formerly,
Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp
(stop killing
young people)
September 3, 2013,
Vol. 11
No. 13
PO Box 7424,
Reading, PA 19603
Phone, 484-706-4375
Web, skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation, 233
Editor, John
Dunkle
“Contraception” is Murder, a weak, pathetic
response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you yet for
defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or
go to the website. Emails are free but
snail-mail is free only for PFCs, two grand for others.
I think
we can all agree there is nothing peaceful, nonviolent, or prolife about
letting innocent children be killed. So I believe we should examine every
legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect children from
being tortured to death. I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful and
from those who defend them. I’d also like to hear from those who oppose the
prolife use of force and call it violence.
Prisoners For Christ:
1. Curell, Benjamin D., (out on bail)
2. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, FCI, PO Box 1500, El Reno, OK 73036
3. Griffin,
Michael 310249, BRCF, 5914 Jeff Atles Rd., Milton, FL 32583-00000
4. Grady,
Francis 11656-089, USP Terre
Haute, PO Box 33, Terre Haute, IN 47808
5. Holt,
Gregory 129616 Varner Supermax, PO
Box 600, Grady, AR 71644-0600
6.
Kopp, James 11761-055, USP
Canaan, P.O. Box 300, Waymart, PA 18472
7. Roeder,
Scott 65192 PO Box 2, Lansing,
Kansas 66043
8. Rogers,
Bobby Joe 21292-017, USP
Beaumont, PO Box 26050, Beaumont, TX
77720
9. Rudolph,
Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
10. Shannon,
Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A,
P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093
11. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, USP,
P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837
Well, finally! Thanks to Cathy Ramey I’ve found an
articulate and extensive attack on the pro-life use of force. Gary North wrote this fifteen years ago but it’s
still the best anti-force article I’ve read.
My response follows, in italics.
Epitaph for Paul Hill
Yesterday's execution of Paul J. Hill provides me with another opportunity to comment on the legacy of an utterly self-deceived man.
I
published my initial comments on Hill in a small book, "Lone Gunners for
Jesus: Letters to Paul J. Hill," in November, 1994. My initial letter to
him was dated September 29, 1994. My second letter was dated October 17, which
was my response to a letter I received from Hill, which was dated October 10.
You can receive an instant-reply copy of my two letters to Hill by sending an
email to: hill@kbot.com
Why
did I write to Hill? Because he had first written to me, but prior to his
murder of a physician and his bodyguard, and injuring the physician's wife.
(Shotguns are sometimes indiscriminate regarding innocent bystanders.) In my September 29 letter to Hill, who was
then in jail awaiting trial for murder, I began with a reference to his earlier
letter to me:
Sometime in the months following the
murder
of the abortionist in Florida, Dr.
Gunn,
you sent me two position papers.
One was called, “Was the killing of Dr.
Gunn
Just?” You added this
parenthesis:
“Rough draft, numerous
revisions
still being made.” Obviously,
you
have other things on your mind
these
days besides continuing the
revisions
of your rough draft. I am
responding
to this paper belatedly
because
you seem to have taken your
own suggestions
seriously enough to
shoot
an abortionist, kill his escort, and
wound
the escort's wife. That, at least, is
what
you are accused of.
The
subtitle on your paper is called, “A
Call
to Defensive Action.”
You also sent another paper titled,
“Defensive
Action: Is a Pro Life
Organization
Proclaiming the Justice of
Using
All Action Necessary to Protect
Innocent
Life?”
I
did not respond to your letter or to
your
papers. I cannot find your letter in
my
files, but I did save your two papers.
I should have responded. Perhaps I
might
have persuaded you that you were
headed
in a terrible direction. In all
likelihood,
though, you would not have
taken
me seriously. I say this because
you were
excommunicated by your
church,
and you did not take that
seriously.
Your church asked only that you
cease
speaking in public – such as on
the
"Donahue" show -- in defense of the
right of anti-abortionists to kill
abortionists. So, there is no good
reason
for me to believe that you would
have
taken anything seriously that I
might
have written. I do not expect you
to
take this letter seriously. On the
assumption, however, that men can
repent
before they are cast into hell,
which
is where you are clearly headed, I
am
responding here.
Before
his execution this week, he told the media that he believed his execution will
make him a martyr. I sincerely doubt that he will be regarded by most
anti-abortion Christians, just as I have also sincerely doubted his entire
self-justification for his dual murder. Hill never did possess the ability to
interpret his actions in terms of what the Bible and Christianity teach about
murder, or the public's understanding of his actions. As I wrote to him a
decade ago:
The
public may otherwise see you, not
as
a martyr, but as the creator of a
martyr.
I prefer to see your victim
positioned
as a hired assassin, which
every
abortionist is, biblically speaking.
This
positioning will not be what the
media
will try to establish at your trial,
but I hope that you will not be
positioned as a hired assassin, with the
church
in the broadest sense as the
one who hired you.
You
were an assassin acting on your
own,
under the authority of the dark
one with whom Adam covenanted, and
with
whom you covenanted by failing to
submit
to the discipline of your church.
Paul
Hill was to the anti-abortion movement what the murderous renegade bands of
self-appointed vigilantes were to southwest Missouri during the Civil War. He,
like they, operated outside the law. He, like they, justified his murderous
actions by appealing to The Cause.
Whether
William Quantrell in 1865 thought he would be remembered as a martyr, I do not
know. If he did, he was incorrect. Paul Hill should be remembered as a
small-time Quantrell, not as a spiritual heir of Justin Martyr.
Hill's
vigilante action inflicted an enormous wound in the side of the anti-abortion
movement. Little remains in public view of the anti-abortion movement in the
United States. There are very few picketers today in front of abortion clinics.
It is as if the anti-abortion movement's troops looked at what Hill did and
concluded, "If this is where this movement is heading, count me out."
Two
men virtually eliminated anti-abortion activism in the United States after
1994: Paul Hill and Randall Terry. They became the visible symbols of
anti-abortion activism, both for the pro-abortionists and for
anti-abortionists. The two of them cut the heart out of the activists.
Four
years after Hill's crime, in 1998, Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue,
abandoned his wife of 19 years, along with their four children (three were
adopted), so that the National Organization of Women would get off his back.
This declaration deprived his wife of their home. He then married his
assistant, 16 years his junior, age 22. Without informing his followers of what
he had done to his wife and children, he sent out a fund-raising letter to his
supporters, who responded faithfully, whereupon he bought a $432,000 home --
not in New York state, where he could see his children regularly, but in
Florida, where the state's bankruptcy laws don't permit creditors to get your
home. His church in New York had brought him under discipline before the
marriage, but he paid no attention.
Think
of the three adopted children. They were Afro-Americans. Their mother had been
a drug addict. The Terrys adopted them, giving them a stable home. Then Terry's
roving eye caught sight of a younger woman. "Hello, baby! Goodbye,
kids!"
As
for his new wife, all I can say is this: to trade Jesus for Randall Terry is a
poor trade.
Naturally,
his shenanigans are a cause for gloating within the pro-abortion crowd. Here is
one more example of commitment by a Christian leader to the same ethics of
situational convenience that the abortionists proclaim, one more case of
Christian leadership run amok, leaving God-fearing followers, as always, out in
the cold, wondering what had happened. Here is one more example of selective
moral outrage, selective ethics, and what R. J. Rushdoony called smorgasbord
religion.
Terry
actually told the press that the Bible doesn't oppose divorce, but it does
oppose homosexuality. This, despite the clear teaching of Jesus that anyone who
divorces his or her spouse without judicial cause thereby commits adultery -- a
capital crime under the Mosaic law (Lev. 20:10) -- by remarrying.
And
he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another,
committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and
be married to another, she committeth adultery (Mark 10:11-12).
At
least his church brought him under discipline even before he remarried. It is a
characteristic feature of our era that most churches hesitate to bring public
discipline, while other churches, always short of funds, welcome disciplined
Christians with open arms. "We're under grace, not law!"
He
plans to start another satellite radio talk show. If he gets it, and if it
prospers, it will be one more piece of evidence that middle-aged fundamentalist
women, who are the financial backbone of the electronic ministries, have no sense
of justice. What they would not want a man to do to their own daughters they
will fund in the name of Jesus. "We're under grace, not law!" No; we
are under humanist lawyers and courts, who know that if Christians refuse to
bring justice through their churches, and then uphold other churches' judicial
pronouncements when excommunicated members apply for membership, then humanists
have nothing to fear from Christians, which is surely the case today.
The
anti-abortion movement has been battered from within, as well as battered from
outside. Battering from the outside took a heavy toll on fundamentalists, who
have been taught all their lives that (1) Jesus is coming back soon, so
attempts to reform society are a waste of time and money that could be spent on
evangelism or, better yet, members-only gymnasiums ("family life
centers"), and (2) political reform is not only hopeless, it's a liberal
plot.
But
it was the undermining from within that disheartened the troops. If you're
going to be publicly betrayed and humiliated by your spokesman, why bother to
risk everything you own?
By
God's grace, Hill's local church had brought him under formal discipline before
he murdered anyone. I was told a decade ago by his pastor, Rev. Mickey
Schneider, that when some representatives of the media called him, they would
lose interest in pursuing their investigation of his connection with Hill as
soon as he told them of Hill's formal suspension prior to the murders. He
thought at the time that some of them were looking for a way to tar and feather
Christianity by using Hill as poster child for Christianity's threat to social
order.
In
his October 10 letter to me, Hill denied that he had ever been brought under
church discipline. He lived in a fantasy world. He was psychologically
desperate to defend the lawfulness of his actions in the sight of God. That he
had been told to cease and desist by his church, and later had been brought
under formal discipline when he refused, undermined his self-proclamation of
his office as a lawful agent of God, an executioner sanctioned by biblical law.
His prior excommunication made him appear to be a rebellious man operating
outside of the church's sanctuary, which is exactly what he was. So, he said
this had never taken place.
But
saying this did not make it so. There is a scene in "The Apostle"
where the murderous Pentecostal minister, Sonny, baptizes himself an apostle.
This is essentially what Paul Hill did. In defiance of his local church and in
defiance of biblical law, he appointed himself an executioner. He chose
violence as his means of public protest. Then, having gunned down his victims,
he walked away from the scene of the crime. He made no public defense of his
actions to the police, standing steadfast, shotgun on the ground beside him, at
the location of his deadly deed. He just wandered away.
He had a decade to repent. He refused. He stood before
the cameras this week displaying the familiar grin that had been published in
newspapers and magazines across the nation a decade ago. We have recently seen this same grin on the
face of Amorzi bin Nurhasyim, the "smiling bomber" who helped kill
202 people in the bombing of a hotel in Bali, Indonesia. Praising Allah
throughout his trial and at his conviction, he brought disrepute on Islam. His
grin never changed. Neither did Hill's.
On
seeing Amorzi bin Nurhasyim's grin and his thumbs-up sign after the court
declared his death sentence, viewers correctly concluded: "Fanatical
nut-case zealot." This is exactly the response a decade ago when they saw
the same response by Hill. It was the correct response. So were the official
declarations: "Guilty as charged."
Christian
fundamentalists look at Amorzi bin Nurhasyim and conclude, "Islamic
zealot. Good riddance." Then they look at Paul Hill and conclude,
"Poor misguided man. May God be merciful to him." I call this
approach selective judgment. It is at the heart of antinomianism: mercy without
repentance.
This
week, Hill told the press that he would soon be rewarded in heaven by Jesus for
what he did. It is time for Christian leaders to identify him as the ethical
twin of Amorzi bin Nurhasyim, but they won't. They have remained discreetly
silent. They still see him as "dead in Christ," i.e., redeemed by the
blood of the lamb. That is because they do not believe the clear words of the
Apostle Paul regarding God's Bible-revealed law:
Knowing
this, that the law is not made
for a righteous man, but for the lawless
and disobedient, for the ungodly and for
sinners, for unholy and profane, for
murderers
of fathers and murderers of
mothers,
for manslayers, for
whoremongers, for them that defile
themselves
with mankind, for
menstealers, for liars, for perjured
persons,
and if there be any other thing
that
is contrary to sound doctrine;
According
to the glorious gospel of the
blessed
God, which was committed to
my
trust (1 Tim: 9-11).
Paul
J. Hill was not a righteous man, according to the definition provided by Paul.
He was a murderer who disgraced the name of Christ. The media still referred to
him this week as a minister, even though he had resigned the ministry before he
committed the murders. The humanists got their digs in. They never miss an
opportunity to tar and feather the church. The silence of Christian leaders
regarding Hill's prior excommunication makes the deception seem true. He was no
minister. He was a man declared excommunicate for rebellion before he picked up
his shotgun. According to the Apostle John, he was supposed to be treated by
Christians as follows:
Whosoever
transgresseth, and
abideth not in the doctrine of Christ,
hath not God. He that abideth in the
doctrine of Christ, he hath both the
Father and the Son. If there come any
unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, neither
bid him God speed: For he that biddeth
him God speed is partaker of his evil
deeds (II John :9-11).
To
defend Christ's good name, Christian leaders should tell their followers and
the press that Paul Hill stood condemned by Christ by way of his
excommunication prior to the murders. They don't do this because they don't
regard excommunication as anything that important in the grand scheme of
things. They do not see the church as speaking authoritatively in God's name
regarding the eternal consequences of men's actions in history. But Jesus did:
Moreover
if thy brother shall trespass
against thee, go and tell him his fault
between
thee and him alone: if he shall
hear
thee, thou hast gained thy
brother. But if he will not hear thee,
then
take with thee one or two more,
that
in the mouth of two or three
witnesses
every word may be
established.
And if he shall neglect to
hear
them, tell it unto the church: but if
he
neglect to hear the church, let him
be
unto thee as an heathen man and a
publican.
Verily I say unto you,
Whatsoever
ye shall bind on earth shall
be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever
ye
shall loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven
(Matt. 18:15-18).
John
Calvin's comments on this passage are forthright and should be acknowledged by
God-fearing men:
In
the other clause, Christ's meaning
is
not at all ambiguous; for, since
obstinate
men and haughty men are
strongly
inclined to despise the decision
of
the Church on this pretense, that
they
refuse to be subject to men – as
wicked
profligates often make bold
appeals
to the heavenly tribunal –
Christ, in order to subdue this obstinacy
by terror,
threatens that the
condemnation,
which is now despised
by
them, will be ratified in heaven. He
encourages
his followers, at the same
time,
to maintain proper severity, and
not
just yield to the wicked obstinacy
of
those who reject or shake off
discipline.
("Commentary on a
Harmony
of the Evangelists," Vol. 2, p.
359.)
Paul
Hill was a man who would not listen to counsel or obey his church. He steadily
increased his rebellion against lawful authority until he became a violent man
in deed as well as word. He lived out his personal confession of faith. He did
so at the expense of his church, his family, his citizenship, and his life,
both temporal and eternal. He was, in the words of Cornelius Van Til, epistemologically
self-conscious. He was, in my words, ethically self-conscious. Not many people
are this self-conscious, for good or evil. Hill was.
Hill
had been a conservative Presbyterian minister and Calvinist. But he was
comforted in his last hours by a Pentecostal minister. Hill knew better than to
expect comforting words from a Calvinist. He was not interested in hearing
another condemnation. He had already had plenty of those. His former pastor is
a theonomist.
Hill
in the week of his execution thought of himself as a martyr. In his view, he
had been a lawful executioner, while the jury that convicted him had been the
murderer of a righteous man in his righteous cause. The Christian community in
general and his former congregation in particular did not agree with his
assessment in 1994, and they still do not.
Anti-abortion
activists of 1994 subsequently made a self-conscious attempt to distance
themselves from him. That distance grew so great and so fast that anti-abortion
activism disappeared from public view. It is confined mainly to lawyers' briefs
today.
In the nine years that separated his
conviction from his execution, he was forgotten by the general public and
abandoned by people in the anti-abortion movement, who in turn abandoned
activism. His celebrity status disappeared, as celebrity status generally does
when the celebrity is no longer in front of the cameras. But then, for two
days, he became a celebrity again.
He
had become a symbol. For the abortionists, he was a symbol of Christianity's
life-and-death struggle against death. The Bible says, "All those who hate
me love death" (Prov. 8:36). The abortionists love death. They do not
choose to repent. Instead, they want to inflict their love of death on
judicially innocent human beings. They have been highly successful in their
judicial efforts. They, too, are ethically self-conscious. They cannot not
tolerate compromise. So, they resent Christians who are equally committed to
the rival position: defending life.
There
is no way to reconcile these two views. Nowhere is the myth of neutrality clearer
than in the killing of unborn children. There is no neutrality between a dead
baby and a live baby.
What
outraged the pro-abortionists was that Hill had adopted their strategy of
executing the judicially unconvicted. He had put an abortionist in his sites,
just as they put millions of unborn American children in theirs. For them, this
was turf-invasion. They do not tolerate turf invasion.
For
anti-abortionists, Hill also became a symbol. He was a symbol of a man so
committed to life that he was willing to commit murder. He was not a father
defending his unborn child. He was not a magistrate defending someone else's
unborn child. He was a self-appointed, one-man vigilante who gunned down a
physician and his bodyguard.
Christians
asked, as I asked in my letter, "Who is next?" Would Hill have gunned
down a policeman who was guarding the abortionist? Of course. What about the
Supreme Court justices who vote for abortion? Why not? What about gunning down
a pregnant woman who is about to swallow an abortifacient? Why not? What about
gunning down clerks at Wal-Mart's pharmacy, who might sell such a product? Paul
Hill made it clear: no one who was in any way connected in his mind with
abortion would be safe if he was still at large. The jury understood this and
convicted him. He is no longer at large.
Hill
will not be a martyr for the anti-abortionist community, although he may become
one for a handful of would-be Quantrells. On the contrary, the activist
anti-abortionist community has become a near-martyr to Hill. He just about
killed it (and whatever was left of it, Terry then spit on). Men and women drew
back from even non-violent public protests in their full-scale retreat from the
threat of being tarred and feathered by Hill's brush, which the pro-abortion
forces wielded so well.
After
Hill's conviction, I continued to picket the local abortion clinic in Tyler,
Texas. Every week, I took a public stand, as I had for five years. Not long
after Hill's conviction, the local abortionist died of a heart attack on the
ski slopes of Colorado. His son decided that they clinic would stop performing
abortions. His father had been an outcast in the local medical community.
Abortionists generally are. They make a lot of money, but they remain pariahs
in a profession that is (or at least used to be) founded on a vow to do no
harm. We should remind abortionists of this as often as possible. We should
also remind their wives, whose sense of being at the bottom of the social
circle does not appeal to them.
And then there are all those trial lawyers who
are ready to sue for post-abortion injuries -- many, many kinds of injuries --
inflicted on former patients. There are rising liability insurance premiums to
cover the legal costs of defending injury-inflicting abortionists in court.
This evil can be fought God's way, within the framework of biblical law and
even humanist law.
Paul
J. Hill knew this, but he ignored it. The law was not good enough for him. He
believed he had a better way.
I do
not use the term "fool" lightly. Christians are commanded not to use
the term lightly (Matt. 5:22). But in Paul Hill's case, the term fits. To those who view him as a martyr, I
recommend immediate repentance. Mere prudence is insufficient.
Prudence
may not be enough to protect these people from self-destruction. Prudence is
not characteristic of the fanatic. Paul Hill was a fanatic. He was a fanatic
who adopted violence as his mode of expression -- bloody violence and a grin.
So, here is my epitaph for Paul Hill:
Paul
Hill/He is no longer grinning
I respond:
Gary North attacks the prolife use of force here by
concentrating on Randall Terry, who used it mildly, and Paul Hill, who used it
intensely.
Let’s look first
at his attack on Randy. Gary says
nothing about Randy’s thing which was blocking the doors to killing mills. He ignores that and attacks Randy because of
his divorce. The divorce bothered me, too, but it didn’t stop me from
supporting him, because Randy was a Protestant.
Protestants accept divorce. Gary
condemns it here, but he’s Protestant too, and I don’t think he’s justified in
condemning someone of his own faith who did something that faith allowed him to
do.
I sure do wish
Gary had talked instead about door blocking.
So let’s turn
to Paul. Paul’s shooting the serial killer and his helpers is what has Gary
really upset. Gary can’t get past the legal issue. He implies that the laws which permit former
doctors to torture young people to death must never be broken, nor should the
laws be broken that protect the places where the holocaust is occurring.
Gary’s
account of what happened between Paul and himself beforehand is sketchy. It
seems that Paul initiated contact and my guess is that he’d read this in Wikipedia:
range of offenders; these include
women who lie about their virginity,
blasphemers, nonbelievers,
children
who curse their parents, male
homosexuals, and other people who
commit acts deemed capital
offenses in
the Old Testament. North favors
capital punishment for women who
have
abortions.
Paul must have figured that anyone who
favors executing a woman who pays to have one person killed would certainly
favor it as well for a man who is in the process of making millions by killing tens
of thousands. Little did he realize how powerful the concept of law, even
diabolical law, is, for some.
At any rate Paul initiated contact
and for a while Gary talked with him. Then he stopped because he found out
Paul’s church had expelled him. I detect a tone of guilt here; who knows what would have happened if he also had
not shut Paul out. Guilt turns into anger, as is often the case, and Gary
condemns Paul after the fact.
Gary’s tone is harsh: you are “an utterly self-deceived man,” you
will be “cast into hell where you are clearly headed,” you are
“under the authority of the dark one,” and
so on.
He compares him
to William Quantrell, the Confederate sympathizer who attacked the Union any
way he could. But Paul was more like
John Brown, the Union sympathizer who attacked the Confederacy any way he
could.
Both the Civil
War and the Abortion War involve great evils, slavery in the former and murder
in the latter. John Brown opposed
slavery and Paul Hill opposed murder, and they did not let diabolical laws
stand in their way, as the overwhelming majority of the rest of us prolifers do.
It’s hard to understand why an expert on the
word of God like Gary thinks the majority in a society permeated by evil -- either
by accepting that evil as good or by opposing it mildly -- are right, and the
few who attack the evil forcefully are wrong!
Does he forget the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
“Epitaph for Paul
Hill” includes other weaknesses: 1) Gary calls a serial killer a physician. That’s pro-death talk!; 2) he implies that Terry
and Hill, not the millions of us weakling prolifers, are responsible for the
vast and continuing failure to protect the innocent; 3) he seems to think that
the prolife movement was at one time a powerful force for good, until Hill and
Terry came along. Truth is it was weak from the gitgo and has remained that
way; 4) he is mistaken when he says the feds lost interest in Reverend Mickey
when they found out Hill was no longer a member of his church and therefore
they could not tar and feather it . No! They lost interest when they realized they
could not get money from it (and here we might be getting close to a truth); 5)
Gary’s lamenting that Paul had not sought comforting words from Calvin makes me
wonder if he’s ever read Calvin.
Comforting words?; 6) but he is absolutely right when he says that the
killers and their helpers were and are outraged because they see what Paul did
as “turf invasion” – “we are killers, not you.” He is absolutely wrong, though, to join with
them then in condemning Paul for invading that turf. (This reminds me of what happened when I started
telling women entering death mills that they were risking breast cancer. This happened well before everybody learned
about the connection. The deathscorts
were outraged. You lie, they cried. Lying
is what we do, not you!); 7) Gary is also wrong to think that one may defend
his own child forcefully, but not another’s; 8) he is wrong to suggest that high
costs will eventually end legal baby killing.
For one thing insurance premiums are lower for baby killers than for
medical doctors; 8) and finally he is wrong to think that the same pro-life practices
that kept baby-killing legal twenty years before Terry and Hill arrived on the
scene will kill it twenty years, or even a thousand years, after they have left.
But Gary does get
one thing right and for that I am grateful:
The son of a deceased baby-killer
closed his father’s mill because
his . . . father had
been an outcast in
the local
medical community.
Abortionists
generally are. They
make
a lot of money, but they remain
pariahs
in a profession that is (or at
least
used to be) founded on a vow to
do no harm. We should remind
abortionists
of this as often as possible.
We
should also remind their wives,
whose
sense of being at the bottom of
the
social circle does not appeal to
them.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
For back issues of this newsletter go to
skyp1.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------
To send money
to the federal Prisoners, those with eight digits after their names, make out a
postal money order to the Prisoner’s name and number. Then send it to Federal
Bureau of Prisons, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947-0001.
Ask the non-feds how they may receive money –
check, money order, etc. It varies by state.
----------------------------------------------------
Receipt of this excellent missive
notwithstanding, if you wish to be excluded from such blessings in the future,
simply advise me.
No comments:
Post a Comment