-Caveat Lector-
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:10:42
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 06-30-99 -- ACLU Newsfeed: Supreme Court Term Wrapup, More!
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE ACLU NEWSROOM
**The Latest News Can Always Be Found At:**
http://www.aclu.org/news/pressind.html
* Ford Foundation Gives $7 Million to
ACLU Endowment Campaign
* ACLU Savors Supreme Court Victories,
but Sees 'Uncertain' Future for Civil Liberties
* Campaign to Amend Constitution Loses Ground
Despite Multi-Million Dollar Campaign
* ACLU Cautions Senate to Protect
Both Civil Rights and Religious Liberty
* Employment Protection Bill Reintroduced;
Measure would Protect Gays in the Workplace
* ACLU Challenges Michigan Cyber-Censorship Law,
Citing Commerce Clause and Free Speech Rights
* List of other recent ACLU Press Releases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Foundation Gives $7 Million to
ACLU Endowment Campaign
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, June 28, 1999
NEW YORK--In a display of substantial confidence in and dedication to
key areas of
the American Civil Liberties Union's program, the Ford Foundation has
contributed $7
million to its endowment fund, the Trust for the Bill of Rights, the
largest gift the ACLU has received to date.
The $7 million from the Foundation, together with other significant
commitments, has
enabled the ACLU to surpass its initial goal of raising $25 million for
its first ever
endowment six months ahead of schedule.
The Foundation said that the contribution is the second largest
endowment gift it has
given in the past decade and among the largest ever in its history of
giving.
"The Ford Foundation has long supported the ACLU's essential role in
protecting
individual rights and fighting discrimination," said Susan Berresford,
the Foundation's
President. "This gift will help ensure that future generations will
continue to benefit from the ACLU's important work."
As a litigant in virtually every important Supreme Court case involving
civil liberties, the ACLU has been central to the development of
democratic ideals in America. But the
fight, according to Ira Glasser, Executive Director of the national
ACLU, is far from
over.
"The ACLU has had no better partner and friend than the Ford
Foundation," Glasser
said. "The Trust for the Bill of Rights was created to allow us to
continue our defense of the Bill of Rights, eradicate invidious
discrimination and protect individual civil liberties into the next
century. It is fitting that the largest single gift to this effort, and
in fact the largest gift ever to the ACLU, should come from Ford."
The gift will continue to support the ACLU's work on behalf of
reproductive rights,
voting rights and against discrimination based on race, gender, national
origin or
immigration status.
Glasser noted that the endowment gift would not preclude the ACLU from
applying for other grants from the Foundation in the future.
In making its gift, the Ford Foundation has issued a challenge to the
ACLU and its
supporters to raise $2 for each $1 donated by the Foundation. With the
fulfillment of
this $14 million challenge and completion of a "second phase" campaign,
the Trust will total more than $40 million.
"This is an unprecedented challenge and opportunity for us," said
Glasser. "When we
first explored the possibility of building a $25 million endowment, we
weren't even sure it could be done. Now the Ford Foundation has not only
ensured that we will meet our goal, but is challenging us to raise our
sights even higher."
At the time the ACLU publicly launched its endowment campaign in May
1997, it had
already raised more than $10 million towards its December 1999 goal of
$25 million.
The Ford Foundation, established in 1936, is a private, nonprofit
institution that serves
as a resource for innovative people and institutions worldwide. Its
goals are to
strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote
international
cooperation, and advance human achievement.
Headquartered in New York City, the ACLU has 53 staffed affiliates in
major cities,
more than 300 chapters nationwide, and a legislative office in
Washington, D.C. The
ACLU Foundation (ACLUF) is the national tax-deductible, 501(c)(3) arm of
the
ACLU. Its combined annual budget is approximately $45 million.
The bulk of the annual budget is raised by contributions from individual
members --
275,000 strong -- plus grants from foundations. Eighty percent of the
budget directly
supports litigation, legislation and public education programs. Fund
raising costs average twelve percent of total expenses, and management
and administration account for an additional 8 percent. This level of
efficiency consistently ranks the ACLU and ACLUF among the nation's
bestrewn charitable organizations, with high approval ratings from
industry watchdog groups.
Ira Glasser has been Executive Director of the national ACLU since 1978;
Nadine
Strossen was elected president of the National Board in 1991. Founded in
1920 by
Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver, Jane Addams, Felix
Frankfurter,
Helen Keller and Arthur Garfield Hayes, the ACLU celebrated its 75th
anniversary in
1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Savors Supreme Court Victories,
but Sees 'Uncertain' Future for Civil Liberties
Full Report on Major Civil Liberties Decisions
of the 1998-1999 Supreme Court Term
http://www.aclu.org/court/99fullsum.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 24, 1999
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court engaged in a historic debate on the
meaning
of federalism in a series of broad ranging decisions issued at the close
of its 1998 Term. In three separate cases, each decided by a 5-4 vote,
the Court once again
demonstrated its increasing willingness to curb federal power in favor
of states' rights.
"These decisions would have been unthinkable even a decade ago," said
Steven R.
Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director. "Their long term impact on
civil rights
and civil liberties is uncertain but troubling."
On a more positive note, Shapiro said, the Court's decisions earlier
this Term affirmed a wide range of civil liberties. Among the civil
liberties victories, the Justices struck down a Chicago anti-gang
loitering ordinance and a California law limiting welfare benefits; they
also upheld privacy rights in a police ride-along case from Maryland.
The trilogy of federalism cases included Alden v. Maine, where the Court
ruled that the state government could not be sued in state court under
the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act because the state had not waived its sovereign immunity
and Congress
had no power to override it. Only three years ago, the Court had ruled
that similar
claims could not be brought in federal court because of the Eleventh
Amendment. As a result, the state workers in Alden were left with no
place to go in their effort to enforce
federal law against their state employer.
The Court built on another recent states' rights decision when it held,
in Florida
Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank,
that
Congress had exceeded its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment by
attempting to make the states liable for patent infringement. This is
the second time in
two years that the Court has narrowly construed Section 5, which is a
principal
constitutional source for many civil rights laws.
In its third federalism decision, College Savings Bank v. Florida
Prepaid
Postsecondary Education Expense Board, the Court made it more difficult
to find
that a state has waived its sovereign immunity and agreed to be sued in
federal court.
Several of the most important victories this term came in ACLU cases.
"The Court's
record in more traditional civil rights cases was probably better than
expected," Shapiro said.
In Saenz v. Roe, the Court struck down a California law that paid lower
welfare
benefits to newcomers from another state. In the process, the Court
reinvigorated the
Privileges and Immunities Clause, which has the potential to become a
significant new source of individual rights.
In Chicago v. Morales, the Court held that Chicago had given its police
too much
discretion when it allowed them to sweep off the streets anyone seen
loitering with "no apparent purpose" in the company of at least one
suspected gang member.
And, in Wilson v. Layne, the Court held that preserving the privacy of
homeowners is
more important that providing the police with photo opportunities. Thus,
the police may not invite the press to accompany them into a home when
they execute a search or
arrest warrant.
The Court showed less sensitivity to constitutional values in Reno v.
Arab-American
Anti-Discrimination Committee. On the actual question briefed and argued
by the
parties, the Court held that an alien who is facing deportation cannot
bring a selective
prosecution claim to federal court until his deportation proceedings are
completed. Far
more disturbing, however, the Court also ruled -- on a question neither
side briefed nor argued -- that the Constitution does not prohibit the
government from singling out
particular aliens for deportation because of their controversial
political views.
Accordingly, the claim may later be timely but it will never be valid.
The Court's judicial activism also surfaced in Kolstad v. American
Dental
Association. After holding that a Title VII plaintiff can recover
punitive damages
without showing that the defendant's conduct was "egregious," the Court
went on to
decide, again without benefit of any briefing, that an employer who
makes a "good faith" effort to comply with Title VII can never be held
liable for punitive damages based on the acts of its agents.
The other major sex discrimination case on the Court's docket was Davis
v. Monroe.
There, the Court ruled that school districts could be held liable under
Title IX for
student-to-student harassment if they were aware of the problem and
reacted with
"deliberate indifference" rather than trying to solve it. Justice
O'Connor, who provided
the crucial fifth vote and wrote the majority opinion, made clear in her
response to
Justice Kennedy's dissent that the case, for her, was about equal
opportunity and not
about federalism.
This was also a big year for disability rights cases, where the Court's
record was
decidedly mixed. In three cases, led by Sutton v. United Air Lines, the
Court held that
a person could be too disabled to work, at least in the eyes of an
employer, but not
disabled enough to invoke the anti-discrimination protections of the
Americans with
Disability Act.
By contrast, in Olmstead v. L.C., the Court held for the first time that
unnecessary
institutionalization is itself a form of discrimination against the
mentally disabled and
therefore prohibited by the ADA. At the same time, the Court held that
states cannot be ordered to "fundamentally alter" a reasonable plan for
treating the mentally disabled,
even it if does not immediately produce the proper placement for each
patient. It
remains to be seen how these potentially conflicting principles will be
reconciled in later cases.
The Court also had a mixed record on voting rights. In Dept. of Commerce
v. U.S.
House of Representatives, the Court held that the Census Act prohibits
the use of
statistical sampling for congressional apportionment even though it is
widely agreed that minorities have historically been undercounted. On
the other hand, in Hunt v.
Cromartie, the Court not only showed a new recognition of the complex
relationship
between race and politics in electoral redistricting, but the opinion
was written by
Justice Thomas, who has long been skeptical about redistricting plans
under the Voting Rights Act.
The Court's death penalty decisions lacked any silver lining. In three
different cases, the Court applied harmless error analysis or its
equivalent to uphold a death sentence. For
example, in Strickler v. Greene, the Court refused to grant a writ of
habeas corpus
because the defendant had shown only a "reasonable possibility," rather
than a
"reasonable probability," that exculpatory evidence improperly withheld
by the
prosecution would have affected the outcome of the trial. Also, in Jones
v. United
States, the Court affirmed its first death penalty under the 1994
federal Death Penalty
Act.
On the question of Fourth Amendment law, the Court held that the police
cannot search the car of someone they have merely ticketed for speeding,
Knowles v. Iowa, but they can search the purse of a car's passenger once
the driver has been arrested, Wyoming
v. Houghton. The Court also ruled, in Minnesota v. Carter, that guests
in a house
generally lack standing to object to an unconstitutional search unless
they are staying
overnight.
Finally, the Court decided two First Amendment cases outside the
immigration context. In Buckley v. American Constitutional Law
Foundation, the Court struck down
three Colorado provisions intended to place limits on the use of paid
circulators to
gather petition signatures for a ballot initiative. In Greater New
Orleans Broadcasting
Association v. United States, the Court continued to provide enhanced
protection for
commercial speech by striking down a loophole ridden federal statute
that barred
private casinos from advertising on radio or television.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign to Amend Constitution Loses Ground
Despite Multi-Million Dollar Campaign;
Margin of Passage for the Flag Desecration Constitutional
Amendment Shrinks for Third Vote in a Row
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 24, 1999
WASHINGTON-- Despite news reports that supporters of the "Flag
Desecration
Constitutional Amendment" spent more than $15 million dollars in its
campaign to
amend the Constitution, today's vote for the amendment dropped by five
from last year, the American Civil Liberties Union said. Although the
measure passed, this marks the third year of declining support for the
amendment.
"Although disappointing, today's vote shows that the movement to amend
the Bill of
Rights has lost momentum in the House," said Laura W. Murphy, Director
of the
ACLU's National Washington Office. "We're hopeful that Senators will
recognize that
the American public has shown no overwhelming desire to amend the
Constitution to
address something that happens only a handful of times a year."
The amendment passed by a vote of 305-124, just 15 more than the 290
votes
required for passage of a constitutional amendment. The amendment was
passed
310-114 in 1997, and 312-120 in 1995.
While supporters of the flag amendment have touted poll numbers showing
that the
American public supports outlawing flag desecration, other polls have
shown much less support for amending the Constitution. In 1995, for
example, by 52 percent to 38
percent, Americans rejected such an amendment when they discovered it
would be the
first in our history to restrict our First Amendment freedoms.
"Veterans and religious leaders have stepped forward to say this
constitutional
amendment would take America in the wrong direction," said Terri
Schroeder, a
legislative analyst for the ACLU. "Together we will remind the Senate
that amending the Constitution to mandate patriotism will accomplish
nothing more than diminish the very freedoms the flag represents."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Cautions Senate to Protect
Both Civil Rights and Religious Liberty
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, June 23, 1999
WASHINGTON -- Testifying before a Senate panel, the American Civil
Liberties
Union today cautioned that any new legislation designed to protect
religious liberty must not also undermine state and local civil rights
laws.
Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee, ACLU Legislative Counsel
Christopher E. Anders said that the ACLU has long supported both
religious freedom
and civil rights.
"For nearly a decade, the ACLU has fought in Congress and the courts to
protect
religious freedom," Anders said in his testimony. "But any legislation
designed to protect religious freedom must also preserve the state and
local laws that have long safeguarded Americans' civil rights."
During hearings on the proposal last year, Anders said that proponents
specifically
stated their belief that the legislation "could and should be used as a
defense to civil
rights claims based on gender, religion, sexual orientation and marital
status."
Recent state and federal courts decisions have allowed landlords
nationwide who have
discriminated on the basis of marital status to use state religious
liberty laws to avoid
state and local civil rights laws.
The ACLU withdrew its support for religious liberty legislation under
consideration in
the House "because of our concern that some courts may turn its shield
for religious
exercise into a sword against civil rights," Anders said.
"The stakes are too high," Anders said. "Congress must not pass
legislation that leaves
the effect on civil rights an unresolved question."
The ACLU and other groups are eager to work with the Judiciary Committee
to pass
legislation that protects both religious freedom and civil rights,
Anders said.
Warning the committee of "potentially severe consequences," Anders said
that
legislation under consideration by the House severely jeopardizes state
and local civil
rights laws. Under that legislation, applicants may soon find themselves
without
subjected to landlords or employers who base their hiring or rental
decisions on
personally invasive questions such as: Is that your spouse? Are those
your children? Are you straight or gay? Are you pregnant? Are you HIV
positive? What is your religion?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Employment Protection Bill Reintroduced;
Measure would Protect Gays in the Workplace
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 23, 1999
WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers today reintroduced a
federal
bill banning workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation,
saying that every
American should have the equal right to be free from bias at their jobs.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, was reintroduced with
the
leadership of Republican Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut and Democratic
Rep.
Barney Frank of Massachusetts. The Senate bill was reintroduced with the
leadership
of Republican Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, and Democratic Senators Ted
Kennedy of Massachusetts and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.
"Today we recommit ourselves to getting this bill passed," said Chris
Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "This legislation would protect
everyone, gay or straight, from being fired simply because of their
sexual orientation. It is the right thing to do."
Anders said the bill enjoys widespread popular support, the support of
most
lawmakers, and the endorsement of President Clinton and Vice President
Gore. "Our
only obstacle is a handful of fringe politicians who don't share
America's vision of a free and equal society," he said.
ENDA would add sexual orientation to the current list of federal
employment
protections that ban discrimination based on race, religion, gender,
national origin, age and disability. The bill would prohibit employers
with more than 15 employees from
using a person's sexual orientation in decisions such as firing, hiring,
promotion or
compensation.
Contrary to claims made by opponents, the bill would exempt religious
organizations
and the military, and would not establish preferential treatment or
quotas.
Currently, it is perfectly legal to fire an employee because of their
sexual orientation in 39 states. In recent months, Nevada joined New
Hampshire, California, Connecticut,
Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Wisconsin
and the District of Columbia in outlawing sexual orientation
discrimination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Challenges Michigan Cyber-Censorship Law,
Citing Commerce Clause and Free Speech Rights
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, June 23, 1999
DETROIT--In a complaint filed today in federal district court, the
American Civil
Liberties Union of Michigan said that a state law criminalizing online
communications deemed "harmful to minors" violates free speech rights
and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The law, signed by Gov. John Engler on June 2 and due to take effect
August 1, makes it a crime to disseminate or display "sexually explicit
matter" to minors. Violations are punishable by up to two years in jail,
a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
In its complaint, the ACLU said the very nature of cyberspace makes the
law
impossible to comply with, because "virtually every communication on the
Internet
entails a 'substantial risk' that a minor may receive it."
Using a legal argument that halted enforcement of nearly identical laws
in New York
and New Mexico, the ACLU's complaint says that the Michigan statute
affects Internet speakers nationwide and even worldwide, and as a result
violates the Commerce
Clause, which bars states from regulating activity outside its borders.
"Like the nation's railways and highways, the Internet is by nature an
instrument of
interstate commerce that should not be burdened by inconsistent state
laws," said
ACLU cooperating attorney Andrew Nickelhoff. "Michigan's law violates
the
Commerce Clause because it would require a New Yorker who posts a Web
page or
a message to abide by Michigan standards, even if no one from Michigan
ever sees the
page or reads the post."
As the ACLU's complaint noted, the speech at issue in this case does not
include
obscenity, child pornography, the luring of minors into inappropriate
activity, or
harassment. Such communications are already illegal under current
Michigan law.
"The law would reduce the level of discourse on the Internet to that
which is
appropriate to a seven year old," said Michael J. Steinberg, Legal
Director of the
ACLU of Michigan.
"Parents can take steps to prevent their children from accessing
inappropriate material
on the Internet without the government depriving adults and older minors
of
constitutionally protected speech."
The 10 Internet firms named in the suit all expressed concern that the
law would
prohibit them-at risk of jail or fines-from communicating valuable
information on a wide range of topics, including art, literature, sex
education, safe sex, gay and lesbian issues, and free speech.
"This law would have serious implications for our company," said Mary
Remmers,
spokeswoman for Cyberspace Communications, Inc. of Ann Arbor. "We are
trying to
provide an open forum for communication and discussion and we would be
placed in
the untenable position of acting as a censor or shutting down."
Dr. Marty Klein, a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist with a Ph.D.
in human
sexuality, runs a free Web site called SexEd.org that features a
question-and-answer
forum on topics such as masturbation and female orgasm. Klein, who lives
in California, fears that Michigan's law may prevent him from educating
the public about the value of healthy sexual expression and practices.
Similarly, the AIDS Partnership of Michigan's Web site contains sexually
explicit
material which some communities may consider to be "harmful to minors."
Another group, Web Del Sol, exists only in cyberspace, yet it, too,
would be subject to
Michigan's law. Founded as a literature and arts forum for Internet
users, Web Del Sol
is run on a volunteer basis and does not operate out of any one
facility.
In its complaint, the ACLU said the law could not accomplish its aim of
shielding minors from inappropriate content, because at least 40 percent
of Internet content originates outside the United States.
"Governor Engler is attempting to muffle a uniquely democratic mode of
communication," said Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of
Michigan. "This new law must be declared unconstitutional so that all
online users can engage in
uninhibited, open and robust freedom of expression on the Internet."
The ACLU said in its complaint that there are many alternative ways to
assist parents in keeping inappropriate material from Michigan's minors
-- such as user based blocking
software and online browser features that allow parents to block access
to chat rooms,
Web sites and other areas of the Internet.
While user based blocking programs are not perfect, the ACLU said, they
are far less
restrictive alternatives than imposing a criminal penalty for
constitutionally protected
speech.
In the last four years, at least 25 states have considered or passed
Internet censorship
laws. But however popular the laws may seem, they do not hold up well to
constitutional scrutiny. In addition to halting enforcement of such laws
in New Mexico and New York, last October the ACLU filed a challenge to a
federal "harmful to
minors" law known as the Child Online Protection Act. In February 1999,
a federal
court held that the censorship law was unconstitutional and blocked
enforcement
pending a full trial.
The 10 plaintiffs in the case are:
-- Cyberspace Communications, Inc. (http://www.cyberspace.org/)
-- Arbornet (http://www.arbornet.org/)
-- Marty Klein (http://www.sexed.org/)
-- AIDS Partnership of Michigan (http://www.aidspartnership.org/)
-- Art on the Net (http://www.art.net/)
-- Mark Amerika of ALT-X (http://www.altx.com/)
-- Web Del Sol (http://www.webdelsol.com/)
-- Glad Day Bookshop, Inc. (http://www.tiac.net/users/gladday/)
-- Litline (http://www.litline.org/litline.html)
-- American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/).
The case is Cyberspace v. Engler. Lawyers in the case are Michael
Steinberg and
Kary Moss of the ACLU of Michigan and cooperating attorneys Nickelhoff
and
Marshall J. Widick of the Detroit firm Sachs, Waldman, O'Hare,
Helveston, Bogas &
McIntosh, P.C. The judge assigned to the case is Arthur J. Tarnow.
The complaint is located online at:
http://www.aclumich.org/briefs/cyberbrief.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
06-22-99 -- ACLU Defends Father's Right to Care for First-Born Daughter
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n062299a.html
06-22-99 -- TX Judge Turns Down Social Worker's "Emergency"
Action Against Lesbian and Gay Parenting
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n062299b.html
06-22-99 -- ACLU Urges House Panel to Reject Terrorism Bill
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n062299c.html
06-21-99 -- With Liberty and Parks for All: Court Says NJ Towns
Can't Bar "Outsiders" from Parks
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n062199b.html
06-21-99 -- ACLU of FL Blasts Governor's Approval of First-Ever
Statewide Voucher Program
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n062199a.html
06-20-99 -- ACLU Condemns Governor Bush's Veto of Civil Rights
Bill to Provide Lawyers to Poor
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n062099a.html
06-18-99 -- ACLU Files Legal Challenge to Curfew Law in Alaska
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n061899a.html
06-17-99 -- ACLU Calls Juvenile Crime Bill a Cruel Hoax on
America's Children and Families
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n061799a.html
06-17-99 -- Commission Orders Public Hearing in ACLU's
Domestic Partner Discrimination Suit
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n061799b.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Freedom Network Web Page: http://www.aclu.org.
America Online users should check out our live chats, auditorium events,
*very* active message boards, and complete news on civil liberties, at
keyword ACLU.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Newsfeed
American Civil Liberties Union National Office
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
For general information about the ACLU, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To
subscribe to the ACLU Newsfeed, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with
"subscribe news" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the
message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---
You are currently subscribed to news as: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
