From psychospy@ping.com Thu Jan 26 10:59 EST 1995
Return-Path: <psychospy@ping.com>
Message-Id: <199501252158.QAA13147@ping.ping.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 14:21:35 -0800
To: psychospy@aol.com
From: psychospy@ping.ping.com
X-Sender: psychospy@ping.com (Unverified)
Subject: Groom Lake Desert Rat #21

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

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


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

JUDGE HOLTON BOWS OUT OF CAMPBELL TRIAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Shepardize."

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

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

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

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

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

You Shepardize!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

$400 from Trader@cup.portal.com
$200 from "EA"
$110 from "The Swiss Mountain Bat"
$50 from "NH"
$25 from "SA"
$30 from "RG"
$15 from "AC"

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

Here are our policies regarding this fund...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Dear DMA:

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

   [Your signature and address]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Glenn Campbell, 1995.

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

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

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

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

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

###


