quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

> Technicalities aside, we're to believe that the real owner of all

quote:

---

> hardware was a single mother who had recently moved out and, after he
> ripped the phone out of the wall (in her new digs) during an
> altercation, requested a restraining order against Smith ?

quote:

---

>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:21:39 GMT, sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Well, not quite, Sam. He was sentenced for being a *felon* in
>possession of guns.
>
>According to the judge, the weapons included "a tremendous amount of
>firearms, military hardware, gas masks, ammunition, handguns, assault
>rifles, a shotgun".
>
>Technicalities aside, we're to believe that the real owner of all this
>hardware was a single mother who had recently moved out and, after he
>ripped the phone out of the wall (in her new digs) during an
>altercation, requested a restraining order against Smith ?

quote:

---

>I have just received a long and detailed hand-written letter from
> William K. Smith, written to me from his prison cell. The letter is
> surprising because Smith describes himself as a high-tech computer
> software engineer. He asks if I am familiar with the Internet and
> offers me space on his website.
>
> His website is at http://www.stormbringer.tv/
>
> All the details of his court case are on his website. He is a young
> man who has been sentenced to 262 months, which is 13 years, in
> federal prison for nothing more than possession of guns.
>
> He recommends that I join the Libertarian Party. What a coincidence!
>
> Sam Sloan
> http://www.samsloan.com/ussuprep.htm

quote:

---

> Sam,
>
> 262 months is almost 22 years (266 months).
>
> --
> Irvin
> -------------------------
> http://www.pixel69.com
>
>
> "Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
> news:41c49c00.46434375@ca.news.verio.net...
>
>

quote:

---

>I have just received a long and detailed hand-written letter from
> William K. Smith, written to me from his prison cell. The letter is
> surprising because Smith describes himself as a high-tech computer
> software engineer. He asks if I am familiar with the Internet and
> offers me space on his website.
>
> His website is at http://www.stormbringer.tv/
>
> All the details of his court case are on his website. He is a young
> man who has been sentenced to 262 months, which is 13 years, in
> federal prison for nothing more than possession of guns.
>
> He recommends that I join the Libertarian Party. What a coincidence!
>
> Sam Sloan
> http://www.samsloan.com/ussuprep.htm

quote:

---

> Technicalities aside, we're to believe that the real owner of all

quote:

---

> hardware was a single mother who had recently moved out and, after he
> ripped the phone out of the wall (in her new digs) during an
> altercation, requested a restraining order against Smith ?

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

>Sounds reasonable enough to me.

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

> Samuel H. Sloan
> 331 Beach 32nd Street, Apt.
> 19K
> Far Rockaway NY 11691
> (718) 327-3669
>
> December 3, 2004
>
> William K. Smith
> #44684-083
> P.O. Box 1000-AA
> FCI Cumberland
> Cumberland, MD 21502-1000
>
> Re: Smith v. U.S.
>
> Dear Mr. Smith,
>
> You are the victim of an unfortunate screw-up by the United States
> Supreme Court. You sent a petition to that court postmarked October
> 29, 2004. Unfortunately, they rejected your petition and, instead of
> sending it back to you, they sent it to me instead, as I had filed
> three other petitions which had arrived on the same day.
>
> In addition, the US Supreme Court by letter instructed you to submit a
> form which they said that they had enclosed. However, they had not
> enclosed the form.
>
> I contacted the court, which is very difficult to reach by phone.
> After several days of trying, I finally got through and they promised
> to send the form. However, I did not receive it until Monday, November
> 29.
>
> By now, one full month has passed. I am sending your petitions back to
> the US Supreme Court. I assume that they will correct their errors,
> and send the petition you and give you more time.
>
> Otherwise, you will just have to serve your 262 months in federal
> prison, knowing that this was their fault and not yours.
>
> Very Truly Yours,
>
>
>
> Samuel H. Sloan

quote:

---

>
>Tyrone Slothrop Wrote:
>
>I am sure everyone well knows, there is no way anyone "except" a male
>could own weapons. Since single mothers have absolutely no right
>whatsoever to protect themselves.
>
>Besides that, this was just prior to "y2k" and I would have to say
>there were a great many people stock piling weapons, supplies &
>rations. I am not the least bit surprised to find that this "single
>mother" was doing the same around that period of time.
>
>Let's face facts. The "government" had a hard on for the guy ever since
>they found out he had hacked the Alexandria EOC (Emergency Operations
>Centre) trunking system and was carrying around an "HT" (handie talkie)
>programmed with their system on it (the lieutenant used Smith's own HT
>to call in on the system to dispatcher on duty, in order to check and
>to make sure the ID had never been seen/used on the system before).
>
>They did not spend all that money to find some long haired hippy type
>computer hacker throwing a monkey wrench into the works of a
>multi-million dollar EOC radio system. The "single mother" complaint
>against Smith was all they needed to go in and bust the door down, then
>claim "he let us in" and that they were allowed into his premises.
>
>Now, does that sound like a rational explanation for a person who knew
>full well that Alexandria Police were already out to get him? (of
>course it does).
>
>Sounds reasonable enough to me.
>
>I have some ocean front property in Arizona if you're interested too.
>
>William K. Smith - 4600 Duke Street - Alexandria virginia was
>railroaded, plain and simple. The Alexandria Police Department broke
>in, without a warrant I might add, and illegally searched the premises.
>Which renders all of the evidence (every single bit) found/confiscated
>"Fruit of the poison tree" as the result of an illegal search and
>seizure, and therefore, inadmissable as evidence (but, we know it
>didn't work that way now don't we). Now there's a fact for you. The
>government agents/cops lied/purjered themselves, but, then there is no
>real surprise there (at least not for me).
>
>It also sounds a lot like the "single mother" set him up, by moving
>out, not removing her belongings, then sending the cops armed with info
>about the weapons. Otherwise how could they "know" that they would find
>anything after they broke the door down. The "single mother" then
>refused to testify as to the ownership of said "weapons". I don't know
>about you but, I know when I smell a rat. I also know there is a whole
>lot that stinks about this case, and it has "government" written all
>over it (my personal favorite and most trusted group of individuals). I
>for one, will definitely sleep better knowing these type of folks are
>"looking out" for me.
>
>My understanding is, that it's 320 months (26.67 years). Now that also
>sounds perfectly reasonable for having a stock pile for "y2k".
>Especially one that didn't even belong to you. Not!
>
>peace,
>
>haans
>
>
>--
>haansgruber

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

>Mike Murray Wrote:

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

>
>peace,
>
>haans

quote:

---

> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:43:34 +0100, haansgruber
> haansgruber.1xoxes@chessbanter.com wrote:
>
> Mike Murray Wrote:
>
> Yeah, a lot of people paying heavy bucks for an arsenal call the cops
> to get it confiscated. Even if your theory were true, why wouldn't
> she take most of her hardware and leave just one or two items for the
> cops to find? That's enough to put a convicted felon back in the
> can.
>
> Desperate, deranged, psychotic people, do desperate, deranged,
> psychotic things in drunken stupors. I cannot profess to speak for,
> nor
> can I possibly know the precise psyche of an alcoholic "single mother"
> who had a flair for drama in her life, a completely dysfunctional
> family (including her alcoholic mother, and both daughters), not to
> mention a daughter with a cocaine dealing boyfriend who "turned states
> evidence" causing the possibility of retribution against anyone who
> associated with them, or that location. (the reason SHE purchased the
> shotgun to begin with). You see, I have a rather intimate knowledge of
> the facts leading up to this, as in; prior to William Smith even
> meeting "single mother". As well as first hand knowledge of the
> purchase of the majority of the firearms and "military hardware" as
> you
> "so eloquently" continue to refer to it (which it was not).
>
> "Military hardware" was the judge's term. I can't comment on stuff
> you may know first-hand (that wasn't mentioned in the online documents
> on the website Sam cited).
>
> Now, a rational felon "who knew full well that the Alexandria Police
> were already out to get him" would (a) raise holy hell when his
> girlfriend started assembling her military style arsenal and (b) make
> damn sure it was gone if the girl-friend moved out, especially after
> she filed a restraining order. So, either way, this guy wins no
> prize
> for rationality.
>
> Not if he had been lead to believe (by his PO - a government official)
> he was within the law, as well as the terms of his parole/probation:
> Smith had informed his PO (while on probabtion/parole) that there were
> weapons on the shared premises (she made no comment, nor did she tell
> him it was/might be illegal to be in a home with firearms [not a
> military arsenal - the only thing military was radio equipment - I see
> you have selective reading syndrome?] neither did she (Smith's PO)
> relay that "constructive possession" of said weapons might be a
> problem
> under the law being a prior felon).
>
> His informing the PO and her response or lack of same was, of course,
> documented and brought up in court? From what I've read, Smith had
> served seven years for an earlier offense. Somebody with that amount
> of time in jail doesn't know a whole lot more than the average schmuck
> about what the law says regarding felons and firearms?
>
> Regardless of other people's
> reasoning behind COBOL & the supposed threat of "y2k" some people
> rather than take a chance, prepared for the possibility (despite what
> you might express here today) (even the government made extensive y2k
> preparations at extreme taxpayer expense I might add). So, you only
> lose credibility when you make such statements (pull the budget
> records
> for the federal government task force to oversee and minimalize the
> threat posed by y2k). It is very easy now in retrospect to look back
> (and say well, nothing happened - hind sight is 20/20).
>
> And just as easy to reach back in time to invent a reason to account
> for why this woman might have wanted an arsenal for her personal use.
> Was her earlier concern for Y2K documented? Had she told neutral
> parties that she was so concerned about Y2K that she was loading up on
> weapon? Did she testify to this in court?
>
> A single mother with "a tremendous amount of
> firearms, military hardware, gas masks, ammunition, handguns, assault
> rifles, a shotgun"? Looks more like whoever collected this stuff was
> getting ready to *attack* somebody, not defend their little home.
>
> An individual' has the right to keep and bear arms. As I already
> stated
> there was -no miltary hardware- otherwise it would be specifically
> listed (it was listed ONLY as "hardware" for a reason, because it was
> not illegal to possess). Correct me if I am wrong but, people also
> have
> the presumtion of innocence ("Looks more like whoever collected this
> stuff was getting ready to *attack* somebody"). Does a specific number
> of weapons determine a criminal intent? If so, please enlighten me as
> to how many so I can advise people I know to remove the proper number
> from their "collections". No crime had been committed yet you suggest
> one was eminent by your above statement.
>
> Bull. My statement had nothing to do with this collection being
> criminal or the Constitutional right of a non-felon to possess it. I
> was indicating that the extensive nature of the arsenal doesn't lend
> support for the idea that it was for self defense. A single woman
> concerned about a daughter's druggie ex-boyfriend might buy a shotgun,
> a pistol, but gas-masks, assault rifles... Just doesn't add up.
>
> Your argument is absurd, a single mother can't possibly own this
> tremendous amount of weapons therefore it's only logical that this
> felon was the one who did.
>
> Not impossible. My argument was that it's unlikely, that it smells
> fishy, not that it's impossible.
>
> Let me ask you this smart guy, if he was a felon how did he purchase
> these weapons? Most of the weapons were purchased from gun stores
> where
> full information disclosure and valid state ID is required? A
> tremendous
> amount, I believe you keep repeating.
>
> Why, if I were a felon living with a cooperative girlfriend and I
> wanted to buy weapons from gun stores, I'd have *her* buy 'em for me.
> Wouldn't you? Now you say, "most". But we all now there are other
> venues for purchasing the occasional item that local gun stores might
> not carry.
>
> I seem to recall an old saying: be careful of your support of a
> tyrant, for you might one day find those same hands at your own
> throat.
>
> Lot of old sayings might apply here.
>
> peace,
>
> haans

quote:

---

> Mike Murray wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:43:34 +0100, haansgruber
> haansgruber.1xoxes@chessbanter.com wrote:
>
> Mike Murray Wrote:
>
> Yeah, a lot of people paying heavy bucks for an arsenal call the
> cops
> to get it confiscated. Even if your theory were true, why wouldn't
> she take most of her hardware and leave just one or two items for
> the
> cops to find? That's enough to put a convicted felon back in the
> can.
>
> Desperate, deranged, psychotic people, do desperate, deranged,
> psychotic things in drunken stupors. I cannot profess to speak for,
> nor
> can I possibly know the precise psyche of an alcoholic "single
> mother"
> who had a flair for drama in her life, a completely dysfunctional
> family (including her alcoholic mother, and both daughters), not to
> mention a daughter with a cocaine dealing boyfriend who "turned
> states
> evidence" causing the possibility of retribution against anyone who
> associated with them, or that location. (the reason SHE purchased the
> shotgun to begin with). You see, I have a rather intimate knowledge
> of
> the facts leading up to this, as in; prior to William Smith even
> meeting "single mother". As well as first hand knowledge of the
> purchase of the majority of the firearms and "military hardware" as
> you
> "so eloquently" continue to refer to it (which it was not).
>
> "Military hardware" was the judge's term. I can't comment on stuff
> you may know first-hand (that wasn't mentioned in the online
> documents
> on the website Sam cited).
>
> Now, a rational felon "who knew full well that the Alexandria Police
> were already out to get him" would (a) raise holy hell when his
> girlfriend started assembling her military style arsenal and (b)
> make
> damn sure it was gone if the girl-friend moved out, especially after
> she filed a restraining order. So, either way, this guy wins no
> prize
> for rationality.
>
> Not if he had been lead to believe (by his PO - a government
> official)
> he was within the law, as well as the terms of his parole/probation:
> Smith had informed his PO (while on probabtion/parole) that there
> were
> weapons on the shared premises (she made no comment, nor did she tell
> him it was/might be illegal to be in a home with firearms [not a
> military arsenal - the only thing military was radio equipment - I
> see
> you have selective reading syndrome?] neither did she (Smith's PO)
> relay that "constructive possession" of said weapons might be a
> problem
> under the law being a prior felon).
>
> His informing the PO and her response or lack of same was, of course,
> documented and brought up in court? From what I've read, Smith had
> served seven years for an earlier offense. Somebody with that amount
> of time in jail doesn't know a whole lot more than the average
> schmuck
> about what the law says regarding felons and firearms?
>
> Regardless of other people's
> reasoning behind COBOL & the supposed threat of "y2k" some people
> rather than take a chance, prepared for the possibility (despite what
> you might express here today) (even the government made extensive y2k
> preparations at extreme taxpayer expense I might add). So, you only
> lose credibility when you make such statements (pull the budget
> records
> for the federal government task force to oversee and minimalize the
> threat posed by y2k). It is very easy now in retrospect to look back
> (and say well, nothing happened - hind sight is 20/20).
>
> And just as easy to reach back in time to invent a reason to account
> for why this woman might have wanted an arsenal for her personal use.
> Was her earlier concern for Y2K documented? Had she told neutral
> parties that she was so concerned about Y2K that she was loading up
> on
> weapon? Did she testify to this in court?
>
> A single mother with "a tremendous amount of
> firearms, military hardware, gas masks, ammunition, handguns,
> assault
> rifles, a shotgun"? Looks more like whoever collected this stuff
> was
> getting ready to *attack* somebody, not defend their little home.
>
> An individual' has the right to keep and bear arms. As I already
> stated
> there was -no miltary hardware- otherwise it would be specifically
> listed (it was listed ONLY as "hardware" for a reason, because it was
> not illegal to possess). Correct me if I am wrong but, people also
> have
> the presumtion of innocence ("Looks more like whoever collected this
> stuff was getting ready to *attack* somebody"). Does a specific
> number
> of weapons determine a criminal intent? If so, please enlighten me as
> to how many so I can advise people I know to remove the proper number
> from their "collections". No crime had been committed yet you suggest
> one was eminent by your above statement.
>
> Bull. My statement had nothing to do with this collection being
> criminal or the Constitutional right of a non-felon to possess it. I
> was indicating that the extensive nature of the arsenal doesn't lend
> support for the idea that it was for self defense. A single woman
> concerned about a daughter's druggie ex-boyfriend might buy a
> shotgun,
> a pistol, but gas-masks, assault rifles... Just doesn't add up.
>
> Your argument is absurd, a single mother can't possibly own this
> tremendous amount of weapons therefore it's only logical that this
> felon was the one who did.
>
> Not impossible. My argument was that it's unlikely, that it smells
> fishy, not that it's impossible.
>
> Let me ask you this smart guy, if he was a felon how did he purchase
> these weapons? Most of the weapons were purchased from gun stores
> where
> full information disclosure and valid state ID is required? A
> tremendous
> amount, I believe you keep repeating.
>
> Why, if I were a felon living with a cooperative girlfriend and I
> wanted to buy weapons from gun stores, I'd have *her* buy 'em for me.
> Wouldn't you? Now you say, "most". But we all now there are other
> venues for purchasing the occasional item that local gun stores might
> not carry.
>
> I seem to recall an old saying: be careful of your support of a
> tyrant, for you might one day find those same hands at your own
> throat.
>
> Lot of old sayings might apply here.
>
> peace,
>
> haans
>
> So, then if "she" bought them as you suggest here. Then they are hers
> by the laws of ownership and clearly not his (which was his contention
> from the very beginning). The occassional item gun stores might not
> carry are generally not illegal to own, otherwise it's pretty risky
> for
> both parties to that transaction (and more often than not are "setup"
> by government agents such as in the Randy Weaver case at Ruby Ridge in
> order to create crime where no existed). Second the government has gas
> masks. Does that somehow "add up" in your mind? I can see you have a
> fairly significant amount of brainwashing (fairly severe). I can do
> anything government can do. They are "supposedly" the servant of the
> people. When did you ever have a servant who was superior to you, who
> could do things you were forbidden to do? I rest my case. You're one
> of
> these folks who will attempt to make irrational comments and points,
> appear rational. To suit your side of the argument. The government
> prepared for "y2k" the populous had every right, as well as every
> reason to follow suit. I also notice you never touched the part of the
> argument where I said you were a typical lawyer/prosecutor with your
> slanted comments. I also rest my case. It's also obvious you're not
> reading the material here (I already stated she did not testify in
> court when I made the statement she had quite probably/possibly set
> him
> up). I can see it is not only pointless to attempt to reason/debate
> with you. It is also quite fruitless. I can see which side of the law
> you're on ... The band of criminals known as government. Government is
> the disease masquerading as the cure. It's a scam based upon force and
> coercion. Theft cannot be legitimized, it's not the services I have a
> problem with, it's the methods in which they sustain themselves which
> I
> do. Violence only serves to undermine morality. The amount of crime is
> directly proportionate to that of government force, as it increases,
> so
> does crime and violence. Government is based upon force of arms,
> submit
> to government dicates, or rish the wrath of government's armed agents
> of force. If it is right for government to "steal" and "kill," then
> why
> isn't it right for individuals to persue the same actions on their
> own?
>
> peace,
>
> haans