Subject: IL
code says forgery has NO Statute of Limitations ~~See for
yourself...
Ray and Rich:
This is Gordon.
I just got off the phone with the State
Attorney's office, and discussed this email below. He tells me in the email,
below, that there is no statutes of limitations on forgery - it is one
of the 'exceptions' lumped in with murder (which, also, has no statutes
of limitations).
And, I did some checking: HE IS
CORRECT:
(720 ILCS 5/3-5)
(from Ch. 38, par.
3-5)
Sec. 3-5. General Limitations.
(a) A prosecution for: (1) first degree
murder, attempt to commit first degree murder, second degree
murder, involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, leaving the scene of a
motor vehicle accident involving death or personal injuries under Section
11-401 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, failing to give information and render
aid under Section 11-403 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, concealment of
homicidal death, treason, arson, residential arson, aggravated arson,
forgery, child pornography under paragraph (1) of
subsection (a) of Section 11-20.1, aggravated child pornography under
paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 11-20.1B, or (2) any offense
involving sexual conduct or sexual penetration, as defined by Section 11-0.1
of this Code in which the DNA profile of the offender is obtained and entered
into a DNA database within 10 years after the commission of the offense,
may be commenced at any
time. Clause (2) of this subsection (a) applies if either:
(i) the victim reported the offense to law enforcement authorities within 3
years after the commission of the offense unless a longer period for reporting
the offense to law enforcement authorities is provided in Section 3-6 or (ii)
the victim is murdered during the course of the offense or within 2 years
after the commission of the offense.
(b) Unless the statute describing the offense provides
otherwise, or the period of limitation is extended by Section 3-6, a
prosecution for any offense not designated in Subsection (a) must be commenced
within 3 years after the commission of the offense if it is a felony, or
within one year and 6 months after its commission if it is a
misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 98-265, eff.
1-1-14.)
Rich & Ray - important: 720 ILCS 5/17-10.6,
Sec. 17-10.6. Financial institution
fraud has a
statute of limitations:
(720 ILCS 5/17-10.6)
Sec.
17-10.6. Financial institution
fraud.
(k) A "financial crime" means an offense described in this
Section.
(l) Period
of limitations. The period of limitations for prosecution of any offense
defined in this Section begins at the time when the last act in furtherance of
the offense is committed.
But
forgery (defined below)
does NOT have any time limit (see above) for prosecution. The
reason you got nowhere with the State Attorney's Office was because they can't
investigate a crime: Only the police can. ONLY THEN if the Police investigate
and "refer" the matter to the State Atty's Office can they have ability to
prosecute. THAT is the weak link in your
chain!
|
(720 ILCS 5/17-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 17-3)
Sec. 17-3. Forgery.
(a) A person commits forgery when, with intent
to defraud, he or she knowingly:
(1) makes a false document or alters any
document to
|
|
make it
false and that document is apparently capable of defrauding
another; or
| |
|
(2) issues or delivers such document knowing
it to
|
|
have been
thus made or altered;
or
| |
|
(3) possesses, with intent to issue or
deliver, any
|
|
such
document knowing it to have been thus made or altered;
or
| |
|
(4) unlawfully uses the digital signature, as
defined
|
|
in the
Financial Institutions Electronic Documents and Digital Signature
Act, of another; or
| |
|
(5) unlawfully uses the signature device of
another
|
|
to create
an electronic signature of that other person, as those terms are
defined in the Electronic Commerce Security
Act.
| |
|
(b) (Blank).
(c) A document apparently capable of
defrauding another includes, but is not limited to, one by which any
right, obligation or power with reference to any person or property may
be created, transferred, altered or terminated. A document includes any
record or electronic record as those terms are defined in the Electronic
Commerce Security Act. For purposes of this Section, a document also
includes a Universal Price Code Label or coin.
(c-5) For purposes of this Section, "false
document" or "document that is false" includes, but is not limited to, a
document whose contents are false in some material way, or that purports
to have been made by another or at another time, or with different
provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority.
(d) Sentence.
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3),
|
|
forgery
is a Class 3 felony.
| |
|
(2) Forgery is a Class 4 felony when only one
|
|
Universal
Price Code Label is
forged.
| |
|
(3) Forgery is a Class A misdemeanor when an
academic
|
|
degree or
coin is forged.
| |
|
(e) It is not a violation of this Section if a
false academic degree explicitly states "for novelty purposes only".
(Source: P.A.
96-1551, eff. 7-1-11; 97-231, eff. 1-1-12; 97-1109, eff.
1-1-13.)
|
In a message dated 6/10/2016 5:11:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Gww1210@aol.com writes:
-----Original
Message-----
From: Gww1210@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:46:17
-0400
Subject: Re: Additional evidence re mortgage fraud for OAG, SAO,
etc.
To: thomas.simpson@cookcountyil.gov
CC: Gww1210@aol.com,
Gww12102002@yahoo.com, gww1210@gmail.com,
GordonWayneWatts@aol.com, gordonwaynewatts@hotmail.com
Mr.
Watts,
I
have read the document that you sent.
I sent you a lot - thank you.
I unfortunately had to reschedule my appointment with Mr.
Daniggelis at his request because of an issue with the
property.
Yes - he told me about his attempts to go to the appellate
court and get a stay pending appeal to stop the destruction of his house. -
Thank you for your continued patience.
I write only to correct a minor misunderstanding in your
writing, so that you can be clear because I don't want you to think that I
told you wrong information. In Illinois, there is no statute of
limitations on forgery.
Oh, my God! Wow... thank you, so much, for correcting me here!
If I am correct, then this is good news... By the way, I got both your
emails, and I want to assure you that my pejorative and emotionally-charged
complaints/comments were not referring to you. -- While you have done
nothing, as yet, legally, I assure you that I know that you are not corrupt,
lazy, or evading your duty. - I'm a slow reader, but I will read your 2nd
email, and address your concerns.
This is a point that I know I have stressed to you because, it
is the only viable charge that the People could potentially bring if there
was sufficient evidence to substantiate it.
Well, you've read my briefs: There's copious evidence of
forgery. (In this case, it was forgery using a photocopy machine! But
forgery just the same.)
The other actions occurred beyond the statute of
limitation of other offense, unless the is something I have missed.
I have not yet finished my review of the case law and statutory
law in question. (I am only human: My apologies.)
Which may be a possibility, given the fact that all my
knowledge has come third hand from you and from the public records that I
can access.
The December 01, 2015 blog entry on my namesake websites
(below) have a link to my own "open source" (unofficial) docket, from which
you may access most of the key docs. Then, if you see eye-candy which is
interesting & want to use it, you can grab an "official" copy from the
court itself. Here are exact links:
The other issue with the statute of limitations as it pertains
to criminal procedure, a very important point that I will stress again, is
that the statute begins running from the date of the offense or from the
last act in furtherance of an offense.
There have been copious, numerous, and plenty of furtherance
actions... of so I infer.
If the People have not brought a formal criminal charge before
the end of the statute of limitations, then no charge can be
brought. It is not a matter of reporting the crime to a law
enforcement agency within the statute of limitations, it is the bringing
of a formal criminal charge within the statute of
limitations.
You mean that if the "People" (e.g., the police charging and
the State Atty General prosecuting) screw-up, and it's their fault but not
the victim's fault, that the victim pays the price for lateness? Oh,
really?.. this is messed up (read: I think it violated Fundamental
Procedural Due Process)
Forgive me, but I would like to re-read your email before I
contact you again.
Sure -- do you have a copy, or would you like me to resend a
copy? You can search your inbox for Gww1210@aol.com
probably if you've lost a copy...
I only write to inform you that my meeting with Mr. Daniggelis
has been rescheduled and to correct your understanding of the statute of
limitations as it applies to criminal procedure. This is a reminder
that the setting of the court, whether it criminal or civil or
administrative, has a drastic affect on which statutory, administrative or
case law governs the issues. This is not meant to discourage your
research project, but to help you be cognizant of which resources you are
utilizing in your research.
OK, good - thank you, Mr. Simpson -- I will
now reply to your 2nd email - below - by copying & pasting it
in:
Mr.
Watts,
I
have one more note about a something in your email, which does not involve
the facts. There was a comment that I did not care for.
Something along the lines of collecting a taxpayer check and doing
nothing.
OK, yes, that was unprofessional and emotional (and maybe
wrong), but - again - I was referring to the Atty General's Office, which
has much greater latitude, and not to you personally. -- As I said earlier,
you are correct in your assessments below that you've been a tireless
advocate for justice (my paraphrase), and that, you have indeed spent a
considerable amount of time, taxpayer money, and energy (emotional and
physical and financial energy) in trying to get
justice.
But, please know 2 things: ((#1)) place yourself in my
shoes... and see what I'm feeling, knowing that injustice persists.. and
((#2)), please remember that "legal loopholes" notwithstanding, major laws -
and LOTS of them - have been continually, continuously, and repeatedly
egregiously violated broken and annulled - with Disrespect for the Rule of
Law. The Reule of Law should mean something to you, as you are similar in
your personality to me - in your hatred for lawbreaking and
evil...
I have spent a considerable amount of time on the phone and
reviewing your documents. During those interactions, I have been
professional and courteous.
Yes, you have - and you can quote me should anyone question
this: You and I are both human, but you've tried to meet me halfway, and I
hope I have done likewise.
I think I may have given you some constructive criticism
regarding making your points.
I hope to review your email some more, but
- with regard to one excellent point you make above - where in the ILLINOIS
code does it say that forgery has no SOL (statute of
limitations)?
2nd question: What other crimes were
committed against Daniggelis which do have a
SOL?
I will attempt to give you some more, it will be up to you to
accept it. That type of interaction/accusation is not persuasive or
beneficial in conveying your point or persuading someone to take
action. Now again, I will not hold it against you or anyone else,
because I understand that your passions may have gotten the better of
you.
As Spock (on Star Trek) has been quoted as
saying, I am (at least part) human, after all... But if I could have done
things better, that is no excuse. (Nonetheless, my emotion proves to total
strangers that I am not lying: Liars usually do no go all out like I am
doing in their pleas... you know that as a law enforcement
expert.)
Some others may not be so forgiving. Please temper your
writings in the future as to avoid offending someone you are looking to
for assistance, and I think you may have better success.
Unfortunately, there are times that nothing can be done, I am not
suggesting that in this case as I don't not have a complete set of
facts. I can only tell you from my own personal point of
view it stings me just as much, but the law is what the law
is. We as a society can not necessarily bend or ignore the
laws because we don't like otherwise the laws are
meaningless. But, I'm getting off track. Please know that I
was not personally offended, but I did not care for the comment - it
was not productive or helpful to the real
issues.
And, I'm not offended - thank you for your
constructive criticism and feedback. I will hope to accept it in the spirit
in which it was given.
Gordon W.
Watts///Florida///
Thomas P. Simpson
Assistant State's Attorney
Cook County State's Attorney's
Office
Special Prosecution Bureau
13 B 08
2650 S. California
Chicago, IL 60608
773-674-6639
The information contained in this electronic message may be
confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or
the attorney work product doctrine. It is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
electronic message in error, please delete the original message from your
e-mail system. Thank you.
From: Gww1210@aol.com
<Gww1210@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 1:34:18
PM
Thomas P. Simpson
Assistant State's Attorney
Cook County State's Attorney's
Office
Special Prosecution Bureau
13 B 08
2650 S. California
Chicago, IL 60608
773-674-6639
The information contained in this electronic message may be
confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or
the attorney work product doctrine. It is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
electronic message in error, please delete the original message from your
e-mail system. Thank you.
From: Gww1210@aol.com
<Gww1210@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 1:34:18
PM
To: Gww1210@aol.com; CKnutte@atg.state.il.us;
F@atg.state.il.us; publicaccess@atg.state.il.us; UWard@atg.state.il.us;
ADougherty@atg.state.il.us; THOMAS SIMPSON (States Attorney)
Cc:
MPossley@atg.state.il.us; EBoyce@atg.state.il.us;
PThompson@atg.state.il.us; Sarah.Pratt@atg.state.il.us;
SPratt@atg.state.il.us; gww1210@gmail.com; Gww12102002@yahoo.com;
GordonWayneWatts@aol.com; gordonwaynewatts@hotmail.com
Subject:
Additional evidence re mortgage fraud for OAG, SAO, etc.
Hey, guys: I just, now, noticed
something in the last set of public records that Ms. Knutte has
kindly provided me under FOIA laws:
Looking at the attached document,
"41830RM-JosephYounes-ADMITS-to-FRAUD-yet-profits-from-it.pdf," which I
had included in my last email, earlier this morning (I renamed it in
this follow-up and am including it in THIS email, here - see the PDF
attachment), we find one Atty. JOSEPH YOUNES, Esq. admitting to the
Attorney General's office of Multiple "Linda Green" robo-signing frauds
(skim-speed-read this PDF in my email, here, to see Younes' admissions to
no less than TWO frauds), yet we see he continued to profit from this SAME
transaction insofar as he grabbed hold of Daniggelis' property through the
use of said fraud.
Now, are you guys going to do something, or - instead
- just get a paycheck on taxpayer dollars whilst ignoring YET ANOTHER
fraud.
It's your move.
Gordon///
In a message dated 6/10/2016 5:07:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Gww1210@aol.com writes:
Thank you, Caitlin. You all did a good job, so far. I did,
however, have concerns about the courts being so slow (took over a
YEAR even after repeated begging, etc. - documented in these
attachments, specifically
"PublicRecords-SCREWUPS-documented.pdf") to comply with my initial
public records request, since they refused to quote me a fee, and I, if
and when I have time, hope to get back with your office about this
later, since it was that very delay, of over a year, which
prevented my initial filings from beating the appeals deadline, and thus
not being included in the record on appeal. (The trial judges later
denied my request to supplement the record on appeal, even though it was
their own screwups that delayed my initial records request, thus slowing
my filing: I must have the records to review BEFORE filing something!
Are your judges pain off or on the take? Why would they deny me a simple
request to supplement the record on appeal? Maybe that should
be investigated. AND Judge Flannery also denied my 298 "poverty"
request, wrongly claiming I was filing on behalf of Daniggelis: No, I
said "pro se," hello. See e.g.,
"judge-WRONGLY-claims-I-filed-on-behalf-of-another.jpg")
But, your department is probably the wrong one to address this
public records screwup. Sarah Pratt, Public Access Counselor, would be
the right person to look into this.
I'm copying Ms. Pratt - as well as Assistant Attorney General,
Andrew Dougherty (312.814.4892) and the advocate assigned to Mr.
Daniggelis, Urandi Ward (312.814.3874) to remind them that there was so
much fraud that my head spun. (It is for that reason that they are
reopening my complaint file.) For just 2 more
examples of copious, chromic, and ubiquitous fraud:
1) I made so many requests to get Public Records of the clerk's
office that I got to recognise Monalinda Saldivar's (
MZSaldivar@CookCountyCourt.com)
voice well enough that when I called back about a year later (after many
months of repeated denials and refusals), we recognised each other's
voice when we spoke by phone. The fact that I had called them that many
times, honestly trying to get records of Daniggelis' case - and yet
being unable - proves there is a screwup in the system.)
In all fairness, I didn't tell them the actual name of the document
or documents with his signature. Nonetheless, I specifically
asked the Clerk's office for **all** the records where Daniggelis
had signed his name (to get documentation of two identical signatures,
which proved a photocopy had been involved, something his attorney
alleged but did not prove very well), and asked the clerk's
office for an estimate, and asked them how to pay, and for over a
year, they did not comply with my FOIA!! (see the attached
""PublicRecords-SCREWUPS-documented.pdf"" in this
attachment). Now, I must add: The clerk's office did not act in
malicious intent: They eventually complied with all my requests, but on
almost 50% (half) of the occasions, my filings were lost and had to be
refiled -and this initial public records request was ignored for
over a year. I called the clerk's office so much over my initial FOIA
that I got to know Ms. Saldivar, who, I believe, tried to grant my
request, but, due I'm guessing to short staffing, kept being
unable.
2) Referencing
"ScannedfromaXeroxmultifunctiondevice001.pdf," we find
Danigellis made a report way back on 30 September 2009
(RD#:HR563391, Event#:0927302357) that his signature was forged,
something that Attorney Ed Grossman, a local famous attorney had told
Daniggelis when they met, in which Grossman is said to have planned to
go to the IARDC about Atty. Joseph Younes's fraud. (Younes is a former
law partner of the infamous Paul L. Shelton, who was permanently banned
by both the IDFPR and the IARDC for mortgage fraud).
I'm also copying Asst State's Atty Thomas Simpson (773.673.6693)
who mostly likely is wrong about the statutes of limitations being run
out, e.g., (720 ILCS 5/3-5) for forgery appears to be 3 years, if
I read it right --BUT: since I now have proof that Daniggelis jumped
right on this back when it happened, I think her may have stopped the
Statutes of Limitations. (Moreover, the refusal of the police to
investigate itself should be investigated) [I.e.,,
Statute
of limitations applied despite failure to discover forgery within the
time limit -
November 2012 Illinois Law Update, Page 580 On September 5, 2012, the fifth district
appellate court held that the three-year statute of limitations in
section 3-118(g) of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") should be
applied to actions for conversion of negotiable instruments even in
situations where plaintiffs are not reasonably able to discover the loss
within the time limit. 810 ILCS 5/3-118(g) (West 2010). This is bad case
law, as it deprives the victim of notice sufficient to allow timely
reporting of a forgery crime, and is ripe for reversal on
appeal.]My point? Daniggelis filed an
affidavit of forgery in (A) the recorder's office, right after it
happened in 2006 ("0-INTRO-4-Affidavit-CourtVersion-part2.PNG"
"0-INTRO-1-Affidavit-RecordersOffice.PNG" )(B) with the police
"ScannedfromaXeroxmultifunctiondevice001.pdf," the
report which Danigellis filed back on 30 September 2009
(RD#:HR563391, Event#:0927302357)And (C) the continued efforts later
to file a more complete affidavit with the court
("0-INTRO-2-Affidavit-RecordersOffice-filed-in-court.PNG"
"0-INTRO-3-Affidavit-CourtVersion-part1.PNG")Since Shelton, who was
the notary on some of all of the forged docs, was permanently
disbarred by TWO regulatory agencies (the IDFPR and the IARDC), this
proves that the forgery that I allege in my
amicus (see2007-CH-29738-Aug03-2015-Motion-Amicus-Exhibits-GordonWayneWatts.pdf)
was indeed true. That I found forensic evidence that Daniggelis'
attorney overlooked (duplicate signatures, a Power of Attorney that
was stamped after the fact - i.e., 2 version of it etc.) only adds icing
to the cake.My point in including a cc to
Asst. State's Atty, Thomas Simpson of the SAO that the OAG
investigation was reopened because of multiple frauds (see
OAG-acknowledgment-to-GordonWayneWatts-2016.pdf) was to document that
claim in this email. (Mr. Simpson, I am still not finished reviewing the
case law to document my claims that the case law in question tolls the
SOL (statutes of limitations) for all cases - as described in
IARDC-Sat30Apr2016-crossreply-of-GordonWayneWatts.pdf, by cross-reply to
the IARDC, instead of just selected civil cases, as I recall you telling
me when we spoke -- but I'm doing the best I can. I think the SOL is
tolled, or so it is my gut feeling, even though I haven't reviewed all
the statutory and case law on this point as yet. But, there's more than
enough for the Atty General's office to go to town on this case - should
they chose.)
Gordon
In a message dated 6/8/2016 2:29:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
F@atg.state.il.us writes:
Dear Mr. Watts:
Attached please find a letter and records
pertaining to your recent FOIA request.
Very truly yours,
Caitlin Q. Knutte
FOIA Officer
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Illinois Attorney
General
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE: This electronic mail message, including any attachments, is
for the intended recipient(s) only. This e-mail and any
attachments might contain information that is confidential, legally
privileged or otherwise protected or exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If you are not a named recipient, or if you are
named but believe that you received this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete
this e-mail and any attachments and copies thereof from your
system. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware
that any copying, distribution, dissemination, disclosure or other use
of this e-mail and any attachments is unauthorized and
prohibited. Your receipt of this message is not intended to
waive any applicable privilege or claim of confidentiality, and any
prohibited or unauthorized disclosure is not binding on the sender or
the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Gordon Wayne Watts, editor-in-chief, The
Register
www.GordonWayneWatts.com /
www.GordonWatts.com
BS, The
Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences;
Class
of 2000, double major with honours
AS, United Electronics Institute,
Class of 1988, Valedictorian
821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FL
33801-2113
Home:(863)688-9880 Work: (863)686-3411
Voice&FAX:(863)687-6141 Cell:(863)409-2109
See also: http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
Truth is the
strongest, most stable force in the Universe
Truth doesn't change
because you disbelieve it
TRUTH doesn't bend to the will of
tyrantshttp://GordonWayneWatts.com / http://GordonWatts.com
Get
Truth
"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was
silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was
silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I
was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was
no one left to speak for me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a
quotation in The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion,
ed. Margaret Pepper(New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on
page 44, note 17,of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by
Keith A. Fornier,Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family
Publications.
Some versions have Mr. Niemöller saying: "Then they came
for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant";
other versions have him saying that they came for Socialists,
Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the Church; however, it's
certain he DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they may not have come
for the Jews first, as it's more likely they came for the prisoners,
mentally handicapped, &other so-called "inferiors" first -as
historians tell us-so they could get "practiced up"; however, they did
come for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due in part to
their own silence. So: "Speak up now or forever hold your
peace!"-GWW
Gordon Wayne Watts, editor-in-chief, The
Register
www.GordonWayneWatts.com / www.GordonWatts.com
BS, The
Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences;
Class of
2000, double major with honours
AS, United Electronics Institute, Class
of 1988, Valedictorian
821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FL
33801-2113
Home:(863)688-9880 Work: (863)686-3411
Voice&FAX:(863)687-6141 Cell:(863)409-2109
See also: http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
Truth is the
strongest, most stable force in the Universe
Truth doesn't change because
you disbelieve it
TRUTH doesn't bend to the will of
tyrantshttp://GordonWayneWatts.com / http://GordonWatts.com
Get
Truth
"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent.
I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was
not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I
was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to
speak for me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a quotation in The
Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret
Pepper(New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note
17,of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A.
Fornier,Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family
Publications.
Some versions have Mr. Niemöller saying: "Then they came
for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant";
other versions have him saying that they came for Socialists,
Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the Church; however, it's
certain he DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they may not have come
for the Jews first, as it's more likely they came for the prisoners,
mentally handicapped, &other so-called "inferiors" first -as
historians tell us-so they could get "practiced up"; however, they did
come for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due in part to
their own silence. So: "Speak up now or forever hold your
peace!"-GWW
Gordon Wayne Watts, editor-in-chief, The
Register
www.GordonWayneWatts.com / www.GordonWatts.com
BS, The Florida State University, Biological &
Chemical Sciences;
Class of 2000, double major with honours
AS, United
Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian
821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FL
33801-2113
Home:(863)688-9880 Work: (863)686-3411
Voice&FAX:(863)687-6141 Cell:(863)409-2109
See also: http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
Truth is the
strongest, most stable force in the Universe
Truth
doesn't change because you disbelieve it
TRUTH doesn't bend to
the will of tyrantshttp://GordonWayneWatts.com / http://GordonWatts.com
Get Truth
"First, they [Nazis] came for the
Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I
was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I
was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no
one left to speak for me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a quotation in
The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret
Pepper(New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note
17,of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A.
Fornier,Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family
Publications.
Some versions have Mr. Niemöller saying:
"Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a
Protestant"; other versions have him saying that they came for Socialists,
Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the Church; however, it's certain
he DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they may not have come for the
Jews first, as it's more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally
handicapped, &other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell
us-so they could get "practiced up"; however, they did come for them -due to
the silence of their neighbors -and due in part to their own silence. So:
"Speak up now or forever hold your peace!"-GWW