channeloklahoma.com
Federal Inmate Says He Will Name Okc Bombing Conspirators
Thu Mar 11 14:49:08 2004
64.140.158.83

Federal Inmate Says He Will Name Bombing Conspirators
http://www.channeloklahoma.com/news/2800506/detail.html

POSTED: 3:32 pm CST January 28, 2004
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A federal inmate who is expected to testify at bombing conspirator Terry Nichols' murder trial will name other suspects in the Oklahoma City bombing, according to a published report.

Peter K. Langan Jr., serving a life prison sentence for bank robbery and weapons violations, told the McCurtain Daily Gazette for a copyright story Wednesday that he would tie several men to the bombing conspiracy.

Langan, who led a gang of neo-Nazis that robbed at least 22 banks in seven Midwestern states, said he will also tie the suspects to at least one other crime in which the government alleges Nichols was involved.

Nichols, convicted of federal bombing charges and sentenced to life in prison, is charged with 161 counts of first-degree murder in Oklahoma for the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Nichols' attorney Brian Hermanson has consistently refused to comment on the case, citing a judge's gag order.

In a telephone interview from a federal facility in Jonesville, Va., Langan told the newspaper he will tie bombing coconspirator Timothy McVeigh and the bomb plot to several men associated with Elohim City, a white supremacist enclave in eastern Oklahoma.

ATF informant Carol E. Howe testified at Nichols' federal trial in Denver that she saw McVeigh walking with one of the men at Elohim City before the bombing.

Howe has also disclosed conversations she says she participated in where two of the men discussed plans to attack federal installations in Oklahoma.

The government has said it investigated connections between McVeigh and persons in Langan's group but linked only Nichols and McVeigh to the Oklahoma City bombing.

McVeigh was convicted of federal bombing charges and sentenced to death. He was executed in 2001.

Langan, who met with an attorney for Nichols on Tuesday, is also expected to testify that blasting caps and other evidence seized by the FBI after gang members were arrested would link elements of the ARA to the Oklahoma City bombing as well as a gun robbery in November 1994 near Hot Springs, Ark.

The FBI has alleged that Nichols robbed gun collector Roger Moore to help finance the bomb plot. Langan is expected to testify that members of his gang committed the robbery, not Nichols.
==========================

Searched the web for Brian Hermanson "Oklahoma City Bombing"

The Indiana AG's Office never provided proof, one way or the other, as
to any Consent by the Indiana Legislature or of the "for profit," or
"not for profit," character of that Penitentiary. So, we still don't
know, for certain, but the series of reasonable and still unanswered
questions continues to give us a clue.
per the above article: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/SummonsINAG.pdf


http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Appearance.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mphv.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/origcomp.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/grahamaff.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mti.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/brief.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceUSAG.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceINAG01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceINAG02.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mlvsuppl01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtroupd01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ResponseUSAG.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ResponseINAG.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/briefshwcse.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion02.pdf

Notation On the Notice of Appeal:
This is an interesting part of the story. That weekend was a wild one. I
think I traveled close to 1200 miles, all within Texas. To make a long
story short, I was enroute from Dallas to Houston to pick up my Sister and
Niece, so that we could go to a High School Reunion function in Austin,
and, in the rain, on I-45 South, about the Woodlands, I pulled over, hand wrote
out the Notice of Appeal, and faxed it to Indiana from a truck stop.
Rather than rushing into the appeal, it took me until about 3:30 or so,
to get in touch with one more valuable opinion on this issue. He heard what
I could tell him in 10 minutes, on two different phone calls of about that
length, and he found value in the position. That's when I filed the
appeal, and it was literally about 10 minutes prior to "closing" in Indiana when
the Notice arrived. Turns out they'd been expecting it pretty much all day.
VERY helpful clerk and staff on this one. VERY helpful.
The best way to appreciate this one is probably by our getting a
certified copy of the one on record with the court. I've got the
"original" around here, somewhere, but I'm thinking that with the "stamps"
and all on it, it'll at least look like a Notice of Appeal!
Harmon
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/MSTAY-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AFFIDHLT-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion03.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion04.pdf

Notation: for the following document

Key to the appellate
court opinions is the characterization that the claims made were
"without authority," and that the claims have "no merit." While the rest
of the court's discussion is interesting, this part of the opinion tells
us everything we need to know. The appellate court went beyond
addressing the issues raised and addressed the question asked, which is
along the lines of, "How in the world can this be happening, legally
speaking?" Since the essence of these claims comes straight out of the
Constitution, the lesson is that the Constitution is "without
authority," and that the Constitution has "no merit," in the "United
States" "court" system. Said another way, the Constitution is not
"admissible evidence of Law," and, that being the case, the Constitution
is not the Supreme Law of the Land. From that point of view, given that
the "federal government" arises from private obligations, not the
Constitution, it makes sense that the Constitution is completely
irrelevant, and that is provides absolutely no limitations on the
"federal government," whatsoever. THAT's how the "feds" do what they do,
legally speaking.

Thus, in sum, to solve any problem, it helps greatly to identify it
correctly, first. Here, not only do we need to learn to distinguish
between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government,"
but also we need to learn that there is presently no "constitutional
Government" in operation, but only the "federal government."

The cite to Devvy's web page that contains the indictment language is
still a good link to that.

Since the Constitution was not "admissible evidence of Law" for this
case, that got me started trying to find when it stopped being the
Supreme Law of the Land. Right now, I'm satisfied that it had to have
occurred prior to 1850. In the early 1850's, Lysander Spooner witnessed the
"court's" giving the "jury" the instructions to follow the "law" given by
the "court." This is a complete abrogation of the Law stated in Brailsford v.
Georgia, meaning, telling us, giving us "notice," that the "United States
District Court" in Massachusetts was no longer bound to the Constitution or to
the prior opinions of the Supreme Court. In other words, the Constitution, and
the "constitutional Government" it created, got deep-sixed at or before those
cases came on for trial in the early 1850's.

Another interesting indicia of the non-existence of the "constitutional
Government" is the "popular vote" of 1824. Five Presidents, four of them for
two terms each, were elected per Article II, section 1. That's nine elections
before the thought ever existed of any "popular vote," a concept found nowhere
in the Constitution for choosing a President.

And, even with the 12th Amendment (1804), there were still 20 years before the
"popular vote" made its entrance. How fitting is it that John Quincy Adams, the
sixth President, won neither the "popular vote" nor the Electoral Vote? It
definitely earmarks that event for our study.

The legal reality of the non-existence of the "constitutional Government" just
didn't sink in until I read the 7th Circuit's opinion in this case. Now, it's
as clear as day. Since it took the padded 2x4 of the 7th Circuit to get
me "over" that barrier, I don't realistically expect anything short of personal
experience to persuade anyone else, either. But, then, there's always hope!

To combine the attached notes with these, here's one perspective, with which
I'll close this note.

The State is the sine qua non regarding the "constitutional Government."
Without States, there is no "constitutional Government." Starting with Article
I, if there are no States, then there are no Representatives, for
Representatives represent People in the States.

And, if there are no States, then there are no Senators, for Senators represent
the States, directly, in that legislative process. (You're right, of course, to
look to the so-called 17th Amendment (1913). However, I've already traced the
non-existence of the "constitutional Government back to 1850, so this particular
"notice" to us, in 1913, that the States no longer exist, and, therefore, that
the States have no more need of representation in Congress, is about 60 years
"late.") The entire purpose of the Senate is to have the States, as such,
participate in the legislative process. If there are no States, then not only
is there no Congress, but also there is no need even for a Senate.

Thus, where there are no States, there is no Congress.

Continuing with Article II, where there are no States, there is no President.
From where come the Electors? Right, the States. The Electors hold an Office in
the "constitutional Government," which exists for the sole purpose of choosing
the President. If there are no States, then there are no Electors. Where there
are no Electors, there is no President.

Thus, where there are no States, there is no President.

Continuing with Article III, where there are no States, there are no Judges.
From where come the Judges? Right, the President nominates and appoints, and
the Senate gives Advice and Consent. Thus, where there is no President, there
is no nomination or appointment, and where there is no Senate, there is no
Advice or Consent.

Thus, where there are no States, there are no Judges.

In sum, where there are no States, there is no "constitutional Government," for
not one Office can be filled.

Thus, it behooves us to learn the difference between the "federal government"
and the "constitutional Government," and, even more importantly, the present
non-existence of the "constitutional Government."

The "federal government" is the "government" "of the banks, by the banks, for
the banks." For it to be curbed, we start by ceasing to "trade with the
enemy."

Harmon

per the article above http://www.apfn.org/pdf/THlitovervw.pdf