BCI NET 2/BCI NET 2.iso/archives/textfiles/desert1521.lha/desert.rat.21

Internet Message Format | 1995-01-31 | 36.0 KB

From [e-mail] Thu Jan 26 10:59 EST 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 14:21:35 -0800
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
X-Sender: [e-mail] (Unverified)
Subject: Groom Lake Desert Rat #21

THE GROOM LAKE DESERT RAT.   An On-Line Newsletter.
Issue #21.  January 25, 1995.
 -----> "The Naked Truth from Open Sources." <-----
AREA 51/NELLIS RANGE/TTR/NTS/S-4?/WEIRD STUFF/DESERT LORE
Direct from the "UFO Capital," Rachel, Nevada.
Written, published, copyrighted and totally disavowed by
[e-mail]. See bottom for subscription/copyright info.

In this issue...
     FUN WITH LAW
     LEGAL FUND GROWS
     CASE OF THE KIDNAPPED TRESPASSERS
     NEW PRODUCT: VEHICLE PASS
     FREEBIE: NELLIS RANGE CHART
     CELLULAR INTERFERENCE
     TRIANGULAR AIRCRAFT SIGHTING
     PICNIC REPORT
     INTEL BITTIES


 ----- FUN WITH LAW -----

JUDGE HOLTON BOWS OUT OF CAMPBELL TRIAL

The saying goes: "He who defends himself in court has a fool for a
client."  Maybe so, but Glenn Campbell is a happy fool as
circumstances seem to turn his way in his long-running obstruction
case.  Campbell was arrested for pushing down the car door locks
during the warrantless seizure of KNBC's video tape on July 19.
In the latest turn of events, Justice of the Peace Nola Holton
abruptly excused herself from the case, without explanation and
only one day before the Jan. 18 pre-trial hearing.  The case has
been transferred to a Justice of the Peace in Ely, Nevada, Ronald
Niman.  This means Campbell now has both his own Special
Prosecutor AND a Special Judge.  Since Niman apparently had no
time in his schedule for the Jan. 18 hearing, it and the trial
have again been postponed.  The pre-trial hearing will now be held
on the previously scheduled trial date, Feb. 8 at 10 am, so
visitors who had made arrangements to attend the trial can still
attend the hearing.  No new trial date has been set.

Although Campbell expressed dismay that the Court canceled the
hearing and reassigned jurists without notice to him, he says he
is pleased with the change of judges.  "Holton is too close to the
police," Campbell said.  "A new judge may bring some perspective
to this case."  Campbell says he asked his Special Prosecutor,
Steve Dobrescu, his opinion of Judge Niman, and Dobrescu evaluated
Niman was one of the most competent J.P.'s he had practiced
before.  "That's good enough for me," said Campbell.  "Whatever
pleases my Special Prosecutor pleases me."

Although their relationship has been cordial, Campbell and
Dobrescu have had their differences.  For example, they have
disagreed on whether or not a jury trial is warranted in this
misdemeanor case.  In a recent exchange of motions, Dobrescu says
no, and Campbell says yes.  "Steve's skating on thin ice on this
one," says Campbell. "I can see the cracks forming around his
blades."  Still no response has been issued by Dobrescu on
Campbell's new 13-page Motion for Discovery, which asks, among
other things, for the names of the Cammo Dudes who reported the
incident for which the Sheriff's deputy was called to the scene of
the arrest [See DR#12].

Unlike the motions reported in DR#19, Campbell's latest were
printed on numbered paper with the proper header format and fully
annotated "Points and Authorities" at the end.  "I've outgrown my
training wheels," says Campbell.  "I can fly!  I can fly!"

 ..... FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL RESEARCH .....

Psychospy has been trying to assist the pea-brained defendant
wherever possible.  We've spent many days at the Clark County Law
Library trying to understand the law and how it works.  We started
from zero to build a good understanding of the philosophy of law
and the basic techniques of legal research.  We suffer no lack of
legal advice if we need it.  We are grateful to our sleazebag
lawyer friends AP, SH, JT, TL, FH, SD, RS, RO and LJ for the words
of wisdom that got us started, but most of what we have
accomplished we did ourselves.  The field of law is not as
intimidating as it seems; it is easily accessible to anyone with
initiative and access to the law books.

The law is, above all, a logical enterprise where everything is
written down and all the rules and procedures are easily decoded
if you know a few simple rules about where to look.  What the
lawyers have given us are some entry points into the world of
legal knowledge.  They have dropped us some hints, and we have
tracked them down.  Usually, their advice is no more than a
sentence or two.  One source, who we shall call "The Angel,"
imparted her greatest wisdom to us in only a single word whispered
from the shadows.

"Shepardize."

To understand what she meant, we had to delve into the mysteries
of the Clark County Law Library.  On the surface, a law library is
an intimidating place.  Row after row of musty, anonymous volumes
line the walls.  One can walk down a corridor in the stacks and
not see a single difference in the hundreds of books on either
side except for the volume number printed on the spine.  These
endless books are a database of laws and legal cases.  Somewhere
among those millions of pages are the gems of information that
might be relevant to an obstruction case; the question is how to
find them.

Fortunately, most legal volumes are indexed by a very simple
method, called the "key system."  In any legal document or
treatise, if you see a reference to a certain case, like Rowe vs.
Wade or Psychospy vs. Cammo Dudes, it is always followed by a
code, like 418 US 512.  The code may look intimidating, but
finding the text of the case couldn't be easier:  "418 US 512"
means go to Volume 418 of the "U.S. Supreme Court Reports" and
turn to page 512.  All cases are coded in this way, and one case
will probably make reference to still others, along with their
codes, which you can look up in the same manner.

All you need is a starting point, and in criminal cases this is
provided whenever you are issued a traffic ticket or arraigned for
an alleged offense.  If you are skateboarding on the sidewalk and
a police officer gives you a citation for it, the ticket will
specify the number of the statute you allegedly violated--let's
say NRS 123.45.  You can go to your public library or city hall
and ask to see the statutes.  In the case of state laws, this is a
set of volumes about the size of an encyclopedia.  "NRS" in this
case means Nevada Revised Statutes, but every state and local
jurisdiction has its own set of printed laws, as does the U.S.
Government.  Fundamental to democracy is the fact that the printed
laws are easily accessible to anyone who wants to see them.

Laws or statutes are usually written in relatively simple
language. Looking up NRS 123.45, you might find that it says, "Any
person found skating on the sidewalk after due notice shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor."  Trouble is, you weren't "skating" on
the sidewalk; you were "skateboarding."  Every word is significant
in the law.  The law is an explicit written description of what
you must and cannot do.  If you did not violate the letter of the
law, then you are not guilty, simple as that.

Still, the difference between "skating" and "skateboarding" is
ambiguous.  It is matter of definition, and people are going to
have different interpretations about whether they are
substantially the same thing.  That's when you have to go to "case
law."  Because the world is a complex place, every statute is
bound to face questions of application sooner or later.  These
gray areas are resolved by the previous ruling of appeals courts
in actual cases.  Perhaps in the case Nevada vs. Gator (101 Nev
431) an appeals court determined that skateboarding and skating
were different activities and therefore overturned Gator's
conviction under NRS 123.45.  If you could locate this ruling, you
could show it to the judge, and unless valid opposing cases could
be presented by the prosecutor, the judge would be bound by the
Gator ruling and would have to let you go.  The only challenge is,
how do you find the Gator case among those hundreds of anonymous
volumes in the law library?

You Shepardize!

In the law library, there is a compact series of books called
"Shepard's Citations."  In "Shepard's Nevada Citations", you can
look up any Nevada statute, and it will give you the code numbers
for the all the rulings that have made reference to that statute.
Nevada vs. Gator will be listed under NRS 123.45, as will any
later cases in which higher courts overturned or affirmed that
ruling.  There are also Shepard's Citations for cases themselves
in which you can look up the code for Nevada vs. Gator and find
references to all later rulings that are somehow related.

The first key to a successful court case is to Shepardize the hell
out of everything.  First, you use Shepard's Citations to find
every case that might have any bearing on the current one.  Then
you study the steps of the trial as defined in the state statutes
and Shepardize the hell out of them, too.  When in doubt,
Shepardize, then Shepardize the results of what you just
Shepardized, and don't stop Shepardizing until they shut off the
lights and pry the Shepard's Citations from your cold, clammy
hands.  What you'll have in the end, after studying all these
related cases, is a good idea of what motions and strategies the
opposition is likely to use and how you can counter them before
they even take place.

 ..... TRIAL STRATEGY .....

In a trial, the verdict is returned by either a jury or a judge,
but there is a lot of legal maneuvering that goes on before the
case is even presented.  We've all seen it on television in the
O.J. Simpson case:  months of courtroom drama before the trial
even begins.  The pre-trial phase is the arbitrated negotiation in
which the parties determine the rules of the game like what
arguments and evidence will be admissible, who the jurors will be
and what instructions will be given to the jury before
deliberation.  The judge's ruling on these matters depends
primarily on case law.  Each side tells the judge what they want,
and then presents appellate cases to support it.  The opposition
then might present an opposing argument and its own set of
supporting cases, and the judge must make a reasoned choice
between them.  The pressure is on the judge to make the right
decision, because if he doesn't the case could be overturned by a
higher court on appeal.

In the Campbell case, the Defense has submitted one primary pre-
trial motion (not including those previously rejected--See DR#19),
and the "State" (which is the actually the county, represented by
the Special Prosecutor) has also submitted one.  Campbell's motion
is a request for discovery materials: information from the State
that he says is essential to preparing his defense.  For example,
the defense wants copies of the video tapes seized from the KNBC
crew, because these record the events leading up to the arrest.

After a previous discovery request, the District Attorney did
produce, after his customary month of delay, a copy of the single
video tape that was returned by the Air Force to the KNBC crew.
However, the tape delivered to the Defense contained only the
video, no audio, mostly showing the seat of a car.  We later
learned that the audio was in fact potentially vital to Campbell's
defense, because when the camera was sitting on the seat of the
car it was recording the sounds of the arrest.  Did the District
Attorney deliberately provide only the video portion to Campbell,
knowing that the audio provided exculpatory evidence?  Personally,
we have copied hundreds of video tapes (not admitting to piracy),
yet have never failed to copy the audio along with the video.  We
cannot prove bad faith on the part of the District Attorney, but
from our prior experience with him and knowledge of some of his
actions elsewhere, we wouldn't discount it.

In our two years in Rachel we have been very patient with the
local District Attorney and Sheriff.  We have done our best to
explain our political position to them and give them warning of
upcoming events.  We have never cried "Conspiracy!" like many
visitors are quick to do.  We form our opinions only slowly,
always giving others the benefit of the doubt, but sooner or later
we have to acknowledge the obvious:  These are not nice people.

The motion submitted by our Special Prosecutor, who is a nice
person, sought to have the Court overturn its decision to grant a
jury trial.  The stakes are high.  The State is worried that if a
jury trial is granted here, then everyone accused with a crime
relating to Groom Lake will also opt for a jury trial, freaking
out the J.P., provoking the ire of county residents who must serve
on the jury and drawing the unfavorable attention of the outside
world.  The Defense counters that jury trials are the only
assurance of a fair process in this remote location where the J.P.
is close to the police and there aren't any lawyers for miles.

The prosecution's motion was not unexpected.  In fact, a nearly
identical argument was made about a week before, when Justice
Holton issued an order denying a jury trial to the two accused
trespassers--the ones who say they were captured by the Cammo
Dudes on public land and then marched across the border.  Both
Holton and Dobrescu based their arguments on the case Nevada vs.
Smith (99 Nev 806), which appears at casual reading to disallow
the right to a jury trial in "petty" cases where the maximum
possible sentence is six months or less.  However, a careful word-
by-word reading of both the case and the statute, which we had
done in our "Shepardizing" phase, reveals that the Smith case
applies only to a previous version of the jury trial statute, not
the current revised one.  "Bet the D.A.'s gonna fall for that
one," we said to ourselves.

Sure enough, it happened.  Holton issued her order, followed
shortly thereafter by Dobrescu's motion.  The close timing and
nearly identical flawed reasoning leads the observer to an almost
inescapable conclusion: that there was secret communication
between the State and the Court on this issue.  This is known as
"ex-parte communication" and it is a big no-no in legal
proceedings.  Except for certain limited situations like arranging
schedules, the judge is not supposed to discuss a case with either
party outside of the hearing of the other.  In this case, it seems
that the flawed Nevada vs. Smith argument originated with the
D.A.'s office and was passed to the J.P., then the J.P. issued her
ruling without further research and without informing the
defendants that the communication had taken place.  This appears,
in essence, to be a single-sided motion filed and ruled upon in
secret.  Other evidence that we cannot now reveal supports the ex-
parte contention, making the "Kidnapped Trespassers" case a lot
more interesting.

In the Campbell case, however, the motion was not improper in its
origin, merely flawed in its logic.  Campbell fired off a response
to the Court noting the change in the law.  In NRS 175.011
authorizing jury trials, the wording in effect at the time of the
original Smith case was....

   "In a justice's court a case shall be tried by jury only if the
defendant so demands in writing not less that 5 days prior to
trial."

In the Smith case, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the word
"shall" was procedural and did not convey a right.  However, in
1983, the law was amended to...

   "In a justice's court a case must be tried by jury only if the
defendant so demands in writing not less that 30 days before
trial."

Dobrescu responded to Campbell's response with another motion,
this time based on the wafer-thin argument that "shall" meant
exactly the same thing as "must," leading to the implausible
implication that the legislature changed the wording for no reason
whatsoever.  (Dobrescu also cited a case State vs. District Court
(104 Nev 91), which we had also researched previously.  It was an
ambiguous ruling, issued without explanation, concerning the
constitutional right to jury trials in DUI cases.)  Nevada, like
Alaska and other states with a libertarian bent, has traditionally
taken a strong stand on the right of jury trials, perceiving them
as an essential protection of the citizen against the encroachment
of government power.

In any older or more populous state, there would be reams of case
law clarifying the issue, but this is Nevada, an empty backwater
until only a few decades ago, where much of the law hasn't had a
chance to mature.  California is a state with "real law," as one
of our sleazebag associates puts it; Nevada has only "baby law."
This makes Nevada an ideal kindergarten in which to learn the law
and where we might even participate in defining it.  Feb. 8 may be
only a pre-trial hearing, but it is also the chance for student
lawyer Campbell, on his very first case, to present a legal
argument that may affect Nevada law for years to come.  State vs.
Campbell (? Nev ?) could be the case that clearly determines
whether or not there is a statutory right to a jury trial in
misdemeanor cases in Nevada justice courts.

Realistically, though, the jury trial issue is only an
entertaining diversion that probably won't go anyplace because the
obstruction charges can't be sustained.  We have found the
citations which show explicitly what common sense already
dictates:  "The existence of a valid process is a necessity in
order to sustain a conviction for resisting an officer in the
execution of his duties."  (10 ALR3d 1146)  Combining this with
the constitutional and statutory guarantee that the defendant is
"innocent until proven guilty," the State must prove "beyond a
reasonable doubt" that its seizure of the KNBC video tapes without
a warrant was legal and proper.  The D.A. might be able to
convince the captive Nola Holton of this but probably not any
other judge or jury.

Nevada vs. Smith was the turning point for Campbell.  The greatest
"high" in law is to accurately predict what the opposition will do
and be ready with a countermove before they make theirs.
Suddenly, the law is fun!  To beat these local authorities at
their own game, all we have to do is conduct careful legal
research, actively prepare for all scenarios, then sit back and
watch the State impale itself on its own weak case.

 ..... LAW AND MORALITY .....

Aside from Shepard's Citations, the most powerful tool a lawyer
can have is a strong internal sense of right and wrong.  This may
seem surprising in a society that often regards lawyers as the
lowest scum on the earth, but the lawyers that represent this
underside are also the ones that lose more often than win.  The
law is, at base, a codification of social ethics.  Anyone can
memorize written rules and learn to find ways around them, but
that doesn't mean they have learned the motivation behind the
rules or can make decisions about rules they have not yet
memorized.  A lawyer with a strong sense of the spirit of the law
can predict the statutes before he reads them and know that case
law probably exists to support his position even before
Shepardizing.

The best advantage you can have in any legal proceeding is to be
on the side that is morally right.  Then you are likely to find a
rich trove of case law in your favor.  Over time, case law evolves
to support a position which is thoughtful and rational and adheres
to the rules of courtesy and fairness we learned as children.  The
lawyer on the side that is morally wrong can still score points by
exploiting legal technicalities and temporary inequities in the
law, but these tools are generally weak and isolated, and if they
collapse there is usually little else to fall back on.

The advantage is also psychological:  Lawyers for the side that is
right are more likely to be fired up by their work, devoting their
full personal passion to it and conducting more thorough research.
Lawyers for the side that is morally questionable tend to do
little more than go through the motions because they are being
paid to.  Their research is superficial and tends to focus on the
few technicalities they think might get them off the hook.  They
do not feel comfortable digging any deeper because they suspect
that what they will find can only damage their case.

The position of the D.A. and Sheriff in defending an anonymous
federal authority is morally wrong and thus legally vulnerable.
Here is a publicly accountable police force choosing to represent
a secret, non-accountable federal entity that refuses to stand up
itself.  There are more than enough federal laws to handle
trespassers, espionage and any other problems the Groom Lake
authorities might have with civilians, but no federal law
enforcement agency--like the FBI or Federal Marshall's Service--
would touch this place with a ten-foot pole.  They know the
inconsistencies of a non-existent base won't hold up in federal
court, and no agency wants to be the public fall guy for the Air
Force's bad decisions.  Only these local patsies are dumb enough
to do the Air Force's bidding.

The county is like a wife who is beaten up regularly by her
brutish husband yet who continues to rush to his defense for
whatever mess he has gotten himself into.  The military has
cheated the county out of millions of dollars of taxes over the
years, dumped hazardous fumes into the local air, doused residents
with deadly radiation and returned only trivial economic benefits
to the community.  Yet, for a tiny fee and junior membership in
the secrets club, the Sheriff and D.A. seem willing to sacrifice
any amount of personal and professional dignity to defend the
invisible military.  It takes simple rewards to satisfy small
minds.

The local authorities seem to like to be beaten up.  Placing
themselves between the secret base and the public as the only
targetable entity in sight, they have volunteered themselves as
the Air Force's lightning rod.  After our own trumped-up
obstruction case, our desire to protect these local officials is
nil.  Now that we have mastered the basics of criminal law, an
exciting new horizon awaits:  civil law.  There are so many people
we've been meaning to sue, but life is short and you never seem to
have the time to do everything you want.  On the other hand, if we
don't sue, we'll continue to be like that Rodney Dangerfield
character that doesn't get any respect.


 ----- LEGAL FUND GROWS -----

We wish to thank the following recent donors to our Area 51 legal
fund:

$400 from [e-mail]
$200 from "EA"
$110 from "The Swiss Mountain Bat"
$50 from "NH"
$25 from "SA"
$30 from "RG"
$15 from "AC"

(We also wish to thank Trader for the numbered legal paper which
we have used so liberally.)

Here are our policies regarding this fund...

Donations will be kept in a separate, non-interest-bearing
account.  For tactical reasons, we will not publish the balance in
the account nor will we publish all donations, but we will provide
an accounting of how the money has been spent to any donor upon
request.

Funds in the account will be used to support legal pursuits
relating to Area 51.  These items may include fines, filing fees,
computer research costs, copying costs, travel and lodging for
witnesses and other ancillary costs for legal action.  Since the
hiring of real lawyers at their going rate would eat up the fund
in no time, we will rely on whatever self-help and pro bono advice
we can put together.  (This might mean we'll have to stop calling
our lawyer friends "sleazebags.")

All disbursements from the fund are at the discretion of the fund
manager, Glenn Campbell.  If you do not trust Mr. Campbell, then
do not send money.  The fund will NOT be used for any expense
related to Campbell's current obstruction case, however.  We
cannot say now what our future cases will be, but they may include
both criminal and civil matters.  We make no public offers and do
not promise to help every tourist who crosses the line, but if
anyone is charged with a crime near the border who we feel is not
guilty, we will provide assistance however we can.

 ----- CASE OF THE KIDNAPPED TRESPASSERS -----

The case of the two accused trespassers who say they were captured
on public land and taken inside the line by the Cammo Dudes is
still scheduled for trial on Feb. 15.  This date cannot be
postponed, because the defendants have not waived their right to a
trial within 60 days.

The status of their request for a jury trial is unresolved.
Although Judge Holton has denied their request based on the flawed
Nevada vs. Smith case, the defendants have resubmitted their
request, noting the court's mistakes.  It will be interesting to
see how the court responds.

The defendants also submitted a written discovery request to the
District Attorney asking for the pre-trial information they are
entitled to.  Although the request was submitted over a month ago,
the D.A., in his usual form, has not responded, forcing the
defendants to submit a formal discovery motion--on numbered paper
no less.  The Court and D.A. will no doubt find additional excuses
for ignoring the request, but that's what we have come to expect.
If no justice can be found here, the job of the Defense is to
prepare the case for appeal.

For those who doubt that the Cammo Dudes would capture citizens on
public land, we have another witness who claims otherwise.  On
Jan. 2 at about 1:00 pm, visitor Bruce Hedquist of Yucaipa, CA,
drove down the Groom Lake Road from Highway 375.  When he reached
the Restricted Area signs, he heeded the warning and immediately
turned around.  Unfortunately, he did so just after the signs--no
more than 20 feet inside the border he says.  Shortly thereafter,
one of the anonymous Cammo Dude patrols pulled him over.  The
Dudes demanded ID, threatened Hedquist with arrest and held him
outside his vehicle for 15 to 20 minutes--all on public land where
the Air Force is not supposed to have any jurisdiction.  Although
Hedquist was eventually released, he says that he thought the
Dudes would have transported him back inside the line if they did
not have the car to worry about.

With this kind of evidence, as well as that of other incidents we
have collected [See Texans in DR#9], the defendants seem to have a
strong case.  It is not trespassing if the Dudes kidnap you!
Still, we can't make any predictions about how the case will turn
out because this is Lincoln County, with a law unto itself.

 ----- NEW PRODUCT: VEHICLE PASS -----

For visitors who would like to enter the base without any of these
hassles, the Area 51 Research Center now offers a new product that
may help.  It is the GROOM LAKE/AREA 51 MILITARY VEHICLE PASS.
Unlike the "Area 51 Visitors Permit" with a flying saucer on it,
this 4"x5" self-stick decal looks official and just might get you
in.  Issued by the non-existent "USAF Office of Strategic
Investigations" and citing imaginary Air Force regulations, this
decal contains all the intimidating fine print the military would
want.  "This vehicle subject to search and seizure per USAF," it
says, which is apparently true even outside the military border.

This military vehicle pass, printed in red and black ink on a
white background, was designed for the Research Center by
Laseright Services.  It is available exclusively from us for $2.50
each, plus $1 postage per order sent anywhere in the world.

 ----- FREEBIE: NELLIS RANGE CHART -----

In response to numerous requests, the Research Center has long
been trying to obtain the Air Force's official Nellis Range Air
Chart for sale to interested aviation watchers.  This big map,
used by military pilots on exercise, is unclassified and shows no
airstrip or facilities at Groom Lake.  Still, it does provide a
lot of useful information on the Nellis Complex, and it makes a
very colorful and attractive wall display (40" x 56").

We have made repeated requests to the Defense Mapping Agency to
purchase copies of the map, but it is apparently not for sale, so
the only reliable way to get it is to file a Freedom of
Information request.  This is easy to do, and we encourage anyone
who wants the free Nellis Chart to drop the DMA a letter.  The
letter should go like this...

   Information and Privacy Office
   Defense Mapping Agency
   8613 Lee Highway
   Fairfax, VA 22031-2137

   Dear DMA:

   Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552, I hereby
   request the following document:  Nellis AFB Range Chart, stock
   number NRCXX01.

   [Your signature and address]

 ----- CELLULAR INTERFERENCE -----

The Cammo Dudes were thick as molasses as Dan Montoya of Las Vegas
maneuvered his "Bigfoot" four wheel drive 4-Runner with 4-foot
tires to the top of Freedom Ridge in the late afternoon of Jan. 2.
He was so impressed with the view and with the attention he was
receiving from the security force that he picked up his cellular
phone and called a friend in Vegas.  Cellular One, it seems,
provides service the top of Freedom Ridge, probably through a
transmitter on Angel Peak about 80 miles south.

The friend was out, so Montoya talked to the answering machine.
"You won't believe where we are right now," he said.  "We're up on
top of the ridge looking at the base and we've got about six Cammo
Dudes checking us out, watching everything we do."

A sinister voice then cut in on the line: "That's right, we're
watching everything you do."

Montoya says he "freaked" and hung up the phone.  However, the
exchange was recorded on the friend's answering machine.

>From this incident, we can conclude that the Dudes have the
ability to home in on and intercept any radio transmission in the
area and return fire on the same frequency.  We can also conclude
that the Dudes are pretty dumb.  This is a blatantly illegal act
and a direct tip-off of their abilities.  Now visitors will know
that all radio traffic is vulnerable in this area and will take
the obvious precautions.

 ----- TRIANGULAR AIRCRAFT SIGHTING -----

An experienced aviation watcher says that he and his companions
saw an unacknowledged delta winged aircraft about 35 miles east of
Groom on Nov. 23.  This was a triangular craft with rounded
corners, as has been described in the press as the "TR-3A."

The witness works for a major aircraft developer in California and
says that he knows aircraft well.  He says the sighting took place
around 7 or 8 in the evening (long after dark) as he and several
companions were traveling north on US-93 for a visit to the
Tikaboo Valley.  South of Alamo, they stopped to watch some orange
flares being dropped by jets on maneuver.  These flares, intended
to distract heat-seeking missiles, are a common sight in the area,
but the jets themselves were not.  The witness was drawn by the
unusual lighting of the jets:  Four had only a single red strobe
on the bottom about midway down the fuselage.  About four others
had only three steady lights: red lights in the front and rear and
a white light at mid-fuselage.

The witness says that the moon had just risen, so he was able to
see the outline of the aircraft from below, using low-power
binoculars and looking almost directly upward from their location
near the Pahranagat Lakes.  The planes with the single red strobes
he recognized as F-117A Stealth fighters.  The other four aircraft
had a distinctive triangular shape with rounded corners.  Both the
witness and his companion, also an aviation worker, insist that
these aircraft were not B-2s, the only acknowledged craft in the
U.S. arsenal that resembles that shape.

 ----- PICNIC REPORT -----

In spite of threatening weather, the Second Annual Could-Be-
Closed-Any-Day-Now Freedom Ridge Picnic went off without a hitch
this past Saturday (1/21).  There were 60 people in attendance,
not including Cammo Dudes, and although the skies were overcast,
they cleared up enough for a good look at the base.  Like Madonna
and Schwarzenegger, Psychospy has major media attending all our
affairs--weddings, bar mitzvahs, picnics, etc.--and this time it
was CNN that covered the event.  Their story, focusing on the
hazardous waste suit, will run sometime in mid- to late-February
on "Network Earth" (TBS, Sundays 11pm ET) and "Earth Matters"
(CNN, Tuesdays? 2:30 pm ET, and on CNN Intl.).  (We will post the
dates on the alt.conspiracy.area51 newsgroup when known.)

At a briefing before the hike, we introduced the CNN crew to the
hikers, expressing our regrets that Ted Turner himself could not
be present.  We informed the participants that they did not have
to be seen on television if they did not want to.  We explained to
them a technique we had learned for controlling the editing
process:  Simply raising the middle finger of either hand in view
of the camera is sufficient to assure that the shot will not be
used.

The picnic was marred only by a Wiener Crisis, which has caused us
the deepest embarrassment.  There were sixty people on the ridge
and sixty hot dogs available for roasting over the fire, SO THERE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH HOT DOGS FOR EVERYONE, but there wasn't.
This means that somebody took more than one wiener without even
considering the consequences.  It may seem trivial, but the
watchers have an image to protect.  Especially when we have a
major network present, it is important to convey to the world that
we are not a bunch of wiener grabbing opportunists.  Ethics are
very important in this battle for government accountability, and
the Wiener Crisis is something that our enemies are bound to use
against us.

Watch the correspondent on the CNN report.  He's got a wiener in
his hand--but is it one dog or two?

 ----- INTEL BITTIES -----

A CAMERA WAS LEFT BEHIND at Freedom Ridge following the Jan. 21
picnic.  (Heaven forbid, photography on Freedom Ridge?!)  Any
participant who lost one should contact our Lost and Found Dept.

THE JANET 737 FLIGHT NUMBERS appear to have changed.  This will
necessitate a re-analysis of flight patterns.  Scanner buffs
visiting Las Vegas are encouraged to monitor the FAA and AF
frequencies to assemble a new schedule. [See DR#15 for freqs.] We
are still looking for conclusive evidence of scheduled flights to
Groom from places other than McCarran Airport.

OUR ADOPTED INTERNET NEWSGROUP is alt.conspiracy.area51.  This is
the place for discussion of related topics, both earthly and
extraterrestrial.  We will also post notice of breaking events
here, including press alerts and notable sighting reports.

PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED for readers to continue copying and
reposting any back issues of the Desert Rat until Dec. 31, 1995,
otherwise under the restrictions as printed in each newsletter.

 ===== SUBSCRIPTION AND COPYRIGHT INFO =====

Circulation: 2068 copies direct to subscribers, plus unknown
postings and redistributions.

(c) Glenn Campbell, 1995.

This newsletter is copyrighted and may not be reproduced without
permission.  PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING:  For
one year following the date of publication, you may photocopy this
text or send or post this document electronically to anyone who
you think may be interested, provided you do it without charge.
You may only copy or send this document in unaltered form and in
its entirety, not as partial excerpts (except brief quotes for
review purposes).  After one year, no further reproduction of this
document is allowed without permission.  These terms may be
amended but notice published in later issues the Desert Rat.

Email subscriptions to this newsletter are available free of
charge.  To subscribe (or unsubscribe), send a message to
[e-mail].  Subscriptions are also available by regular
mail for $15 per 10 issues, postpaid to anywhere in the world.

A catalog that includes the "Area 51 Viewer's Guide", the Groom
Lake patch and hat and publications relating to government secrecy
and UFOs is available upon request by email or regular mail.

Back issues are available on various bulletin boards and by
internet FTP to ftp.shell.portal.com, directory
/pub/trader/secrecy/psychospy.  Also available by WWW to
http://alfred1.u.washington.edu:8080/~roland/rat/desert_rat_index.
html

The mail address for Psychospy, Glenn Campbell, Area 51 Research
Center, Groom Lake Desert Rat and countless other ephemeral
entities is:
     HCR Box 38
     Rachel, NV 89001 USA

###