HUMANITARIAN SPIES

[Borba100@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Humanitarian Spies
by Jared Israel (revised 2/9/00)

www.emperors-clothes.com or tenc.net

It appears there are two types of Humanitarian Aid organizations in the New
World Order: Them That Steals and Them That Spies. For the thieves, see
Soiled Rainbow. If you are interested in spies and the liars who cover up
their work, stay here.

I have been doing research on the CARE spy scandal for several days. It is a
Labor of Sisyphus. No sooner does one think one has dug up all there is to
dig then one encounters (if you will pardon the mixed metaphor) more dirt
rolling down the hill. CARE has been compromised by this mess, but not only
CARE. Also the Australian government, the US government, the OSCE
(Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) and the Western mass
media. Perhaps the Western mass media worst of all.

On Nov 2, SBS TV in Australia revealed that CARE Canada had been recruiting
what amounted to spies for NATO in Yugoslavia.

I've posted the hyperlink to the SBS CARE story below. It's worth reading.
But before you look at the transcript, I suggest you read the background
material because in some ways it's more revealing than the TV show, more
damning. As happens often, when Western journalists uncovered this cover-up,
they didn't uncover it all.

Spies or Victimized Aid Workers?

On March 31, 1999, three employees of CARE Australia, Steve Pratt, an
Australian who headed the Yugoslav operation, Peter Wallace, another
Australian, and Branko Jelen, a Yugoslav, were arrested at the
Serbian-Croatian border. Yugoslavia charged them with using CARE as a cover
to spy for NATO.

CARE Australia officials ridiculed the charges, claiming CARE was completely
neutral and that the confession of Steve Pratt, aired on Serbian TV, could
only have resulted from coercion. Western mass media supported CARE,
presenting the men as Good Samaritans whose only crime was being in the wrong
place at the wrong time and falling victim to Serbian paranoia and war
propaganda. CARE had clean hands...

Or did it?

Now comes a TV show, broadcast Nov. 2 by SBS in Australia. It reveals that
CARE recruited and paid OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe) Verifiers in Kosovo from Oct. 1998 to March 1999. That much is
uncontested.

As you will see when you read the transcript, some CARE people justify the
OSCE recruiting program on the grounds that the Verifiers were legitimate
peacemakers. Alas, this simply does not wash.

Goals of the Kosovo Verification Mission

'Negotiated' (that is, 'coerced') under threat of NATO bombing last October,
the Verification agreement let the OSCE send unarmed mediators into Kosovo,
supposedly to help defuse tensions. However everything about the Verification
mission suggests military intelligence, not mediation.

It was run by William Walker. Walker had no background as a mediator. He
wasn't even an expert in Balkans history or current politics. What he did
know about was counter-insurgency and black ops. His role in Iran-Contra and
his achievements in apologizing for the murderous El Salvador death squads
all but prove he is a high-placed intelligence operative. (A factual account
of Mr. Walker's work in Central America will be posted on Emperors-Clothes as
soon as possible. In the absence of that account, which we have not had time
yet to lay out, let me say these facts are uncontested. Period.)
The U.S. verification team was composed of employees of Dyncorp, a Virginia
company that has grown rich off Government work. At the 1992 Senate hearings
on R. James Woolsey's appointment as head of the CIA, Woolsey commented: "I
own less than one-quarter of one percent of the -- diluted shares of a
company named Dyncorp here in the Washington, D.C. area. And the corporation
has, from time to time, had a handful of very small contracts with the
Central Intelligence Agency." Ahh, sweet understatement. Dyncorp's "very
small contracts" have included covert work in Columbia and Peru. (Facts on
this will be posted shortly on Emperors-clothes. Again, it is all
documented). In the case of Dyncorp's work in Columbia, the Clinton
administration was accused of using Dyncorp to circumvent human rights
restrictions on US aid to the death-squad-ridden Colombian military.
So what do we have? We have the head of the Verification mission and his
American team linked to covert operations and death squad activities in Latin
America. Other than that, they have no qualifications for their work in
Kosovo.

Given this command structure, doesn't it stand to reason that the Western
(i.e., U.S.) goal was a) to gather military intelligence and b) to establish
command-relations with the Kosovo Liberation Army, an outfit whose activities
- killing ethnic Serbian civilians and ethnic Albanian "collaborators" as
well as employees of the Serbian state such as policemen, power line
repairmen, school officials, Yugoslav troops and even state-employed wood
gatherers - whose activities are very much like those of Latin American death
squads?

Indeed, isn't it reasonable to guess that the tactical similarity between the
KLA and the Latin American death squads may result from their having had the
same (US) advisors?

In any case this was the Verification Mission for which CARE Canada was
recruiting. Not only recruiting, but also apparently paying the recruits'
salaries.

Even the Western press has virtually admitted that Walker & Co. were spies.
Consider the following from the LA Times:

His [i.e., William Walker's] postings include a stint in Honduras from 1980
to 1982, when the Central American country was Washington's secret conduit
for weapons and other support to right-wing Contras fighting to overthrow the
Sandinistas in neighboring Nicaragua.

He also served as chief of the U.S. Embassy's political section in El
Salvador, another Central American hot spot, from 1974 to 1977, and later as
the country's U.S. ambassador from 1988 to 1992. As a diplomat in countries
so high on Washington's national security agenda, Walker couldn't help
knowing something about spying, said John Pike, a defense analyst at
Washington's Federation of American Scientists. "Those are front-line
postings where he would have unavoidably developed an acquaintance with the
capabilities and limitations of intelligence sources and methods," Pike said
from Washington. And it would be surprising if Walker's team of ex-military
and other experts came to verify Kosovo's cease-fire without equipment to
listen in on radio communications, Pike said. "Put it this way: They would be
idiots if they weren't doing that," he added. "What are they going to do,
read about it in the paper the next day?"( LA Times, Jan. 20, 1999, our
emphasis)
The Amazing Story of Mr. Pratt, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Jelen

So we had a neutral, Humanitarian Aid organization (CARE) recruiting
Verifiers, that is spies, for a Kosovo Mission run by CIA types. Shortly
after the Mission ended and NATO began bombing Yugoslavia, three of the
Humanitarian CARE employees were arrested for spying.

That was on March 31. At first CARE officials claimed they were not sure of
the three men's whereabouts. Then, on April 11, Steve Pratt appeared on
Serbian Television, RTS. Here's the actual text of the RTS broadcast, as
transcribed by the BBC:

[Announcer] Through coordinated action, the security bodies of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia have smashed a network of agents headed by Major Steve
Pratt. The named person had been gathering intelligence on the movement of
our military and police forces under the cover of the Care International
humanitarian organization before the aggression on our country, and, during
the aggression, on the effects of the bombing.

[Pratt, recording in English with passage by passage Serbo-Croatian
translation] My name is Steve Pratt. I was born in 1949. I was born in
Australia and I am the citizen of Australia. Before I came to Yugoslavia, I
worked in northern Iraq, Yemen, Zaire, Rwanda, and Kenya for the humanitarian
organization Care of Australia.

When I came to Yugoslavia, I performed some intelligence tasks in this
country by using the cover of Care Australia. My concentration was on Kosovo
and some effects of the bombing. I misused my Yugoslavian citizen staff for
the acquisition of information. I realize that damage was done this country
by these actions, for which I am greatly sorry. I always did and still do
condemn the bombing of this country.

[Television footage shows Pratt sitting in a chair and making the statement;
TV also shows Pratt's passport; there are no visible signs of physical
mistreatment of Pratt] (BBC, April 13, 1999)
The Western media presented a negative view of the RTS broadcast. One AP
report April 12th was headlined, "TV pictures of aid worker's spy confession
fuzzy: Tapp". In the story Australian CARE chief Charles Tapp dismissed the
RTS broadcast because Pratt was shown in profile, because it was impossible
to see his eyes and because his confession was not very specific. (He said
"confession" should be put in "immense inverted commas".) An Agence France
Presse story on the 12th was headlined "Yugoslavs forced our man to confess
to spying."

Amidst this reporting, which amounted to anti-Yugoslav propaganda, the real
story was simply ignored by most of the media; where it was covered it was
scornfully dismissed.

That story, which broke April 11th in the Australian Sunday Telegraph, quoted
Steve Pratt's mother, Mrs. Mavis Pratt, concerning Pratt's past activities. I
have not been able to see a copy of the Sunday Telegraph story. Fortunately a
few sentences are quoted in a few places. One is an AP dispatch issued hours
after the Sunday Telegraph report. According to the AP, Mrs. Pratt told the
Telegraph that her son had worked for CARE in Iraq:

''He was letting the U.N. know what Iraq was doing, he was observing, so Iraq
put a price on his head and they had to get him out of there quickly.''
In other words, he had been a spy.

Dishonor Thy Mother

How might one expect CARE executives to have responded to Pratt's confession
and Mrs. Pratt's statement?

CARE presents itself as a politically neutral, humanitarian organization.
Doesn't that suggest CARE leaders should have adopted a cautious, neutral
approach? Perhaps said they have nothing but respect for the arrested men and
established a fund legal expenses? Wouldn't any other approach compromise
their neutrality and raise questions about their motives?

And what about the mass media? Since governments do employ spies, since to be
effective, spies have to have some kind of cover, wouldn't it make sense to
present the story in a factual manner and not use journalistic techniques to
sway public opinion?

CARE and the media lash out at Yugoslavia

Let's look at the April 11 AP story, starting with the headline. The headline
may be the only thing one reads and even if one reads further, the headline
colors one's view of the rest.

What sort of headline would logically go with this story? Maybe something
like:

Mom Says Arrested CARE worker Spied Before

Instead, AP chose:

CARE says Serbian spying 'confession' obtained under duress

This is a very strong statement. By making it the headline, AP lent it
credibility. Did it deserve such credibility?

The RTS broadcast with Pratt's confession had just been aired. What could
Charles Tapp or anyone else at CARE actually have known about this case?

If Pratt had told them he was a spy, they would know. But if Pratt was a spy
and told nobody, how could they have known?

Therefore Tapp's denial is either a) a lie (because he knew Pratt was a spy
and therefore denied it) or b) pure speculation (because he had no way of
knowing whether Pratt was innocent or guilty.)

So what's the point of the headline? By using the phrase "obtained under
duress" the headline creates a picture in the reader's mind - of threats and
torture. Though the body of the article offers no factual basis for this
charge, the headline has a powerful impact.

Note that 'CARE' is not a person but an organization; how can CARE 'say'
anything? By quoting 'CARE' instead of a CARE executive, the AP story
capitalizes on Westerners' impression of CARE, the organization: neutral,
selfless, honorable. A CARE spokesman might lie - but 'CARE' itself? Never.

Compounding the Question

Note that by jumping to the question of how the confession was obtained
(supposedly 'under duress') the AP story gives the (false) impression that
Pratt's innocence is an established fact.

The sleight of hand technique used here is similar to the compound question.
A familiar example: "Do you still beat your wife?" The use of the very
aggressive "do you still" obscures the fact that the main charge is unproven:
we have not been shown that you ever beat your wife. Similarly here, by
stressing the manner in which the (allegedly) false confession was obtained
(that is, "under duress") the headline obscures the fact that we have been
shown no evidence the confession was false.

Let's move onto the first paragraph in the article:

The aid agency CARE Australia on Monday said its field worker Steve Pratt's
alleged spying confession broadcast by Serbian television was made under
duress.
This is just a repeat of the headline. Bad journalism, unless they want us to
learn this statement by rote. Will there be a quiz?

Here's paragraph two:

CARE and the Australian government demanded immediate access to Pratt and his
colleague, Peter Wallace, who were detained by Yugoslav authorities March 31
after they left Belgrade for Montenegro to help refugees.
Still not quoting actual people, the AP adds a second institution, the
Australian government, by way of additional confirmation. The Yugoslav
offense is so great, all institutions are speaking out.

Moreover, by telling us these institutions have "demanded immediate access to
Pratt" and Wallace, the article suggests Yugoslavia is denying such access.
This in turn suggests the Yugoslavs must have something to hide - such as
evidence that Pratt has been beaten. Note that there is no effort, here or
elsewhere in the article, to discuss the normal procedure for allowing access
to men accused of spying for a group of nations who are, in grave violation
of international law, bombing your country.

The paragraph also includes the statement that the arrested man had been
arrested after they:

left Belgrade for Montenegro to help refugees. (My emphasis)
How could the AP possibly know why Pratt, Wallace and Jelen had left
Belgrade? Couldn't they have left to spy elsewhere? Or to escape detection?
By asserting their humanitarian motives without evidence, the article
strengthens the reader's impression that the men are innocent.

A little further down, a CARE official is cited by name for the first time:

CARE Australia's emergency coordinator, Brian Doolan, said threats may have
been made against local staff or against Wallace to extract the confession.
(My emphasis)
'May have been made.' Two thoughts on this: a) Doesn't the use of 'may'
completely contradict the headline and first paragraph, which have 'CARE'
(speaking as if it were a person) saying the confession WAS obtained under
duress and b) isn't it true that it is always possible that a confession
'may' have been extracted based on threats?

Since by this point we've been told several times that Pratt was forced to
confess, I would bet many readers wouldn't notice the use of "may".

The article continues as follows:

Doolan said the claims made against Pratt were ''absolute lunacy.''
If Pratt "may" (which suggests 'may not') have confessed under duress, why is
Doolan sure the charges are lunacy? The AP ignores this obvious
contradiction. Nor does it try to bring some balance to the story by talking
to someone from the Yugoslav side, for example a Yugoslav security official.
Such a person might ask: "Since it's obvious that Mr. Pratt could be a spy
without Mr. Doolan knowing, how can Mr. Doolan be so sure the charges are
lunacy?"

And so the article continues for eight (8) more paragraphs, strengthening the
impression that Pratt must be innocent until we get to the end, where Mrs.
Pratt is quoted. But readers are not permitted to judge Mrs. Pratt's words
for themselves; they are given a good deal of help by CARE Australia chief
executive Charles Tapp who is quoted before and after Mrs. Pratt who attacks
the charge that Pratt had previously spied against Iraq, attacks the
newspaper that covered it, and even tries to discredit Mrs. Pratt (her sin is
being old). Here's how it reads:

...[CARE chief executive Tapp] rejected the suggestion that they [i.e. the
arrested CARE workers] were acting for any other organization in any
capacity.

Speaking from the Yugoslavia-Croatia border, Tapp also slammed a newspaper
report in which Pratt's mother, Mavis Pratt, was quoted as saying her son had
supplied information about Iraqi forces to the United Nations during the Gulf
War.

''He was letting the U.N. know what Iraq was doing, he was observing, so Iraq
put a price on his head and they had to get him out of there quickly,'' she
[Mrs. Pratt] was quoted as saying.

Tapp said Mrs. Pratt was elderly and added, ''Frankly, I consider this to be
extremely poor journalism.'' (AP Worldstream April 11, 1999; Sunday 22:06
Eastern Time )
When you think of it, the quote from Mrs. Pratt is the only news in this
entire news story. The rest is intended to give us a proper news orientation.
The AP is evidently anxious to guarantee that readers approach the arrests
with the preconception that Pratt and the others are innocent. Why?

As for CARE officials - their statements are suggestive. Consider: Pratt
confessed on April 11th. The Sunday Telegraph printed Mrs. Pratt's statement
the next day and within hours AP broadcast furious denials from CARE
officials. How could these officials be so sure so fast? Why would they react
without taking time to investigate and discuss the matter, including
privately with Yugoslav officials? Doesn't such a hasty and violent response
suggest that:

Pratt et al were indeed spies;
Tapp and Doolan were fully aware that Pratt, Wallace and Jelen were spies
because they were themselves involved in organizing such spying;
CARE officials were therefore worried that Yugoslav officials or, worse yet,
Pratt or Wallace, might go public with more revelations, might expose
high-level CARE (and Australian government?) involvement, might talk about
CARE spying in other countries, and so on. Thus it was crucial immediately
(on Sunday!) to discredit the arrests and especially the public confession.
By planting the thought that the confession was made 'under duress' and 'was
lunacy' and that Mrs. Pratt's own statement was unbelievable - the hope was
to prejudice Western readers against any further revelations from Belgrade or
Steve and Mavis Pratt.
Honor thy Satellite Phone

Four months later, Yugoslavia released Pratt and Wallace. In a dispatch at
the time, the Australian news agency, AAP, explained that Yugoslav border
guards had found:

...detailed maps, a satellite telephone and a laptop computer in their car
when Pratt and Wallace tried to cross into Croatia.
Shouldn't this information have been presented as top news in April? It was
not. Instead the media engaged in more preventive damage control. Consider
this from the AAP on April 15th:

CARE Australia worker Steve Pratt, who is being held as a spy in Yugoslavia,
would have collected some military information, his former boss said today.

But it would only have been to help CARE's planning and would not have been
given to any outside body, Tony McGee said...
Mind boggling, isn't this? Why on earth would CARE routinely gather military
information? The article goes on:

Mr. McGee, like Mr. Pratt a former Australian army officer, said he never
took any interest in military installations or troop movements except to the
extent that they might affect CARE's safety and operations.
Are all these guys ex-Army officers? Doesn't CARE recruit any regular folks?
And what about McGee's suggestion that by recruiting (supposedly) former Army
officers CARE insures its employees will take no "interest in military
installations or troop movements except to the extent that they might affect
CARE's safety and operations."

In case people are not convinced that military men would never take an
interest in military matters, Mr. McGee adds:

In any event, satellites could provide much better information than anything
aid workers on the ground could gather.
So Pratt was certainly no spy because former military officers just don't
have the military curiosity needed for spying and even if he was a spy the
information he would gather would be of minor use. Doesn't this sound more
and more like a) Pratt was a spy and b) all these guys knew it?

What is the point of McGee's statement? The only explanation I can suggest
is: CARE officials knew Pratt was carrying incriminating equipment and
descriptions of troop movements when he was arrested; there was a danger the
Yugoslavs would make this incriminating evidence public; McGee was trying to
immunize the public beforehand. And once again, the media provided a willing
PR forum.

Pratt, Critic of NATO (?)

Here's an AAP headline from April 12th:

Ex Army Major no spy say CARE colleagues

This article tells Pratt's life story, official version. We are told he spent
years in the army where he worked in supply until at the request of former
Australian Prime Minister and CARE Chairman Malcolm Fraser, he joined CARE.

He what?

How comes an ordinary Army major to be recruited by a Prime Minister? Isn't
this in itself a bit suspicious?

The AAP asks no embarrassing questions.

The article goes on to claim that Pratt:

also criticized the NATO bombing, and publicly attacked the destruction of a
CARE-run refugee camp which killed nine people.
This is intended to prove Pratt's even-handedness. See? He criticizes NATO.
(More evidence of his innocence.)

But consider Pratt's actual comments, recorded on March 29 in an AAP Internet
Bulletin. He's talking about the NATO bombing of refugees who were living in
abandoned Army barracks:

"I suspect the centers had been located very close to military targets. The
report that I am getting that they have probably been caught up in some sort
of collateral thing," Mr. Pratt said. The refugees killed were believed to
include women and children who were ethnic Serb refugees who fled Bosnia
during the 1995 conflict.

"They were not directly hit, they don't seem to have been deliberately
targeted."...He said the center where eight refugees were confirmed killed
had been located 60km southwest of the city of Nis in an old army barracks
consisting of barracks of wooden huts. But two of the nine buildings had been
damaged, including one which was burned down, when NATO hit a warehouse about
100 meters away. "I believe (the damage) was accidental..."

Another refugee had been confirmed killed in Kosovo's capital of Pristina in
a refugee center close to police headquarters. "Again this was a refugee
center too close to a NATO target. I suppose this is the way things are in
war but it is extremely sad," he said.
Is Pratt "publicly attacking" NATO for the "destruction of a CARE-run refugee
camp?" Or is he in fact excusing NATO of any criminal responsibility?

Why do you say 'Preposterous' Mr. Downer?

Two days after Pratt confessed on Yugoslav TV, The Guardian (London) reported
that:

The Serbian government's claim that two Australian aid workers missing for 14
days were gathering intelligence has been dismissed as 'preposterous' by the
Australian foreign minister, Alexander Downer. (The Guardian(London) April
13, 1999)
Imagine you told your neighbor your wooden house was on fire and he replied:
"Preposterous!"

Of course, you could be wrong - but preposterous?

How could Downer possibly be sure?

Australian Foreign Minister Downer's statement demonstrates his desire, in
the absence of supporting evidence, to prove Pratt was innocent. This puts
Downer in good company: Tapp, McGee, Doolan the AP, the AAP and the mass
media in general were all trying to convince the public that Pratt was
innocent. The Guardian could have contributed to news gathering by
questioning Downer: "How can you be sure? Why is everyone so anxious to prove
the Yugoslavs are lying? Could this be a pre-emptive strike aimed at
preventing people from believing future Yugoslav revelations about CARE's
involvement in spying?"

But the Guardian asked no such questions. Apparently they wanted to prove
Pratt was innocent too.

Dishonor Thy Mother Some More

While most of the world had no idea Major Pratt's mother had nailed him in
the Sunday Telegraph, the word got around in Australia. Hence the following
bit of damage control published by the AAP on April 12th:

CARE Australia emergency coordinator Brian Doolan personally guaranteed Mr.
Pratt was not spying when they worked together in Iraq from 1993 to 1995. Mr.
Doolan criticized Sydney's Sunday Telegraph reporters for speaking to Mr.
Pratt's mother, Mavis Pratt, who told the newspaper: "He was letting the UN
know what Iraq was doing, he was observing, so Iraq put a price on his head
and they had to get him out of there quickly."

The newspaper's story was groundless, Mr. Doolan said. The elderly Mrs. Pratt
was confronted through the fly-screen door by two young women saying they
wanted to help her son, he said.

"They (the reporters) seemed to have spun a bit of line and she's given them
bits of information, potted information, that she knows about Steve's
experience overseas," he said.
Huh? Has Downer actually proven anything here?

Forget Thy Mother and Ditto Thy Satellite Phone!

Apparently this was sufficient to eliminate mom because by April 26, in a
story on the Pratt/Wallace affair (the news stories generally left out Mr.
Jelen since he was only a Yugoslav) Time actually printed the following
sentence:

How the two aid workers came to be accused of spying has mystified their
families and friends.
Isn't this amazing?

Yes, one might argue, but perhaps 'Time' didn't know about the Mrs. Pratt's
statement...

I find that hard to believe. Since they were writing a story about
Australians accused of spying, wouldn't the 'Time" reporters read what the
Australian press (not the mention the AP) had published concerning the
arrests? How could they not know about Mavis Pratt's statement?

But let us concede, for the sake of argument, that Time didn't know.

The AAP certainly did know. After Pratt and Wallace were released in
September, the AAP published a story that tried to explain the supposedly
irrational Yugoslav conviction that the men were spies. In it, the AAP
admitted that:

Serb authorities had intercepted Pratt's reports on troop movements,
but added that these reports:

were designed to help Aid agencies, not NATO's air strikes.
How could anyone think otherwise? the Yugoslav authorities must be paranoid.

AAP adds:

There were other allegations that Pratt spied on Iraq for the United Nations
while he was working there for CARE Australia.
These "other allegations" were the ones raised by Mrs. Pratt. Does the AAP
see fit to mention her name? It does not. Instead it goes on to answer the
anonymous allegations:

...the Army said Pratt had never undertaken intelligence work during his
military career...
Do you find this convincing? If Pratt was a spy would you expect the
Australian Army to admit it?

Arguments like this have no merit as arguments. If you isolate them from the
larger text, they look ridiculous. But within the context of a barrage of
propaganda, they do have an effect. Here's how it works:

The AAP and other Western media take meaningless statements that sound like
arguments. They put this empty babble in the appropriate place for real
arguments. They string several such arguments together and they do this over
and over again and in this way, by heaping one pro-establishment
pseudo-argument on top of another (though never offering real evidence) the
reader is trained into a sort of glaze, thought dissipates, the proper
impression is planted and lingers.

Filing for ethical bankruptcy

The AAP story closes with an amazing statement. Referring to Peter Wallace,
who had just been released along with Steve Pratt, the article states that:

His family, like Pratt's, were shocked when he was accused of being a spy.
(Our emphasis. AAP General News, Sept. 2, 1999)
Is it unreasonable to suggest that CARE, the mass media and the Australian
government had fashioned a convenient cover story and Mrs. Pratt statement
did not fit, so it was edited out?

Here is the hyperlink to the SBS TV show:
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/transcript.html

* To browse articles at Emperors-clothes please click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com
Click here to send this article to a friend

If you would like to help Emperors-Clothes... please click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/howyour.htm to use our secure server. The
Internet search tools we use for research are paid for by donations. If you
would like to send a check, please mail it to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box
610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. Thanks.

www.tenc.net or www.emperors-clothes.com or on aol click on  <A
HREF="http://www.tenc.net/";>Click here: The Emperor's New Clothes</A>