In the past few days, I have seen attacks on other researchers appear on online sites. Having been the brunt of more attacks and slime campaigns than I can count, I always wonder why these attacks are taking place.
In the case of Rumor Mill News, Gunther Russbacher and me, the ex Mrs. Russbacher, we are attacked because people are trying to discredit us so readers won't believe our information.
I can only think that the same thing has to apply to the other smear campaigns that are going on.
I have enclosed one smear and the response to it. This one appeared on Free Republic.
The other one I can remember appeared on News Making News -- It involved Kurt Billings. Barbara Hartwell alerted me to this. I have forwarded her emails on this to the RMNews Updates webpage.
Take the time to read the following to understand the nature of a smear and how much time it takes someone to respond to one.
Free Republic posting:
"No doubt about it, Diana Luppi is ... loopy. "
Response To DonQ: (or should I call you Dr. Spin?)
BY Diana Luppi
Dear Dr. Spin:
Not bad, for government work…
Great tactic. Since we are discussing federal property law, abridgment of
constitutional rights, and fraudulent assertion of "special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction" over US citizens by the US Government; lets discuss
flying saucers instead. My best guess is that you work for the Department of
I am led to this conclusion because the DOJ tried this same tactic in my case
repeatedly, as demonstrated in its response to a 10th Circuit Order. I quote
Professor David Engdahl of Seattle University School of Law in his letter of
September 15, 1999, to Public Defender Bart French on this matter:
"At one point in these proceedings, by sua sponte Order dated January 28,
1999, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals directed counsel for the United
States (Plaintiff-Appellee in No, 98-1475) to answer in writing, among other
questions, "has the government granted some type of easement." (Docket entry
no. 20 in #98-l475. page 2.) The Government's February 5th Response to that
Order, however, avoided answering that question at all, obscuring it instead
by a smokescreen of misleading generalities about forest reserves, and
quoting statutory provisions that authorize supervised and regulated access
where no better right of access exists. (Docket entry no. 39 in #98-1475,
pages 8-12.) It was not until August, just a few weeks ago that Ms. Luppi
herself learned what Government counsel should have disclosed to the Court in
response to that Order."
As you well know, the Government's response should have been: "FS Road #629
is a county road over which the Forest Service has no legal jurisdiction. The
road was created by an Act Congress, R.S. 2477, and was granted to the State
of Colorado upon its entry into statehood." Instead the Government chose the
"let's discuss flying saucers" approach, just as you did.
There are a number of other points you got wrong, Dr. Spin. Allow me to
address them in order:
1. "…and the only way for her to get to her "inholding" was over roads
maintained by the Forest Service."
Yes, I had "easement by necessity". Thank you for making that point.
However, the US Forest Service does no maintenance of the road in question.
The county does, most likely because it is a county road. Jo Bridges of the
Pagosa Ranger Station was kind enough to send me a letter explaining that if
I wanted to plow my road, I could post a $1000 bond with the Forest Service
for that privilege. That was a better offer than US Forest Service agents
Sonja Hoie and Roger Newton tried to hustle me for. In 1998 they invited me
down to their annual illegal gate closure to speak with me about giving them
a $10,000 bond for plowing. Luckily I brought witnesses and a tape recorder
to that impromptu meeting in the woods.
The only act of maintenance the Forest Service did while I lived there was in
1996 when they started a controlled burn during the driest and windiest
spring we ever had and almost burned down my property. Other than that, and
calling me to tell me to evacuate, they didn't maintain a thing. I don't
believe mounting surveillance cameras in the trees to "catch" me in the act
of accessing my property can be considered "maintenance".
2. "The previous owners of this same parcel had signed the easement agreement
and had paid the fee…."
Part true. Ignorant of their greater rights, the owners before me contracted
and paid for the small private access road. However, the owners before them
did not, nor were they ever asked to. By the time I showed up, the US Forest
Service decided to throw in the county road as well as the private road, and
demanded payment for each separately. If this policy continues
uninterruptedly, the next person will also have to pay for the use of Route
160, which the county road turns off of. And then the person after that will
have to pay for the private access road, the county road, the state road and
I-25. Sounds like a good money-maker. I wonder why Congress didn't come up
3. "…but the government only wanted a monetary fine imposed."
That's also partially true. The government would have been satisfied with and
was seeking money. $5000 to be exact, a mere $4500 more than the Not More
Than $500 that Congress imposed as a possible fine, per count (times three
counts), and provided the $5000 per count was also accompanied by my
signature on a document that de facto handed the government my property.
That's a pretty hefty inflation rate. The Mafia runs a similar program. I
believe they call theirs a "Protection Racket".
4. "…she pretty much took a dive and failed to provide much of a defense (at
I have to agree with you here. Being denied court appointed counsel,
despite Judge Weinshienk reserving her power to imprison me, did put me at a
disadvantage. Not being an attorney, I did poorly defending myself. What you
are overlooking is the overwhelming body of case law which thoroughly
establishes that a trial cannot be considered fair if counsel was denied.
(See Supreme Court ruling, Argensinger v Hamlin, and 10th Circuit decisions,
US v. Allan and US v. Dawes, to name just a few).
You seem to be saying, "We cheated fair and square, so stop complaining".
Did I miss any of your finer legal points on that one?
5. "She failed to show up for a probation hearing and a bench warrant was
issued for her."
Correct -sort of. I failed to show up in court because I was never served a
proper summons. Although procedure is something the government adamantly
insists on when it involves or results in the trouncing of a defendant's
rights, they conversely have no obligation to follow proper procedure
themselves. Despite committing this technical blunder, Assistant US Attorney
Kennedy rebounded, equal to the challenge. He overcame the government's
error by giving false testimony in court. A month later, and after being
caught red-handed, Mr. Kennedy submitted a Motion To Withdraw Arrest Warrant,
stating: "Upon further review, it appears that the Defendant may not have
received a copy of the Petition and Summons to Appear,…" and proceeded to
blame the entire event on the Probation Officer. What a guy!
At the Probation Violation Hearing that the government forgot to invite me
to, there were two US Marshals present who no officer of the court asked to
come, according to the court transcript. With no explanation given for their
appearance, I am left to speculate about their presence. Were they on their
way to Dunkin' Donuts and decided to stop by the Federal District Court of
Colorado, just in case I needed processing? You seem to have inside
information. Did I guess right?
Another point to ponder is why I was on probation in the first place, despite
having violated no domestic law. The best answer I've come up with is that
being tried under Admiratly Law is just like being tried by the Spanish
Inquisition. You are guilty as accused, even if the law you violated was
just recently created in their back rooms. Perhaps your department would
like to explain to everyone how, by a "special condition" of my probation, I
was barred from my home for 15 months and forced to sign a contract or go to
jail? It did seem excessive to me, as well as Constitutionally weak. Does
your department have a different Constitution you are following? And are you
responding to some other Congress we don't know about? Please post your
answer on this bulletin.
5. "…she has refused to pay fines and overdue fees amounting to several
thousand dollars" and "in Luppi's case the access fee was $176 per winter".
Although your math doesn't add up from one paragraph to the next, what you
did get right is that it was a "toll". Can you please cite the law that
allows the US Forest Service to charge tolls to access land patented
properties? (Remember, I'm not a logging company). Also include the
documents that permit the US Forest to create a toll road out of state roads.
While you're at it, throw in the documents that allow for toll roads through
Indian lands. If you can't locate any basis for these toll roads in domestic
law, I know some unratified UN Treaties you could leaf through.
And, finally, calling me 'loopy" is almost as juvenile as the Prosecutor
Robert Kennedy's legal assertion in court that 'everyone else signed it (the
contract) so why shouldn't she?' That was my first clue that the government
was possibly staffing the DOJ with talent straight out of Middle School.
On the other hand, I have considerable documentation that raises a question
about various members of the DOJ and federal judiciary. These documents
indicate that criminal insanity may be running rampant throughout our federal
agencies and structures. Since criminal insanity is not usually contagious, I
offer two other possible explanations. Either a) Treason has become
fashionable or, b) Our government has been assimilated by the Borg
Collective, and its agents are now attempting to absorb the rest of us. Do
you care to comment on these allegation or would you prefer I submit a FOIA
As for the book, E.T. 101, I wrote and published it in 1990. In 1995, and
due to its success, Harper Collins San Francisco purchased this book. The
author's name is Zoev Jho, who is also me, Diana Luppi. It is published in
six languages and is once again available in the United States, despite
Harper Collins' best efforts to bury it. If you care to acquire it, it's
available at Amazon.com.
Unlike your rendition of US v Luppi, I can provide documentation
Free Republic posting:
No doubt about it, Diana Luppi is ... loopy.
Back around 1990 she claimed to be channeling some extraterrestrial named
Zoev Jho and churned out a book titled E.T. 101: The Cosmic Instruction
Manual, co-created by Mission Control & Diana Luppi, published by
"Intergalactic Council Publications" in Santa Fe, NM, 86 pages, the Library
of Congress cataloguers gave it the classification number CB156.J46. It was
reprinted, so help me, in 1995.
The court case she's bleating about was decided about a year and a half ago:
U.S. v. Diana Rose Luppi, (10th Cir, 7/26/99) 188 F.3d 520 (table), 1999
Colo.JCAR 4505. In 1995, she bought, evidently with money gotten from Jho's
flying saucer, a parcel of land located in the midst of the San Juan National
Forest in Colorado. Her parcel was entirely surrounded by Forest Service land
(the Forest Service is part of the US Dept of Agriculture, on the other hand
the National Park Service is part of the US Dept of Interior), and the only
way for her to get to her "inholding" was over roads maintained by the Forest
Service. The Forest Service allows the public free use of these roads in
spring and summer, but in winter closes off the Forest to the general public.
Inholders like Luppi are permitted to make use of those Forest Service roads
in winter ... but only if they sign an easement agreement and pay an access
fee to the Forest Service (in Luppi's case the access fee was $176 per
winter). It would appear that a common practice is to use an inholding only
during fair weather months and some owners live elsewhere during winter, and
it costs the Forest Service something to keep those access roads clear of
snow, so that's the reason for the special arrangements and the fee for
The previous owners of this same parcel had signed the easement agreement and
had paid the fee, but Luppi repeatedly refused to do either, despite
considerable correspondence back and forth between the Forest Service and
her. After two years of her unauthorized and unpaid use of the access roads,
the Forest Service charged her with unauthorized use of the roads for three
years, a misdemeanor for which a jail sentence is possible, but the govt only
wanted a monetary fine imposed. Luppi insisted on moving the case from a
magistrate to a district court judge, and when she got this, she pretty much
took a dive and failed to present much of a defense. She was convicted of two
counts of unauthorized use of the Forest Service roads but acquitted of a
third count (each count was for using the roads during a different year - the
acquittal was for use during 1997). She was fined and put on probation which
included the requirement that she comply with the Forest Service requirements
about the easement and fees.
Luppi refused to pay the fines or comply with any of the probation terms. She
failed to show up for a probation hearing and a bench warrant was issued for
her. Her convictions and the penalties were upheld on appeal.
I have no clue about the business about being a terrorist, but considering
that she has refused to pay fines and overdue fees now amounting to several
thousand dollars, the govt is entitled to extract this money by levying on
her real estate, which happens to be the parcel in the National Forest that
started all this trouble. Since it's no longer hers, presumably she won't be
dodging the tolls on the Forest Service roads anymore. she could have avoided
all this by not driving on the roads using her SUV or whatever, but instead
getting her buddy Jho to give her a lift in his flying saucer.
RUMOR MILL NEWS AGENCY
Rayelan Allan, Publisher
Message From Rayelan:
Many people have asked how I restored my health. Here is my secret: DEAD DOCTORS DON'T LIE.
These are the products I used and continue to use. I am living proof they work!
If you have questions, check out the chat room on Thursday nights, 7pm California time.
Click the url for more information!