formerly,
Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp
(stop killing
young people)
October 1, 2013,
Vol. 11
No. 14
PO Box 7424,
Reading, PA 19603
Phone, 484-706-4375
Web, skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation, 210
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 26030, 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
Frank
Grady sent me this, in his inimitable style, on the back of a copy of his
“MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME/TO FILE DEFENDANT-APPELANT’S BRIEF:
God
Bless -U- John, Dunkle.
Real
Men are hard too find in this time; and there ant many Real men. I am happy
that you printed my words from my heart, soul, spirit. Thank -u- sir John. Well print this if -u- can.
“Marther luethen King” Was a Real Black
(Irish Man) he dint Just fight for Black mans Rights he fault -4- all Human
Kind even little chlldren – only oBooba could Believe in Marther luethen King
Drive -I- save all Human kind, IF the surperm court past a law -4- wemen -2-
kill, what happen -2- the seriending Flag Rights -4- Them little children what
are the laws For the White serrunding Flag in battels troops can
serunderinbg. Waveing a White Flag Att
where the white Flag -4- celebrities children; and laws that go with that Flag
the grandmas, grandpa, Father should wave that flag -4- there Blood line.
amen. Can someone googel the laws on the
seriending White Flag. Because all them children Battlingh -4- there lives God
Bless the children peace on earth or in heaven
Francis Grady
_______________________
----------------------------------------
And
Tobra writes one of her inimitable comments on Gary North’s anti-prolife use of
force essay in the September 3 issue:
Buttercup Asks Gary North
Dandy: mr. north, you said
& I quote you here son," i took a public stand for five years."
how many babies were killed in tyler, texas while you took your
self
proclaimed "public stand"?
Frank: shit son, i took a public
stand myself, the next thing i know, i am arrested for urinating in public.
Howard: son, son, son!! you best
live really really close to them magistrates you want to protect you.
Buttercup: on account if a bad
guy with a gun comes to your house & commences disabling you & tying
your sorry ass up, then raping & murdering your wife & kids.
___________________________
---------------------------------------------
Cathy Ramey attacks something
Senator Paul wrote:
Dear Senator Paul, I have no interest at putting to a
vote something that is inherently Truthful;
wicked men and women will likely still vote against God's view and many people
will be deceived into thinking that settles the matter. It is just more
gaming, whether to raise political funds, lure in a larger constituency, or
pander to "Prolife" groups that have become entrenched in making
money off dead children, something that is no different than making money by
killing them.
Justice cannot be altered by a vote... not the Justice that matters for eternity. The responsible thing to do is to ask yourself, "What would I want somebody to do if a contract-killer (that's what an abortionist is) was about to take my life?" Then "Love your neighbor" in the same way.
If I stumbled upon you as a person intentionally acted to kill you in some hideous fashion (no matter how 'sterile' they suggest your death will be), attacking you as you were engaged with your life at your age and stage of development,
Justice cannot be altered by a vote... not the Justice that matters for eternity. The responsible thing to do is to ask yourself, "What would I want somebody to do if a contract-killer (that's what an abortionist is) was about to take my life?" Then "Love your neighbor" in the same way.
If I stumbled upon you as a person intentionally acted to kill you in some hideous fashion (no matter how 'sterile' they suggest your death will be), attacking you as you were engaged with your life at your age and stage of development,
1. Would you like me to stand by and
then write a letter to the local paper or my congressman after the assailant
was finished murdering you?
2. Would you think it appropriate to
"lobby" Congress to consider reversing the law that said it was all
right to murder you because you have brown hair (or some other ludicrous claim
attempting to suggest you are less than human, or less than innocent)?
3. Would you want me to shout out to
you that "I'll pray for you!" and keep on going my way?
4. Do I call out the police and ask
them to save you, after having bought them off with bribes of "job security"
if they will ignore your plight when I call?
There are simply some realities that men do not rightly "vote" on. These are the realities that are immutable, established out of God's nature and will. Human life begins at conception because God has determined to give both life and length of days, not because evil men and women decide they are entitled to vote a different "reality" into existence (thinking themselves to be gods). God's reality will not be changed by that action.
Repent! Start talking about extending full justice to the Unborn so that they are as protected in the womb as much as you want to be sitting in your Senate seat. If we cannot do that, at the very, very least, then we do not deserve any protection from God that might serve to protect us from the same evil we have thought fit for the Unborn. To say "Speak out" about their right to be defended is no lame response; God's word is sharper than a two-edged sword.
Consider too how baby-killing cowards might have reacted on March, 10 of 1993 if Christians everywhere proclaimed that God has a consistent standard of justice for all; the Unborn deserve the same rights and protections we demand for ourselves, including the "right of self-defense" or "defense of another."
There are simply some realities that men do not rightly "vote" on. These are the realities that are immutable, established out of God's nature and will. Human life begins at conception because God has determined to give both life and length of days, not because evil men and women decide they are entitled to vote a different "reality" into existence (thinking themselves to be gods). God's reality will not be changed by that action.
Repent! Start talking about extending full justice to the Unborn so that they are as protected in the womb as much as you want to be sitting in your Senate seat. If we cannot do that, at the very, very least, then we do not deserve any protection from God that might serve to protect us from the same evil we have thought fit for the Unborn. To say "Speak out" about their right to be defended is no lame response; God's word is sharper than a two-edged sword.
Consider too how baby-killing cowards might have reacted on March, 10 of 1993 if Christians everywhere proclaimed that God has a consistent standard of justice for all; the Unborn deserve the same rights and protections we demand for ourselves, including the "right of self-defense" or "defense of another."
________________________
------------------------------------------
Greetings John, I was sitting around reading one of your newsletters and
thinking to myself that I should write you and say a few statements and facts
that I see going on. A lot of people who
call themselves pro-life and pro-life supporters they seldom speak a nice story
until it comes down to reality and doing something about it. I don’t mean to harp about small things, but
being that I gave up EVERYTHING in society to come to prison – losing my child
and family to save the unborn – I do not regret one moment of that cause I’ve
done what God sent me to do.
It’s
kind of sad, though, that a 60 year old man named Rev. Donald Spitz has to not
answer his phone due to threats from pro-choicers, because he fundamentally and
morally supports people such as myself
It’s sad also that two other people (Vicki Davis and Father Pierce –
retired) are the only ones who write and support me, and Father Pierce is 80
something years old! Unless it’s because
you have my address wrong in your newsletter, then that would be
understandable. Otherwise, that’s
pitiful. (Correct address is P.O. Box
26030.)
If
you could let it be known to pro-choicers in a manner that they can understand,
I will not stand by long at all and listen and watch pro-choicers threaten
elderly people who try to save the unborn.
And
as for myself, the federal government has red-flagged me as a soldier in the
Army of God. And are they wrong? No, they’re not.
When
the judge sentenced me for this case they called a crime, she (the judge)
stated I was a threat to innocent civilians; and I guess she was right if they’re
baby killers and abortionists. If they
are people who are true Christians, then they don’t have to worry about such as
that.
I
guess I could give you a little background about myself. At the age of 16 I shot and killed my drunken
and violent abusive father.
I was
raised by my grandparents on my father’s side who were very devoted Christians
– Southern Baptists. They’ve both gone
on home to lie with the good Lord many years ago now. For two-and-a-half years before I firebombed
the abortion clinic, I was sober. But
still today I struggle with thoughts of accepting my past and going on with my
future.
It’s
late, I’m tired, I’ll end this letter by saying I hope to hear from you soon.
I’ll
always speak the truth as I see it.
Your
Brother In Christ, Bobby Jo [Rogers]
(P.S.
by all means, you can edit and rewrite this letter as you see fit.)
I changed nothing
_________________
----------------------------
Eric Rudolph’s Melvin & Maude continues
from the September 2 issue:
MV: Why would Dr. Money seemingly abandon his
sociocentric model after laboring for years to establish it in the first place?
DC: Because he wanted to find a way to separate
homosexuality from other, less popular forms of sexuality, like pedophilia and
shoe fetish. At the time he wrote Lovemaps, Dr. Money was in the process
of designing therapies to treat pedophiles, who were still listed in the
American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual. Pedophiles were also being persecuted as
criminals by the state. Dr. Money felt
that treatment was more humane than long prison sentences.
Remember, only six years before Dr. Money
published Lovemaps, homosexuality had
been listed in the same manual, right alongside pedophilia. (20)
MV: Are you suggesting that there a re no
differences between homosexuality and pedophilia?
DC: If you accept the sociocentric model, all
forms of sexuality are the same.
Transsexualism serves no biological purpose. The idea that the transsexual was “born that
way” is absurd. With transsexualism it
is the case of the individual’s perception trumping biology. The same applies to homosexuality,
pedophilia, or shoe fetish. Two men or
two women cannot complete the biological act of procreation. What is the basis of the homosexual
relationship then? It’s love and
affection,, and, ultimately, the decision of two men or two women to be
together. Isn’t it equally possible for
a forty-year-old man to love an eight-year-old boy?
MV: The common objection is that the minor child
lacks the necessary maturity to consent to a sexual relationship with an adult.
DC: Well, isn’t “maturity” a culturally
constructed concept, like gender role?
Let’s examine the two, shall we?
With gender role society decrees that your biological sex places limits
on your ability to perform certain tasks.
We right label those assumptions sexist.
With maturity society decrees that your biological age paces limits on
your ability to perform certain tasks.
Shouldn’t we label these attitudes ageist? Alongside sexism, ageism is just another
“cage” that society puts us in, said
Kate Millet. No biological basis exists
for this kind of paternalism. I can
point to certain eight-year-olds who are more mature than some
fifty-year-olds. And what about the
so-called age of consent? It changes
with time and culture. In the
nineteenth century the age of consent in Delaware was eleven; today it is
eighteen. Some tribes in Afghanistan
betroth their daughters at the age of eight.
It’s all relative. If society has
no right to impose its definition of gender on the individual, it has no right
to impose its definition of maturity.
MV: What about the argument that homosexuals were
“born that way,” unlike pedophiles who were made that way by abusive
adults? Most homosexuals claim to have
had same-sex attraction since they were adolescents.
DC: Pedophiles and shoe sniffers say the same
thing. Dr. Money’s early research proved
that gender identity is shaped primarily by post-natal sociological-cultural
influences. Well, during the same period
of life that homosexuals are developing same-sex attractions , pedophiles are
developing attractions to children, shoe sniffers are developing attractions to
pumps and high heels. What’s the
difference? Once formed, these
attractions usually last a lifetime, and are difficult to change. The various programs designed to “treat”
so-called paraphiliacs have produced dismal results. Despite years of treatment, very few
pedophiles and shoe fetishists change their original orientation.
Psychotherapists recorded similarly non-transformative results years
earlier when they tried to “treat” homosexuals and lesbians.
MV: You’re saying pedophilia is a sexual
orientation like heterosexuality and homosexuality?
DC: Yes.
MV: What about all the horrors associated with
child sex abuse and incest?
DC: Right-wing propaganda. During the latter half of the twentieth
century the Religious Right created a big stink about incest and child sex
abuse, but it was mostly smoke and mirrors.
Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, the nations greatest sex researcher, said that
child-adult sex was really no big deal: “Children should not be upset by these
experiences. If they were, this was not
the fault of the aggressor, but of prudish parents and teachers who caused the
child to become hysterical.” Kinsey’s
successor Wardell Pomeroy thought that incest could turn out to be a positive
experience: “The best sort of incest was
between a son and a mother who educated him sexually, then encouraged him to go
sow his own oats.”
MV: For the record tell us who Dr. Kinsey was.
DC: In 1942 Kinsey founded the Institute of Sex,
Research and published two famous studies: Sexual
Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female
(1953). His work liberalized
attitudes about sex and contributed greatly to the sexual revolution of the
1960s and 1970s.
MV: To Kinsey, pedophilia was just another form
of sexuality, no less legitimate than any other.
DC: That's right. Among the many fo0rms of
sexuality he studied, Dr. Kinsey documented the sexual behavior of
children. His institute collected a vast
archive of sex films, many showing children engaged in sex.
You see, Mr. Veracitino, once we abandoned
the biological model of sexuality, we no longer have criteria to differentiate normal sex from abnormal
sex, healthy lovemaps f rom vandalized lovemaps. Such judgments are mere preferences,
expressions of feeling and attitude. The
new sociocentric implies that sex is morally neutral and all varieties of
consensual sex are legitimate.
MV: Where are we heading with this kind of sexual
liberation?
DC: Toward a single standard of sexual
freedom. To quote the preeminent lesbian
feminist, Kate Millet, “The sexual revolution would require . . . an end to
traditional sexual inhibitions and taboos, particularly those that most
threaten patriarchal monogamous marriage: homosexuality, ‘illegitimacy,’
adolescent pre-marital sexuality . . . . The goal of revolution would be a permissive single standard of sexual
freedom.
MV: Are there any limits to sexual freedom?
DC: The only limitation is consent.
MV: Can you give us an example of this
“permissive single standard”?
DC: DC: Marco Vassi is probably the best example
of sexual freedom I can think of. Suring
the sixties and seventies of the last century a generation of sexual pilgrims
began to shed their inhibitions and experiment with free love. One of the more colorful characters of that
era was Marco Vassi. His amazing story
is chronicles in John Heidenry’s What
Wild Ecstasy, the definitive account of the sexual revolution.
Although Marco had been born a Catholic, in
the early sixties he converted to the religion of sex . He called himself “The apostle of free love,”
the “immaculate bisexual,” the “erotic Christ,” suffering for the pleasure of
others, surrendering to the needs of homy gay man. Marco estimated that he had had sex with over
five hundred women and twice that many men – in bathhouses, whorehouses, and
behind trucks parked along the Hudson River in Greenwich Village. His mission in life was “to explore the
depths of degradation,” trying to locate the outer boundaries of true freedom.
One night at the bathhouse, Marco was having
sex with several men when one of them asked Marco to defecate into his
mouth. The thought of it reviled Marco,
sop he declined the request.
As enlightened as he considered himself to
be, Marco discovered that he was still harboring unconscious inhibitions. Later he realized that coprophiliacs –
persons who use feces for sexual excitement – were probably the only people to
have overcome the oldest inhibition: the fear of defecating in the presence of
another. Marco had the profound insight
that what society calls “perversion” is actually the best “map for
understanding the true nature of
fascism, and the most powerful key to unlocking its hold on people.”
Armed with this new understanding, Marco
returned to the bathhouse and when the same request was put to him , his bowels
willing obliged. It was moment of personal triumph for Marco. He had finally achieved freedom.
MV: This lovely little anecdote is your
definition of freedom?
DC: There are few moments of true greatness in a
nation’s history: Thomas Jefferson
penning the Declaration of Independence,
Abe Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg
Address, and Marco Vassi defecating into another man’s mouth.
MV: What exactly did Marco Vassi mean when he
said that what society calls “perversion” is actually the best “map for
understanding the true nature of freedom, and the most powerful key to
unlocking its hold on people”?
DC: Like many sexual revolutionaries Marco Vassi
was a student of Wilhelm Reich, author of such works as The Sexual Revolution (1945).
Reich theorized that the real roots of fascism and Nazism were found in
repressed sexuality. And unless we rid
ourselves – collectively and individually – of sexual inhibitions, we will
never be free.
MV: In other words sexual prohibitions like “Thou
shalt not commit adultery,” Thou shalt not commit sodomy,” Thou shalt not eat
feces,” – ultimately lead to the concentration camp?
DC: Yes.
MV: By defecating into another man’s mouth Marco
Vassi was doing his part to liberate us from Auschwitz, figuratively speaking?
DC: Yes, that’s one way of putting it.
MV: What ever became of Marco Vassi, the “sexual
pioneer”?
DC: Oh, he died of AIDS.
MV: Doctor, you said a while ago that anatomy has
little or no influence on gender identity.
If that’s the case, what are the complete criteria of determining one’s
gender identity?
DC: Good question. With the overthrow of the traditional gender
model, which had been based on human sexual anatomy, a “new sociocentric model
arose, built on three basic parameters: perception, social role, and
presentation.”
MV: These are not just your parameters?
DC: These are the parameters accepted by academia
and the LGBT movement.
MV: Let me see if I understand the formula
correctly. If you perceive yourself to
be a woman, and present yourself to the world as a woman – then you are a
woman.
DC: You got it.
MV: Even though you may have been born with male
anatomy?
DC: Correct.
MV: That’s a pretty radical definition of
identity: “You are what you perceive yourself to be.”
DC: That formula is the foundation of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual
Transgender movement. Regardless whether it was nature or nurture that shaped your gender identity, ultimately you must decide for yourself how to express it.
Transgender movement. Regardless whether it was nature or nurture that shaped your gender identity, ultimately you must decide for yourself how to express it.
MV: Why stop at gender? If anatomy is irrelevant in defining one’s gender identity, it’s
equally irrelevant in defining one’s
species identity. When we use the word
“anatomy,” we must include genes, DNA, chromosomes. After all, one’s sexual anatomy is derived
from one’s chromosomes, right?
DC: This was the argument I put forward in my
book Barnyard Fever: The Transspecies
Phenomenon. And I’m happy to report
that transspecieism has recently been accepted into the Queer community:
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transspecies.
MV: So, like Melvin White here, if you perceive
yourself to be a donkey, and adopt the social role of a donkey, and present
yourself to the world as a donkey . . .
DC: Then you are a donkey.
The courtroom erupted in spontaneous
demonstration. One fellow jumped up on
his chair, lifted his hands to the heavens and brayed Hee-Haw-Hee-Haw. A stickler for decorum, Judge Stamp slammed
his gavel down repeatedly.
After several moments of pandemonium, the
bailiffs succeeded in restoring order.
The more unruly spectators were escorted outside where protesters
continued to chant, “We’re here . . . We love steers . . . Get used to it.”
Judge Reuben Stamp then took a few moments to
admonish those who remained: “Were you people born in a barn?” Maude emitted a low Hee-Haw.
Judge Stamp: Sorry Maude, I didn’t mean to insult
you. As for the rest of you people, one
more outburst like that and I’ll clear
the entire courtroom and hold the remainder of the proceedings behind closed
doors.
MV: Doctor Canard, before we were so rudely
interrupted, you were saying that the new sociocentric model of identity is
based on three parameters: perception, social role, and presentation. Based on those parameters, what is Melvin
White? A man? A donkey?
A man-donkey?
DC: I have examined Melvin’s case thoroughly;
he’s a classic transspecies. Despite
being born with human anatomy, Melvin is psychosexually a donkey. Her perceives himself to be a donkey, he has
adopted the social role of a donkey, and he has undergone species reassignment
in order to present himself to the world as a donkey. Conclusion: Melvin White is a complete
jackass.
MV: Should the state of Mississippi issue Melvin
and Maude marriage license?
DCV: Of course.
Transspecies marriage is the civil issue of the 2020’s; it’s the logical
next step.
MV: The “next step” in what?
DC: In the evolution of marriage. As I mentioned earlier, patriarchal marriage
was originally created to enslave women and children. The entire class system grew out of marriage
and family.
Because it is the source of inequality and injustice in the world, marriage must evolve or become extinct.
Because it is the source of inequality and injustice in the world, marriage must evolve or become extinct.
MV: What does “evolved marriage” look like?
DC: The first step in the evolution of marriage
came when Western governments eliminated coverture and enacted no-fault divorce
laws. Formerly a contract between
society and the wedded couple, marriage henceforth became a personal agreement
between an man and a woman to be dissolved at either party’s discretion. To obtain a divorce, neither party had to
prove fault in open court. The
elimination of coverture – the marital bargain compelling the wife to obey and
the husband to provide --,resulted in a new bargain, heavily favoring
females. the wife no longer had to obey
but the husband still had to provide, even after divorce when the ex-wife
customarily received fifty percent of
his property plus alimony and child support.
The ex-husband got to visit the kids every now and then. Patriarchal marriage was turned in to
matriarchal marriage. Since the
mid-1970’s half of all marriages now end in divorce. Marriage is no longer a good bargain for most
men.
The courts then delivered the death blow to
patriarchal marriage when they started to uphold same-sex marriage in cases
like Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
MV: How did the normalization of same-sex
marriage irretrievably change the institution?
DC: By equating homosexual relationships to
heterosexual relationships, the courts removed the last link between marriage
and natural law, that ancient edifice that underpinned Western ethics for a
thousand years.
DC: By equating homosexual relationships to
heterosexual relationships, the courts removed the last link between marriage
and natural law, that ancient edifice that underpinned Western ethics for a
thousand years.
The story of same-sex marriage is one of the
most dramatic chapters in the history of the sexual revolution. The LGBT activists of that era employed yet
another highly effective strategy. The
reactionaries argued that marriage was unlike other relationships because it
was oriented toward procreation. Because
they cannot procreate, homosexual couples should be excluded from marriage. The LGBT activists countered that marriage
had nothing to do with procreation
because the law and society already let infertile heterosexual couples marry.
Why not treat homosexual couples the same way?
If marriage is a personal relationship between two people in love, why
exclude loving same-sex couples?
[tbc]
_____________________________
-------------------------------------------------
Dear John, Whether
a woman kills her baby or a police officer kills a criminal, every homicide is
a public fact. Even if an act of homicide is found to be legal or justified by
the government, it cannot be private because every homicide is a public fact.
Thus there is no right to privacy associated with seeking or performing an
abortion. Abortion is not about when life begins. As with any other homicide,
abortion is about how life ended. As far as the coroner is concerned, having
ruled out natural, accidental, and self-inflicted causes of death, homicide is
the only possible legal determination. Sincerely, Cal
______________________________
-------------------------------------------------
Linda Gibbons is back in
the pokey, where’s she‘s spent most of her adult life, because she continues to
break laws that try to prevent her from talking older people out of carrying
young people to their executions.
Rev. Mike
Bray nails it, as usual:
A good Canuck. She has been returning
to her preferred method of rescue over and over. Can’t say a word against
her. She is adored by non-forceful abortuary blockaders and “clinic
bomber” alike.
Rev.
might add many of the “anti-law breaking-peaceful-and-prayerful-only-folks”
too.
And this just arrived from Sweat:
In addition to suffering the injustice of being sentenced, only a mere
week ago, by a modern day Nazi judge to a maximum 6 month sentence for the
'crime' of attempting to save unborn children from the horrors of abortion, the
undisputed Queen of the Pro-Life Movement - Linda Gibbons - received additional
sorrowful news 4 days later that her daughter had passed away at the relatively
young age of 45!!! The question now is whether the unjust judge will at least
have the decency to let the Queen attend her daughter's funeral services.
Please keep this situation in your prayers. Read the story here >>> http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/linda-gibbonss-daughter-passes-away-at-age-45-gibbons-remains-in-jail/
__________________________
------------------------------------------
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, Iowa 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