest tribunal in the State. His home district is
Chicago. He has done some strange things reportedly for
his political crony, Edward "Fast Eddie" Vrdolyak, at one
time a Chicago alderman. The judge once appointed a
judge from the lowly traffic court to sit in the
intermediate court, called the Appellate Court of Illinois.
The appointee reportedly did not have sufficient
experience to be sitting in the middle level reviewing
This Chief Judge who has appointed judges to fill a
vacancy in the lower courts is quite a character. He goes
around town in a cherry red Mercedes. His residence
occupies two floors in a ultra-expensive high rise in the
Gold Coast district of Chicago. [Hey, is this all on his
judicial salary? Really?]
Part of the supposed probe is how "Fast Eddie" gets his
crony, Chief Judge Charles Freeman, to appoint persons
as judges to fill a vacancy. It seems some of them
reportedly are also in the Nursing Home business with
the judge. [Nursing homes are a favorite "investment" for
some corrupt politicians. Such as cronies of Clinton and
their Beverly Enterprises chain of nursing homes.]
How far will the supposed investigation go? There is an
inclination for the FBI, themselves highly corrupt, to
quickly hush up the matter. Why? Some have claimed
that Fast Eddie, for much of his adult life, has been
reportedly a "mole" or stool pigeon for federal authorities,
including the IRS and the FBI. Some contend this stems
from the way Fast Eddie beat back a murder charge
against him, an outgrowth of trying to break a labor union
strike in 1959. At the time, Fast Eddie was a law student
and claimed he was in class at the time of the crime. Did
he strong-arm his teacher for an alibi? Some over the
years continue to say so. Some claim Fast Eddie is a key
feature in the reported buying and selling of judgeships.
By the time of the new century, the prices to buy a chair
in the federal courts has gone way up. At least a million
dollars is reportedly required now to purchase you a
judgeship in the U.S. District Court in a major district
like the one that includes Chicago. Ten million dollars or
more is required to obtain a chair in the U.S. Court of
Appeals, 7th Circuit, Chicago, one step below the U.S.
Supreme Court that rejects the bulk of all the begging
So, if you want to know how and why America has
come to have a corrupt judiciary, covered up by a venal,
lackey monopoly press, and cowardly lawyers, well,
these are some of the reasons.
Since 1958, Mr. Skolnick has been a court reformer and
since 1963, founder/chairman, Citizen's Committee to
Clean Up the Courts. Since 1991 a regular panelist, and
since 1995, moderator/producer of "Broadsides", a
one-hour weekly public access Cable TV program,
cablecast within Chicago to some 400,000 viewers, each
Monday evening, 9 p.m., Channel 21 Cable
Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts
Sherman H. Skolnick, Chairman
9800 So. Oglesby Ave.
Chicago IL 60617-4870.
Subject: BILDERBERG LOCATION FOUND! (More Info.)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 10:29:12 -0700
10 a.m., Washington D.C.
May 19, 2000
SECRET BILDERBERG MEETING LOCATED
The SPOTLIGHT can definitely confirm that the Year 2000 secret meeting of the international Bilderberg organization will beheld June 1-4 at the Chateau du Lac hotel, 9 miles south of the Brussels, Belgium airport. This meeting has been planned under the strictest security in the 30-year history of the Bilderbergers. Thanks to a team of patriotic nationalists in the U.S., Belgium and other countries, the secret meeting was finally located yesterday just minutes before the May 29 issue of The SPOTLIGHT was scheduled to go to press. Page 1 of the paper had to be re-made for this news, which will be delivered to subscribers this coming week and is already in newsstands all over Washington.
The Bilderbergers are afraid that there will be demonstrations at the Chateau du Lac similar to the ones at Geneva, Seattle and Washington D.C. Every year, the Bilderbergers meet at a different location in Europe or the U.S., always closely guarded by hundreds of officers and usually by the army of the host country,
making it impossible to gain entrance. All discussions are kept secret. Bilderberg decisions concerning strategy to install a world government (New World Order) are
communicated to the American Congress and the parliaments of other countries by the
super-powerful plutocrats, politicians, journalists, and propagandists who attend.
For the past 25 years of its existence, only The SPOTLIGHT has reported every year
on this event. No other American newspaper will touch the subject; in fact, most of
them deny that such an organization even exists.
The Chateau Du Lac Hotel Web Page:
The Chateau Du Lac Hotel
Avenue Du Lac 87
All are invited to join the welcoming committee that is going to be there!
Remember: make sure you read The SPOTLIGHT and visit www.spotlight.org for
Is there an anti-missile gap?
By JACOB HEILBRUNN © Issue date: 08.17.98. Post date: 07.31.98
New Republic, May 18, 2000
As an intercontinental ballistic missile streaks from the Middle East toward
the United States, an apoplectic American general stands before an array of
flashing computer consoles. Grabbing a red telephone, he exclaims, "Mr.
President, I can't shoot it down! We don't have a defense. There's nothing I
can do about it." Does this sound like a scene from a Hollywood thriller?
Guess again. It's an excerpt from a new videotape made by the Center for
Security Policy, a think tank run by former Reagan administration official
Frank Gaffney. The videotape's title: "America the Vulnerable."
Until a few weeks ago, the video might have seemed the stuff of right-wing
paranoia. Gaffney himself has consistently been the hardest of the
hard-liners. But then, in July, a bipartisan commission led by former
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld released its report on missile technology.
Overnight, the debate changed.
The report said that official U.S. intelligence assessments have grossly
underestimated the time it would take countries such as Iran or North Korea
to develop and field an intercontinental ballistic missile. According to the
report, these countries are using huge underground laboratories (invisible
to U.S. spy satellites) to test weaponry, and it would take them only five
years, not the 15 predicted by the Clinton administration's November 1995
National Intelligence Estimate, to build it. "Concerted efforts by a number
of overtly or potentially hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with
biological or nuclear payloads," the report said, "pose a growing threat to
the United States, its deployed forces and its friends and allies.... We are
unanimous in our assessment of the threat, an assessment which differs from
published intelligence estimates." Days later, Iran tested the Shahab-3
The Rumsfeld Commission set out to diagnose a problem--not to prescribe a
solution. But for conservatives, who have been searching for a foreign
policy wedge issue ever since the Berlin Wall fell, the report was
heaven-sent. "If we do not decide now to deploy a rudimentary shield," New
York Times columnist William Safire warned, "we run the risk of Iran or
North Korea or Libya building the weapon that will enable it to get the drop
on us." "It's a missile-gap problem," says Frank Gaffney. Gaffney had just
gotten off the phone with an adviser to Steve Forbes--who, like every other
GOP presidential contender from George W. Bush to Gary Bauer, plans to back
a missile defense program come 2000.
Ever since March 1983, when Ronald Reagan--to the astonishment of his own
advisers--announced in a nationwide address that the United States would
develop a space-based missile defense known as the Strategic Defense
Initiative, liberals and conservatives have fought over the idea. Democrats
argued that arms control was the only way to go. A leakproof, invulnerable
missile shield was impossible to build, they said, not to mention
prohibitively expensive. In the end, the skeptics won. Although Reagan
himself never abandoned the dream of SDI, he also turned out to be a great
arms controller. He signed sweeping arms-reduction agreements with Mikhail
Gorbachev. Gaffney and other hawks resigned from the Pentagon in protest.
But the demise of the Soviet empire did not truly settle the dispute:
Missile defense advocates argued, with some plausibility, that the threat of
SDI had persuaded the Kremlin that it could not keep up with American
technology and would have to cut an arms-control deal. Today, the debate
continues, with the arms-control crowd arguing for further treaties with
Russia, while SDI advocates have shifted to calling for a more limited
ground-based missile defense system. "Is the threat of a small-scale attack
comparable to the still-massive arsenal deployed by the Russians?" asks
Alton Frye of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Our first priority must
remain reducing and managing exorbitant stockpiles left over from the cold
war." Richard Garwin, a member of the Rumsfeld Commission, agrees: "The only
real threat to the survival of the United States is the thousands of Russian
And so does the Clinton administration. Vice President Al Gore has
championed arms-control agreements with Russia and the newly independent
states, and, in 1996, the administration pushed the Start II treaty through
the Senate. Moreover, in September 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright signed a package of agreements with the foreign ministers of
Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus that would turn the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty into a multilateral one.
A number of events, though, have disrupted the arms-control process,
supplying the pro-missile defense lobby with fresh ammunition. For one
thing, the Russian Duma has refused to ratify Start II, which remains in
limbo. Then there is North Korea's announcement that it has become an
official merchant of death; the regime has declared its readiness to sell
missile technology to any country capable of paying for it. India and
Pakistan have missiles; both have detonated nuclear bombs. The Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty is stalled in the U.S. Senate, and such treaties have
routinely been flouted, anyway: "Some participants in those agreements have
cheated," the Rumsfeld Commission said. The commission also said that "North
Korea, Iran and Iraq, as well as India and Pakistan, are at the forefront of
this group.... They have extensive access to technology, information and
expertise from developed countries such as Russia and China." Add fairly
porous American technology controls and you have a recipe for disaster.
If the right has rediscovered a potentially divisive campaign issue, the
technology itself remains highly dubious. So far, tests of space-based SDI
systems have been less than reassuring, despite ten years of work and close
to $50 billion spent on development. Nor have ground-based systems enjoyed
much more success. The most recent failure came during tests of the
Lockheed-run project known as Theater High-Altitude Area Defense--thaad.
During a test in May, thaad went thunk, exploding after a mere five seconds
in the air.
It was the fifth-straight failure, and it backed up the warnings sounded by
yet another panel on missile defense: in February, in an important 76-page
study called the "Welch Report," a 16-member panel of missile experts led by
retired Air Force General Larry Welch took a very critical view. "[T]he
drive for early capability is proving to be counterproductive," the report
said, leading to "a rush to failure."
The question, though, is whether near-term failure can evolve into a
long-term success to counter what is clearly a frightful menace posed by
countries such as Iran. Here conservatives exude more than optimism. When
asked about technological questions, they throw off assurances--"We're
beyond the technological debate," says the Heritage Foundation's Baker
Spring--and find other sources of blame for the failure, until now, to build
an effective ground-based defense. Their favorite target: the ABM Treaty,
signed by the United States and Soviet Union in 1972, which prohibits the
development of a nationwide missile defense. "Fundamentally, the problem
remains dealing with the ABM Treaty," says Henry Cooper, who heads the
pro-SDI organization High Frontier and was director of SDI programs in the
Bush White House. "We will waste enormous amounts of money, throwing money
at solutions that are not politically effective, because of the treaty....
We've wasted the better part of two billion on national missile defense. The
administration has curtailed all programs," instead of investing in workable
ones, Cooper says.
For example, missile defense advocates say, the government has not
considered what looks like a very promising prospect: the further
development of aegis. Aegis is a super-high-tech defense system for naval
ships, designed to protect them from aircraft and, in particular,
air-to-surface missiles. The Heritage Foundation and many SDI activists
insist that it's possible to transform aegis into an anti-ballistic-missile
defense. The technological assumptions behind this theory may be iffy, but
these activists complain that the administration's attachment to the ABM
Treaty has prevented it from even looking into the idea.
Most conservatives call for junking the ABM Treaty itself. A 38-page,
single-spaced memorandum prepared for the Heritage Foundation by the legal
firm of Hunton & Williams maintains that the entire treaty is now defunct
because the Soviet Union, the other signatory, no longer exists. Heritage
rests its argument on the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus--that states may
assert a fundamental change of circumstances that render a treaty null and
This is a bit of a stretch. After all, Russia is the successor state of the
Soviet Union and has assumed the obligations of the ex-USSR. Still, the
United States might look into amending the treaty in order to allow the
development of a limited missile defense--something that could thwart
small-scale launches by rogue nations but wouldn't seriously alter the
U.S.-Russian military balance. This, at least, is something that seems
technologically feasible, according to Richard Garwin. "One could do
something about catching those [North Korean] missiles in boost phase," he
says. "Rather than amending the whole ABM Treaty, we should go to the
Russians and say, `This is what we would like to do.'"
Of course, the Russians, who are proving increasingly obstreperous in
nuclear negotiations, may have been the ones who provided the Iranians,
North Koreans, and Iraqis with some of the knowledge and material to help
build ballistic missiles in the first place. And, while the Russians might
be sympathetic, they also know the difficulty of constructing a successful
defense system all too well. Russia, after all, is the one nation that has a
missile defense system--it's a cold war holdover that surrounds Moscow. As
Herbert York, former science adviser to John F. Kennedy, observes, it didn't
do the Russians much good when Mathias Rust flew straight into Red Square in
a single-engine plane. "That's the norm," says York. "I don't believe a
defense can be built against someone else's missile in a sneak attack." As
America becomes aware of its vulnerability, however, the pressure for some
kind of response--whether preemptive military strikes or a limited missile
defense--will become inexorable.
HOME | ARCHIVE | SUBSCRIBE | CONTACT | ADVERTISE
(Copyright 1998, The New Republic)
ABCNEWS By Jack Smith © 2000 Menlo Park, CA May 16, 2000
There's a new technology that's adding fuel to the already fierce debate over privacy on the Internet. It's a piece of software called NetRadar that can spy on groups who are using the Internet to exchange information and to organize.
The software will be used primarily by Fortune 500 companies and local police. It will enable them to gather information on groups such as hackers, protestors and disgruntled employees. The tool works by scanning public areas on the Internet chat rooms, bulletin boards and commercial databases used in Web marketing and picking out key words and phrases. It then makes sense of this information by drawing inferences and displaying it in a way that's easy to understand.
Last week, at the Internet Defense Summit in Menlo Park, Calif., NetRadar gave a demonstration to Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who oversees computer-security issues as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Also there were over 100 executives from various Web-driven companies who met with industry and government security experts to discuss and create a blueprint for security on the
Thompson acknowledged that the software raises some questions about privacy on the Net. I suppose the more proficient the technology, the more you are going to have privacy, Big Brother issues come about, Thompson said. It's real important that we make the point that we're only using public sources, and we have to decide what the trade-offs are. Is it worth the privacy trade-offs in order to be able to apprehend the people more easily?
NetRadar is very similar to technology now used by the government to obtain information on terrorists around the world. And just last month, the FBI said it was
considering using similar technology to gather data on virtually any American. It means that you can never be sure how much information might be gathered, almost on a whim, about you, says Stewart Baker, former National Security Agency General Counsel.
This is a big story that has come out in Phoenix newspapers and the Seattle Times. I have heard also out to about 4 other major newspapers in the country. We need all the support we can get here in trying to make this known. We need to stand up to these guys or they will continue to do what they have done to my friends here in Phoenix. Would greatly appreciate it if we could have your support in getting this information out. The latest information is on the website at www.wces.org Thanks very much. Pamela
Press Release - RAID on MAY 10, 2000
We are asking all members to please distribute this press release to as many people as possible. It is our request that you send this document either within an email or as an attachment depending on how your people can best receive it. We are going to ask you to send another message as a follow up which will be arriving shortly.
Stand tall. We are messengers of the truth,
and nothing is more powerful than the truth!
Educators under Armed Attack In Phoenix
On Wednesday morning the 10th of May 2000, in a suburb north of Phoenix, Arizona, Mr. JW Zidar, and his partner, Dr. Lorraine were backing out of their driveway on their way to the airport. They were setting off on a trip to Europe for a few days. When, from all around them, began an action known as a “drawing down”. Men in full assault gear, with automatic weapons drawn and pointed directly at Mr. Zidar and Dr. Lorraine surrounded their automobile from all sides. Screaming for them to raise their hands, to freeze, to stop the car. Dr. Lorraine, being in a mild state of shock at this unprecedented assault, did not immediately raise her hands, and so, two of the attackers pointed their gun directly at her head as one screamed for her to “get her hands up in the air”. At this point, Dr. Lorraine slowly raised her hands, as it dawned on her that the screaming she was hearing was directed at her. She was later to remark that “all you see is guns.. all you remember is guns pointing at you.”
The attackers then removed Mr. Zidar and Dr. Lorraine from the car. Taking one to the rear and one to the front of the automobile, their hands were cuffed behind their backs, and they were taken back into their home, where they were put in separate rooms under armed guard and interrogated, still handcuffed, for over an hour.
No documents, no search warrants, no phone calls, no legal representation. The assault team then held Mr. Zidar and Dr. Lorraine for eight hours under armed guard while they searched the premises. In the exercise of any search warrant, by law, the owners of the property being searched have the right to accompany the search team as they conduct their search. Mr. Zidar and Dr. Lorraine were held in their dining room as the searchers went through and removed their belongings from throughout their house. In all, 32 boxes of their personal belongings were removed from the premises.
At the end of the day, one of the federal agents asked Mr. Zidar if he had the documents which authorized the search. He replied that he had seen no such documents. At which point, the agent, apologizing profusely, offered over a set of documents purported to be the authorization for this amazing set of events.
Who are these enemies of the State? Were these hardened criminals, drug dealers, or members of some Mafia we have not heard of? Hardly. These two, who are such an apparent threat to our government that they were drawn down at gunpoint, are teachers.
Teachers? That can’t be. This is America. We don’t send assault teams to raid the homes of teachers in this country. They must be criminals. They must be conspirators. They must be inciting some sort of cult ritual, or encouraging people to riot or commit mass suicides or something, or this could not have happened. They are stealing people’s money, or perhaps they are stealing government secrets and selling them to the Chinese. There must be some “logical” explanation for the events of this past Wednesday morning that we aren’t being told. Well, that is a fact. There are.
These two people, along with another couple, a Mr. And Mrs. John Matthews, were raided Wednesday morning by armed agents of the federal government for teaching people the truth. Mrs. Matthews was on her telephone, making some arrangements to do with an upcoming graduation when the assault team knocked on her door. She didn’t hear the knock, but her son, who was getting himself ready for school, did. He answered the door just as the agents were preparing to use the “door bar” and break it down. As he opened the door, an agent grabbed him and threw him up against the wall, pinning him there. The agent barked out a demand for his name, and his birth date. At that moment, Mrs. Matthews, hearing the commotion, rounded the corner to the front hall and, seeing the agents, said to her son “You do not have to answer any questions.” Apparently, that was the wrong thing to say at that moment, for in the next instant another armed agent had ripped the telephone out of her hand and pinned her arm up behind her back. And so it was that two families in Arizona received a brand new education into the politics of fear and intimidation.
What are the facts and findings here? What events occurred which led up to this bizarre tale? Mr. Zidar and Dr. Lorraine are the educators and founders of an educational organization named the World Community Educational Society (WCES). Mr. and Mrs. Matthews are long standing members of that society. WCES has been conducting adult distant learning classes and live telephone classes through their college for some time, a little over three years. The college also has a web site, http://www.wces.org, which hosts the classes by real audio so those students, who cannot attend the live classes, can listen to them on the web site. They have had a variety of instructors, teaching subjects ranging from the founding and operation of the Federal Reserve System, to alternative health education. There are currently thousands of students of the college, all over the world, who come to the classes and the web site regularly to receive truthful information about the banking and government systems which run the modern economic world. The membership of this society is now growing at a rate that surpasses even the largest private organizations around the world. Membership is growing faster than the AARP. (American Association of Retired People). On May 5th, 2000, many hundreds of members of this society arrived in Las Vegas to share community, to meet each other and share ideas and learn from educators from all over the world.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC), recently called Mr. Zidar and Mr. Matthews into an inquiry in a courtroom in Denver, Colorado. In a series of court appearances, they were accused by the SEC of no criminal acts, nor were they presented with any evidence of wrongdoing. They were not detained, and were due to appear for yet another hearing in the Denver courtroom before the judge in June. In point of fact, the judge had made it clear in the most recent court appearance that he failed to see any evidence which would warrant a return to his courtroom by any of the parties involved, and had suggested that the agents of the government were wasting his time. He further admonished the parties to settle their differences as gentlemen. Mr. Zidar and Mr. Matthews had returned to their homes in Arizona and, shortly there after, attended the membership meeting of their private society in Las Vegas; a society of which this writer is a member.
There is only speculation as to what prompted the events of this past Wednesday morning. Was this outright assault the gentlemanly response the judge was looking for? Perhaps someone should interview the judge and ask him. The SEC agent bringing the matter to the courtroom is the very same authorizing agent named in the “search warrant” documents. And exactly how is it that a “search warrant” becomes implemented in this form of open assault? In point of fact, simultaneous to the assault, a media spin campaign was engaged. Articles in newspapers claiming SEC “allegations” appeared in some parts of the country. Careful reading of these articles reveals that there are no “facts” presented in them. Only “allegations” and hearsay. How is it that these articles came to be written? What is the mechanism by which this information is disseminated to the press? Do the agents of the government call the reporters and read them a set of “allegations” and call it “news”? How is it that the physical assaults on these innocent and not proven guilty of anything citizens is come to be called a “raid”? And what sort of system are we living in that has a language for the armed assault of it’s people by it’s civil servants, and no language to define the rights of it’s people in common usage?
Yes, it was teachers, and some dedicated students, whose homes were raided this past Wednesday in Phoenix. Part of an educational society that is not going to bow to the pressures of gun toting “federal” agents. A society whose members will not stop learning, either. The government has become the armed militia for the banks and Americans are dumbfounded as they watch the value of their money erode and their stock markets go into a lunatic whirlwind of insane proportions. There is a great and illegal and unlawful collusion going on here, and there are many many people finally, beginning to understand that it is by virtue of this collusion that their rights have become privileges and their money has become worthless.
By virtue of our ignorance, our signatures upon their documents allow the bankers to create vast sums of wealth which they in turn loan back to us, at interest, using these same instruments,. And we wonder why, the harder we work the less we have. Our families are divided up into working adults and children/dependents who are financial liabilities and tax shelters to the point that no one is left at home to raise them as children, and we wonder why our culture is disintegrating around us.
We turn over our responsibilities en masse to a system of governance and “order” which has wrought nothing but destruction upon our livelihoods and lifestyles and wonder why nothing changes for the better. We do not trust our own neighbors or ourselves to do the right thing, but rather entrust the authority of enforcement into the hands of bureaucrats and strangers and marvel at the deterioration of our nation.
And so it is, that a man named JW Zidar, along with other pioneers around the globe, find themselves turning over their life work, their personal lives, their selfish pursuits, to a cause of education. They rise up out of the common mass of humanity and make a choice to forgo the easy path, to align themselves and their lives to finding and sharing the truth.
We will not be deterred from our mission of peaceful change and education. Education that teaches people the laws of this land and encourages personal responsibility and honor in all matters. Education that is based on the fundamental principles of a free Republic and the documents and legal structures which support those fundamental principles. Not a “free democracy” but a free individual in a free Republic, where government is a servant of the people and not the tyrant reigning over them. It seems that as a people, we are choosing to awaken, and to take personal responsibility for our own minds.
As members of a private society, dedicated to education and truth, we give thanks and honor to our teachers, and we hold them up in admiration and love for standing the test of assault and battery. We are not radicals or conspirators. We are educators and we are armed with the true history of a nation that has been deceived and lied to for a hundred years. It is time to stop the lie. It is time to tell the truth. ###
THE ARTICLE IN THE SEATTLE TIMES IS HERE....
Part II this coming week ...
Allan May, Crime Historian
Allan May is an organized crime historian, writer and lecturer. He teaches classes on the history of organized crime at Cuyahoga Community College. Contact him at
San Diego Hitman, Boss & FBI Informant
(Part One) By Allan May
Few hoodlums ever handled the dual responsibilities of being a ranking member of a Mafia family and a FBI informant like Frank Bompensiero and James “Jimmy the Weasel” Fratianno. Ironically, the two mobsters were best friends. However, when the FBI decided that Fratianno was a bigger fish than Bompensiero, they left him out on a limb that was quickly cut off by the Los Angeles mob.
Bompensiero was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1905. Not much is known about his early years. The first murders he was involved in for the mob turned out to be “messy” ones. In California during 1937, newly arrived Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel laid down the law and stated that all West Coast gamblers would have to share their profits fifty-fifty with him. The lone dissenter was Lew Brunemann, a gambler from Redondo Beach who had aspirations of controlling all the gambling in southern California.
In July 1937, Brunemann was strolling along Redondo Beach with a beautiful blonde hostess from one of his clubs. Bompensiero and another gunman walked up behind him and put three slugs in his back. Brunemann survived. During his recovery period Bompensiero found out that Brunemann was leaving the hospital and having his dinners at the Roost Café, a classy Redondo Beach restaurant, with one of his nurses. On October 25, Bompensiero showed up with gunman Leo “Lips” Moceri.
Moceri had made a name for himself in the Mid West with the murder of popular Toledo bootlegger and gambler Jackie Kennedy in 1933 as a member of Detroit’s Purple Gang. Thomas “Yonnie” Licavoli was sentenced to life in prison for the murder. Moceri was never tried.
Moceri, who didn’t trust Bompensiero, told Jimmy Fratianno about the murder of Brunemann:
“I’ve got a forty-five automatic and the place’s packed with people. I walk right up to his table and start pumping lead. Believe me, that sonovabitch’s going to be dead for sure this time.
“Bomp’s supposed to be by the door, watching my back to make sure nobody jumps me. I turn around and I see this football player … coming at me. Bomp’s nowhere in sight. Now I’m either going to clip this (guy) or he’s going to knock me on my ass. So I blast him and run out, and there’s Bomp already in the fucking car … waiting for me. That guy showed me his color…”
Moceri then warned Fratianno, “If you ever work with Bomp, get him out in front of you instead of behind you.” The police arrested another man for the murder of Brunemann and he was convicted and sent to prison.
Moceri then told Fratianno that on February 28, 1938, Bompensiero abducted Phil Galuzo off a Los Angeles street. Forced into an automobile, Galuzo was given a vicious beating before he was dumped in the gutter and shot six times. Galuzo died in the hospital a week later.
Bompensiero then disappeared from the West Coast for three years. Moceri gave him the names of some people who would safe-keep him in Detroit, where he remained for two years. He then went to Tampa and was protected by the Trafficante Family. When he returned to Los Angeles in June 1941, the murder charges against him were dropped due to lack of evidence.
After the murder of Bugsy Siegel in June 1947, hapless Los Angeles Mafia boss Jack Dragna attempted to take over the local gambling operations. He ran into a road block in the form of Mickey Cohen, one of Siegel’s top henchmen who was not willing to relinquish any of the rackets and the war was on.
Cohen did not see Fratianno as his enemy yet. On August 18, 1948, Fratianno, and his wife and daughter visited Cohen’s haberdashery shop under the guise of picking up tickets to see the musical Annie Get Your Gun. Outside was a hit squad waiting for the Weasel’s signal. Fratianno thanked Cohen for the tickets and, before leaving, shook the pint-sized mobster’s hand. What Fratianno wasn’t aware of was that Cohen had a strange fetish for cleanliness. As soon as Fratianno left, Cohen immediately retreated to a bathroom to wash his hands.
Once outside, Fratianno signaled Frank DeSimone and a car containing four men pulled up and three jumped out. At the same time, Cohen bodyguard, Hooky Rothman walked out. Bompensiero, wearing sunglasses and a white Panama hat pulled low over his forehead, stuck a sawed-off shotgun in Rothman’s face and ordered him back in. As the other two gunmen ran past him, Rothman swung at the shotgun causing it to go off obliterating his face and killing him instantly. Two other Cohen associates, Al Snyder and Jimmy Rist, were slightly wounded, but the gunmen never got to Cohen who throughout his life had a miraculous record of avoiding murder attempts.
After this failed attempt, Moceri would once more question Bompensiero’s ability:
“It was Bomp’s contract, and he blew it. Listen, (the others) didn’t know Mickey from a lamp post, but Bomp did. They go in there and blast away at Al Snyder thinking he’s Mickey. Then they shoot him in the arm, for Christ’s sake, While this’s going on, Mickey’s in the shitcan, standing on top of the sink. They didn’t pump one slug through that door. Like a bunch of cowboys, they panicked and ran out instead of finishing the job.”
Around this time Jack Dragna appointed Bompensiero boss of the San Diego territory. He and Dragna jointly owned several bars in the area and Bompensiero had his office at the Gold Rail. In the early 1950s, Fratianno met with Bompensiero there to discuss plans to murder Frank Borgia, an ex-bootlegger still tied to Dragna. Bompensiero explained to Fratianno that Gaspare Matranga was trying to extort money from Borgia and he went to Dragna to lodge a complaint. What Borgia didn’t know was that Dragna was in on the shakedown and he ordered Bompensiero to murder him. Bompensiero told Fratianno what a double-dealing rat Dragna could be. This was a habit of Bompensiero’s, making disparaging statements about fellow Mafiosi behind their backs, which he would continue for years until it eventually led to his downfall.
The murder plot called for Borgia’s best friend to set him up – a standard Mafia murder practice. Anthony Mirabile brought Borgia to the home of Joseph Adamo. Once inside the front door, Mirabile grabbed Borgia in a bear hug, while Bompensiero and Fratianno performed what the Weasel called the “Italian rope trick.” That is they looped a rope around the victim’s throat and two men pulled from opposite ends until the person was choked to death.
A side note to this incident, Joseph Adamo’s brother was Giolamo “Momo” Adamo, a onetime underboss of the family. In 1956, Frank DeSimone was about to become boss of the Los Angeles Mafia. That year, according to a police informant, DeSimone raped Adamo’s wife, Marie, in the presence of Momo. The humiliated Adamo later shot his wife and then committed suicide in their San Diego home. Marie Adamo survived her wounds and later married Bompensiero.
Next on the hit parade was Louis Strauss, better known as “Russian Louie.” Strauss had attempted to blackmail Benny “the Cowboy” Binion, a former Dallas bootlegger and now a Las Vegas developer. Apparently Strauss made his threats unaware that Binion had known Jack Dragna for many years. Binion promised Dragna a twenty-five percent interest in a future casino if he would handle this problem. It took eighteen months, but in April 1953, Fratianno enticed Strauss into a setup in California. When Strauss entered the house Joe Dippolito performed the bear hug routine, while Bompensiero and Fratianno turned the Italian rope trick again. This time, oddly enough, four other mobsters were on hand to observe the strangling.
The casino deal never materialized and several years later Fratianno brought this to Binion’s attention. Binion agreed to pay Fratianno $60,000 for his work, which the Weasel promptly split among his co-conspirators – Bompensiero, Dippolito, and “Milwaukee Phil” Alderisio, who drove Strauss to the murder house.
In 1955, Bompensiero was convicted on three counts of bribery in the sale of a California state liquor license and was sentenced to three to fourteen years in San Quentin. He would serve a total of five years. A year before Bompensiero’s release, Fratianno was transferred to the same prison. While together, Bompensiero related to the Weasel that while he was awaiting trial on the bribery charges, he killed “Red” Sagunda, an ex-Cleveland thug who had made his way to San Diego.
During the time Bompensiero and Fratianno were away in prison, major changes were taking place in the Los Angeles Crime Family. Jack Dragna died in 1957 and was succeeded by lawyer-turned-mobster Frank DeSimone. The family, which would become known as the “Mickey Mouse Mafia,” grew weaker under his leadership. When DeSimone died in 1968, his replacement, Nick Licata, would prove to be even less effective.
From 1960 to 1965, his probation period, Bompensiero avoided problems with the law. However, both he and Fratianno made overtures to get transferred to the Chicago Family. Only the Weasel was successful in this endeavor.
To be continued next week.
Copyright A. R. May 2000
div. of PLR International
P.O. Box 19146
Cleveland, OH 44119-0146
Copyright © 2000 PLR International