Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 06:23:30 -0600
From: Linda Thompson <>
Subject: 1 of 3 - Boston Phoenix Yellow Rag Whoring

Linda Thompson's Response to a Boston Phoenix Piece of Yellow Rag Whoring by Ellen Barry ("beriberi" to her friends).

Dear Ms. Barry:

Your article, "Estate's rights," in the Jan. 22 issue of the Boston Phoenix was factually incorrect on a number of points. I take great exception to your aspersions of my good name and that of the Sweeneys and other fine Americans.

Your professed theme, echoed in those you quoted as saying the "law must be obeyed," (when "the law" is aimed at the Sweeneys) is very suspect, since you do not apply this demand to "obey the law" to the government officials who have not done so.

I have heard from many people throughout the country who have been defrauded by banks and the government agencies supposedly there to protect them. The people are from all walks of life, from farmers, to housewives, businessmen, and everything in between. They all have one thing in common: Their farms, their livelihoods, their homes and dreams were stolen from them, under the guise of "laws." Who of any conscience, can support such laws? Has anyone bothered to look at how many of the lawmakers now directly profit from such laws and are completely unaccountable to us by any means?

Throughout the article, you imply that people on the Sweeney property are suspicious, seedy, and sinister. You come right out and say, "The Sweeneys' new friends -- with their Montana license plates and their Internet aliases -- don't blend in in Hamilton."

You have an "internet alias," I note,, as do all the 30 million people on Internet who have email.

You overplay and contrast the Sweeneys' "former wealth" to their "new friends." America does not recognize a caste system, nor any aristocracy. Those "peasants" you were mocking were Americans.

The reader is left to infer something sinister from your assertion of "alias internet identities" and "license plates from Montana and Alabama."

I was unaware that there are certain license plates that are ipso facto suspect. Should we guard our babysitters when we see a license plate from the Kennedy's home state cross our borders? Should we lock up the secretaries when a car with Arkansas plates rolls by?

You next made a number of false statements about me, obviously without investigating either the facts, nor the sources. By this, you demonstrate that you had an agenda, to which truth or anything resembling it, was irrelevant. I question why you mention me at all, and particularly without speaking to me, and I question why the only reason you seem to have mentioned me was in efforts to smear my name and reputation.

"Linda Thompson whose resume includes a brief stint on the David Koresh legal team."

You have never seen my resume. I do not have one, since I am not looking for work. However, I am attaching my curriculum vitae. Other than my address, it has not changed much in several years. I am Chairman of the American Justice Federation, I am an attorney, writer, and publisher, and Editor of the Associated Electronic Network. I have never been "on the David Koresh legal team."

"Thompson has called for the arrest of the president of the United States by armed militia members."

I have never called for the arrest of the President by armed militia members. However, thank you for making people aware that such a thought could be entertained and reprinted publicly. At this point, it may be one of the few Constitutional avenues available to the People, considering that the executive branch has lost so many people to resignations in lieu of criminal indictments that the country can't keep up with them. Its enforcement arm is headed by a woman who claims to have been "saving children" by burning them, and who has regularly obstructed and covered up the crimes of her accomplices. Our courts and other avenues of redress have been foreclosed, taken over by graft, organized crime, and a fascist elitism which, once experienced, is a lesson not forgotten.

I have led several peaceful demonstrations, both armed and unarmed. I have also successfully negotiated two standoffs between both federal and state agencies, to peaceful conclusions.

Your statement above builds on your theme that an "armed" person, is of necessity, somehow also deranged and therefore dangerous. Since more than 50% of the households of this country are armed, and there are more firearms owned than there are people in the country, I think you will find few in agreement with your assumptions. Furthermore, statistics simply contradict you.

"Postings on her newsgroup, the Associated Electronic Network, the FBI in the Oklahoma City bombing."

(Apparently a portion of the above was omitted by the transcriptionist).

Associated Electronic Network is not a newsgroup, it is a news service for reporters and has been since 1992. Articles from AEN were not mentioned in the Oklahoma City bombing.

What was mentioned at the trial was a videotape I produced, along with the American Justice Federation, called, "Waco, the Big Lie." If you read the transcript of the trial, you will find that (1) McVeigh was not a member of any militia (and could not have been, by law, owing to his continuing obligation to military service); and (2) the Defense, Timothy McVeigh's lawyer, was attempting to show there were a "lot of disgruntled people" in the country besides McVeigh. My video tape was mentioned by the Defense to suggest this.

It was the GOVERNMENT'S PROSECUTOR who pointed out that my video tape urged people to "Write their Congressmen" and in no way was suggestive of violence. "Waco, the Big Lie," was seen by millions of people and thousands of copies were received by Congressmen.

These facts certainly change the tenor of what you wrote, don't they?

To write your article, you looked no further than an archive of articles written by persons who are either just as lazy as you, or who purposely planted false information, to be repeated by persons as lazy as you.

You slanted your article to portray the Sweeneys' battle as an effort to "save their lifestyle." If that were true, then they have obviously failed miserably, since they have given up all that they owned to wage an eleven-year long battle. In the process, they spent more than their home was worth. They gave up any semblance of a normal life. I do not expect you to understand the sacrifice involved. You could only look for -- and had to fabricate -- some superficial, material excuse for what, to you, was inexplicable behavior. Honor and courage are mysterious to those who lack either.

In the meantime, I note you repeat some of the disinformation passed along by the FDIC, such as their claims that they "offered" the Sweeneys a house and five acres for $1. You did not avail yourself of the copy of this so-called "offer" available from the Sweeneys and on their webpage,, or you would readily have recognized the FDIC's claim for the lie it is. This "offer" was made contingent upon the Sweeneys releasing these officials from the Sweeneys claims for racketeering, obstruction of justice, perjury, and fraud.

More telling, however, is that the government has spent more than TWICE what the original note on the Sweeney property was worth and more than THREE TIMES what the property is worth to fight the Sweeneys for eleven years. By way of comparison, the government settled with a bank official convicted of bank fraud that ultimately cost taxpayers $820 million, for a measly $285,000.00, and the FDIC routinely settles foreclosure cases for pennies on the dollar.

Obviously, the FDIC cannot justify the $3.6 million it has spent fighting the Sweeneys, unless there is something a lot more important at stake here than a $1.6 million mortgage note.

The government has acknowledged that the Sweeneys offered to pay off the note. The government refused, because the Sweeneys would not release their claims of fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, and perjury against the government, its banking predecessors and all their attorneys.

Thus, who is "holding out"? It has been and continues to be men in suits with a vested interest in covering up a longstanding racketeering enterprise in highly placed Boston financial circles, who want the Sweeneys to shut up, permanently.

Why is it you have not mentioned these facts:

After the Sweeneys won their $2.3 million judgment against ComFed, John Hanify, ComFed's lawyer at the time, literally took the entire court file from the State Court and kept it in his office. He then presented it, without the order containing the $2.3 million judgment, to Judge Harrington.

Some background:

JOHN HANIFY is the original lawyer for ComFed Savings Bank, who then represented the government's Resolution Trust Corp. (RTC), the agency that took over the failed bank and was supposed to investigate the fraud of the bank's officers and lawyers. (A clear conflict of interest). His lawfirm is HANIFY & KING.

EDWARD HANIFY is John Hanify's father. Ed Hanify's lawfirm is ROPES and GRAY. Ropes and Gray also appeared in the case after Hanify took it to Judge Harrington.

Federal Judge EDWARD HARRINGTON formerly worked with John Hanify in the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston.

This is the Judge to whom John Hanify took the Sweeneys' State Court file, who threw out the Sweeneys' judgment, but who allowed the $1.6 million jugment against them to stand (both judgments were from the same State court case).

Judge Ed Harrington's son, WILLIAM T. HARRINGTON, went to work for John Hanify's lawfirm while the Sweeneys' case was before Judge Harrington.

After this, Judge Harrington issued an eviction order, ordering the Sweeneys to leave their property.

Judge Harrington was nominated to his current position by Ted Kennedy. Ed Hanify (John Hanify's father) testified before Congress on behalf of Judge Harrington's nomination (the Massachusetts. Bar Association, however, testified against his nomination).

Ed Hanify's lawfirm, Ropes and Gray, represented Ted Kennedy in the Chappaquidick litigation. Kennedy owes his career to Ropes and Gray, and Judge Harrington owes his Federal Judgeship to both Kennedy and to Ropes and Gray.

And thus, the quoted comments about the Sweeneys from the so-called "average neighbor," Paul Perkins, a lawyer who just happens to work for Ropes and Gray, are put in a different light when the real facts are known.

As Rhetta Sweeney correctly surmised, "What exactly is your concern, Paul? Is it your bank account?"

These are only a few of the very obvious high points of the corruption exhibited to defraud the Sweeneys of their judgment, while using the threat of force to extort a release of these claims from them, as the FDIC tells the public, through obliging handmaidens in the media such as yourself, and phony "letters to the editor" from people with a hand in the pie, that this is "about a mortgage the Sweeneys didn't pay."

You also belie your ignorance of the foundations of this country, when you speak of the militia as if it were some sort of political movement, and an epithet at that.

In the United States, our government is supposed to be of, by and for the people. The U.S. Constitution was a charter of authority from the people, given to government employees. It is a laundry-list of their authorities and the limits on their powers. The Bill of Rights, which was required to be added to the Constitution before it was passed, is a declaration of the natural rights of all People, which the government cannot infringe. People have God-given, unalienable rights, which, like an arm or a leg, are part of them, from birth. Governments, however, have only powers, given to them by the People. The Constitution is a list of those powers.

Some of the most vociferous arguments in framing the Constitution were over the issues of the military and the militias, which you will find if you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (these are historic documents). The militia is included in the "militia clauses" of the Constitution itself, as well as in the Bill of Rights, as a check and balance against the use of force against the people -- a fact you will also find squarely addressed in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates.

Suffice it to say that Boston itself has a rather strong history of the purpose and uses of militia. Since this country was formed, the militia is and always has been, the people. In 1792, a national militia law was passed, which required all "white males" between the ages of 17-45 to be a member of the militia and to own a musket, powder, and bullets. The wording of that act, absent the racial and sexual exclusions, is virtually intact to this day.

You will find the militia defined at Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code, and defined virtually identically in Massachusetts and all 50 states' laws as well.

The "organized" militia is the national guard, an asset of the state, that can also be called up by the federal government (a product of the Dick Act in the 1940's which amended the original militia law).

The "unorganized militia" is everyone between the ages of 17 and 45 who is not in the national guard (and certain other exceptions, such as legislators).

In other words, if you are between 17 and 45, madame, and you are not in active military service, a legislator, or in the National Guard, you are a member of the militia. The militia is not a political movement, it is "we the people," it is the cornerstone of our law. The militia are not caricatures in cammies running through the woods, they are from all walks of life, all shapes, sizes, and colors, because the militia are the People.

The Second Amendment refers to the militia as it existed at the time of the framing of this country and as it exists now: All the people. "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state . . . ." If you do not believe that we, the people, are necessary to the security of a free state, if you expect those in power over you to "protect you," there is no historical support for your naivete.

In the debates concerning the militia, the framers rightly predicted that, as has been true throughout history, those given power, become heady with that power and cannot be trusted.

Yet, also historically, it has only been people who have been disarmed, in a country in which a standing army existed, that people were taken over by subversive interests.

Now, madame, you have also been a proponent of blatent smears and falsehoods, emitting from the "Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith," (ADL). The ADL has been exposed in the Congressional record as a front organization for international terrorists with spying and surveillance abilities that surpassed those of the FBI. The ADL was indicted (and took a plea) in San Francisco for spying in 1994. It should at least give you pause for thought, and that thought should be "Who are these people who can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year distributing literature labelling all manner of people 'terrorists'?"

It might interest you to know that it is the ADL who has been the drafter of all the "anti-terrorist" legislation and who has directly profited from every bit of propaganda that can be generated to create the public perception of a "threat of terrorism." It is all the more handy if their enemies can be labelled and blamed as "the terrorists." They have profitted handsomely, from government largesse, and are now promoting themselves as "government advisors" seeking fulltime funding. We can expect nothing less than more of their self-promotional efforts, at the expense of this once great country.

If it is radical to believe in truth, justice, and the Constitution, then madame, I am a radical and proud of it. If it is "terroristic" to write of the history and laws of this country, to urge people to become responsible for the government we make, or to broadcast newsfeeds showing the murder of 68 people by U.S. government employees who lied to us, then madame, I am a "terrorist," and proud of it. If it is "dangerous" to speak out against government corruption, then, madame, I am in serious danger, and our country is in dire peril.

Who benefits from portraying law abiding citizens, demanding accountability from government officials as "radicals" or "terrorists?"

Who must point the finger of blame away from themselves and who gets money for doing it?

The Savings and Loan banks have folded around us, as many of those men you seem to hold in such high esteem, have been indicted or left the country, while others in office have aided them in massive frauds.

This is a matter of public record. Yet there has been only token accountability. Most of the government officials and major bankers involved in these massive frauds, involving mortgages around this country, have gone scott free, as have most of their accomplices. Indeed, they are laundering money, secret deals, and engaging in phony "escrow" scams and mergers, as we speak. I can name dozens. It is not for lack of evidence that they have gone unprosecuted, but lack of a forum

We have few, if any, honest officials left at the top. You need only look at the pathetic Kenneth Starr "independent" investigation. Despite his efforts to bungle the investigation, it has resulted in findings and prosecutions, up to the men closest to the President and First Lady, such as Webster Hubbell, with whom both the Clintons were law partners. Hubbell himself was White House Counsel. And just what is it that Kenneth Starr is supposedly investigating? Property scams, money-laundering schemes, involving what? Bankers. Lawyers. Judges. Property. Mortgages. Under-handed deals.

We have a President who is a moral reprobate. Yet, he is a reflection of us, as a people. We have been too weak to demand accountability, morality, and truth from our public servants, or we would not have common riff-raff, street thugs and street walkers, in our highest offices, accountable to no one, making under-the-table deals to the highest bidder.

As for your efforts to portray the Sweeneys and the other Americans on their property as "dangerous," the only person who has shown up with a gun was a government official, Tim "Elmer Fudd" Clark, who showed up wearing fatigues to get his mug on the camera and stain the Sweeneys, by fulfilling the media caricatures.

It so happens, his family owns the Wainright Bank. You might check out how he came to be so "interested" in the Sweeney matter and about whose interests he is really concerned. It obviously was not the Sweeneys.

It has been the FDIC who has and continues to threaten to use armed force against the Sweeneys.

Try as you might, madame, you cannot change the facts to suit the simplistic, and insipid scenario you were desperately attempting to create.

To whomever said that the situation had become "strident" or "unseemly business," well, corruption is unseemly and this person has certainly managed to remain stone silent in the face of it. It is incongruous that he should target the messengers, rather than respond to the truth of their message. Perhaps, if he cannot stand with the Sweeneys on principle and honor, he could continue to maintain his silence.

The Sweeneys are principled people with far more courage, intelligence, and integrity, than I believe you would be capable of conceptualizing. Those you have held in esteem in your article, have shown themselves for what they are.

As for the people who have manned the phones, run errands, brought food, and stood guard, all without any pay, for months, they are Americans and they are heros. The Americans at the Sweeneys have examined the facts and have had the courage of their convictions to stand with the Sweeneys against corruption, and to say, "Enough."

For what it's worth, only 3% of the population of the country supported the American Revolution. They were "self-styled patriots" and "militia." If you wake up free someday, maybe you will know who to thank.

Nearly every one of the men considered a "Founding Father" of this country, died broke, broken, and financially ruined.

So while you focus on material issues, and smarmy tabloid sensationalism, there are still some people who care enough about truth, justice, and what is supposed to be the American way, to put their beliefs to practice. If we are "strident," "no longer wealthy," or "in the minority," we are in excellent company.

As for those whose opinions you hoped to taint, most people are neither blind nor stupid, unless, like you, they are paid to be.

Very truly yours,

Linda Thompson
Chairman, American Justice Federation
Editor, AEN News

My CV follows. The Boston Phoenix article to which this is a reply is recited in the next message. Before you write your obligatory, erroneous, and predictable comments about "Death to the New World Order," I suggest you read part 3, "History lesson forwarded."

Linda Thompson
200 Reynolds St.
Brundidge, AL 36010



1988 Doctor of Jurisprudence (Juris Doctor)
Indiana University School of Law
1980 B.S., Cum Laude (Sociology/Psychology)
University of Maryland
1979 A.A. (Liberal Arts) - University of Maryland
1978 A.A. (Business Management) - University of Maryland

Awards & Honors:
Moot Court Judge, Member of the Order of Barristers, 1986-1988 (I.U. School of Law); Dean's List (1978, 1979); various Community service awards.

Honorably discharged, disabled Vietnam Conflict period veteran

U.S. Army, 1974-1978 (Honorable Discharge)
U.S. Army Reserve, 1978-1987 (Honorable Discharge)

US Army: Assistant to U.S. Army Commanding general, NATO, Allied Forces Central Europe (CTS/Atomal Security clearance) (1976-1978); 44th Military history Detachment (1975-1976) (Airborne-D, STRAF TOE unit); U.S. Army Reserves, Assistant to training officer (1981-1985).

Awards & Honors:

Army Commendation Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal (1976); Vietnam Era Service; Good conduct (1985); Expert Marksmanship in M-16, .45, .38 (1975-1978); first woman to win the Germany Lanyard (Bronze Medallion) in international military marksmanship, 1977; various community service awards from the Military and European communities.


Current: Chairman, American Justice Federation; Editor, AEN News; State Bar of Indiana (Supreme Court and Appellate Court of Indiana) and Federal District Courts, 5th, 7th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal, Supreme and Appellate Court of Georgia.

Former: American Bar Association, American Civil Liberties Union, Georgia Trial Lawyers, American Trial Lawyers

Media/Public appearances:

1993-1998 - Over 900 radio and television appearances throughout the U.S. and internationally, including being the interviewee of BBC's worldwide and award winning Visions; work and interviews featured on Nightline, 48 Hours, Prime Time, CNN News, ABC World News, Washington on Trial, USA Network, Art Bell, KOA Denver radio, and ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox television affiliates; Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, Esquire, Rolling Stone, New York Times, New York Post, Arizona Republic (William Safire), Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Indianapolis Star-News, and many other newspapers and magazines. Featured Leader on BBC "Visions" program, 1996..

Law Enforcement and Constitutional Law seminars and lectures throughout the United States. Lecturer at the Annual Law Enforcement Expo, Issues in RICO, Forfeiture, Search and Seizure Law before international law enforcement, Las Vegas, 1994.

1990-1992 - ABC World News, Sonja Freeman Program, Now It Can Be Told, various network affiliate television networks and newspapers throughout Georgia.


"Mourning Sickness," awaiting publication. Oklahoma Bombing, preliminary investigation report, American Justice, August 1, 1995
America Under Siege, documentary, American Justice Federation, August, 1994
Waco II, the Big Lie Continues, documentary, American Justice Fed., Feb. 1, 1994
"Forgive Us, We Didn't Know, video, American Justice Federation, October 1993
Clinton Bodycount: Coincidence of the Kiss of Death?, Am. Justice Fed., June, 1993
Waco, the Big Lie, video documentary, American Justice Federation, June 1993
Waco, Another Perspective, Associated Electronic Network (AEN), April 1993
Intimidation at the Barrel of a Gun, Soldier of Fortune, July 1993
Search and Seizure Issues in Electronic Communications and Computer Law, 1993
In Re Grant," Issues in Law and Medicine, 1988;
In Re Gardner, Issues in Law & Medicine, 1988;
Electronic Communications - BBS Law, 1987;
Living with Title III (Electronic Communications & the Wiretap Act), 1987

BACKGROUND: 1990-Present -Chairman, American Justice Federation; attorney
1989-1993 -Attorney, General Litigation Practice; concentration in Constitutional and criminal law
1988-Director, National Computerists, Consumer Activism
1986-88 - Legal Internships

10/87- 4/88 National Legal Center for the Developmentally Disabled and Handicapped, Indianapolis, Indiana, Internship
1987 - Pro bono, Public Defender's Office, Indianapolis, Indiana
1986-1987 - Writer/Speaker: Computer Tort Litigation; Panel Speaker, John Marshall Law School, Illinois

1987 National Computer Litigation Sem
1983-1989 Computer system administrator for computer communications networks; computer security consultant; computer instructor
1985-1986 U.S. Postal Service, Indianapolis, Indiana
1983-1985 Fund raiser for small Christian school
1978-1983 Homemaker, wife and mother

Kind regards,

Linda Thompson


Remember Waco. The Murderers are still free
(and running YOUR country.)
See the proof at the Waco Museum

Back to ZPRC Home