Mark Gabrish Conlan/Zenger's Newsmagazine | 17.05.2003 12:21

Veteran legal and religious activist Daniel P. Sheehan will speak in San Diego Friday, May 23, 7 p.m. on “Our Current World Situation and The Question of Peace” at Montezuma Hall, Aztec Center, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego State University. The event is co-sponsored by the Peace and Democracy Task Force of the Unitarian Universalist Church along with Plan of Action in a Changing Era, and the San Diego branch of the Institute for Noetic Sciences. Admission is $5 for students, $10 general.

DANIEL SHEEHAN: Veteran Activist Speaks May 23, 24 in San Diego

DANIEL SHEEHAN:
Veteran Activist Speaks May 23, 24 in San Diego

interview by MARK GABRISH CONLAN
Copyright © 2003 by Mark Gabrish Conlan for Zenger’s Newsmagazine • Used by permission

Veteran legal and religious activist Daniel P. Sheehan will speak in San Diego Friday, May 23, 7 p.m. on “Our Current World Situation and The Question of Peace” at Montezuma Hall, Aztec Center, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego State University. The event is co-sponsored by the Peace and Democracy Task Force of the Unitarian Universalist Church along with Plan of Action in a Changing Era, and the San Diego branch of the Institute for Noetic Sciences. Admission is $5 for students, $10 general. The next day, Saturday, May 24 he will introduce the Institute’s three-day Southwest Regional Gathering at the California Institute of Human Sciences, 701 Garden View Court in Encinitas. Call (619) 424-7857 for further information.

Though Sheehan’s name is remembered today, if at all, mostly for his work as director of the Christic Institute in the late 1980’s and leader of its unsuccessful campaign to bring the leaders of the Iran-contra scam to justice in civil court, his résumé is a lot broader and deeper than that. Educated in both law and divinity at Harvard, Sheehan was one of the five legal counsels for the New York Times during its fight to publish the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and was also lead counsel in In re Pappas, a major constitutional case that established the right of American journalists to shield their sources from federal or state grand juries. He was also involved in the prisoners’ rights movement in New York state and was at Attica State Prison during the 1971 riot, attempting to negotiate a peaceful solution, when then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller ordered authorities to take down the prison by force, resulting in a massacre.

Sheehan also was involved in Watergate as a mamber of F. Lee Bailey’s law firm, which represented Watergate burglar James McCord at the time he wrote his famous letter to Judge John Sirica that blew the cover-up wide open. He worked on the case of the late Karen Silkwood and won a judgment invalidating the federal limits on liability for owners and operators of nuclear power plants — thus effectively ending the expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. Sheehan also represented religious leaders in the so-called sanctuary movement of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s that sought to protect refugees fleeing the U.S.-supported political violence against political dissidents in Guatemala and El Salvador.

When Sheehan emerged as the head of the otherwise unknown Christic Institute and filed his lawsuit against the Iran-contra perpetrators, he got surprisingly little support from many Leftists who thought his campaign was ill-advised and doomed to disaster. At Southern Oregon University last January 9 he gave this account of the defeat: “The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, ended up giving prosecutorial immunity to 14 of our defendants, and then ended up indicting six people. Then, when George Bush, Sr. lost the election in 1992, one of the last few things he did before leaving office — the first thing he did was pardon all of the people the special prosecutor had indicted. The next thing he did was order the head of the Internal Revenue Service, who is a political appointee, to revoke the 501(c)(3) charter of the Christic Institute, that happened to cause all this trouble and name all these people and push everybody around and make them look into this big investigation. …

“Once the tax-exempt charter had been revoked, the court appointed by Richard Nixon, the chief federal judge in Miami — Judge J. Lawrence King, appointed by Richard Nixon at the request of Bebe Rebozo, who had formerly sat as a member of the board of directors of Meyer Lansky’s National Bank of Miami — summarily dismissed our case and told us that we could not appeal. And if we attempted to appeal, that he was going to impose a bond upon us of $1.6 million for having to pay all the attorneys’ fees for the other side. But if we would just go away, that we wouldn’t have to pay any such fine.

“But we insisted upon appealing, and he imposed this $1.6 million bond on us, so that we went out to a lot of you and asked for contributions on an emergency basis to pay the bond, and we mortgaged all of our buildings all across the country, and all of our equipment and everything. We put the bond up, we pursued the appeal, it went to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, and the three-judge panel was appointed to hear this appeal. Judge Vance, the chief judge of the three-judge panel, was assassinated one week later. He was killed with a letter bomb that was sent to his home, giving George Bush — as his final act, before leaving office — the power to appoint a replacement.

“He appointed Stanley Birch, Jr., a man who had never been a judge a day in his life. He in fact was a major contributor to the George Bush campaign, and in fact was the patent lawyer for the Cabbage Patch Dolls. He chaired the three-judge panel and just threw a fit when we walked into the courtroom, saying, ‘You should have known that you never would have been able to pursue this type of a case! These charges you’ve made against these people are basically criminal in their nature, and the Justice Department has the exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute criminally, and you are attempting to usurp the exclusive jurisdiction of the Justice Department, and therefore it was an outrage that you should file these types of claims.’ He sustained the judgment of the court below … and required that we pay all $1.6 million — which the Christic Institute did, and then immediately had our 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charter revoked.”

Sheehan was saved by an unlikely new sponsor: former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev. From 1995 to 2000 he directed a “Strategic Initiative to Identify the New Global Paradigm” at the Gorbachev Foundation’s State of the World forum. In this capacity, Sheehan recalled, he “met with major religious leaders throughout the world and secular government heads, former presidents and secretaries of state, secretaries of defense and others, to try to identify the new principles of a new paradigm that would replace anti-Communism and anti-capitalism as the primary new organizing principle for major global institutions after the Cold War.” Since the end of this project in 2000 Sheehan has continued this work as director of the New Paradigm Institute of the Cambridge Institute for the Study of New World Views. He is also a major advisor to the Democratic Presidential campaign of Ohio Congressmember Dennis Kucinich.

Zenger’s: We are in a society where the conservative world-view is becoming so ascendant, it controls the entire government, virtually the entire media, and the Right is looking for and hunting down the last pockets of resistance in the religious community, in academia and in the media.

Daniel Sheehan: It’s actually a reactionary world-view. The distinctions between the merely conservative world-view and the reactionary world-view are very real and very specific. They have an entirely different cosmology. They have an entirely different theory of the role of the human family in the unfolding of the universe. They have an entirely different theory of the mode of ethical reasoning that ought to be applied in evaluating different policies. They’re very different from mere conservatives, or from moderates.

The long history of the Republican party has predominantly been one of a moderate to conservative world-view. Everett Dirksen and all the old classic Republicans, Eisenhower and the others, are not the same as the reactionaries. McCarthy types was an extreme reactionary. Right now you have William Kristol, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and those guys, who are unabashed advocates of a reactionary world-view, who have basically hijacked the administration of President George W. Bush.

It’s unfortunate because George Bush, Sr., who was in fact more of a conservative, went about getting his son chosen to be the Republican nominee for the Presidency basically to have him undertake a full additional term to carry out his father’s conservative world-view. He picked him because he was so malleable and would likely submit to his father’s proposals. Unfortunately, William Kristol and these other reactionaries have surrounded Bush Jr., and he has followed them in this much more reactionary world-view. So it’s not hard to predict where they’re going and what the policies are that they’re going to be advocating here if they get actually elected in 2004.

Zenger’s: I know you’ve described the reactionary world-view as essentially one in which might makes right and the strongest prevail.

Sheehan: Not exactly. The might-makes-right world-view is the authoritarian world-view. It’s a world-view that gravitates towards autocracy, one particular all-powerful person like Genghis Khan or Caesar. The reactionary world-view is a dialectical one which actually believes that a whole community — a larger tribal community — derives its primary value from engaging in a dialectical struggle with some ultimate “Other” tribe. That’s how they generate their sense of self-value.

The authoritarian world-view is that the whole world is complete chaos, there’s a threat of chaos looming everywhere, and therefore we all have to be willing to give up our own personal freedom to some very strong individual who will in fact dictate to us what we have to do in order to be safe in an otherwise chaotic and unpredictable world. Now that is much more kind of crazed than the reactionary world-view, which actually believes that it can discern a dialectical pattern underlying reality.

Ironically enough— it’s one of those little-known facts about a well-known subject — it turns out that both state capitalists — fascists — and state Communists are both reactionary world-views. The struggle between capitalism and Communism was a combat between two equal adversaries who were adherent to the reactionary world-views. The fascists believed that the primary struggle was going on between the Übermensch, the elite Caucasian super-race, the pinnacle of all biological evolution, in dialectical struggle against the aboriginal people. The Communists believed that the fundamental dialectical struggle goes on between the capitalist class and the proletariat: a class struggle as distinct from a racial struggle. But both of them adhered to the same basic world-view. The Communists were not in fact any further Left than the state capitalists were. You have to go to the Left of both of them to come to a mere conservative world-view.

Zenger’s: One of the things we’ve seen since the September 11 attack is the reactionaries have said, “Well, see? This proves it. We are right that we can no longer debate that the world is in a state of constant struggle. This has proved it. They have declared war on us. They hate us. They hate us because we’re rich and free, and all this stuff. This is no longer open for debate. We can no longer ignore the threat. All we can talk about is how best to deal with it.”

Sheehan: It’s important to remember they were talking about that before September 11. If you read the report of the Project for a New American Century, you will see that these exact same people were saying the exact same stuff back in 1991. They were aggressively advocating all of the same policies. It was all set forth fully, in writing, by Bill Kristol and all these other people, advocating that we had to undertake a military attack against Saddam Hussein. There was actual discussion going on within the Bush administration, right after they came into power in January of 2001, of how and when they were going to launch a military strike against Iraq. They were planning it, and they were sending military information to the Pentagon to start running war-game scenarios and everything. So the question of who it was that was planning to attack whom becomes very important.

Zenger’s: They could come back and say, “Well, yes, certainly we were talking about that before 9/11, because before 9/11 we thought this was how the world works. Now we know this is how the world works. Now we know we were right all along.”

Sheehan: What they were actually saying was that they knew it beforehand. They knew it so much that they were getting ready to do it. You’ve got an administration with the most powerful military in the world planning a massive military assault in Middle East, and they’re giving instructions to the Pentagon to start preparing for this whole thing. Then all of a sudden the other side attacks. That’s what they call “pre-emptive warfare,” which is exactly the policy that the administration is endorsing — ironically enough.

That’s really what September 11 was about. If it had gone according to plan, September 11 would have been substantially more effective than it was. If the third plane had actually hit the Pentagon directly, instead of just off to the side, it would have knocked out the entire air-conditioning system for the Pentagon complex. It would have melted down the central computer system for the entire United States military. And if the fourth plane had actually gone on and hit the White House and/or the Capitol Building and killed those people, it would have been a dramatically effective attack against the most powerful economic and military power in the world.

It’s that old adage that if one is going to shoot the king, you’d better get him. And they didn’t. But if they had — if they had killed a substantial portion of the American Congress and had blown up the White House and had melted down the entire computer system of the United States Pentagon and totally pulverized the twin towers of the World Trade Center, that would have been a substantial and effective pre-emptive military strike on the part of the Islamic world.

So, while we all uniformly condemn what they did, it’s important to keep a perspective on what it was they were responding to. They had every reason in the world to know that this Bush administration, under the influence of Project for a New American Century, was in fact actively planning major military operations in the Middle East whether these people responded or not. So they planned and attempted to carry out what they thought was the most effective possible thing that they could do to try to blunt that type of military operation — which, of course, they failed to do, and suffered the consequences of a highly mobilized and still very effective U.S. military.

Zenger’s: I still have the feeling sometimes — it comes from the famous line in George Orwell’s 1984 — that it’s possible that the victory of the reactionary world-view will be so total that there simply won’t be the words or the thoughts to express any alternatives.

Sheehan: There’s no doubt whatsoever that the advocates of this reactionary world-view believe that is, in effect, what ought to happen: that all of these kinds of subversive, insidious types of ideas ought to be eliminated from public discourse. You can see it on the Fox channel. If you watch the Fox channel, you’ll see that anybody who is invited to be on the Fox channel who doesn’t share their reactionary world-view is just harangued, browbeaten and insulted, to the point where those people can’t even get in a full sentence. I don’t know why anybody that believes in anything other than kind of total state fascism is so crazy as to go on the Fox network, because that’s what they do.

Their news is that way too. They have commentators that basically stand up and just spew at everybody about this kind of Right-wing reactionary world-view, and how anybody who even raised a question about it is unpatriotic and ought to be hunted down and purged, like Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and all the others who get disinvited even to come and participate in social events. [Robbins and Sarandon were disinvited from a showing of their film Bull Durham at the Baseball Hall of Fame because of their anti-war political activities.]

Zenger’s: Yet another thing Orwell wrote in 1984 is that in order to maintain this state of constant combat, the enemy has to be kept alive; that in order to sustain the liberal-bashing the Fox channel does to its audience, there have to be liberals to bash.

Sheehan: That doesn’t necessarily follow, because one of the things you see in a dynamic like this is that they move farther and farther and farther to the Right all the time. They constantly need to have an ultimate “Other,” some ultimate “Other” enemy, and as they eliminate the larger groups that might resist them, they spend the same exact energy going after the smaller and smaller groups. But they never stop. After they’ve eliminated anyone who genuinely disagrees with them, they start going after people who don’t even disagree with them. Or they start going after people who they suspect might possibly disagree with them. Eventually they turn on themselves and start eating away at their own tails. They’ll start working their way up through their own ranks of eliminating people who are perceived to be less and less orthodox.

We’ve seen this before. This world-view has manifested itself a number of times in the past, but most recently in the Third Reich in Germany but also in Stalin’s Russia. It’s the exact same world-view. So that’s what we really see happening, and that’s why it’s so important that they not be allowed to really be elected to office. You know, it’s one thing for them to have gotten in by chicanery and artifice, you know, by having the seven of the nine Justices who were appointed by Dad’s administration vote them in.

But it’s another thing for the American public, with full knowledge of what they stand for and what it is they intend to do, actually to choose them. That’s why this November of 2004 is such an all-important choice on the part of the American people: that we know what they represent, what they stand for and what they intend to do. And so we owe it, not only to the world but to ourselves, to not allow these people to actually assert power under an actual political mandate.

Zenger’s: Do you really think Bush is beatable in 2004?

Sheehan: Yes.

Zenger’s: I mean, yes, his father got very popular after he won a war against Iraq; and yes, is father eventually lost. But his father didn’t have 9/11.

Sheehan: His father wouldn’t have lost if Ross Perot hadn’t run against him. It’s important to remember that. People always make these kinds of facile statements, “Oh, his dad lost, too, after he became so popular.” But the fact of the matter is he didn’t lose. If you had given him the 18 or 19 percent of the vote that went to Perot over to Bush, where most of it clearly would have gone, Bush would have been back in again.

So Bush had the first two terms, where he basically ran the entire administration under the Reagan/Bush administration; he had his own term; and he would have had a second full term. So he would have had four full terms, and now he’s come back in to try to get a fifth term. And, strangely enough, his son has gone south on him and moved to the Right and established a completely reactionary regime.

Bush II has in fact damaged the long-term conservative agenda that was trying to build this alliance with the G-7 and bring in Russia now that it’s spun off its ethnic provinces, the Islamic and Asian provinces. They wanted to bring in the Caucasian Russia to join with the other Caucasian nations of the G-8 and they would establish a major thousand-year regime of running the entire world. So this was a very, very dangerous long-term agenda.

Zenger’s: So this is what Bush Sr. meant when he talked about the “New World Order.”

Sheehan: That was exactly what he meant. That was the New World Order. It is articulated in great detail by Samuel Huntington in his The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, that he published in Foreign Affairs magazine and later in his book. It’s very clear what they had in mind. And, ironically enough, this administration has done more damage to that long-term conservative foreign policy agenda than mostly anything that Al Gore would have done. Because Al Gore would have tended basically to go along with it, just like Bill Clinton did.

The irony of it all is that if we can put them out of office in 2004, this in the long run may have been of benefit to us, as long as we do not retreat into endorsing the affirmative conservative foreign and military policy of the Bush Sr. administration — which is, of course, what John Kerry is doing. John Kerry, an historical liberal, has made this tactical decision that he will not take on the President in this area of foreign policy and military policy. He’ll just accept that, and he’ll stand up in front of the American public in a debate down in South Carolina and say, “We have to export capitalism and democracy into the rest of the world.” Which is the same exact agenda of Samuel P. Huntington and the advocates of the “clash of civilizations.”

Zenger’s: And of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson before them.

Sheehan: Right! Exactly right. They maintained the conservative alliance, that old idea, “The differences between the Republican and the Democratic party stop at the shoreline.” Our generation, the largest and best-educated generation in the history of the world, needs to join in alliance with the millennial generation, which is the second biggest and second-best educated generation in the history of the world, to form a major alliance in which we replace this conservative and reactionary foreign policy with a genuinely moderate, and then progressive, foreign policy, which establishes a more globalized, bio-regionally based community that is self-reliant and sustainable and does not in fact wreak havoc on the environment, and sets up a system of trade and barter through the Internet, systems that are balanced and sustainable for everyone.

There’s a very clear vision of what the new paradigm agenda ought to be. There’s a consensus within our generation, and within the millennial generation, between the two of us, as to what this new paradigm agenda should be. That’s what the New Paradigm Institute is about, is articulating that and say, look at this. It’s clear to all of us what needs to be done here, so let’s stop wasting our time caught in dialectical conflict with the reactionaries, and let’s move forward with this progressive world-view and articulate what it is, and point out exactly what the steps are that we propose taking; how much it will cost; what its time period would be to get implemented; what the kinds of benefits are which will be derived by the average people in the country and by the rest of the people in the world. That’s what we need to get about doing. But it’s essential that we get these people out of office. So there’s a short-term set of objectives that we have to do here.

Zenger’s: Given that “these people” are now in near-total control of our political system and our economy and our media, what do we do about it?

Sheehan: Well, I think what we do about it is, first of all, we gather together and we articulate what the principles and programs and policies of this paradigm are, so the people can understand that this is practical, it’s intelligent, it’s cost-efficient; that they can see the concrete steps that can be taken. Then we quantify what the degree of impact is going to be on most people. And the fact is, for the vast majority of people in the United States, the impact is going to be completely positive.

The fact that the top 5 percent of the people, the wealthiest people in the country, who have got more money than they know what to do with, are going to make less profits for a period of time, even though they scream and holler and will do everything they can to try to coerce the political system not to allow this to happen, the fact of the matter is that the imposition of that type of a cost at the top levels of the wealthy people of our country is not something that our country can’t go through. We can go through that, and the benefits that will be made available to the vast majority of the people will be conspicuous. That’s the first thing we need to do: to make it very clear, very concrete, what the steps are that we need to take.

Secondly, we need to in fact mount a major movement in the United States, very similar to the movement that was mounted by the Chautauqua movement back in the 1890’s, when they were faced with this kind of overwhelming power by the trusts, the land barons, the railroad barons, you know, the major industries that had authorized and were exploiting child labor and women’s labor, and opposing the suffragette movement and the civil rights movement; that the situation that we’re facing right now is very, very analogous to the situation our country faced in the 1890’s. The corporate interests had, in 1869, got passed new laws on corporations that immunized the owners of the stock, and immunized the company, and immunized the board of directors, from any type of direct liability for imposing costs and damages on people. They set up entire exceptions to the normal standards of the common-law justice of Western civilization to stimulate these major corporations.

What we were facing at that time is very analogous to what we are facing now. The advocates of the reactionary world-view, who were in fact espousing “Manifest Destiny” and the “White Man’s Burden” and this entire colonialist/imperialist foreign policy. This is exactly the situation that we’re facing now because the proponents of the same exact world-view are now in power. So what happened was the United Methodist Board of Homeland Ministries invited all of the high-school social-studies teachers throughout the entire United States to come to a summer camp, bring their families and spouses and come to a summer camp, up in Chautauqua, New York, that was owned by the Methodist Church, and they would have a discussion and try to explain to people what the consequences of these policies were, and what concrete alternative policies were.

Tens of thousands of people came and overwhelmed the entire town of Chautauqua, New York, and they had to build tents and other houses for them and stuff all around the area. They held that entire summer session, and the following year, they had the people who’d come to the first session set up local and regional Chautauquas all throughout the country, and the exact same thing happened again. Every one of them, virtually, were overwhelmed by people coming to try to find out what to do about this. It spread into the Chautauqua movement that generated the original progressive movement in the United States back in the 1890’s.

This gave rise to the suffragette movement, to W. E. B. DuBois and the original African-American civil-rights movement. Clarence Darrow talked at these things, and Susan B. Anthony. All of these people of that previous idealist generation rose up and participated in this movement, and it articulated the agenda that gave rise to the progressive movement — which was later translated, by the civic generation that followed that particular idealist generation, into power. Franklin Roosevelt put a substantial amount of these proposals into effect, when in fact they were faced with the inevitable social crisis that occurred as a result of those policies.

What we want to do is say, look, we do not want to wait for this massive social crisis to befall us, and the consequences of this kind of avarice and greed. We want to get out in front of the power curve. We want to show people that this has happened before in the past, and we do not want to have the type of economic collapse and military conflict that arises from this type of policy. What we want to do is get out ahead of them. So we want to establish a Chautauqua movement that will move out into the country and set up these Chautauqua types of sessions, where we can use the Internet for this. We can use the video streaming over the Internet.

We need to move out into the country and say, look, this set of conditions is not necessary. There are alternatives, and here is the new paradigm alternative. This is what the new paradigm administration will look like. This is what our policies are. This is what our foreign policy is. This is what our economic policy is. This is what our environmental and energy policies look like. This is how much they’re going to cost you. And we have people who will come and sing, we have people who read poetry, we have people who give speeches.

Thirdly, we have to generate a whole new generation of potential new political leaders in this country. We have to raise these people up from the millennial generation and raise them up from the boomer generation. We have to put these people — not people who have plighted their troth with the vision of the people from the World War II generation in order to come to power, in the way that Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry have done. There are very few of them around right now. Dennis Kucinich is one of them. Dennis Kucinich is one such person who has stood against the Enrons, the people who tried to take over the electric power utility in Cleveland, back in 1968. This is what we need to do. That’s the third step, is raising up this new political leadership.

Fourth, we have to be prepared to govern. We have to make those kinds of hard sacrifices. Those of us who thought we could spend our grown-up years writing books and going around seeing the rest of the world, we’re going to have make the sacrifice of devoting ourselves to the task of governing. We have to restructure the entire governmental institutions and policies and programs of the United States to promote and foster this new-paradigm world-view, and we have to build the kinds of international institutions that are in fact going to move away from this process of “globalism” and move back to bioregional development.

This is the type of model we need to look to. There’s been substantial work done on these things. There are whole Ph.D. theses done by people at Yale and Columbia and Harvard and Princeton on this type of an alternative economic models. It can be done on a large scale or on a small scale. We don’t have to attack other people. All we have to do is to construct these alternative communities and have them function as attractors: have people be attracted to these new communities and grow an alternative reality, a green reality. That’s what we need to do.

e-mail:: mgconlan@earthlink.net
Homepage:: http://

Question 19.05.2003 11:03 You say Sheehan was at Attica State Prison during the 1971 riot, attempting to negotiate a peaceful solution, when then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller ordered authorities to take down the prison by force, resulting in a massacre. Dacajeweiah "Splitting The Sky" aka John Hill, who was a principal leader of the Atticka rebellion, spoke at the IAC in San Diego yesterday. I asked him if he knows who Daniel Sheehan is. He said he heard of him. I asked him if he knew that Sheehan was a negotiator. His reply was: "Not that I'm aware of." I explained to him that I'd read your article which stated that Sheehan was a negotiator. His reply was: "Something don't sound right brother." I find it odd that Dacajeweiah didn't know that Sheehan was a negotiator during the rebellion. Dacajeweiah, in his long speech, didn't use any notes, yet he recalled fine details including the names of many people and places. He did not impress me as being someone with a bad memory. I have to agree with Dacajeweiah that something doesn't sound right. Can you confirm that Sheehan really was a negotiator at Attica in 1971 during the rebellion? me Location Change 20.05.2003 21:57 Sheehan's local appearance on Friday, May 23 has been changed to the Scottish Rite Center, 1896 Camino del Rio South, Mission Valley, between the Mission Center and Texas exits off I-8. Various locations have been circulated for this event but this one is correct. The time is 6 p.m. (registration), 7 p.m. (program). Admission is $10 general, $6 students, free to people who are registered for the Institute of Noetic Sciences conference that weekend in Encinitas. The contacts for additional information are John Falchi, (619) 222-6036,  jpfalchi@aol.com; or Johanna Argoud, (619) 424-7857,  hanniargoud@yahoo.com Mark Gabrish Conlan e-mail:: mgconlan@earthlink.net May 23rd audio? 25.05.2003 13:07 Anyone, per chance, get a recording of his talk Friday? If you can make mp3 files it would be appreciated if you post! Thanks :-) jack Listen to Daniel 25.05.2003 20:54 I have been following Daniel Sheehan's career and message for years and he is one of the few people of influence left on the planet that makes any sense. He exposes the truth and offers logical solutions for humanities problems with a global vision far surpassing that of anyone I have yet see run for office in this country. A brilliant mind who should be highly regarded for his work towards securing a better future for our children. Lisa Ghariani e-mail:: longshortrose@aol.com Demonstrable proof 23.02.2004 11:11 I am aware of Mr. Sheehan's work with with Dr.John Mack relating to abductions, and Dr. Greer relating to the disclosure project and have attended two of his presentations. Searching the web for an email address for Mr. Sheehan, I found your site not knowing exactly what year this visit in San diego is planned for. If you can provide me with Mr. Sheehan' address, I would appreciate it. As a 30 years student of the alien visitors issue, it is my view that the world politic evolves around this ignored contingency. The systematic cover-up cannot end with testimonials or circumstantial evidences of the reality of these alien visitors, it must be done on legal grounds that are not controlled by the clique wanting to prepare humanity for a confrontation with "space invaders"! I believe that I could help Mr. Sheehan define the legal grounds where the battle against the forces of obsucrantism can be conducted and were seekers of truth can prevail. Jacques Lecouturier e-mail:: jamaleco@pacbell.net