Here's what we're sending to Congress. THOMAS M. READ P.O. Box 1794, Bristol, CT (860) 582-5361 *********** August 2, 1996 To: Rep Henry Hyde, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary Washington, D.C. Subj: Memorandum of phone conversation, Coffey/Read, on August 1, 1996, regarding prior communications, dated July 1, and July 26, 1996. Dear Mr. Hyde, On August 1, 1996, I contacted the office of the House Committee on the Judiciary, requesting a call-back from Mr. Alan Coffey in response to the request Mr. Leroy Crenshaw and I have made to meet with your committee's designees. My call was returned by Mr. Coffey within a reasonable time. Mr. Coffey's tone during the conversation was business-like, but the content of his dialogue was directed toward his presumption that there is nothing for your committee to waste its time discussing, derogation of my person, and a threat to call the "Capitol Police", should Mr. Crenshaw and I present ourselves to meet with your designees, even though he had told me he didn't want to meet with us. I informed Mr. Coffey that we did indeed have official business with both the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary. Our business related to acts of persons claiming federal authority that deprive ordinary people of their substantive rights, by use of lies, evidence tampering, embezzlement, extortion, intimidation, physical force, deadly force, and abuse of clearly written procedures, statutes, and constitutional prohibitions. Mr. Crenshaw and I have clearly stated our intentions to obtain an affirmative course within civil process by which an individual may protect his common-law and state provided rights from such manner of abuse. We intend to show by our own first hand documentation, and documentation provided by others in their own matters, that there exists no known affirmative means for an individual to secure his fundamental rights from federal wrongdoing. Mr. Coffey became clearly perturbed at my insistence that Congress deal with these issues. Mr. Coffey read from a Mandate entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, finding that my attempt at redress in our federal courts was "frivolous" and that my attempts to obtain remedy from federal tortfeasors was an "abuse of the judicial process". Mr. Coffey seemed not to understand that it is just that language, and its intended result of quashing the enforcement of constitutional protections to individual American citizens, that constitute the underlying necessity for our meeting. You see, in 1986 I and my wife obtained a judgment against one of your bankruptcy trustees. Neither my wife, nor I, were ever parties to any bankruptcy proceeding. We were harassed with vexatious litigation for six and one half years that was at all times instigated and maintained by appointees of your bankruptcy system in Northern California. The Trial of your bankruptcy appointees fraudulent claims was conducted in Connecticut Superior Court, Danbury, Connecticut, in October, 1986. There, the demanded jury found that there was no merit to the claims against us, and further found that my wife and I had been intentionally induced into a fraud by your bankruptcy appointees. Under Connecticut law, to which your bankruptcy trustee, as a fiduciary, voluntarily submitted, my wife and I are entitled to complete repairs for all manner of damages which we sustained that resulted from the fraud adjudicated, and further damages resulting from slander of our judgment which followed. These are hardly frivolous issues, Mr. Hyde. Rather, Mr. Coffey's attitude, and the general attitude of the judiciary, executive and legislative, branches of our federal government, appear to be wholly inconsistent with the due process, taking, full faith and credit, right to redress, and federal limited jurisdiction provisions of our U.S. Constitution. That circumstance forms the basis of our requested meeting, and is not defeated by attempts to slander or intimidate a complainant. As to Mr. Coffey's threat to "call the Capitol Police" if Mr. Crenshaw and myself appeared for our requested meeting; I declare as follows: I have never threatened Mr. Coffey, nor any other person. I have a duty to bring my complaint to your committee, and to achieve our objectives stated within our July 1, 1996 letter to the Committee on the Judiciary. I told Mr. Coffey, and I'm telling you, I shall do my utmost to accomplish my duty in a gentlemanly and honorable manner. My objectives are not met by any personal conduct to the contrary. I have repeatedly emphasized my concern that we agree upon an affirmative means by which ordinary persons may protect that which comprise their substantive rights from abusers acting under color of federal authority. The basis of my concerns far outreach my own circumstances. You see, Mr. Hyde, we are becoming a Nation at war with itself. The government of the United States has used outrageous tactics of vilification of ordinary law-abiding persons to justify its repression of descent. It has murdered my countrymen; incarcerated them under specious grounds; deprived them of their access to their own courts; ignored their constitutionally founded pleas; and has created boogie- men (known as "right wing militia terrorists") as its means to convince ordinary citizens that the Bill of Rights must be waived in order to protect them. At all times during the commission of these acts, the federal government has further acted to hold itself (in all its three branches), and its officers and agents, unaccountable to the Supreme Law of our U.S. Constitution. By all accounts, Mr. Hyde, we appear to have moved into an era of federal governance by official decree, whether with or without constitutional authority. Such conduct, sir, is defined as despotism. Despotism, and its despots, form the basis of revolt by those subjected to their tyranny. I hope that we agree that federal usurpations at all levels of interaction between citizens and their federal government would comprise the single greatest threat to our national security. My concerns expressed here would indeed be "frivolous" if there were any constitutional basis for the acts complained of. Our meeting is requested to present to you, our federal government, the overwhelming evidence in our possession that there is no such basis. I request that you not view our efforts and sacrifices to come to Washington as 'disruptive'. Rather, that you acknowledge that your own duty under Article I of our Constitution requires you to listen and to respond to our concerns. Specifically, The U.S. Constitution in its Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18, requires you (the Congress) to provide the laws "... which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution ... [the] powers vested by ... [the] Constitution". Article II, Sec. 3, requires the President (his Department of Justice) to "... take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Article III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1, requires the Article III courts to extend their judicial power "... to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States...". What Mr. Crenshaw and I are prepared to demonstrate to your committee is that the federal government, in each of its three branches, has utterly abrogated its constitutionally imposed duty to society by means of deliberate deceit and subterfuge. To whatever extent there may be, or may have been, dereliction of constitutional duty, and collusion between branches and agencies to any manner of dereliction of constitutional duty, there may be found a condition of insurrection and rebellion by the oath swearing officers of our federal government against the U.S. Constitution, in terms meant by Sec. 3 of Article XIV, of the U.S. Constitution. Is this possibility "frivolous"? No, Mr. Hyde, the possibility is real. Your Committee's duty to meet with us to achieve an avenue of affirmative protection of fundamental rights is likewise real. Please act to end the subterfuge and personal attack. To whatever extent the conduct of your staff for the House Committee on the Judiciary prevents our meeting to present our petition for redress for the aforementioned grievances, it has acted in obstruction of your duty. Mr. Crenshaw and I urge you and your staff to commit yourselves to view our evidence of federal usurpations through the eyes of society (the actual sovereign) and its Constitution, and not those of whom we complain. You see, they are mere instruments of the Constitution. They are not sovereigns, nobles, potentates, or other forms of individuals above the laws which they have violated. Sincerely, Thomas M. Read. _________________________________________________________________________ THOMAS M. READ P.O. Box 1794, Bristol, CT (203) 582-5361 *********** July 1, 1996 Chairman Henry Hyde, House Committee on Judiciary. Chairman Orin Hatch, Senate Committee on Judiciary. Dear Sirs, My name is Thomas M. Read. I and my family have maintained residence and employment in the State of Connecticut during all the times mentioned below. I am now 52 years old, and a veteran of the U.S. Army (intelligence), 1963-1966. Professionally, I was a Manufacturing Engineer for Xerox, Director of Engineering for Teledyne Mt. Vernon Die Casting, and Supervisor, Mfg. Engineering for Perkin-Elmer. I have been married to a devoted wife for nearly 27 years, and we have two children. I am an honest man who does not, and will not, lie, steal, nor otherwise falsely characterize a circumstance, or abuse another person. Joining me in this letter is Leroy Crenshaw, a school teacher from Springfield, Massachusetts. Leroy is 50 years old, father of six children, married 26 years to a devoted wife. He too is an honest citizen, who does not and who will not, lie, steal, nor otherwise falsely characterize a circumstance, or abuse another person. Our purpose in contacting your offices is to report conduct damaging to the substantive rights of ordinary citizens, which does not derive authority from any provision of the Constitution of the United States. Primarily the conduct of which we complain involves deprivation of lawful access to our federal courts; disdain for our rights arising under state constitutions and laws - including judgments from our state courts that declare our rights; provable judicial tampering with evidence we submit with our complaints; and, unwarranted attacks upon our character by abusive presumption and threats from federal officials who seek to extort our money, our silence, and our submission to their will. For these grievances, as evidenced by papers we wish to bring with us and present to you, we seek your assistance to meet the following four OBJECTIVES: 1. We seek an affirmative means by which to challenge any federal authority. 2. We seek an affirmative means of protecting our substantive rights (those rights historically falling under state law, such as Life, Liberty, and property). 3. We seek an affirmative means of challenging the moral turpitude of any federal officer against whom our grievances may contain allegations of willful misconduct in violation of our Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof. 4. We seek an affirmative means of repair to our persons and our property for all manners of damages we may have incurred. We wish to meet with competent aides of members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and aides from other congressional offices who are concerned (either way) over the issues we raise. We would like to have meetings with your committees' respective representatives on July 31, and August 1, 1996. Our further objective is to return home with a commitment to immediately accomplish that which the Constitution has always protected to us, and, if need be in the short run, to do so within the framework of the language of the Constitution itself where no Act of Congress is sufficient to provide remedy. Concurrently we are contacting other Members of Congress, in order to solicit their guidance as to our organization and manner of presentation, and generally to assist us to competently represent our grievances to you. Your reply to our request for such a meeting in a most timely period would be most helpful, and greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Thomas M. Read, and Leroy Crenshaw (860) 582-5361 (413) 783-0101 ________________________________________________________________________ THOMAS M. READ P.O. box 1794, Bristol, CT (203) 582-5361 July 7, 1996 Representative Henry J. Hyde, 2110 RHOB Washington, D.C. 20515-1166 Dear Representative Hyde, Attached hereto is a letter to the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary requesting a meeting with their respective designees in order to resolve four manners of grievances with our current federal government. These grievances are those of the undersigned, as well as society at large. Our authority for speaking on behalf of our national society is grounded upon the following principles: 1) The common law principle that he who serves in allegiance to the Sovereign is entitled to its protection; 2) The Sovereign of the United States of America is its people, from whom all just power is granted to the national government, and exclusively for whom this power is to be exercised by the officers and agents of the national government; 3) The Sovereign has communicated its intended mission to the three branches of the national government exclusively through the language of our Constitution, as amended, and no duty therein imposed may be otherwise avoided, nor therein prohibited may be otherwise committed, by the officers and agents of the national government worthy of their office. Notwithstanding the above, we complain that officers of the United States at the highest levels, their subordinates, and their agents, have routinely committed acts in violation of the duty imposed upon them by society, through its Constitution. The particular acts of which we are aggrieved consist of unwarranted incursions by the national government into the realm of private rights, in conspicuous disregard of the requisites of due process of law. The subject is the affirmative protection of substantive rights, under existing substantive law (laws of the States). The federal issues involve a continuing federal nullification of private rights for specious reasons, even unprosecuted criminal acts committed by federal actors. The specific areas of concern are 1) bankruptcy administration; 2) federal tax law administration; 3) search and seizure laws and law enforcement; 4) political use of law enforcement tools for untoward purposed; and, 5) federal cover-up at the highest levels of criminal conduct perpetrated by federal actors against innocent American citizens. Whether or not citizens are allowed to work with their federal government in order to secure to themselves the protections that they are guaranteed under the Constitution and its laws, is the question to be resolved. We shall bring evidence obtained from public hearings conducted largely through the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, and their sub-committees, that strongly suggest that the Congress in both its houses is aware of the nature and degree of the problems of which we speak. we shall also bring evidence that the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary, have each sacrificed their fundamental purpose as declared under our Constitution for the expediency of "collegiality'', or other non-constitutional reasons. This letter is written to your office because we believe your personal influence and attention is warranted in support of our requested meeting. We ask for your patience, indulgence, and support, in working with us. We are only ordinary citizens. We are not lobbyists promising financial favors. We do not represent an organized block of voters. We do come prepared to set forth in a truthful and a responsible manner certain well documented facts that are of such magnitude that one must question whether or not the "Great Experiment" may be failing. We know it has failed in the cases we bring forward for discussion. Leroy Crenshaw and myself are asking your office to work with us to properly prepare and address these issues, as well as secure an audience with the appropriate people concerned to affect a solution. We further request that your office look over our shoulder before, during and after, our presentation, and advise us upon our conduct. Your contributions to this effort will be communicated to our informal networks nationwide, and our successes, or our failures, will be broadcast through local media in the weeks following the meeting, It is our hope that you would view our mission and its success to be both timely and of some personal and even possible political value. We shall follow-up this letter with a phone call later this week to confirm your commitment to our support. We thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Thomas M. Read (860) 582-5361, and Leroy Crenshaw (413) 783-0101