Jon Roland wrote: > 1. The "general allegations" are inflammatory rhetoric that does not > belong in an indictment. It is an attempt to make mere organization and
So what. Its common to do that. I've got a friend who doesn't even live in the US. The accused him of kidnapping someone from the US - on a date that NEITHER him nor the person he was accused of kidnapping was even in the US... They tried to extradite him from another country and failed, but now they keep him on Interpol and he's a virtual prisoner in another country now. After that they told his new host country "The US Dept of State has evidence that he maybe a former drug dealer"... and they made up all kinds of things.. Always using the word maybe... They know nothing will ever stick.. but their whole plan is to get him back and just tie him up for years and finally release him without charges... Happened exactly like that to a brother of a friend of mine... Held him in FL for 2 years on false federal charges, then released him with no charges and not even a trial.... Federal indictments can contain all kinds of baseless allegations. Just look at what they did to Tommy Chong.... If you havent seen it, watch the documentary aka Tommy Chong and very closely around the Federal parts.... You can spout all you want about the Constitutionality etc... but the point you miss is your Constitution died a long time ago in the eyes of those who have power (both parties) and they are distracting you with chasing such ghosts.
