Nest of Neo-Nazi Infilltraitors

The Tri-States Militia/Coalition

Part 6



Charges Against Ed-the-FiBbIe-Dog

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:37:09 -0700
From: (Ed Wolfe)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I)
To: "Charles Bruce, Stewart" (
CC: "Posse>" (
Subject: Posse> Re: Charges against Ed Wolfe

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?


>>    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

>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
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:

   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.

>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 

>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



Want to find out more about the natural enemies of the Resistance?
See: A Resistance Rogue's Gallery