". . .please understand that should you take any further action -- such as those apparently alluded to in your letter -- which may adversely affect ASH, we will not hesitate to take the type of legal action against you and/or your company we have taken in the past with regard to others who have taken similar steps."

It should be obvious that "any further action" by me can, and under the circumstances does, include my cooperation with a prospective federal investigation. Should I now do so, I understand that John Banzhaf III, Esq. will sue me, and that John F. Banzhaf III, Esq. would, therefore, wreak economic devastation on what little I have.

The threat of economic devastation, and/or of being personally discredited, is just as real as a threat of being physically battered. Frankly, one can get over being beaten up in a few months. What you threaten can have devastating consequences for the rest of one's life. Clearly you have the means to immediately carry out your threat, and have cited past activities by yourself and ASH to emphasize the serious reality that you will do so. This new threat, as well as the fact that you have the means to immediately carry it out, increases my alarm and concern I am now more frightened of anti-tobacco than I was before I wrote you, as you have personally added the real threat of economic devastation to the implied threat of being poisoned by cyanide.

Please be advised that I take the threat to the well-being of myself and, now, my company, should I take any further actions, as seriously as I have taken, and do take, the threat of lethal violence by anti-tobacco activists against my person. Under the circumstances of our respective communications, I regard your threats of action against me and/or my company as clear and intentional obstruction of justice involving a prospective federal criminal inquiry. This is a matter now separate and apart from my original complaint and its two related supplements.

I stand properly intimidated. Now, what does that have to do with what is right and wrong?

The ASH web site says to me, and many other people, that John Banzhaf III, Esq. and ASH support lethal poisoning of, taking children from, and suing, people who make personal choices about legal products that John Banzhaf III, Esq. does not approve of. Has it occurred to you that publicly communicating an implicit threat that one can be poisoned with cyanide, if they engage in the lawful behavior of consuming a legal product that you disapprove of, is just plain wrong? Has the thought entered your mental processes that forcing a choice on someone, on pain of lethal poisoning, losing their children, or being sued by wealthy and powerful professional activists, is just plain wrong, let alone illegal? So this is how public policy of the United States of America is now decided, by which Esq. has the greatest clout to sue? I think not.

Perhaps, Mr. Banzhaf, you are a skilled attorney, and I am only a layman. Perhaps your undergraduate and post-graduate education is quite impressive, stacked up against my high school diploma. And perhaps your political clout and anti-tobacco wealth make you a very important campaign donor and person at the White House, compared to my common and ordinary life as a single dad here in Redmond, Washington. All these things are probably true.

But, Mr. Banzhaf, a few elementary realities do not escape me. These are important issues as they relate to my personal safety and well-being, as well as public policy of the United States:

First, it is apparent that you and ASH are, to my mind, intentionally fostering and promoting a hostile environment that is directed against a readily identifiable "target group" of persons who lawfully consume legal tobacco products.

Second, I know, from reading your and ASH's web-site, that the hostile environment you foster includes crafted statements that I may lose custody of my son.

Third, I know that information carried on your and ASH's web site includes promotion of the availability of a tested and proven means to engage in the domestic terrorism crime of mass cyanide product tampering of cigarette packages.

Fourth, I know that the hostile environment you foster includes on your web site detailed instructions as to how anti-tobacco activists can use and manipulate the law by filing complaints to enforce your anti-tobacco agenda, and encourages them to do so.

Fifth, I know that the hostile environment you promote unfavorably stereotypes, and negatively labels, persons who smoke.

Sixth, I know that you are aggressively lobbying congress, in fact even soliciting funds from ASH supporters, regarding the fact and terms of the proposed tobacco settlements.

Seventh, congressional approval or enactment of a tobacco settlement, without the provision of reducing future tobacco company liability arising from class action lawsuits (as you advocate and are lobbying for), would cost you and other anti-tobacco activist lawyers money.

The above seven facts are inescapable realities, if one merely reads your web site.

Mr. Banzhaf, to my mind you are in the professional activist business of anti-tobacco. This fact, together with the unique facts of our unfortunate situation, distinguish you and ASH from others. As unsavory and socially objectionable as your chosen career may be, I guess you do have the right to make a living from legal fees garnered by promoting toilet tongue about your neighbors, members of your community, and your fellow citizens who lawfully consume legal products.

But, Mr. Banzhaf, your legal rights do not include promoting an implicit threat that one can be lethally poisoned if they continue to consume a legal product that you disapprove of. And your legal rights do not include making explicit threats to the well-being of myself, my son, and, now, my company, should I cooperate with a prospective federal investigation.

Fundamentally, my complaint as filed with the FBI is about a central and extremely important issue: the scope of behavior and types of conduct that professional activists who operate in coordination with the powers of central government may engage in. Clearly, the professional activist anti-tobacco enbterprise, under the direct supervision of the the federal government, has had a free ride of unbridled power to manufacture its own "statistics", as well as to bully, intimidate, discredit, and disparage anyone who opposes their agenda or questions their "facts".

We have now "progressed" to the point where promoting the availability of a tested and proven plan to administer lethal doses of cyanide in the name of public health seems to be acceptable anti-tobacco activist behavior. As I said during our telephone conversation of October 25, 1997, when you promote the availability of a plan for mass cyanide poisoning, you are out of control.

With this background, we proceed to other matters in your letter of December 12, 1997.

I note that a large portion of your letter addresses issues of author's and publisher's rights and/or liability. I was clear on page 3 of my letter to you of November 29, 1997 that my concerns were not about first amendment rights of authors or publishers. I also mentioned that those issues are currently before the court, 4th Circuit, in the matter involving "Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors". Therefore, the majority of your letter is irrelevant to the central issues that I raised with you. The content of your letter regarding author's and publisher's rights and/or liability is a non sequitur. I, therefore, do not address them in this response.

Lest we lose sight of the central issue and on point facts, I restate the issues from page 3, paragraph 4, of my letter dated November 29, 1997:

"What this issue is about is promotion of a tested and proven plan for cyanide product tampering of tobacco products by an organization (ASH), and an individual (John Banzhaf, Esq.), who are federally subsidized and who derive professional and/or economic benefits from their anti-tobacco efforts. To my mind, the promotion of Mr. Freudberg's book by you and ASH is nothing short of domestic terrorism in support of enrichment from anti-tobacco activities and its related tobacco settlement. The fact that this terrorism is actively supported by President Clinton adds immeasurably to the fear that it engenders."

Let us not obfuscate the central issue: the fact that you and ASH openly promote on your anti-tobacco web site the availability of a tested and proven plan for cyanide tampering of tobacco products causes me extreme and ongoing fear for my physical safety and personal well-being. My fear is amplified by the implicit support of that threat by the US government, due to the fac that you have been honored at the White House by President Clinton. My fear is genuine and ongoing. My fear is reasonable in view of the escalating pattern of violence directed against persons who smoke, as brought to your attention in brief on page 1 of my letter dated November 29, 1997. My fear for my physical safety and personal well-being is directly related to the conduct of John F. Banzhaf III, Esq. and the anti-tobacco enterprise Action On Smoking And Health (ASH), as well as its Board of Directors. As stated above, your reponse to my letter increases my fear.

In view of these circumstances, I have requested in writing that you and ASH take two simple steps: 1. cease promoting the availability of a tested and proven plan for cyanide tampering of tobacco products on your web site, and 2. publish on the ASH web site for an equal period a statement that you, ASH, and its board of directors do not support, condone, or approve of assault upon, or violating the civil rights of, persons who lawfully consume legal tobacco products.

Your, and ASH's, response has been to say that you will not remove promotion of a tested and proven plan for cyanide tampering of tobacco products from your web site, and that you and ASH refuse to state publicly that you do not condone, support, or approve of assault upon, or violation of the civil rights of, persons who lawfully consume legal tobacco products. As I specifically referenced the Board of Directors of ASH in my letter, I presume that you speak for all members of the ASH Board of Directors in your rejection of both of my demands.

So where we sit at present is that ASH will continue its ongoing assault upon me and millions of others who lawfully consume legal tobacco products, and that neither ASH nor its Executive Director will take an affirmative public position to denounce or stop the escalating pattern of violence directed against persons who smoke. At least we know where we stand.

It is appropriate that we also address the factual errors in your letter at this point. You state in item 9. of your letter:

"It is also very clear that none of the alleged acts of violence against smokers which you mention in your letter seem to have any resemblance whatsoever to the plot of the instant novel."

Does product tampering with explosive devices resulting in burn injuries to smokers bear any resemblance? The May 24, 1997 Washington Post article was about cigarette package product tampering. I presume that would be obvious, given the context of my letter. In fact, details of those four incidents in Virginia would necessarily be the same as described by Mr. Freudberg.

The Virginia incidents would involve the opening and resealing of cigarette packages. Mr. Freudberg discusses that in his book. The Virginia incidents would involve the insertion of a dangerous substance into the product contained in the package. Mr. Freudberg discusses that in his book. The Virginia incidents would require the substitution of tampered packages for normal packages in a retail store. Mr. Freudberg discusses that. The only material difference between the real tobacco product tampering crimes reported by the Washington Post and those written about by Mr. Freudberg is the choice of inserting explosives or cyanide into cigarette packages.

This is to say nothing of the fact that Mr. Freudberg's book could very well give some anti-tobacco wingnut the idea to commit the cyanide product tampering crime in the first place. We already have news reports of anti-tobacco zealots battering pregnant women, beating unconscious elderly men, physically abusing their own kids, poisoning police cadets by force feeding

tobacco sandwiches, disrupting family relationships, and other outrageous behaviors. In view of these realities, who in their right mind could not, or would not, believe that some "anti" nut could go the final step of actually administering cyanide?

And it must be noted that the Virginia incidents were reported in May, 1997, seven months after the promotion for Mr. Freudberg's book appeared on the ASH web site. The Virginia incidents did occur in the interim since ASH posted the promotion. So, there are not only tobacco product tampering incidents strikingly similar to those described in Mr. Freudberg's work, but there are also incidents which have occurred subsequent to the appearance of the promotion for his work on the ASH web site.

If you would like to say, Mr. Banzhaf, that my fear is still unjustified because the Virginia cases only resulted in people being blown up or burned, not poisoned with cyanide, I guess you can do so. But that is not only ludicrous, it is specious. This is the type of hyper-technical fabrication that a lawyer would dream up. The rest of us in the real world would rather not be either blown up or poisoned. To say that explosive tobacco product tampering bears no resemblance whatsoever to cyanide tobacco product tampering defies both common sense and the facts.

Considering that you are in error on both issues (regarding both the fact and timing of similar tobacco product tampering incidents), I request that you reconsider immediately your response to my two requests. I, again, request that you remove the promotion for Mr. Freudberg's book from the ASH web site, and I request that you and ASH publish a statement on your web site that explicitly and affirmatively states you do not support, condone, or approve of any violence against, or violation of the civil rights of, persons who smoke. Under the present circumstances this seems to me to be a reasonable and warranted request.

You can wriggle, squirm, and slither around the facts in an activist trial lawyerly way all you want to, Mr. Banzhaf. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is an identifiable and escalating pattern of violence directed against persons who smoke, and that pattern of violence is directly attributable to nearly ten years and several hundred million dollars being committed to promoting intolerance of persons who smoke by a professional activist anti-tobacco enterprise in which you apparently participate. It is abundantly clear that this pattern of violence directed against persons who smoke includes actual and real cases of tobacco product tampering, and that this product tampering has been escalated from real explosives to, potentially, cyanide. To my mind this escalation is due, in part, to your and ASH's anti-tobacco promotion of a tested and proven plan to do so. I have asked, and again ask, that you stop contributing to this escalating pattern of violence directed against persons who smoke.

Under these conditions, expressing the fact that I live in a constant state of fear for the physical safety and personal well-being of myself and others who smoke is not only well-founded and reasonable, but it would also be preposterous to dismiss the evidence of violence against persons who smoke. Sufficient background information was communicated to you in my letter of November 29, 1997 to where that pattern of violence directed against persons who smoke cannot be reasonably discounted, and that this pattern seems to be escalating.

It is for these reasons that the "Product Safety Alert" to which I referred in my letter of November 29, 1997 has been posted on the Internet, and will be widely distributed to retail establishments that sell tobacco products. There is a real, genuine, and reasonable basis to believe that the physical safety of persons who smoke may be at risk from additional explosive, or cyanide, product tampering crimes. It is to disclose and reduce the risks of violence against persons who smoke that my efforts are directed.

You could help out with stopping the violence, you know. I believe that your public support of repudiating violence against smokers, and you stating that do not support violating the civil rights of persons who smoke, would have a broad and positive impact. This is due to your and

ASH's prominence in the anti-tobacco movement. Your prominence in anti-tobacco also supports a view that your refusal to speak out against violence, and your standing aside without commenting while others do the dirty work, fuels the domestic terrorism. It fuels domestic terrorism because it can be seen as your tacit and implicit support for violence against persons who smoke.

Considering that the crimes described by Mr. Freudberg involve the killing of hundreds of people, and that your promotion on the ASH web site makes it clear that Mr. Freudberg had enough cyanide in his possession to ". . . murder 2,500 people." (emphasis added), cyanide in the hands of anti-tobacco protestors becomes a weapon of mass destruction and an instrument of domestic terrorism. Cyanide in the possession of an anti-tobacco activist is no different than an AK-47 in the hands of an anti-abortion activist. How many incidents of assault, battery, and death do you need to understand this point?

Fortunately, the US Supreme Court made a definitive statement regarding the racketeering status of anti-abortion activists and Operation Rescue. Paticipating in an organized pattern of conduct which intentionally violates the civil rights of others can be construed to be racketeering, notwithstanding the fact that those associated with the "anti" enterprise may act out of personal convictions rather than a desire to make money.

Perhaps that precedent applies to Project ASSIST and anti-tobacco as well. We can start with the written decision by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) on December 12, 1989 that using activists to reduce public tolerance of smoking was the "state of the science" way to go. We can add the fact of formal and well funded organization of the anti-tobacco enterprise under the federally funded American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (Project ASSIST) on October 4, 1991. And we can carefully examine the anti-tobacco enterprise tobacco free coalition Action Plans as prepared under the nationwide coordination of the American Cancer Society (ACS), to be implemented starting October 1, 1993. Then we can look to the organization of others' efforts by individuals like yourself. We can look at this within the context of civil rights violations.

Finally, we can carefully examine the fruits of activists' labors in the fields of intolerance: the $368 billion dollar plus tobacco settlement. And we can watch you lobby congress to assure that the deal goes through, but without any protection of the tobacco industry from your personal brand intolerance for bucks: class action lawsuits.

In view of these realities, characterizing the anti-tobacco enterprise, its clear objective of promoting intolerance of persons who lawfuly consume legal tobacco products, and the pattern of violence against persons who smoke that it predictably creates, as organized, is well-founded. To say that implied threats of cyanide poisoning, loss of custody of one's children, and threats of economic devastation from professional activists' lawsuits, is terrorism, is an understatement. And to say that this is organized domestic terrorism for bucks is the only rational conclusion one can reach when watching the feeding frenzy for federal dollars and legal fees that we now have in progress over both the $368 billion attorneys general national tobacco settlement and the $11 billion Florida tobacco settlement.

And who pays for these multi-billion dollar settlements? You guessed it, not John Banzhaf III, Esq., Norman E. Kjono, the common guy who smokes. Who forks over the tens of billions in legal fees to John Banzhaf III, Esq. and his activist trial lawyer cronies? 62,000,000 people who lawfully consume legal tobacco products.

I wish to take strong exception to the distinction that you try to make between smoking and smokers in item 5. of your letter dated December 12, 1995. Cigarettes do not smoke themselves, people smoke cigarettes. It is a non sequitur to say that you are "antismokING, not antismokER". While that trite euphemism may give you some moral comfort to continue negatively labeling persons who lawfully consume legal tobacco products, it is irrelevant to the truth of day-to-day reality for those who smoke. It is a distinction without a difference.

In a similar fashion, cigarettes do not spike themselves with explosives or cyanide, criminals and terrorists do.

Merely diddling with words doesn't change the intent, purpose or hurtful nature of your judgemental pronouncements about your fellow citizens who smoke. The word diddling only demonstrates the bizarre rationalizations to which folks will go to justify behavior which they know is demeaning and hurtful to others, to begin with. Knock it off. You only embarrass yourself and other professional antis by demonstrating so clearly for the public that the whole scheme of anti-tobacco is based upon inflammatory sound bites, trite euphemisms, negative labels, unfavorable stereotypes, diddled words, and junk science. This sorry state of affairs occurred because NCI and ACS decided in writing years ago that promoting intolerance of smoking, and reducing public acceptance of tobacco use, was the way to go for public policy.

However noble professional anti-tobacco activists may convince themselves that their goals are, the fact remains that there is no justification at any time, or under any conditions, for intentionally setting out to hurt one's neighbors and fellow citizens through an orchestrated campaign of intolerance promotion. This is particularly egregious when it is done in pursuit of bucks.

Finally, we come to the obvious question of why you and ASH would reject the possibility of removing the promotion for Mr. Freudberg's book from the ASH web site.

I start with a few observations. ASH's review of the book in question is very different from a review of that same book by a newspaper or other book reviewer. Other organizations are in the business of doing just thatreviewing books. Certainly they can, and should do so. Reviewers provide useful services for both authors and readers. And, no, there should not be any restriction on reviews that those organizations choose to do. As I said in my letter, I have a deep respect for the first amendment rights of publishers and authors because I am a published author myself. That respect naturally extends itself to freedom of legitimate book reviewers to select works for review, and to express whatever views they have regarding those works, as they see fit to do.

ASH, on the other hand, is in the anti-tobacco business. ASH and John Banshaf III, Esq. secure economic and/or professional benefits from their anti-tobacco efforts. ASH and John Banshaf III, Esq. also operate as a part of, and/or in coordination with, other organizations that are part of the anti-tobacco enterprise. To my mind, ASH and John Banzhaf III, Esq. clearly support, and actively promote, public intolerance of persons who smoke.

Reducing public tolerance for smoking, and using activists persons or organizations such as yourself and ASH to do so, is explicitly addressed as an underlying purpose and premise of the anti-tobacco enterprise. This intolerance is explicitly clear in the "standards" written by NCI December 12, 1989, it is clearly set forth in the Requests for Proposals to prospective ASSIST states in 1989, it is explicit in the contracts executed with participating ASSIST states in 1990, and reducing public tolerance and acceptance of smoking is explicitly included in the anti-tobacco booklets such as Planning For a Tobacco Free Washington published under federal contract by the anti-tobacco enterprise in 1993. Moreover, those and other historical documents for anti-tobacco are also explicit that persons who smoke are unquestionably identified as a "target group".

So from at least 1989 through to today, the anti-tobacco enterprise has explicitly adopted and acted upon an established policy of promoting intolerance of a readily identifiable "target group" of US citizens: persons who smoke. And, inevitably, deliberately promoting intolerance of a "target group" does lead to violence directed against persons in that "target group".

It is the fact of your and ASH's anti-tobacco business, and your apparent embracing of the systematic promotion of intolerance of an identifiable "target group" of persons who smoke, among other issues, that distinguish you and ASH from legitimate book reviewers. It is also these distinguishing facts about you and ASH that gives rise to my strenuous objection to your and ASH's promotion of Mr. Freudberg's book, while at the same time I feel that it is entirely appropriate and proper for legitimate book reviewers to deal with his work as they see fit.

The nature of your web site readers also distinguishes you and ASH from legitimate book reviewers. Persons who read book reviews in newspapers are members of the general public who read those reviews to find out about books. I appreciate their interest in books, and I am certain that Mr. Freudberg and other writers appreciate it as well. Persons who read the ASH web site are, however, reading that web site for very different reasons. By and large, those persons are reading your web site to find anti-tobacco information, or to participate in anti-tobacco activities. As you say, they can get everything they need to fight tobacco in ASH's web site.

And along with the content of your and AHS's web site comes a full blown presentation of the underlying intolerance of the anti-tobacco enterprise's "target group" of choice: persons who

smoke. Everything from parents losing custody of their kids to "suing the bastards" can be found on the ASH web site. Not only that, but folks are encouraged on the ASH web site to file complaints, harass smokers, and turn in parents with anonomyous tips. Why, by gosh, there's even a tested and proven plan to cyanide poison those murders, the filthy smokers who reek and stink while spewing lethal carginogenic secondhand smoke pollution that contains 4,000 chemicals!!!

The importance of this distinction between a reader of a legitimate newspaper book review and one who reads your review on the ASH web site is illustrated by a simple question: who would be vastly more inclined to actually carry out the threat of lethal cyanide product tampering with tobacco products? The choices are a member of the general public selected at random because they ran across a review of Mr. Freudburg's work in a general circulation newspaper, or an anti-tobacco activist volunteer who reads ASH's web site and subscribes to the underlying premise of intolerance for smokers. We need look no further than those already dead and wounded at abortion clinics to answer that question. Orchestrated intolerance always leads to violence, and those who practice intolerance are those who are most predisposed to violence.

So, Mr. Banzhaf, we are left with the opening question to this section: why don't you just remove the promotion of Mr. Freudburg's book from your web site? You point out that the promotion is no longer newsworthy in your letter to me of December 12, 1997. You also mention in that letter that your promotion of Mr. Freudburg's work is only one of hundreds, if not thousands, of individual news items, and you mention that it has not been posted on ASH's main page for some time. If this promotion of a tested and proven plan for cyanide poisoning of a "target group" is so buried, so untimely, so not newsworthy, and so unimportant, why not just remove it???

I submit that, what I said in my letter to you of December 12, 1997 has been proven to be true: it is inescapable that the purpose of promoting Mr. Freudburg's book, in the form as chosen for the ASH web site, could only be to put persons who smoke in fear of lethal cyanide poisoning, should they continue to consume tobacco products.

To my mind, the answer to the above question, Mr. Banzhaf, is that you refuse to remove the promotion of the availability of a tested and proven plan to engage in cyanide product tampering of tobacco products because it accomplishes precisely what you intend it to: it instills fear in persons who smoke.I therefore conclude that this unseemly promotion of a explicit form of lethal violence against persons who smoke has not been removed to date, despite clear communication of strenuous objections to its inclusion on your web site, because is part and parcel of the underlying organized program of domestic terrorism so systematically employed by the professional activist anti-tobacco enterprise.

It is this well-founded and reasonable fear of a threat to my physical safety and my personal well being, and the explcit detail as to how to carry it out contained in Mr. Freudburg's book as pormoted in the ASH web site, that prompted my complaint to the FBI. In this regard, you and the ASH web site are unique: the promotion of Mr. Freudburg's book, within in the context of the intolerance directed against an identifiable "target group" of persons who smoke as presented on the ASH web site, ties together the fear of lethal product tampering and the apparent means to carry it out. In, short, you and ASH provide the motivation and the means for a lethal crime of terrorism, the only thing left is opportunityplease read the May, 1997 Washington Post article.

I close with a simple statement of my future courses of action:

First, I shall cooperate fully with any federal law enforcement investigation which may arise from my complaint as originally filed with the FBI on October 27, 1997.

Second, there is a clear threat to public safety through tobacco product tampering which compels wide distribution of the "Product Safety Alert". It will be done.

Third, I have already brought my complaint to the personal attention of the Director of the FBI, Mr. Freeh, via certified mail. I shall bring your letter and this response to his attention as well. I will have no part in obstruction of justice, and I take your recent and additional threats against me ". . . should you [Norman E. Kjono] take any further action." very seriously.

Fourth, I thank you for your permission, and the suggestion in your letter, to post your reply on the Internet. I shall see to it that your letter is so posted, along with this response. We will let the general public readers decide. Sounds fair to me.

Should you find any of these courses of action to be objectionable to you and/or ASH, then I guess you're going to sue me, and wipe out what little I have left. Well, I regret that, and it is an additional reason for me and others to actively fear continued operation of the professional activist anti-tobacco enterprise.

Then again, given a choice between living in fear or with nothing, I guess I'll take living with nothing. One thing is certain, a choice between living in fear or accepting a premeditated and ongoing violation of one's civil rights is no choice at all.

Finally, a reply from you to this letter is neither desired nor appropriate. There is a complaint filed by me with the FBI that names you and ASH as defendants. Under these circumstances it is not appropriate that we speak or correspond further. If you wish to reply by professional anti-tobacco activist lawyer lawsuit, then I guess that you're just going to do whatever you're going to do.

Sincerely,

Norman E. Kjono

Via US Mail Certified.