"Chrysler had far more engine families than most people are aware of.  
There is considerable confusion because some engines of different
families had the same or almost the same displacement, and recognizable
trade names (Hemi, in particular) have been applied to several distinct
engine families…"

eBay Guide: http://301url.com/MoparV8

How do you remove the wiper blades on a 2005 Dodge Grand Caravan ? Where is
the release pin or ??

Thanks in advance
CHW

i have a 2000 dodge grand caravan with a 3.3 liter engine. The check engine
light just came and i need to pass a state insepction. it has 86k miles and
i just changed the air and pcv filters. any ideas other than costly
diagtostics. Thank you

This summer I bought a new 2007 Caravan base model with Flexfuel. For the
first tank of gas, I got about 18mpg in town, a little below stated mpg.
Then the mileage kept going down. In cold winter now, it only gets 14mpg. I
exactly followed the advice for break-in, and get services on time. This
never happened to our other new cars. I used to own a ’94 Caravan, even
better mileage than this one. I know there are some additives to gas in
winter, but that should not cause so much loss to efficiency.

Thanks.

Just had my 2004 Caravan (3.3L V6) in for a 60K mile checkup. The serpentine
belt was one of those "check; replace if necessary" items. It passed, but
now I’m wondering what kind of life I might expect from it. (In other words,
do I go back to sleep or do I worry about it all the time now?…) I’m
fairly easy on my van (original front brakes only need replacing now, for
example), so how often after 60K should I get the serpentine belt checked?

Hi

we just bought a 2000 caravan and check engine light came on so we took it
to checkers. Found out the code is P0401. After doing research on net found
out there could be few reasons for that code. The engine runs fine. What
should be the next step in determining if it’s ERG valve or DPFE sensor or
vacuum leak? Where are these components located on van? What is the least
expensive and most common solution?

Thanks

MI5 Persecution Update:. Friday 11 June, 1999

Harassment in a pub in Clapham, Tuesday. lunchtime

Once a month, or once every other month, I. meet a Polish friends of mine
who lives in Clapham North, and sometimes we go to a particular. pub near
where he lives. The last time was. some two months ago; I did not have my
minidisc-walkman with me, and consequently was seriously harassed. by
people. MI5 had instructed to harass me, in the pub.

This Tuesday, 8 June 1999, we again went. to the same pub for a pre-meal
drink. This time I did have my. minidisc-walkman with me. As you can guess,
we were followed into the pub. by a couple of young people (Im getting
older and older – isnt. it funny how the MI5 agents all look young these
days?). They. started talking about my situation, in particular some travel
I had booked the previous day. Unfortunately, they were. talking fairly
quietly, and my minidisc didnt pick up their. speech.

MI5s schizophrenic reasoning is that simultaneously. I am very important
and worthy of their acts of persecution, and I am. also totally unimportant
and their abuse of me "doesnt. matter". Perhaps they should test their
agents and managers for. obsessive personalities or psychotic features in
the same way as employees are drug-tested. MI5 might lose their. "worst
cases" employees if. some psychological testing were applied to their
recruitment. procedure.

Toothless Watchdogs. What a. Surprise.

Recently I have. been engaging in communications with two watchdogs, the
Security Service Tribunal which deals. with complaints against the security
service (and. always clears MI5 of any wrongdoing), and the Data Protection
Registrar, which is mandated to investigate. misuse of personal data held
on. computer.

In a letter. to Nick Brooks, Security Service Tribunal secretary, dated 20
April, I asked him if the Tribunal, as an allegedly independent. body, had
the means. to investigate complaints against MI5 other than asking MI5 to
themselves investigate complaints. To my. disappointment, his reply two
weeks later answered the question only. indirectly, in the
negative. Whatever the reader. might think of the merits of the case I have
been putting before you in faxed articles this last year and half,. you
will surely recognise that it is a significant anomaly. for the Tribunal to
have no. independent means of investigating complaints, particularly given
the view expressed. even by previous home secretaries that the security
services are. untrustworthy.

MI5 Persecution: No Justice for. the Victims of MI5

In a. previous article I detailed the similarities between the current MI5
Persecution in England,. and other historical instances of similar
persecution, notably that by the Nazi Germans in the thirties. and
forties. The Germans persecuted first. the mentally ill, the epileptics and
those suffering from schizophrenia, then moved on to racial groups;. in
todays Britain the. persecution is again directed at those with mental
illness, which the British in. their cowardice find easier than taking on
racial groups as the Germans. did. But just as in Thirties Germany there
was no recourse against a malign. and omnipotent state, so the MI5 Secret
Police in the modern British Fascist State allow. no justice for their
victims.

No Recourse. Against the Security Services Illegal Harassment

It has become apparent to me over. the last nine years just how loaded the
dice are. in todays Britain, a fundamentally fascist country which
masquerades as a democracy. Britain is. a democracy in name only; the
Establishment, the defence and. MI5 secret police are always there,
regardless of which party has been voted into power. most recently – and
from "New Labours" conduct in office. one finds it difficult to tell them
apart from Old. Tories, in their crackdowns on the sick and vulnerable in
society.

In thirties Germany the victims of the Nazi. regime had no legal recourse
against their State oppressors; and in todays Fascist British. state, the
victims of the Establishment and its MI5. Secret Police similarly have no
recourse against the illegal state-funded and organised. oppression. There
is supposed. to be a mechanism for dealing with MI5 crimes, in the shape of
the Security Service Tribunal and Commissioner; yet these have. never found
favour of a. plaintiff. One might as well ask the Nazi SS to investigate
crimes against epileptics or Jews as ask. the Security Service Tribunal to
investigate MI5 crimes against British citizens; it is quite obvious. what
the answer is going to be, regardless of what you say. to them, and what
evidence you. provide. The Tribunal and Commissioner are a mere formality,
a whitewashing body to give the Secret Services. a veneer beneath which
they hide their shabby. criminality.

"Institutional. Racism" and Bigotry in the Metropolitan Police

The recent inquiry into the racist murder of. Stephen Lawrence found clear
evidence of systematic. and deliberate racism in the Metropolitan Police,
which cannot have surprised anyone. Commissioner Sir Paul Condon. accepted
a. somewhat lukewarm definition of institutional racism as being
"unconscious".. In truth, and this truth must surely be obvious to anyone
who has any. familiarity or encountered the great British police, the Met
has not just "unconscious" racism,. but very clearly "conscious" and
deliberate racism, of the kind. that would have done Thirties Germans
proud. And it is a bastion of such open racism -. when many other parts of
society are learning to. live in a multicultural environment, the Met is
still living in the past in its attitude to the. minorities.

But in addition. to the systematic racism confirmed by the Lawrence
inquiry, there is also something much more relevant to this. case, which is
systematic police bigotry against the physically and. mentally disabled,
which. I personally have experienced in my dealings with the police over
the years. You cannot expect equal treatment if you. are mentally
disabled.. I tried to make a complaint to the police in 1995 about the
harassment I had been subjected to for. several years. As soon as they
found out. I had mental illness, they refused to even talk to me. I tried
again. in March 1999; the police made various threats to me, while ranting
about "your. paranoid rubbish" in reference to the complaints expressed to
them.

The police refusal to do. the job they are employed and paid to do is
extremely serious,. particularly as this case is highly important, indeed
key to the whole issue of. British self-perception at the end of the 20th
century and the beginning of the. 21st century. Britain has lost much in
the last fifty years – it has lost an empire, it. has lost its self-respect
and its. identity as a people. If the MI5 persecution finally makes it into
the. light and the Security Services are seen for the rather cheap bullies
their behaviour indicates, it will have a massive and. harmful effect on
British self-perception in the new. century.

Security Service Tribunal  - Blatant. Whitewashing

A few weeks ago I spoke on the phone to Nick Brooks, the. Secretary of the
Security Service Tribunal, which is supposed to deal with cases. of MI5
transgression. I asked him if the Tribunal had ever. found in favour of a
plaintiff and against the Security Service. He answered that as far as. he
knew, it had. not.

I also asked Mr Brooks if. the Tribunal had any means of investigating
allegations of criminal activity by. MI5, other than asking MI5 themselves
if. they had engaged in such activity. His rather circuitous written reply
states. that the 1989 Security Service Act provides that "it shall be the
duty of every member of the. Service to disclose or give to the Tribunal
such documents or information as they may require for the purpose. of
enabling them to carry. out their functions under this Act". Which is a
very round-about way of. saying – "No" – the Tribunal has no way of
investigating MI5 crimes -. None At All.

Setting up the S.S. Tribunal, and creating a. Security Service
Commissioner, was really an act of falsehood by the government.. It is
generally recognised that MI5 are out of reach of the. normal criminal
justice system – the police, as. we have seen, have no intesot answer to
the government; in. a previous article I quoted Roy Jenkins speaking of "a
secretive atmosphere…. secretive vis-a-vis. the government as well as
[enemies]", and a "lack of frankness". from MI5.

If the government wanted to, it. could reform the secret services and
ensure they acted in conformance with the. laws which have been enacted for
them in the last ten years. But apparently. the present government does not
see any need to ensure security service compliance with. the law. As noted
above, the regulatory machinery. for MI5 is deliberately weak; the Tribunal
has no independent means of investigation, and. it is simply a waste of
time complaining. to the Tribunal or Commissioner.

Every so often, fresh revelations come to light of. secret service
transgressions. We. have heard from Shayler that MI5 bugged Jack Straw and
Peter Mandelson; we. have heard from Peter Wright that MI5 plotted to see
Wilson ejected from office; yet so closed is. the system of government that
the law is never enforced. against MI5 when they "bug and burgle" everyone
from politicians. to ordinary citizens.

No Justice from. the Legal System, either

Britain has. a civil and criminal justice system which effectively limits
many complaints from being heard.. For a civil complaint to be brought
before a court, you need. a solicitor willing to act on your
behalf. Supposedly it. is possible to represent yourself as a
Litigant-in-Pthe basis of being "frivolous and vexatious" or. "disclosing
no cause for action in. law". This is exactly what happened to me in 1997
when I twice tried to take. the BBC to court for spying on me in my living
room at home; my case was twice struck out, and on the second. occasion an
order was made against. me that I could not bring further civil litigation
against the BBC without leave of. the court.

As the. reader can guess it is quite impossible for a person with
schizophrenia, who complains about the secret services. and media
interfering in his life, to find a solicitor. willing to represent him in
legal action against the persecutors. I have quite a. lot of evidence of
the continuing persecution which I have. posted on the website, even if the
evidence is quite. tentative and perhaps open to varying
interpretations. But. I have tried several firms of solicitors; some of
them have acted unprofessionally and. abused me; all of them have refused
to represent me. My psychiatrist. gave me the name of the firm of Bindman
and Partners in central London, and I. have approached them twice. On each
occasion they refused to accept my instructions. Plainly the problem. with
Bindmans, which they have admitted,. is their bigotry against mentally
disabled. people; yet this is not just something that is wrong with
Bindmans, it is something. that is wrong with the legal system as a whole,
since the. legal system necessitates finding a solicitor willing to
represent you in order to bring a case to court, but it. does not have a
mechanism for. providing a lawyer in the case where no solicitor is willing
to take on. your case. So the British legal system is such as to prevent
cases such as mine from ever receiving. an airing in a court.

So much for the civil courts. But the criminal. justice system is no
better. Two years ago the Protection from Harassment. Act came into
force. But again, while the Act is. all very well on paper, in practice it
is unenforceable in my. case, since it would require Police action to see
the law implemented,. and if the police cannot even be trusted to conduct a
murder investigation competently (in the. Lawrence case), then what chance
is there of their investigating complaints against. the Security
Service?. Of course, it would be possible for me to personally issue
proceedings through a private prosecution. either against MI5 themselves,
or against one or. more of their media tools; but here we see the same
problems as with the civil courts, because first of. all I would have to
find a lawyer willing to act on my. behalf. Litigants-in-person do exist in
the. criminal courts, but the Attorney General can bring such a prosecution
to an. end by taking it over and entering a plea of "nolle prossequi"; and
I suspect that if I were to bring a. private prosecution against either MI5
or one of their media tools, then this is exactly what would. happen.

So much for British justice.. But if anything the wrongs that have been
perpetrated on. me by the British justice system are quite mild to what
others have suffered.. Others have been wrongly convicted based on police
evasions and lies, and spent many years in jail based on false. charges. I
should. count myself lucky that despite the best efforts of the MI5 secret
police, I have not acquired any. criminal charges or convictions; which
shows. that for all their resources and influence, and the clear
imperfections in the British. legal system, there are still limits on how
much. subversion MI5 can achieve.

The latest. in a long line of injustices

A comment I heard during the recent scandal of the police. mishandling of
the Lawrence murder investigation is that "its not as if the. police
themselves murdered him". This is. not a particularly wise statement to
make about. the case, since it could be argued that the four alleged
murderers. were aided in their crime by the expectation that the police
would deliberately botch the investigation -. which of course is exactly
what the. police did.

But in my case,. this would be a completely inaccurate thing to say – since
the MI5 secret-police have expressly been trying to nine years now. to see
an end put to my. life, either by having me incarcerated and my liberty
ended, or by forcing self-termination on me. It is. exactly as if the
secret police "themselves murdered [me]", since that. is what their aim is
in their campaign. against me.

The public. has heard of instances of police mishandling of cases, of
police manufacturing. evidence, lying in court, extracting false
confessions to clear up crimes, et cetera. Various. instances of
extra-legal activity by the secret services have also come to light. in the
last few years. The unhappy truth is that what MI5. have been doing to me
for. the last nine years is really nothing out of the ordinary for them. To
me it seems unbelievable. that this sort of systematic campaign of
harassment, which thousands. and thousands of people in this country and
abroad are well aware of, could exist for. such a long period of time with
the. media maintaining "omerta". But my case is not the first such instance
of persecution. by the "British secret police", and judging by the lack of
any real. controls on MI5, I very much doubt it will be the last.

3373

–
Posted via NewsDemon.com – Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
      ——->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

I have an 03 (3.3Ltr) grand and the steering pump sounds like it is getting
ready to let go. Can the pumps be changed out on the 03′s without the use of
any special tools. I hear that on some of the vans, depending on the year,
you have to tilt the engine slightly to get them out. I did change one out
on my old 86 grand with pretty much no problem but this 03 is a whole
different beast under the hood.

Bill

Why do you think MI5 are responsible?

The question of who is ultimately responsible for this eight-year
harassment is one which is very difficult to answer, as the persecutors
have never clearly made their identities known to the persecutee. However,
I believe I am correct in attributing the continuing victimisation to
elements of the British Security Service MI5, and in this article, I will
try to explain the reasons for this belief.

The British internet magazine ".net" featured my website on page 17 of
their March 1998 issue (number 42). Their review kindly describes it as an
"excellent site" and gives some details of what the net surfer will find
there. Should you wish to reply to this article you can do so;

"When did you first suspect MI5 were responsible?"

Over Easter 1995 I went to see a local solicitor in London with a view to
talking to the police about the harassment. Soon afterwards I did go to my
local police station in Clapham and spoke to an officer there. The
solicitor made a comment which suggested to me that the persecution I had
been experiencing may have been organised by an intelligence service.

Up to this point, I did not have any clear idea as to who was behind the
harassment. Only their agents were visible, in the media, on television
news programmes, and on the radio; in the workplace, where things said at
my home were repeated verbatim; and in some cases abuse in public and
during travel, for example on the trip to Poland in June 1992 which I have
already described.

Both from the fact that widely disparate individuals and organisations
were employed as agents in the campaign against me, and from the fact that
an entity would be required to marshal their resources in the areas of
spying on my home and giving gathered information to their agents, it was
clear to me that a single entity was responsible for carrying out the
campaign. Yet from June 1990 until Easter 1995 I did not have a clear idea
of who might be responsible. I guessed that perhaps some private
individual or group of persons who saw themselves as my enemies had
perhaps paid private detectives to organise the harassment. Alternatively,
since the campaign had started in the media, I made a far-fetched
supposition that perhaps it was an ad-hoc group of media people who had
set themselves up in opposition to me. After Easter 1995 I saw that these
guesses were wrong, and I made an I believe much more accurate estimate as
to who my enemies really are.

"Why couldn’t a private group be behind the persecution?"

There are several reasons why a private individual or group would not be
behind this campaign.

Quantity of resources / Money. Here is what one Usenet (internet
newsgroup) participant had to say (several years ago) on the topic of how
much money it would cost just to keep the surveillance going.

PM: >But why? And why you? Do you realize how much it would cost to keep
PM: >one person under continuous surveillance for five years? Think about
PM: >all the man/hours. Say they _just_ allocated a two man team and a
PM: >supervisor. OK., Supervisor’s salary, say, #30,000 a year. Two men,
PM: >#20,000 a year each. But they’d need to work in shifts — so it would
PM: >be six men at #20,000 (which with on-costs would work out at more
like
PM: >#30,000 to the employer.)
PM: >
PM: >So, we’re talking #30,000 x 6. #180,000. plus say, #40,000 for the
PM: >supervisor. #220,000. Then you’ve got the hardware involved. And
PM: >any transcription that needs doing. You don’t think the ‘Big Boss’
PM: >would listen to hours and hours of tapes, do you.
PM: >
PM: >So, all in all, you couldn’t actually do the job for much less than
PM: >a quarter million a year. Over five years. What are you doing that
makes
PM: >it worth the while of the state to spend over one and a quarter
million
PM: >on you?

A private individual or group would not spend over a million pounds to
verbally torture a victim without some financial motive or gain. Private
industry is driven by the profit motive, and there is no financial profit
to be had from carrying out a campaign in this way. If a private
enterprise were behind it then they would have taken direct physical
action a long time ago.

State enterprises, on the other hand, can afford to be wasteful, since
they are funded by the taxpayer. They do not have to show a money
profit. The employees or contractors employed by a state organisation such
as MI5 are driven by their own personal profit motives, to make the most
money out of their employers for the longest period of time. MI5 is funded
to the tune of #150M p.a.; even a few hundred thousand a year would to
them be affordable if their managers could convince themselves of the
necessity of what they were doing.

Quality of resources / Technical resources – electronic and other
surveillance. In summer 1994 a reputable and competent private detective
agency was employed to conduct a counter-surveillance sweep of my home in
London. They charged us over #400 for this, conducted a thorough search
for radio transmitting devices, hard-wired "probe" microphones and also
tested the telephone line. They found nothing. This was not altogether
surprising, since it had been made very clear to me that there were bugs
in my home; the "buggers" would not have made this clear unless they had
felt their bugs were of sufficient sophistication as to be safe from
detection.

But there is another lesson to be gained from the failure of the private
detectives to find anything. The agency employed was one of the most
reputable in London. They were employed on the principle of "setting a
thief to catch a thief", for if the harassment were being carried out by
private detectives, as I then believed, then surely another set of private
detectives would be able to find the bugs that they had planted. That
these "private eyes" were unable to find anything, and that the harassers
were confident that they would not be able to find any bugs, points to the
harassers being an order of sophistication above a private agency, and
leads me again to believe that a state intelligence service is responsible
for the surveillance and harassment.

Quality of resources / Technical resources – Interception of Postal
service. In summer 1994 when I emigrated to Canada to try to escape the
harassment, I wrote letters home to my family and friends in London. Quite
soon after my arrival in Canada, the harassers were able to find precisely
where I was staying. The only way I can see of "their" being able to find
out my new address was by interception of my letters to the UK.

Later in 1994, I conducted an experiment to see if my letters home were
indeed being read. In a letter home I wrote of being depressed and talked
in vague terms of suicide. I deliberately chose this topic, since I
believed it was the outcome my harassers were trying to achieve, and that
if they read the letter, they would "echo" its contents. Sure enough, soon
afterwards there were two incidents of people shouting "suicide" at me in
public places in Canada.

It is inconceivable for a private agency to have the ability to intercept
postal mail. The state security service on the other hand is well known to
engage in these activities.

Quality of resources / Access to Media. One of the strangest aspects of
this case is the access "they" have to the broadcast and print media. I
still do not understand what could persuade newscasters such as Martyn
Lewis and Michael Buerk, who consider themselves "gentlemen", to behave in
an almost voyeuristic way by "peeking" into the living room of one of
their viewers. A year ago I wrote to the BBC asking if these newscasters
would confirm or deny the accusations made against them. The BBC replied
that their newscasters had denied the accusations, but refused to do so in
writing.

It is well known that MI5 have the ability to plant stories in certain
newspapers, but convincing television newscasters to "watch" a viewer
while they read the news would surely be very difficult for them to
accomplish, unless they presented themselves to these journalists as
being, for example, a group in the media who were seeing to it that I got
my "deserved" treatment. MI5 has a history of manipulating the media, so
it might not be too difficult for them to accomplish such a trick, whereas
a private group would not have this ability.

"Have they ever denied that they are the Security Service?"

No. Never. This is in fact the main reason why I believe "they" are MI5
and not a privately funded group. If my guess had been wrong then I am
sure that "they" would have crowed over my mistake, but they have never
admitted nor denied that they are employees of MI5.

In early January 1996 I flew on a British Airways jet from London to
Montreal; also present on the plane, about three or four rows behind me,
were two young men, one of them fat and voluble, the other silent. It was
quite clear that these two had been planted on the aircraft to "wind me
up". The fat youth described the town in Poland where I had spent
Christmas, and made some unpleasant personal slurs against me. Most
interestingly, he said the words, "he doesnt know who we are".

Now I find this particular form of words very interesting, because while
it is not a clear admission, it is only a half-hearted attempt at denial
of my guess that "they" = "MI5". Had my guess been wrong, the fat youth
would surely have said so more clearly.

"If MI5 were behind it, why would they wish to mask their involvement?"

I have heard a number of times a belief from people in the media that it
is they, the media people, who are behind the abuse. In spring 1994 Chris
Tarrant the Capital Radio D.J. said sarcastically on his breakfast show,
"You know this bloke? he says were trying to kill him. We should be done
for attempted manslaughter". We, we, we. Tarrant thought it was a media
conspiracy.

Returning to the question of "interactive watching" by television
newscasters, it would again be much easier for them to take part in that
sort of activity if they convinced themselves that the surveillance and
abuse were organised by "their own", by media people. It must be second
nature to MI5 to mask their involvement in the matters they deal with; in
this case, they pretend the campaign is organised by a group in the media,
and any journalists who suspect otherwise keep their silence.

Conclusion

Over the last three years I have stated with some force my belief that MI5
are responsible for my misfortunes. I have done so on Internet newsgroups,
in letters and faxes to people in politics and the media in the UK, and in
1997 I made a formal complaint to MI5 regarding their activities; the
Security Service Tribunal replied in June 1997 that "no determination in
your favour has been made on your complaint". (I believe the statement by
the Security Service Tribunal can be disregarded, as they have never, ever
made a ruling in favour of a complainant.) In three years of naming MI5 as
my oppressor "they" have never denied the charge. To me, their silence on
this point indicates that my guess was accurate. I believe my persecutors
stand identified. The question of why they should carry out this campaign
is one I will try to answer in a future article.

2251

–
Posted via NewsDemon.com – Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
      ——->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<——
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

MI5 Persecution: .net Magazine Applauds my Website

The March 1998 issue (number 42) of .net Magazine reviews the MI5
Persecution website describing it as an "excellent site". The webpages
describe in detail the nature of my persecution since 1990 by what are
believed to be elements of the UK security service.

(snip image)

You are encouraged to read the web pages which include

o   a FAQ section outlining the nature of the persecutors, their methods
    of harassment through the media, people at work and among the general public
o   an evidence section, which carries audio and video clips of media and
    workplace harassment, rated according to how directly I think they refer to me
o   factual descriptions of the state security agencies involved
o   scanned texts of the complaints I have made to media and state security agencies involved
o   posts which have been made to netnews over the last three years on this topic

6617

–
Posted via NewsDemon.com – Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
      ——->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<——
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access