Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:37:09 -0700 From: email@example.com (Ed Wolfe) Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I) To: "Charles Bruce, Stewart" (email@example.com) CC: "Posse>" (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: Posse> Re: Charges against Ed Wolfe Sender: email@example.com Charles Bruce, Stewart wrote: >> >> Ed, >> Did you write the below message? -C.S. >Yes. -EtFD Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog has decided to do the smart thing and use simple "yes and no" answers against that which cannot be defended. So let's go back and see what EtFD admits to saying on June 30, 1998: --M.L. ================================== > Red Mike's fellow infilltraitors in the Tri-State Militia/Coalition > consist of Ed-the-Dog, who runs the Patriot Informant's Mail List > and Ken-the-Snitch McWilliams, who has already been exposed as a > FiBbIe informant/infilltraitor. --M.L. Ken did in fact work as an informant. And, he managed to do so without violating his personal integrity, nor his position as a militia commander. I know that sounds odd at first, as it did to me, but I've since come to realize that any informant that is in a militia unit can be used to that unit's benefit. Take the fucking psychos and criminals and hand them over to your local informant. It'll free you of the problems they would've created and demonstrate that your group isn't criminal. None of us need such people around and some of us are fortunate to have the people on hand to take them away. Meanwhile, your local informant will learn a lot while he's with you and have nothing to report back regarding any plot by your unit to assassinate Rockefeller and take over Martin's world. As it turns out, Ken learned that the larger criminals weren't joining "anti-government" groups and posing a threat to society, but rather, were in the gov't it's self. Fortunately, he did what he did and got tagged by Martin Stepdinshidt along with me as an infiltraitor, which caused ML to accuse both of us in the same post, thereby making each of us aware of each other's existence. For that, Martina, I must thank you. Although you were wrong before about me knowing Ken when I'd never heard of him, being as new to the movement as I am, I'm proud to say that I know him now and have become his friend. Don't you just love it when I give you just enough ammo to prove that all of your paranoid fantasies are right on target? ======================================= See: http://www.mo-net.com/~mlindste/tsmc-5.html#infilltraitor >> This looks to be a most sreious charge against you which >>Masrtin has pointed out. -C.S. >I disagree. -EtFD Of course EtFD disagrees. It isn't as if admitting to sponsoring a known federal infilltraitor who ran wild with the Republic of Texas people is something one should be proud of. --M.L. >> If you acrtually composed this message, as Martin has represented it >> on his web page, this does show what in my opinion is a blatant lack >> of sence of Justice for the Murder Victims of Waco & Ruby Ridge, the >> OKC Massicre, and all sorts of Bold Faced Evil which the cureent >> Criminal Regime is perpetrating upon the Amwerican People. -C.S. >How can you possibly derive that from what I wrote?? -EtFD How about because EtFD is busily covering up for the criminal regime's professional infiltraitors? --M.L. >> Imho, your agrument below (if accurately presented) to the effect >> that Infiltrators for the Feds should be tollerated in resistance >> orgizational movements, -C.S. >First off, there might be some difference between a resistance >group and a common citizen's militia. One is underground, the other >is above ground and operates off of the constitution. >All citizens between 18 and 45 are members of the militia and >none can legally be excluded. --EtFD Sure there is a difference between the Resistance and a common citizen's militia. The biggest difference is that a Resistance Active Service Unit 'cell' is pretty much undetectable to an infiltraitor such as Ken-the-Snitch McWilliams or Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog. Whereas a group of nitwits claiming to be a militia cannot 'legally' exclude such infilltraitors such as KtS and EtFD. --M.L. >> just so that they can keep an eye on the possible psycvhos, is >>entirely bankrupt of any Reasonable sence of Justice. -C.S. >You missed the point, and obviously must not have been in on >the on-going, tedious thread between Martin and myself. -EtFD Charles makes the same points which I have brought up in the ongoing, tedious struggle between EtFD and myself. --M.L. >And I also find it extremely hypocritical of you to criticize >me and claim serious charges against me for suggesting that >you turn a psycho over to your local informant when Martin >on the other hand promotes the cold-blooded murder of not >only the informant, but his wife and children who may not >have any idea at all that they are connected to such. -EtFD So EtFD admits that he thinks radical militiamen should be turned over to government informants like himself or Ken-the-Snitch McWilliams or Red Mike Vanderboegh, depending on whether the militia organization is in Oregon, Texas, or Alabama respectively. This is exactly the point I have made in uncovering Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog and his fellow infilltraitors and agents provacateur. Nor is Charles a hypocrite based on what I have advocated. I see no problem in dealing with an informant and his family using the harshest possible measures. Criminal regimeist infilltraitors and informants must be liquidated eventually, and one cannot trust them to liquidate themselves. What better way to do it in a manner consistant with past practice -- death by hanging -- with untraceable materials at hand? Since violence and terror is the only thing criminal regimeists understand, let Revolutionary Justice terrorize them into submission. Nor should a Resistance Action Service Unit cell allow themselves to be traced back to a feed store or other place where a rope might have been bought if regime criminals can provide their own rope so to speak. It serves these regime criminals right for starting a civil war which they lost. --M.L. >> Those murders cant ecven police their own. -C.S. >Like I should care whether or not they can handle someone >that comes along to corrupt and frame a militia unit?? --EtFD See, EtFD is not his militia's keeper, but tender of its infilltraitors. --M.L. >> How can you possibly expect them to police the American people? -C.S. >I don't expect them to police the American people. In fact, there's >no constitutional authority at all for federal police. They shouldn't >exist. >My point was, if you've been infiltraited by someone who is either >a nutcase or someone that wants you to commit crimes, simply >hand them over to the informant you know is in your midst. -EtFD Such as Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog & his informer friends. --M.L. >From what Ken told me, his job was to keep an eye out for >anyone planning any bombings or killings. If you had someone >in your Court that was planning on bombing the Oregonian, >wouldn't you rather have that person out of your group >and disassociated from you? Or would you rather sheild >them from the feds and have your whole court go down in >flames? -EtFD Or, say you have someone in your militia unit who wishes to blow up Moreass-the-Sleezester and his Scalawag Professional Liar's Center back in 1995 and his name happens to be Crazy Willie Lampley. And Crazy Willie is running his mouth to some people named Colonel John Parsons and Red Mike Vanderboegh of the Tri-States Militia. And they turn in Crazy Willie to the FiBbIes. Now Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog, as a member of the Tri-States Militia/Coalition, doubtless thinks his fellow infilltraitors did the militia movement a real big favor. Now I happened to hear Colonel John Parsons in Pam Beezley's house brag about what he had done back in Nov. 1995. Parson's only complaint was that he got only 12 seconds air time on ABC News. And I admit I was the only one who had something to say against this snitchery at that place and at that time. How could anyone have turned in pore Crazy Willie? Why not just look the other way? Anyone who informs on anyone planning to take Revolutionary action against the criminal regime is a traitor in my book. The only proper Revolutionary manner to deal with such plans coming from people you do not know is to calmly tell them that they are fools and that they cannot be serious. Then walk away. This allows plausible deniability when dealing with agents provacateur without becoming forced to become a criminal regimeist informant. --M.L. >My other point was, if you have a law enforcement officer or >informant in your group, fine, let them hang around and >discover and report back to their seniors that there's >nothing illegal going on in your group. It should teach >him and his bosses that it's a waste of time to monitor >militia groups. And then if you spot someone urging >illegal acts, you could say to the informant, "I know >your a cop and I want Joe Blow arrested for plotting >the murder of Judge So-and-So. Get him out of our unit." -EtFD SOP for the Tri-States Militia/Coalition. --M.L. >Theoretically, you could put them to use and at the >same time, demonstrate your innocence. --EtFD So who is using who? --M.L. >In real life however, I don't actually condone keeping >an informant in your midst, because they won't simply >wait around for one of you to break a law. They'll bring >in someone else to do it and then bust all of you. It would >be nice if you could turn that second provacateur over >to the first infiltraitor, but realistically, it would >probably never work. -EtFD In real life, by his own admission, that is exactly what Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog condoned. Red Mike Vanderboegh, Ken-the-Snitch McWilliams, Major Ted Darby/Smith. All informants which EtFD kept in his midst and protected as best he could for as long as he could. --M.L. >Aside from all that, anyone that admits strangers to >their unit is asking for trouble anyway. If you have >or are forming a militia unit, it should be composed >only of people you've known for at least 5 years. -EtFD So in short, a policy of "Leaderless Resistance" which people like Louis Beam and myself have consistently advocated, specifically because of informants and infilltraitors such as Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog. --M.L. >> We need an answer Ed. -C.S. >There ya go. Take it or leave it. -EtFD I'd leave it, Charles. --M.L. >It would be nice if you could also acknowledge that Martin >was accusing me of knowing and protecting an informant >for years, when I had just met the person in question >a month before that. When that person told me he >had worked for the feds, I acknowledged to Martin, >that, Yes, Ken did do that. -EtFD First of all, the matter at hand is whether EtFD was shielding a known infilltraitor and informant from scrutiny. EtFD admits that he did do exactly that. So why should I believe anything else EtFD has to say about exactly how long this collaboration between Ken-the-Snitch and EtFd was? I have found it best to simply let EtFD lie and lie, then catch EtFD in that lie to where he has to make an admission. Then you let EtFD crawfish and lie some more while you force him to make another admission. Simple interrogation procedures. The reason you listen to the lies is that there has to be some truth to the lies in order to make them believable. So one casts the net for lies, and then seines out the truth. For example, EtFD admitted that he knew one Ted Darby for years. Yet Ted Darby is Colonel Red Mike Vanderboegh's second-in-command and ran Red Mike's WWW page for about a year or so. As a 'Major Smith' he is listed as being the 'Outside Coordinator of the Tri-States Coalition,' which is supposed to be independent of the Tri-States Militia, which Red Mike resigned from in 1996 when TSM Colonel John Parsons was found out. So this tells me that 1) Tri-States Militia and Coalition have much the same membership and 2) Red Mike Vanderboegh and Ted Darby are some more infilltraitors supported by Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog. --M.L. >What was I supposed to do? Deny what Ken himself had >told me? Of course not. But because Ken said something >and I acknowledged it, Martin twists that around into >a Confession. -EtFD Isn't it interesting how EtFD wants the militia generals to turn in their radical elements to local informers, yet EtFD wants to protect the identities of the local informants from the militia units they spy on? Secondly, EtFD crawfished from his admission that KtS was a professional informant to simply betraying only a few Republic of Texas 'mad bombers' or something. --M.L. >A confession of what?? -EtFD Pretty much everything I accused EtFD of being: namely of being an informant and infilltraitor himself and a protector of informants and infilltraitors. --M.L. >I had nothing to confess. I can't confess to having been >told something. I can acknowledge that I've been told >something. -EtFD The difference is altogether in EtFD's mind. There is no substantive difference between a confession and an acknowledgement under pressure that KtS was a professional informant. --M.L. >A few other false facts in Martin's statements. Ken was >never on the PIML list and Ken never applied for >membership to the Tri States Coalition, and therefore >was never accepted. He's never shown any interest in >it, and while I was a member, I never invited him to >join. -EtFD So what? What difference does it make if Ken-the-Snitch was on Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog's PIML list or was a member of the Tri-States Militia/Coalition? He had EtFD to tell him who to haul in or EtFD could inform on them himself. I don't recollect accusing EtFd about the above-mentioned matters because they are irrelevant. And since EtFD wasn't interrogated about these irrelevancies, these matters didn't come up except now as more lying cover for EtFD. In any case, unless EtFD was for all intents and purposes the owner or manager of PIML/PDML, then how would he know whether KtS was was a member? Same thing with the TSM/C. Me and EtFD used to go round and round as to whether or not EtFD was the de facto owner of PIML/PDML. When the remaining militia generals figgured out EtFD, they ran for the hills and off PIML/PDML and EtFD claimed that he disbanded his listservers. --M.L. >When a person has a series of "facts" all wrong, it >would serve you well to not place 100% trust in >any of their claims. -EtFD That's right. That's why I keep pestering EtFD in order to make him keep lying. -M.L. >> First >> 1: Is the below an accurate representatin of your original post? -C.S. >What I wrote appears to be reproduced accurately. -EtFD EtFD has to admit the obvious and that his message of June 30, 1998 was intact. Yet EtFD couldn't resist the quibbling Clinton-clause word 'appears.' --M.L. >However, Martin's summary and embroidery that precedes and >follows my statement is completely wrong, twisted and >contains pure lies and inventions. -EtFD So admittedly I hate infilltraitors and informants and it biased my commentary a bit. I'm no friend of Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog; never pretended to be. Yet if one wants, one can go read for onesself EtFD's message of June 30, 1998 by going to http://www.mo-net.com/~mlindste/tsmc-5.html and judging the matter for ones' self. --M.L. >> Second >> 2: If above true, What is your Defence if any, to chaerges that >> your words herein reflect that you are Outside of the Constitutional >> Christian CommonLaw of the American People; --C.S. >I don't believe I can be charged with a "reflection." >Also, how can I be charged with being outside the >constitution by someone who repeatedly calls the >constitution a peice of toilet paper. Examine my >accuser. -EtFD See, EtFD always uses a glib response first, such as not being able to be charged with a "reflection." This is not the best way to interrogate Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog, Charles. You gotta do it the same way you interrogate Clinton. You don't charge him with anything specific, but rather you make a general accusation and let Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog ramble on and on while you listen to him lie and take notes. Then you use what you have learned to make another general accusation and listen and take notes on the new lies. Then you start asking specific questions concerning the new lies. If done properly, then soon you have him on the ropes, quibbling over what the words "sex" or "is" or "reflections" mean that are at great variance with what normal honest people think that they mean. If all else fails, you release the entire transcripts onto the Internet and let everyone judge the matter for themselves. This is definitely going onto my WWW page at: http://www.mo-net.com/~mlindste/rrogues.html By the way, Charles is the accuser in this case. --M.L. >> but rather you prefer the >> corrupt Blood-Stained Statutory Pharisaical-Talmudian Law of the >> Current DeFacto Lawless Military Regime? --C.S. >I think you know me a bit better than that, Chuck. -EtFD I'd say I know EtFD better than Chuck. --M.L. >> I remeber well how patiently you assisted me in getting used to >> composing web pages, and I am utmostly greatful for that assistance. -C.S. >You're welcome, and you should know that you can always call me >when you need assistance with something. -EtFD I think Charles would be a lot better off if he just went down to a bookstore and bought "Learn How to Set Up A WWW Page in 7 Days." Only infilltraitors and informants need EtFD's type of 'help.' -M.L. >> But Gods Justice will not be bought. -C.S. >Of course not. -EtFD But it certainly can be bought, sold, delayed and denied in the criminal regime korts, especially if you are a militia general on trial for your life as a result of placing too much trust in EtFD and his fellow informants. --M.L. >> We need answers here sir. -C.S. >I've explained all of this nonsense in the past, and if this >were Martin bringing up this BS again, I'd have ignored it. >But since it's you, I'll tell you anything you want to know. >I've always told people, "It's easy to spot the fed in your >unit. He's the one suggesting you do something illegal. The >minute he does, have him arrested." -EtFD That would be just peachy keen if all militia units only had two members in it -- one agent provacateur like Jeff Randall to propose doing something stupid and one informant like Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog or Ken-the-Snitch or Red Mike or John Parsons to tell on the agent provacateur. However, I would not advise setting up a militia unit or Resistance Active Service Unit cell this way. --M.L. >Do you get the point of such advice? Would you construe that >to mean that I fully support the Portland Police? That think >the provacateur will see Justice in our criminally corrupt >courts? -EtFD Yes, yes and yes. --M.L. >Of course not. It's not about Justice when someone comes >to destroy you and your group. It's about turning them >back to the wolves that sent them and preserving your >unit. -EtFD Live to inform another day, is that it, EtFD? -M.L. >Have you read Unintended Consequences? Remember the >scene where the undercover BATF cop tries to get >Henry to tell him how to convert a rifle to full auto? >Henry's response is to make a citizen's arrest and turn >the guy over to his senior BATF partner. -EtFD This just goes to show that if you are going to tinker with your "boyz-toyz" that you go off by yourself and do it, and not be asking somebody whose business license depends on being nice to the BATF to do it for you. -M.L. >You've got to love the irony and it would be great >if people could pull that off in real life. -EtFD Informant's head rush. -M.L. >If you don't understand that, feel free to judge me to >the best of your understanding or ask for further >clarification. >Ed Wolfe >> Charles Bruce Stewart. Charles, I think that the verdict is clear. Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog is an informant who shelters his fellow informants. EtFD hasn't brought up any new lies that I haven't heard before, and uses the same justifications that collabor-traitors always use for turning people in to the criminal regime. Me and EtFD have had these same arguments before. Those who felt they had something to hide from the criminal regime fled EtFD like a plague. Those who are on the side of the criminal regime called me a Nazi, a racist, a Jacobin, a troublemaker, and a whole bunch of other things which I would get preached to if I repeated them here. Now EtFD is on the outs with his potential victims and I'm on the outs with the criminal regimeist infilltraitors and quislings. This suits me fine and EtFD not at all. EtFD wants back in. I wouldn't let him back in, Charles. Kick him off your maillist if you want. Or leave him on if you wish, as he has been exposed. I let him on my listserver as he is not very dangerous at all now that he is exposed and I can keep an eye on him better that way. But whatever you do, never trust a criminal regimeist informant with a criminal regimeist's attitude, Charles. --Martin Lindstedt Resistance Political Front http://www.mo-net.com/~mlindste.
Want to find out more about the natural enemies of the Resistance?
See: A Resistance Rogue's Gallery