Conference back40::soapbox

RE   <<< Note 17.3067 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    That compound was established in the community for 30 some years.  What
>    makes you think that their self destruction was inevitable?
    
  David Koresh (sp?) said so. I forget all the details but he said something to
the effect that they were living out a chapter in the book of revelations in
which the chosen people would be swallowed up in a storm of fire and then he as
their Messiah would lead them back. It was a bit confusing and had something to
do with the interpretation of the 7th seal but I got the impression that they
all believe in him and believed that their death was inevitable.

  At least from what I heard, they were a lot more concerned about living out
those final chapters than they were in making a statement about gun ownership.
And while it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me it would seem that they
had a constitutional right to believe in their fate including their death and
resurrection. 

  George 

    
    
    
    So, why did the BATF decide to go about it the way they did?  Is this
    what they wanted to show everyone what evil lurks in our country?  The
    local authorities had visited the compound on several occaisions
    without incident.  
    
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    We're talking a federal agency that takes order from a Democratic
    Administration, so of course what they say is Gospel. It's when
    Susan Smith confesses that it's not Gospel. Can't you follow
    this? Sheesh! :-)
    
    -b

                      <<< Note 362.1 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  David Koresh (sp?) said so. I forget all the details but he said something to
>the effect that they were living out a chapter in the book of revelations in
>which the chosen people would be swallowed up in a storm of fire and then he as
>their Messiah would lead them back. It was a bit confusing and had something to
>do with the interpretation of the 7th seal but I got the impression that they
>all believe in him and believed that their death was inevitable.

	If you see someone walking down the street with a sign that says
	"The End is Near", do you believe that it's OK to shoot him?

Jim

RE    <<< Note 362.2 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    So, why did the BATF decide to go about it the way they did?  Is this
>    what they wanted to show everyone what evil lurks in our country?  The
>    local authorities had visited the compound on several occasions
>    without incident.  
    
  Are you talking about the initial assault? That was not so much a plan as
a screw up.

  As for the final assault, the Feds decided to tear gas them out because they
were afraid the children were being abused. 

  Now I suppose they could have waited but I doubt the outcome would have been
different. They believed it was their fate to die in a fire and no doubt they
would have started it later rather than sooner if the Feds had waited.

  And if the Feds had used various psychological tricks to force them out
without their fire then that may have saved their lives but in doing so it
would have denied them their right to religious freedom. 

  George

RE     <<< Note 362.4 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	If you see someone walking down the street with a sign that says
>	"The End is Near", do you believe that it's OK to shoot him?

  No, but I believe he has a right to shoot himself.

  Remember, the Feds did not start the fire. The citizens of Waco started
the fire for religious reasons.

  George

    
    Of course they did George... that's what your government,
    controlled by the party you blindly follow, told you.
    What need is there to ever question the reality of it?
    
    -b

RE     <<< Note 362.7 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>

>    Of course they did George... that's what your government,
>    controlled by the party you blindly follow, told you.
>    What need is there to ever question the reality of it?
    
  This makes no sense. Think about it.

  First of all, how was this fire suppose to have started? Police use tear gas
to drive people out of buildings all the time and there is almost never a fire.

  Second, what did the government have to gain by burning the place down? The
"glory" would have been in rescuing the children and having a big show case
trial for David Koresh. 

  And finally, if they did start the fire, why didn't anyone leave? Would you
rather burn to death than surrender to the Feds? 

  Obviously they stayed in the building because they wanted to die in a fire.
David Koresh had said that's what they were going to do and they were true
to their word.

  George

                      <<< Note 362.6 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Remember, the Feds did not start the fire. The citizens of Waco started
>the fire for religious reasons.

	Assumes facts not in evidence.

Jim

RE     <<< Note 362.9 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>>  Remember, the Feds did not start the fire. The citizens of Waco started
>>the fire for religious reasons.
>
>	Assumes facts not in evidence.

  I'm curious. Why aren't you telling those who are claiming that the Feds
started the fire that they are assuming facts not in evidence?

  George

>  Second, what did the government have to gain by burning the place down?

The same thing the BATF _ALWAYS_ gains - the appearance that they are a 
force to be reckoned with. I would have thought that obvious.

> The "glory" would have been in rescuing the children and having a big show
> case trial for David Koresh. 

Hardly. That would have meant the nasty business of more witnesses, lawsuits,
etc.

>  And finally, if they did start the fire, why didn't anyone leave? Would you
> rather burn to death than surrender to the Feds?

Read the last sentence above. What makes you think that they believed they
wouldn't have been gunned down if they'd tried?

    George,
    
    You're the only one stating anything as fact (the government
    let them do what the wanted to do all along)... all I said
    was that I was skeptical of what the government claims
    as fact...
    
    -b

RE         <<< Note 362.11 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Read the last sentence above. What makes you think that they believed they
>wouldn't have been gunned down if they'd tried?

  Given a choice would you rather take a chance of being gunned down or would
you rather burn to death? 

  Tell me are you guys about to start talking about that big eye on the back of
the one dollar bill again? It seems as though you are dangerously close to
tilting over the paranoia big brother edge again. 

  The Feds make arrests every day and rarely do they kill the people whom they
are arresting. Those agencies are filled with civil servants and claiming that
there is some gigantic conspiracy to cover up the fact that they wanted to
murder a bunch of wacko religious nuts makes about as much sense as the LAPD
wanting to frame O.J. 

  George

    >First of all, how was this fire suppose to have started? Police use tear gas
    >to drive people out of buildings all the time and there is almost never a fire.

    You assume tear gas was all they were using. How do you know
    that they did not fire accelerants into the building? I
    don't know that they did, but I wouldn't discount the
    possibility.

    >Second, what did the government have to gain by burning the place down? The
    >"glory" would have been in rescuing the children and having a big show case
    >trial for David Koresh. 

    A trial just might have shown that Koresh and Co. were not guilty
    of the relatively minor offenses which started all this in the
    first place... not good for the BATF. Better to just clean
    things up and move on to the next place full of sinister religious
    types...

    >And finally, if they did start the fire, why didn't anyone leave? Would you
    >rather burn to death than surrender to the Feds? 

    And how were they to leave? The building was engulfed in flames
    very quickly and most most of the people were known to be huddled
    in the basement. Sprout wings? Pretend they were gophers? You have
    any ideas?

    >Obviously they stayed in the building because they wanted to die in a fire.

    Obviously, the reason anyone works for the fire department is because
    they want to die in a fire... makes about as much sense, doesn't
    it?

    -b

                      <<< Note 362.5 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Are you talking about the initial assault? That was not so much a plan as
>a screw up.

	I believe the question is why did they determine that an assault
	was required. Why not just have a couple of agents knock on the
	door and show the warrant. The local Sheriff was able to visit
	the compound, enter the buildings, look around and leave on two
	other occasions. And he didn't have to shoot anybody to do it.

>  As for the final assault, the Feds decided to tear gas them out because they
>were afraid the children were being abused. 

	Under what jurisdiction did the Feds make this decision. Child
	abuse (and none was ever proved) is not a Federal crime.

	This raid should bother anyone, liberal OR conservative, that believes
	in the Constitutional protections that we take so much for granted.

	The ATF lied, under oath, in order to get a search warrant in the
	1st place. Then they mounted an uneccessary armed assault on citizens
	that had committed no crime. The FBI took aver and lied to the
	Governor of Texas in order to obtain military hardware, and then used
	that hardware in violation of Federal law to mount the final assault
	on the compound.

	And just to top it off, once the fire started, they delayed calling
	fire department, and then when the firetrucks actually arrived, they
	were prevented from fighting the fire by the FBI.

	A more carefully calculated murder by government forces has not
	been seen in the West for nearly 50 years.

Jim

    
    Okay George...
    
    Let's see if you can follow this scenario...
    
    Let's say you were a gunnut, in the sense that you were a fairly well
    off collector of firearms and had a medium to large collection of all
    sorts of guns. You've been collecting these guns for a number of years,
    belong to the NRA, fire in a few matches each year.. etc...
    
      The BATF finds out about your large collection and since you
    purchased much of these pieces and ammo with your credit card, they can
    track down and see that you're really one to watch. 
    
      You decide to become pro-active in all this gun registration stuff
    and your name becomes well known in those circles...
    
     Suddenly the BATF decides you might, just might be stashing these
    "arms" for some sort of insurrection...
    
      They decide to raid your home... You and a number of your relations
    and/or loved ones see a bunch of armed-to-the-teeth black-clad ninja
    types coming for your door... No idea who they are or why they're
    there...
    
      What would you do???
    

                     <<< Note 362.10 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I'm curious. Why aren't you telling those who are claiming that the Feds
>started the fire that they are assuming facts not in evidence?

	Because, so far, YOU are the only one to actually accuse specific
	people of starting a fire. All the other replies here merely
	express skeptisism at your assertion.

	Oh, BTW. When cops use tear gas, they have fire department personnel
	standing by. Regular tear gas grenades DO start fires. They are
	designed to get very hot in order to discourage people from picking
	them up and throwing them back at you.

Jim

    Here's why many people feel that Janet Reno is one of the most
    dangerous persons to hold a position of power in our country's
    history... fitting time to post this little gem, I'd say...
    
    -b
    
    
    
Following letter was sent to Janet Reno by Congressman James Hansen, Utah

Feb. 23, 1995

The Honorable Janet Reno
Attorney General of the United States
Main Justice Building
10th and Constitution  Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Ms. Reno:

As the Member of Congress representing the First Congressional District of 
Utah, I have been approached by literally dozens of constituents who are 
deeply concerned regarding statements attributed to you during a "60 
Minutes" broadcast regarding Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. 
My purpose in writing is to request a written clarification from you on 
yourstatements, as well as to obtain a statement of Department of Justice 
policy on such matters.

First, it has been alleged by some of my constituents that you made the 
following statements during the 60 Minutes interview in response to a 
question on what your definition of a "cultist" would be. You allegedly 
responded:

"A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming 
of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of 
financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their children; 
who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the Second 
Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of these may qualify (a 
person as a cultist) but certainly more than one would cause us to strongly 
look at this person as a threat, and his family as being in a risk 
situtation that qualified for government interference. Waco was one of those 
situations that qualified under our definition of people being at risk that 
necessitates government action to save them."

I would appreciate specific answers to the following questions.

(1) Did you, in fact, make such a statement and does that accurately reflect 
your views as the Attorney General of the United States?

(2) If so, how has this manifested itself into official Department 
guidelines or policy?  Most specifically, is there a policy or ongoing 
operation targeting individuals for federal scrutiny based solely on their 
fitting one or more of the above mentioned criteria?

Second, my constituents have been contactiong me of late to inform me that 
the Department of Justice, in conjunction with law enforcement agents from 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), are planning nation-wide 
raids on the private homes of individuals primarily in the Western United 
States in the coming weeks because of suspected violations of federal gun laws.

During my fourteen years in Congress, I have heard many rumors and 
government "conspiracy theories." While I usually take them with a "grain of 
salt," I must confess that this specific allegation appears to be gaining in 
frequency and consistency. Some individuals for whom I have great respect 
and a long association have come forward recently to give me this 
information. In fact, one such individual, whom I consider to be very 
reliable and credible, told me that he personally counted 35 agents from the 
BATF together in Moab, Utah, recently, and that each agent was equipped with 
a sidearm.

(3) Is the Department of Justice currently planning to work with the BATF, 
the FBI, or any other federal law enforcement agency, to engage in special 
raids on the private homes of U.S. citizens because of suspected federal 
arms violations?

(4) Does the Department of Justice have knowledge of the BATF's recent 
appearance in Noab, Utah, and if so, what were the reasons for 35 armed BATF 
agents to congregage in such a small town in my State of Utah?

Please provide me a written response to the above questions as soon as 
possible. The information you provide will be most helpful in assisting me 
as I consider what appropriate actions or responses I may undertake in the 
Congress.

Sincerely yours, 
James V. Hansen
Member of Congress
 

    
    -b...
    
    I'll save Mr. Bill the trouble...
    
    
     Quitcha whining!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    

                     <<< Note 362.13 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  The Feds make arrests every day and rarely do they kill the people whom they
>are arresting. Those agencies are filled with civil servants and claiming that
>there is some gigantic conspiracy to cover up the fact that they wanted to
>murder a bunch of wacko religious nuts makes about as much sense as the LAPD
>wanting to frame O.J. 

	Well the ATF does have a reputation of going off half cocked.
	Then you have the fact of the embarrasssment of having the Davidians
	come out, the subsequent search, nothing found and all of the
	explainations that would have been needed to cover up the intial
	screwup.

	As for not coming out, most of the dead were found in an underground
	bunker. One of the tanks, in their exhuberance, crushed the exit to
	that bunker making escape impossible.

	A couple of straight questions George.

	Why did the Feds not call the Fire Dept. when there was an obvious
	fire?

	Why didn't they let the firemen fight the fire?

	Why did they run tanks over the top of the rubble BEFORE there 
	had been any search for survivors.

	Why did they run tanks over the rubble before there was any search
	for evidence of a crime?

Jim

  Whooooo look out, the eye on the dollar bill just blinked. It's watching
what you are doing. It's looking at YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!

  Ok, I'll play along. Why not, it's Friday.

    <<< Note 362.15 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	I believe the question is why did they determine that an assault
>	was required. Why not just have a couple of agents knock on the
>	door and show the warrant. 

  I agree 100%. They screwed up. It was a botched raid, poorly planned, poorly
executed. But that was no excuse for the people inside to shoot the agents.
If they knew the agents were coming, why not just leave and let them attack
an empty building?

>	Under what jurisdiction did the Feds make this decision. Child
>	abuse (and none was ever proved) is not a Federal crime.

  The child abuse determined the timing. Once the federal officers had been
shot there was probably cause for the murder of Federal law enforcement
officials and probable cause to make the arrests. 

>	This raid should bother anyone, liberal OR conservative, that believes
>	in the Constitutional protections that we take so much for granted.

  Why? Koresh and his followers could have surrendered, hired lawyers, and
they would have had fair trials before juries of their peers with all the
protections of the Constitution. But since they resisted arrest and killed
several Federal officers in the process they effectively refused their right
to a fair trial and risked a violent encounter.

>The FBI took aver and lied to the
>	Governor of Texas in order to obtain military hardware, and then used
>	that hardware in violation of Federal law to mount the final assault
>	on the compound.

  Once again, to ensure your rights you have to go to court. All they had to
do was surrender then argue that all the evidence should be thrown out due
to violations of the 4th amendment and the other constitutional points you
mentioned. They chose instead to stand and fight.

>	And just to top it off, once the fire started, they delayed calling
>	fire department, and then when the firetrucks actually arrived, they
>	were prevented from fighting the fire by the FBI.

  Dam good idea too. The last time anyone had approached the building they got
shot. What would you say to the widow of some fireman who had been shot by
some religious nut who's life he was trying to save?

>	A more carefully calculated murder by government forces has not
>	been seen in the West for nearly 50 years.

  Look out, that eye is blinking again. And is that a grin I see at the bottom
of that pyramid?

  George

>  Whooooo look out, the eye on the dollar bill just blinked. It's watching
>what you are doing. It's looking at YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!

	Speaking of unproductive remarks........

>  I agree 100%. They screwed up. It was a botched raid, poorly planned, poorly
>executed.

	No George, you missed the point. The question was WHY was there a 
	RAID at all.

> But that was no excuse for the people inside to shoot the agents.

	There is some question concerning just who fired the first shot.
	It could very well be that the Davidians were RETURNING fire in
	what they beleived was self-defense.

>  Why? Koresh and his followers could have surrendered, hired lawyers, and
>they would have had fair trials before juries of their peers with all the
>protections of the Constitution. But since they resisted arrest and killed
>several Federal officers in the process they effectively refused their right
>to a fair trial and risked a violent encounter.

	Again, if the ATF agents fired first (it would not have been the 
	first time they shot an innocent citizen) the, admittedly
	paranoid Davidians might have been VERY reluctant to surrender.

>  Once again, to ensure your rights you have to go to court.

	Kind of hard to file a brief when folks are shooting at you.

>  Dam good idea too. The last time anyone had approached the building they got
>shot.

	Well, that IS true. The last person to approach the building was shot
	by an FBI sharpshooter. It was a Davidian that was trying to get back
	into the compound.

> What would you say to the widow of some fireman who had been shot by
>some religious nut who's life he was trying to save?

	Fireman risk their lives everyday. The fireman that finally made
	it to the gate PLEADED with the FBI to let them in so they could
	fight the fire.

>  Look out, that eye is blinking again. And is that a grin I see at the bottom
>of that pyramid?

	No George, It's a grimace. I find it hard to beleive thata true
	defender of the Constitution, such as yourself, is not bothered
	by all the government abuse that occured during this incident.

	But then I guess you are just like all the rest. The Constitution
	is REALLY only for those people that you like. Religious "cults"
	need not apply for civil rights.

	Too sad.

Jim

    
    
    	FYI peeps, the FBI used CS gas to try and smoke out the Davidians.
    The makers of CS gas warn not to use CS in buildings or closed in areas
    since that can make it lethal (it's meant to be used outdoors). The
    makers of CS even stopped selling it to Iraq because they were using it
    inside buildings and people were dying.
    
    	The FBI and BATF made a big deal out of all the surveillence
    equipment they were using. Fiberoptic cameras in the walls, heat
    sensing equipment, microphones, etc. They knew where the Davidians
    were and what they were up to at all times. A small assault team driven
    up to the building in an APC could've easily ended this disaster
    quickly with minimal loss of life. Guess that wasn't the plan...
    
    
    jim

    An April 21, 1993, Atlanta Constitution article reported that "the White
    House said today it had `mountains of evidence' the children were being
    abused by David Koresh and his cult and that this was a prime reason for
    launching the April 19 ill-fated assault on the Waco, Texas, compound."
    
    
    
    
    
                                                                       

 


This is a transcript of the affidavit used by the BATF in order
to obtain a search warrant of the Brand Davidian compound
in Waco, TX.



Affiant alleges the following grounds for search and seizure: 

I, Davy Aguilera, being duly sworn, depose and state that: 

I am a Special Agent with the US Treasury Department,
BATF, Austin, Texas, and I have been so employed for
approximately 5 years. This affidavit is based on my own
investigation as well as information furnished to me by other
law enforcement officers and concerned citizens. 

On June 4, 1992, I met with Lt. Gene Barber, McClennan
County Sheriff's Department, Waco, Texas, who has received
extensive training in explosives classification, identification
and the rendering safe of explosive devices and has been
recognized in Federal Court as an expert witness in this field.
Lt. Barber stated that he had received information in May
1992, from an employee of United Parcel Service, Waco,
Texas, that from April through June of 1992, several
deliveries had been made to a place known as the "Mag-Bag",
Route 7, Box 555-B, Waco, Texas, 76705, located on Farm
Road number 2491, in the names of Mike Schroeder and
David Koresh, which the UPS employee believed to be
firearms components and explosives. Through my
investigation, I know that the place known as the "Mag-Bag"
is a small tract of land located at the above address which has
two metal buildings located on it. The name "Mag-Bag"
comes from the shipping label which is accompanied many
items shipped to the above address. I and other agents have
personally observed vehicles consistently over the past six
months at the "mag-Bag" location which are registered to
Vernon Wayne Howell, aka: David Koresh. Lt. Barber
further stated that the UPS employee, Larry Gilbreath,
became suspicious and concerned about the deliveries, most
of which were shipped COD because of their frequency and
because of the method used by the recipient to receive the
shipments and to pay for them. 

Lt. Barber explained that David Koresh was an alias name
used by Vernon Wayne Howell who operated a religious cult
commune near Waco, Texas, at a place commonly known as
the Mount Carmel Center, which is one of the premises to be
searched and more specifically described above. I have
learned from my investigation, particularly from my
discussions with former cult members that Vernon Howell
adopted the name David Koresh more than a year ago. The
name "David Koresh" was chosen by Howell because Howell
believed that the name helped designate him as the messiah or
the anointed one of God. Lt. Barber further related that he
was told by Gilbreath that he had been making deliveries to
the "Mag-Bag" and the Mt. Carmel Center on Double EE
Ranch Road, Waco, Texas, for several years, but he had never
been suspicious of any of the deliveries until 1992. Gilbreath
became concerned because he made several COD deliveries
addressed to the "Mag-Bag", but when he would stop at that
location he was instructed to wait while a telephone call was
made to the Mt. Carmel Center by the person at the
"Mag-Bag", usually Woodrow Kendrick or Mike Schroeder,
notifying the person who answered the phone at the Mt.
Carmel Center that UPS was coming there with a COD
delivery, after which Gilbreath would be instructed to drive
to the Mt. Carmel Center to deliver the package and collect
for it. That on those occasions when he was at the Mt. Carmel
Center to deliver and collect for the COD packages he saw
several manned observation posts, and believed that the
observers were armed. 

Lt. Barber stated that he was told by Larry Gilbreath (UPS)
that in May of 1992 two cases of inert hand grenades and a
quantity of black gunpowder were delivered by him to the
"Mag-Bag." The source of these shipments was unknown to
Gilbreath. 

On June 9, 1992, I was contacted by Lt. Barber who told me
that he had learned from Larry Gilbreath that in June of 1992,
the UPS delivered 90 pounds of powdered aluminum metal
and 30 to 40 cardboard tubes, 24 inches in length and 1 1/4 to
1 1/2 inches in diameter, which were shipped from the Fox
Fire Company, Pocatello, Idaho, to "Mag-Bag." From
another shipper whose identity is unknown, to parcels
containing a total of 60 M-16/AR-15 ammunition magazines
were delivered by UPS to the "mag-Bag" on June 8, 1992. I
know based upon my training and experience that an AR-15
is a semi-automatic rifle practically identical to the M-16
rifle carried by United States Armed Forces. The AR-15 rifle
fires .223 caliber ammunition and, just like the M-16, can
carry magazines of ammunition ranging from 30 to 60 rounds
of ammunition. I have been involved in many cases where
defendants, following a relatively simple process, convert
AR-15 semi-automatic rifles to fully automatic rifles of the
nature of the M-16. This conversion process can often be
accomplished by an individual purchasing certain parts which
will quickly transform the rifle to fire fully automatic. Often
times templates, milling machines, lathes and instruction
guides are utilized by the converter. 

Lt. Barber furnished me with recently taken aerial
photographs of the Mt. Carmel Center which had been taken
by Captain Dan Weyenberg of the McClennan County
Sheriff's Department, Waco, Texas. Among the things noted
in the photographs was a buried bus near the main structure
and an observation tower, approximately three or four stories
tall with windows on all four sides enabling a view from the
structure of 360 degrees. 

I was also advised by Lt. Barber that Robert Cervenka, a
known long time McClennan County citizen, who lives near
the Mt. Carmel Center compound, had, on several occasions,
from January through February of 1992, heard machine gun
fire coming from the compound property. Mr. Cervenka
offered law enforcement authorities his residence to be used
as a surveillance post. 

On July 21, 1992, I met with Robert L. Cervenka, Route 7,
Box 103, Riesel, Texas. Mr. Cervenka farms the property
surrounding the east side of the Mt. Carmel property. Mr.
Cervenka stated that he has farmed that area since 1948. From
about January and February of 1992 he has heard machine gun
fire on the Vernon Howell property during the night hours.
He is familiar with and knows the sound of machine gun fire
because he did a tour overseas with the US Army. He believes
that some of the gunfire he heard was being done with .50
caliber machine guns and possibly M-16 machine guns. 

On November 13, 1992, I spoke with Lt. Gene Barber who
told me that Mr. Cervenka, whose ranch is adjacent to the Mt.
Carmel property, had reported hearing bursts of gunfire from
the Mt. Carmel compound on November 8, 1992, at
approximately 2:45 p.m. 

On June 8, 1992, based on information gained from Gilbreath
by Lt. Barber, I interviewed Dave Haupert, Olympic Arms
Inc., Olympia Washington, a company which had shipped
several parcels to David Koresh at the "Mag-Bag", Route 7,
Box 555-B, Waco, Texas. Mr. Haupert told me that the
records of Olympic Arms Inc., indicated that approximately
forty-five AR-15/M-16 rifle upper receiver units, with
barrels of various calibers, had been shipped from March
through April of 1992 to the Mag-Bag corporation for a total
cost of $11,107.31, cash on delivery. 

On January 13, 1993, I interviewed Larry Gilbreath in Waco,
Texas, and confirmed the information which had previously
been related to me by Lt. Barber. Mr. Gilbreath told me that
although he had been making deliveries at the "Mag-Bag"
and the Mt. Carmel Center for quite some time, his suspicion
about the packages being delivered to those places was never
aroused until about February 1992. At that time the invoices
accompanying a number of packages reflected that they
contained firearm parts and accessories as well as various
chemicals. He stated that in May 1992, a package which was
addressed to the "Mag-Bag" accidentally broke open while it
was being loaded on his delivery truck. He saw that it
contained three other boxes, the contents of which were
"pineapple" type hand grenades which he believed to be inert.
He stated that there were about 50 of the grenades and that he
later delivered them to the Mt. Carmel Center. The Mt.
Carmel Center is that tract of land depicted in the photograph
labeled "attachment B" with the main residential structure
being depicted in "attachment C." 

Mr. Gilbreath stated that these suspicious packages were
usually addressed to the "Mag-Bag" or to David Koresh.
When he would stop to deliver them to the "Mag-Bag" he
was met most of the time by Woodrow Kendrick and on other
occasions by Steve Schneider. They would have him wait
while they telephoned the Mt. Carmel Center to tell them that
UPS was coming with a COD package. He would be
instructed to take the package(s) to the Mt. Carmel Center.
Upon arriving at the Mt. Carmel Center he was usually met
by Perry Jones or on occasion by Steve Schneider who would
pay the COD charges in cash and would accept delivery of the
shipments. 

On this same date, June 8, 1992, I interviewed Glen Deruiter,
manager, Sarco Inc., Stirling, New Jersey, and learned from
him that in May of 1992 their company shipped one M-16
parts set kit with a sling and magazine to the "Mag-Bag" in
the name of David Koresh. The total value of these items was
$284.95. 

Also on June 8, 1992, I interviewed Cynthia Aleo,
Owner/manager Nesard Gun Parts Co., Barrington, Illinois,
and learned from her that in May of 1992 her company
shipped to the "Mag-Bag" 2 M-16 machine gun CAR kits
and 2 M-16 machine gun EZ kits. These kits contain all the
parts of an M-16 machine gun except for the lower receiver
unit which is the "firearm" by lawful definition. Ms. Aleo
stated that the total amount of sales to the "Mag-Bag" was
$1227.00. Within the past month I have spoken with Curtis
Bartlett, firearms technician with BATF and have learned
that Nesard Co. has been under investigation in the past by
BATF for engaging in a scheme to supply parts which would
enable individuals to construct illegal weapons from various
component parts. 

On June 23, 1992, I spoke with ATF compliance inspector
Robert Souza, Seattle, Washington, who inquired about the
"Mag-Bag" corporation, Route 7, Box 555, Waco, Texas. He
had received some invoices reflecting a large quantity of
upper receivers and AR-15 parts being shipped to
"Mag-Bag", Waco, Texas, from Olympic Arms Inc., 624 Old
Pacific Highway, SE, Olympia, Washington. Inspector Souza
faxed me copies of invoices reflecting purchases of twenty
AR-15 upper receiver units with barrels by the "Mag-Bag"
on March 26 and 30, 1992. These items are in addition to the
items referred to above. 

As a result of my investigation of shipments to
Howell/Koresh and Mike Schroeder at the "Mag-Bag"
Corporation, Waco, Texas, through UPS and the inspection of
the firearms records of Henry McMahon, dba Hewitt
Handguns, Hewitt, Texas, I have learned that they acquired
during 1992 the following firearms and related explosive
paraphernalia: 

104 AR-15/M-16 upper receiver groups with barrels 8,100
rounds of 9MM and .223 caliber ammunition for
AR-15/M-16 20 100 round capacity drum magazines for
AK-47 rifles 260 M-16/AR-15 magazines 30 M-14
magazines 2 M-16 EZ kits 2 M-16 CAR kits 1 M-76
grenade launcher (not a typo, this is what it says) 200 M-31
practice rifle grenades 4 M-16 parts set kits "A" 2 flare
launchers 2 cases (approximately 50) inert practice hand
grenades 40-50 pounds of black gunpowder 30 pounds of
potassium nitrate 5 pounds of magnesium metal powder 1
pound of igniter cord (a Class C explosive) 91 AR-15 lower
receiver units 26 various calibers and brands of handguns and
long guns 90 pounds of aluminum metal powder 30-40
cardboard tubes 

The amount of expenditure for the above listed firearm
paraphernalia, excluding the 91 AR-15 lower receiver units
and the 26 complete firearms, was in excess of $44,300.00. 

From my investigation I have learned that a number of
shipments to the "Mag-Bag" have been from vendors with
questionable trade practices. One is presently under
investigation by the ATF for violations of the National
Firearms Act which prohibits unlawful possession of machine
guns, silencers, destructive devices, and machine gun
conversion kits. 

Because of the sensitivity of this investigation these vendors
have not been contacted by me for copies of invoices
indicating the exact items shipped to the "Mag-Bag." 

On November 13, 1992, I interviewed Lt. Coy Jones,
McClennan County Sheriff's Department, Waco, Texas, and
learned from him that he had spoken with an employee of
UPS, Waco, Texas, who wished to remain anonymous. This
person told Jones that Marshal Keith Butler, a relative of the
person who wishes to remain anonymous, is a machinist by
trade and is associated with Vernon Howell. 

The records of the Texas Department of Public Safety reflect
that Butler has been arrested on 7 occasions since 1984 for
unlawful possession of drugs. Two of the arrests resulted in
convictions for possession of a controlled substance. Butler's
latest arrest and conviction was in January 1992. Butler
received a sentence of three years in the Texas Department of
Corrections. In April 1992 Butler was paroled to McClennan
County, Texas. 

On November 13, 1992, I interviewed Terry Fuller, a deputy
sheriff for the McClennan County Sheriff's Department,
Waco, Texas, and learned from him that on November 6,
1992, at approximately 1:25 pm while on route patrol in the
area of the Mt. Carmel Center, the property controlled by
Vernon Howell, he heard a loud explosion in the area of the
north part of the Mt. Carmel property. As he drove toward
the area where he thought the explosion had occurred, he
observed a large cloud of grey smoke dissipating from ground
level on the north end of the Mt. Carmel property. 

On December 7, 1992, I spoke with Special Agent Carlos
Torres, BATF, Houston, Texas, who had been assisting me in
a portion of this investigation. He related to me the results of
his interview on December 4, 1992, with Joyce Sparks, Texas
Department of Human Services, Waco, Texas. Special Agent
Torres told me that Ms. Sparks received a complaint from
outside the State of Texas that David Koresh was operating a
commune-type compound and that he was sexually abusing
young girls. Ms. Sparks stated that on February 27, 1992, she,
along with two other employees of the Texas Dept. of Human
Services, and two McClennan County Sheriff's deputies
responded to the complaint. They went to the Mt. Carmel
Center compound, located east of Waco in McClennan
County. When they arrived at the compound they were met
by a lady who identified herself as Rachel Koresh, the wife of
David Koresh. 

Mrs. Koresh was reluctant to talk with Ms. Sparks because
David Koresh was not there. She had strict orders from him
not to talk with anyone unless he was present. Ms. Sparks
finally was able to convince Mrs. Koresh to allow her to talk
with some of the children who were present. She talked to a
young boy about 7 or 8 years old. The child said that he could
not wait to grow up and be a man. When Ms. Sparks asked
him why he was in such a hurry to grow up he replied that
when he grew up he would get a "long gun" just like all the
other men there. When Ms. Sparks pursued the subject the
boy told her that all the adults had guns and that they were
always practicing with them. 

Ms. Sparks also told Special Agent Torres that she was
escorted through part of the building where she noted a lot of
construction being performed. She also said that she could not
determine how many people were in the group but estimated
about 60-70 people there including men, women and
children. She stated that she saw about 15-20 adult males
there. 

Ms. Sparks also said that on April 6, 1992, she visited the
compound again. On this occasion she talked with David
Koresh. She asked Koresh about the firearms which she had
been told by the small child. Koresh admitted that there were
a few firearms there, but said that most of the adults did not
know of them, and there were too few to be of any
significance. Ms. Sparks said that when she pressed Koresh
about the firearms and their location at the compound, he
offered to show her around. He requested that she wait about
30 minutes until he could get the other residents out of the
building so they would not see where he had the firearms
stored. After a period of time, Ms. Sparks was escorted
through part of the building by Koresh. She noted that there
was more construction activity and that the inside of the
structure looked quite different from her previous visit. Each
time Ms. Sparks asked Koresh about the location of the
firearms, he would tell her that they were in a safe place
where the children could not get to them. He would then
change the subject. 

Ms. Sparks said that she noticed a trap door in the floor at one
end of the building. When she inquired about it, Koresh
allowed her to look into the trap door. She could see a ladder
leading down into a buried school bus from which all the
seats had been removed. At one end of the bus she could see a
very large refrigerator with numerous bullet holes. She also
saw three long guns lying on the floor of the bus, however,
she did not know the make or caliber of them. She stated that
there was no electricity in the bus. Everything she saw was
with the aid of a pen light. When questioned by Ms. Sparks,
Koresh said that the bus was where he practiced his target
shooting in order not to disturb his neighbors. 

Ms. Sparks felt the entire walk through the compound was
staged for her by Koresh. When she asked to speak with some
of the children and other residents, Koresh refused, stating
they were not available. She said that during her conversation
with Koresh, he told her that he was the "Messenger" from
God, that the world was coming to an end, and that when he
"reveals" himself the riots in Los Angeles would pale in
comparison to what was going to happen in Waco, Texas.
Koresh stated that it would be a "military type operation" and
that all the "non-believers" would have to suffer. 

On December 11, 1992, I interviewed Robyn Bunds in
LaVerne, California. Robyn Bunds is a former member and
resident of Vernon Howell's commune in Waco, Texas. She
told me that in 1988 at the age of 19, she gave birth to a son
who was fathered by Vernon Howell. Her departure from the
commune in 1990 was a result of Howell becoming
progressively more violent and abusive. 

While she was there she and other residents were subjected to
watching extremely violent movies of the Viet Nam war
which Howell would refer to as training films. Howell forced
members to stand guard of the commune 24 hours a day with
loaded weapons. Howell always was in possession of firearms
and kept one under his bed while sleeping. Robyn stated that
her present residence in California belonged to her parents.
For a period of several years, Howell had exclusive control of
the residence and used it for other members of his cult when
they were in California. It was later relinquished by Howell
to Robyn's mother. In June 1992, while she was cleaning one
of the bedrooms of the residence, she found a plastic bag
containing gun parts. She showed them to her brother, David
Bunds, who has some knowledge of firearms. He told her it
was a machine gun conversion kit. She stored the gun parts in
her garage because she felt certain that Howell would send
some of his followers to pick them up. Subsequent to her
discovery of the conversion kit, Paul Fatta, Jimmy Riddle,
and Neal Vaega, all members of Howell's cult, and residents
of the commune in Waco, came from Waco, Texas, to
California, and picked up the conversion kit. 

On December 12, 1992, I interviewed Jeannine Bunds, the
mother of Robyn and David Bunds. She told me that she was
a former member of Howell's group in Waco, Texas, having
left there in September, 1991. She is a registered nurse and
was working in that capacity at the Good Samaritan Hospital,
Los Angeles, California. While at Howell's commune in
Waco, she participated in live fire shooting exercises
conducted by Howell. She saw several long guns there, some
of which she described as AK-47 rifles. Mrs. Bunds
described the weapon to me and was able to identify an
AK-47 from among a number of photographs of firearms
shown to her by me. I believe that she is well able to identify
an AK-47. In July of 1991 she saw Howell shooting a
machine gun on the back portion of the commune property.
She knew it was a machine gun because it functioned with a
very rapid fire and would tear up the ground when Howell
shot it. Mrs. Bunds also told me that Howell had fathered at
least fifteen children from various women and young girls at
the compound. Some of the girls who had babies fathered by
Howell were as young as 12 years old. She had personally
delivered 7 of these children. 

According to Ms. Bunds, Howell annuls all marriages of
couples who join his cult. He then has exclusive sexual access
to the women. He also, according to Mrs. Bunds, has regular
sexual relations with young girls there. The girls ages are
from 11 years old to adulthood. 

On January 6, 1993, I interviewed Jeannine Bunds again, in
Los Angeles, California. I showed her several photographs of
firearms and explosive devices. She identified an AR-15
rifle, and a pineapple type hand grenade as being items which
she had seen at the Mt. Carmel Center while she was there.
She stated that she saw several of the AR-15 rifles and at
least one of the hand grenades. 

On January 7, 1993, I interviewed Deborah Sue Bunds in Los
Angeles, California. She was the wife of David Bunds, and
she had been a member of the "Branch Davidians" since birth.
She stated she first met Vernon Wayne Howell in July, 1980.
When Howell assumed leadership of the "Branch" in Waco,
Texas, in 1987, he began to change the context of their
doctrine. While she was at the Mt. Carmel compound in
Waco, Texas, she was assigned under Howell's direction to
guard duty with a loaded weapon. About February, 1989, she
observed Howell shooting a machine gun behind the main
structure of the compound. She is sure the firearm was a
machine gun because of the rapid rate of fire and the rate of
fire was much different from that which was usually
conducted during practice exercises on the compound. After
describing the firing of this weapon to me, I believe that Ms.
Bunds was describing the firing of an automatic weapon. 

Mrs. Deborah Bunds also told me that during an evening meal
a short time after having seen Howell shoot the machine gun,
she overheard Howell and his closest associates discussing
machine guns. Howell was very excited about having a
machine gun. He voiced a desire to acquire additional
machine guns specifically AK-47 type macine guns. 

During this investigation I made inquiries of a number of law
enforcement data bases for information about those commune
residents who I have been able to identify. Through TECS I
learned that some 40 foreign nationals from Jamaica, United
Kingdom, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand have entered
the United States at various times in the past and have used
the address of the Mt. Carmel Center, Waco, Texas, as their
point of contact while here. According to INS records, most
of these foreign nationals have overstayed their entry permits
or visas and are therefore illegally in the United States. I
know that it is a violation of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 922, for
an illegal alien to receive a firearm. 

On January 1 and January 3, 1993, Mrs. Poia Vaega, of
Mangere, Auckland, New Zealand, was interviewed
telephonically by Resident Agent in Charge Bill Buford,
BATF, Little Rock Arkansas, who also is assisting me in this
investigation. The results of Special Agent Buford's
interview on January 1, 1993, was reduced to writing and
furnished to me. Special Agent Buford's interview on January
3, 1993, was tape recorded with the permission of Poia Vaega
and has since been transcribed and typewritten. Both the tape
recording and the transcription was furnished to me by
Special Agent Buford. Both interviews with Poia Vaega
revealed a false imprisonment for a term of three and a half
months which began in June of 1991 and physical and sexual
abuse of one of Mrs. Vaega's sisters, Doreen Saipaia. This
was while she was a member of the Branch Davidian at the
Mt. Carmel Center, Waco, Texas. The physical and sexual
abuse was done by Vernon Wayne Howell and Stanley Sylvia,
a close follower of Howell, on several occasions. 

It was learned From Mrs. Vaega that she and her husband
Leslie were also members of Howell's group in Waco for a
short period of time in March, 1990. Upon their arrival at Mt.
Carmel Center, she and her husband were separated and not
allowed to sleep together or have any sexual contact. 

According to Mrs. Vaega, all the girls and women at the
compound were exclusively reserved for Howell. She stated
that Howell would preach his philosophy, which did not
always coincide with the bible, for hours at a time. She and
her husband left the compound after ten days because her
husband did not agree with Howell's doctrine but that her two
sisters stayed behind. 

Mrs. Vaega also related that she was present at one of the
study periods held by Howell when Howell passed his
personal AK-47 machine gun around for the group to handle
and look over. 

On January 6, 1993, I received the results of an examination
conducted by Jerry A. Taylor, explosives enforcement officer,
BATF, Walnut Creek, California, in response to a request
from me to render an opinion on device design, construction,
functioning, effects and classification of explosives materials
which have been accumulated by Howell and his followers.
Mr. Taylor has received extensive training in explosives
classification, identification and rendering safe of explosive
devices and has been recognized on numerous occasions as an
expert witness in Federal Court. Mr. Taylor stated that the
chemicals Potassium Nitrate, Aluminum and Magnesium,
when mixed in the proper proportions do constitute an
explosive as defined by federal law. He further stated that
igniter cord is an explosive. Also Mr. Taylor stated that the
inert practice rifle grenades and hand grenades would, if
modified as weapons, with the parts available to Howell,
become explosive devices as defined by federal law. Finally,
he stated that black powder is routinely used as the main
charge when manufacturing improvised explosive weapons,
such as grenades and pipe bombs. I know that Title 26, U.S.C.
Section 5845, makes it unlawful for a person to possess any
combination of parts designed or intended for use in
converting any device into a destructive device. The
definition of "firearm" includes any combination of parts
either designed or intended for use in converting any device
into a destructive device, such as a grenade, and from which a
destructive device may be readily assembled. See United
States vs Price, 877 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1989). So long as an
individual possesses all the component parts item constitutes
a destructive device, even though it is not assembled, so long
as it can be readily assembled. United States vs Russell, 468
F.SUPP. 322 (D.C. Tex. 1979). 

On January 8, 1993, I interviewed Marc Breault in Los
Angeles, California. He is an American citizen who lives in
Australia with his wife Elizabeth. He was once a member of
the Branch Davidian in Waco, Texas. He lived at the Mt.
Carmel Center from early 1988 until September 1989. While
there he participated in physical training and firearms
shooting exercises conducted by Howell. He stood guard
armed with a loaded weapon. Guard duty was maintained 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. Those who stood guard duty were
instructed by Howell to "shoot to kill" anyone who attempted
to come through the entrance gate of the Mt. Carmel
property. On one occasion, Howell told him that he wanted to
obtain and/or manufacture machine guns, grenades and
explosive devices. Howell stated he thought that the gun
control laws were ludicrous because an individual could
easily acquire a firearm and the necessary parts to convert it
to a machine gun, but if a person had the gun and the parts
together they would be in violation of the law. On another
occasion Howell told him that he was interested in acquiring
the "Anarchist's Cookbook" which I know is a publication
outlining clandestine operations to include instructions and
formulas for manufacturing improvised explosive devices. 

On January 12, 1993, I spoke with Special Agent Earl
Dunagan, BATF, Austin, Texas, who is assisting me in this
investigation. He related the results of his inquiry to the ATF
firearms technology branch, Washington, DC, for an opinion
concerning the firearms parts which have been accumulated
by Howell and his group. Special Agent Dunagan stated that
he had spoken with Curtis Bartlett, firearms enforcement
officer, Washington, DC, and was told by Officer Bartlett
that the firearms parts which Howell has received and the
method by which he has received them is consistent with
activities in other ATF investigations in various parts of the
US which have resulted in the discovery and seizure of
machine guns. Mr. Bartlett stated that the firearms parts
received by Howell could be used to assemble both
semi-automatic firearms and machine guns. He has examined
many firearms which had been assembled as machine guns
which include these type parts. 

Mr. Bartlett also told Special Agent Dunagan that one of the
vendors of supplies to Howell has been the subject of several
ATF investigations in the past. ATF executed a search
warrant at this company and had seized a number of illegal
machine guns and silencers. 

Special Agent Dunagan told me that on January 12, 1993, he
spoke to Special Agent Mark Mutz, ATF, Washington, DC,
who was the case agent on the above ongoing investigation
dealing with the illicit supplier who has provided gun parts to
Howell. Special Agent Mutz stated that during the execution
of the federal search warrant at the company's office in South
Carolina he saw large quantities of M-16 machine gun and
AK-47 machine gun parts. The company maintained their
inventory of these parts as "replacement parts" so they fell
easily within a loophole in the federal law which prohibited
ATF from seizing the parts. Special Agent Mutz stated that
the company had all the necessary parts to convert AR-15
rifles and semi-automatic AK-47 rifles into machine guns if
their customers had the upper and lower receivers for those
firearms. Based on my investigation as stated above in the
description of gun parts shipped to Howell I know that
Howell possesses the upper and lower receivers for the
firearms which he apparently trying to convert to fully
automatic. 

Mr. Bartlett told me that another one of the vendors of
supplies to Howell, Nesard Gun Parts Co., 27 West 990
Industrial Road, Barrington, Illinois, has also been the subject
of an ATF investigation. Officer of that company, Gerald
Grayson, Cynthia Aleo, and Anthony Aleo all plead guilty to
ATF charges. The Nesard Company which owned Sendra
Corporation was shipping AR-15 receivers through the
Sendra Corporation, along with part kits from the Nesard
Company. When these parts are assembled it resulted in the
manufacture of a short barreled rifle. Even though the above
subjects are convicted felons they continue to conduct
business because the Nesard Gun Parts Co. distributes gun
parts and not firearms. 

On January 25, 1993, I interviewed David Block in Los
Angeles, California. He stated that he was a member of
Howell's cult at the Mt. Carmel Center, Waco, Texas, from
March 1992 until June 13, 1992. During the time he was there
he attended two gun shows with Vernon Howell, Mike
Schroeder, Paul Fatta, and Henry McMahon, who is a
federally licensed firearms dealer. The gun shows were in
Houston and San Antonio, Texas. 

While at the Mt. Carmel Center, he saw a metal lathe and a
metal milling machine which were normally operated by
Donald Bunds and Jeff Little. Donald Bunds, a mechanical
engineer, has the capability to fabricate firearm parts
according to Block. On one occasion, at the Mt. Carmel
Center, he observed Bunds designing what Bunds described as
a "grease gun/sten gun" on an Auto Cad computer located at
the residence building at the compound. The computer has the
capability of displaying a three dimensional rendering of
objects on a computer monitor screen. The object appeared to
be a cylindrical tube with a slot cut into the side of it for a
bolt cocking lever. Bunds told him that Howell wanted Bunds
to design a "grease gun" which they could manufacture. Mr.
Block told me that on another occasion at the Mt. Carmel
Center, he saw Donald Bunds designing a template which
Bunds explained was to fit around the "grease gun" tubes
indicating where the bolt lever slots were to be milled out.
This was another step in manufacturing "grease guns" which
had been requested by Howell. I know that a "grease gun" is a
machine gun following after the design of a WWII era
military weapon. 

During his time at the Mt. Carmel Center, Mr. Block was
present on several occasions when Howell would ask if
anyone had any knowledge about making hand grenades or
converting semi-automatic rifles to machine guns. At one
point he also heard discussion about a shipment of inert hand
grenades and Howell's intent to reactivate them. Mr. Block
stated that he observed at the compound published magazines
such as "The Shotgun News" and other related clandestine
magazines. He heard extensive talk of the existence of the
"Anarchist's Cookbook." 

Mr. Block told me that he observed a .50 caliber rifle
mounted on a bipod along with .50 caliber ammunition.
However, what Mr. Block described to ATF agents was a
British Boys .52 caliber anti-tank rifle (a destructive device.)
Mr. Block further stated that he also heard talk of the
existence of two additional .50 caliber rifles on the
compound. There was also extensive talk about converting the
.50 caliber rifles and other rifles to machine guns. 

Mr. Block also told me that he met James Paul Jones from
Redding, Claifornia, who was visiting the Mt. Carmel Center
in April or May of 1992. According to Howell, Jones was a
firearms and explosives expert. 

On February 22, 1993, ATF Special Agent Robert Rodriguez
told me that on February 21, 1993, while acting in an
undercover capacity, he was contacted by David Koresh and
was invited to the Mt. Carmel compound. Special Agent
Rodriguez accepted the invitation and met with David Koresh
inside the compound. Vernon Howell, aka David Koresh,
played music on a guitar for 30 minutes and then began to
read the bible to Special Agent Rodriguez. During this
session, Special Agent Rodriguez was asked numerous
questions about his life. After answering all the questions,
Special Agent Rodriguez was asked to attend a two week
bible session with David Koresh. This was for Special Agent
Rodriguez to learn the seven seals and become a member of
the group. Special Agent Rodriguez was told that by
becoming a member he (Rodriguez) was going to be watched
and disliked. David Koresh stated that Special Agent
Rodriguez would be disliked because the government did not
consider the group religious, and that he (Korseh) did not pay
taxes, or local taxes because he felt he did not have to. David
Koresh told Special Agent Rodriguez that he believed in the
right to bear arms but that the US government was going to
take away that right. David Koresh asked Special Agent
Rodriguez if he knew that if he (Rodriguez) purchased a
drop-in sear for an AR-15 rifle it would not be illegal. But if
he had an AR-15 rifle with the sear that it would be against
the law. David Koresh stated that the sear could be purchased
legally. David Koresh stated that the bible gave him the right
to bear arms. David Koresh then advised Special Agent
Rodriguez that he had something he wanted Special Agent
Rodriguez to see. At that point he showed Special Agent
Rodriguez a video tape on ATF which was made by the Gun
Owner's Association (GOA). This film portrayed ATF as an
agency who violated the rights of gun owners by threats and
lies. 

I believe that Vernon Howell, aka David Koresh and/or his
followers who reside at the compound known locally as the
Mt. Carmel Center are unlawfully manufacturing and
possessing machine guns and explosive devices. 

It has been my experience over the five years that I have been
a special agent for BATF and that of other special agents of
the BATF, some of whom have the experience of twenty
years or more, who have assisted in this investigation, that it
is a common practice for persons engaged in the unlawful
manufacture and possession of machine guns and explosive
devices to employ surreptitious methods and means to acquire
the products necessary to produce such items, and the
production, use, and storage of those items are usually in a
protected or secret environment. It is also my experience that
persons who acquire firearms, firearms parts, and explosive
materials maintain records of receipt and ownership of such
items and instruction manuals or other documents explaining
the methods of construction of such unlawful weaponry. 

Davy Aguilera, Special Agent Bureau of ATF 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of February
1993 Dennis G. Green United States Magistrate Judge
Western District of Texas - Waco 

Is a Search Warrant Your Death
Warrant? 

by Larry Pratt

Executive Director, Gun Owners of America [as printed in Guns &
Ammo/November 1993]

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects us from
unreasonable searches and seizures. The Eighth Amendment
protects us from excessive fines and cruel punishments. We
gun owners pay a lot of attention to the Second Amendment
right to bear arms. However, the government can abuse the
Fourth and Eighth Amendments to undercut the Second. 

Perhaps the best known example in this area are the events
this year in Waco, Texas. We watched the building burn
along with its occupants--80 or more men, women and
children--at the conclusion of a government raid to look for
illegal guns. Many of us asked, was this devastation really
necessary? 

The more we learn about the events there, the more the
answer appears to be, "no." David Koresh and his group had
willingly complied with law-enforcement officials on
several occasions--even on the issue of illegal firearms. Paul
Fatta, a member of Koresh's group who was absent during the
day of the raid, told reporters that eight months before the
raid, the group had learned that law-enforcement officials
wished to put recording devices on their property to check for
illegal automatic weapons. Fatta added, "We went into the
sheriff's office and said, 'why don't you come and ask us
what we've got?'" Fatta said that Lt. Gene Barber at the
sheriff's office had told the group that its firearms were legal.

The BATF's reason for its paramilitary assault on the
compound seemed to change by the day. The BATF was
claiming on March 6 that a report that Koresh would order a
Jonestown-style mass suicide had triggered the raid. The
BATF told the Texas National Guard before the raid that they
had detected an illegal methamphetamine laboratory in the
compound using infrared cameras but withdrew that charge
on March 29. 

(The claimed illegal-drug operation was the only way that
the BATF could legally request the helicopters it obtained
from the Texas National Guard. The role of these helicopters
is still controversial and is discussed below.) 

Perhaps BATF's most controversial justification was that
Koresh had not left his compound for months. However, both
a waitress and the general manager of the Chelsea Street Pub
& Grill in Waco reported seeing Koresh in the restaurant just
three weeks before the raid. The BATF's response was a
concession by Dan Hartnett, associate director of the BATF,
that "federal agents were not keeping constant watch on"
Koresh. 

Even the _New York Times_, a full month after the raid,
pointed out on page one that, "No criminal charges have been
filed. And the government has never clearly articulated what
laws members of the Branch Davidian sect were suspected of
having committed before the raid, although some officials
have said they believe its leader, David Koresh, violated
Federal firearms and explosives laws." 

The BATF even backed away from the accusation that they
could prove Koresh and his followers had illegal firearms.
David Troy, chief of the BATF's Intelligence Division, told
the Washington Post that the BATF expected that the group
would reconvert its illegally converted firearms back to
semi-automatic status. Troy then said, "We would have to
demonstrate that" the weapons had been reconverted, "and the
evidence may or may not be conclusive in court." 

The weapons evidence may well have been far from
conclusive if the BATF's affidavit used to get its search
warrant is any indication. To take one example, the affidavit
claims a BATF agent observed the upper and lower receivers
of a disassembled AK-47. But the AK-47 has a one-piece
receiver. Thus, what the BATF claimed to see did not exist. 

The fire that consumed the Waco compound on April 19
made certain that no one will ever know exactly what was in
those buildings. The fire consumed another major piece of
evidence as to who had fired first. 

On April 2, 1993, Stephen Higgins told Congress that "I have
no information that anyone fired from the helicopters." Yet
Koresh's legal team told the _New York Times_ that the
helicopters were used as offensive weapons to fire
indiscriminately through the walls and roof of the building.
Attorney Jack Zimmerman was quite specific as to the
evidentiary value of the building itself: "An expert will be
able to tell from the angle of the trajectory plus the pattern
whether there are entry or exit holes. if it's in the ceiling and
it's clearly an exit hole, it had to have come from above. How
else could it have come in?" 

The fiery conclusion to the siege at Waco ensured that the
investigation Zimmerman suggested will be impossible. 

Did the Government Intend to kill Koresh?

When even _The New Yorker_ magazine thinks something
strange happened at Waco, it would seem that the
government's excuse for using tanks and tear gas was not
being believed: 

"What caused the authorities to take 'the next logical step' of
breaking holes in the structure with a tanklike armored
vehicle and pumping in tear gas? It was to save the children,
Attorney General Janet Reno claimed later that day,
explaining that she had been told Koresh was 'slapping babies
around.' The FBI's director, William Sessions, denied that
there was any evidence of ongoing child abuse. His reason for
gassing the compound was to encourage the stalled
negotiations, he said. The assistant director of the bureau's
criminal division offered a third reason: 'These people had
thumbed their noses at law enforcement.'" 

Perhaps this last comment is why the FBI chose to flood the
Waco compound with CS tear gas despite the obvious
dangers. CS is an extremely potent agent designed for riot
control. One expert called it the last resort prior to opening
fire. CS is not recommended for use by law enforcement
when dealing with a barricade situation. CS grenades in
particular are notorious for starting fires. U.S. Army
Training Circular 19-3 _Control of Civil Disturbance_
(January 1968) stated: 

"It must be remembered that _burning type_ grenades should
not be used if there is _danger that a fire may be started_."
(emphasis in original) 

James Pate, who analyzed the Waco events for another
publication, was contacted by a law-enforcement source who
suggested the fire was not an accident: 

"I'm flat here to tell you that, every time they [the FBI] really
want to hurt somebody, they use tear gas. They use
pyrotechnic burning devices. They do it intentionally. I've
been there when they did it." 

Intentionally or not, the flammability of CS would surely
have indicated that the FBI might wish to have fire trucks
standing by. But fire trucks were not called until 12:12 p.m.
despite tear-gas canisters being fired as early as 6:30 a.m.
And even when the fire trucks arrived at 12:22 p.m., they
were not allowed to pass the government's checkpoints until
at least 12:37. By that time, the fire had been roaring through
the building for nearly a half hour. 

In addition, CS in an enclosed room can be easily fatal
because it reaches highly concentrated levels--CS was
originally designed to be used outdoors, after all. Suffocation
is not uncommon when CS is used indoors. Even
non-flammabie CS powder can explode if allowed to build
up, much like an explosion in a grain silo. 

It is also possible that the FBI tanks themselves may have
triggered the fire inadvertently--perhaps by knocking over a
kerosene lantern or propane tank. Again, something that can
never be known. The government investigation of the fire can
be shown to be self-serving. 

Much was made of "Houston arson investigator" Paul Gray
who told the press that David Koresh's followers set the fires,
"lend[ing] credence to the FBI version of how the Branch
Davidian compound went up in flames." Not only had Gray
himself worked with the BATF as part of a federal task force,
but his wife was still employed as a secretary in the BATF's
Houston office. 

BATF Showboating May Have Gotten Its Men
Killed.

If Koresh was as dangerous as the BATF claimed he was, why
did the agency act as though it was trying to get on television.
It is not often that a secret raid against a heavily armed group
of fanatics is covered live by the press. Yet at least 11
reporters were on the scene before the raid began. In addition,
editors at both the ABC and NBC television affiliates in
nearby Dallas admitted that they received a call the day
before the raid from Sharon Wheeler of the BATF who told
them, "We have something big going down." 

The desire of the BATF to make a television statement is also
suggested by the agency's unwillingness to attempt a less
telegenic approach. Koresh was recorded as telling the BATF
shortly after the first raid, "It would have been better if you
just called me up or talked to me. Then you could have come
in and done your work." 

Had the BATF sent one agent with a search warrant, it may 

have been able to settle the matter peacefully. However, that
would have done nothing to advance the militant anti-gun
agenda of the agency. Paul Craig Roberts, a nationally
respected economist and commentator came to this
conclusion: 

"It now appears that the raid on the compound was intended
to further the cause of gun control by televising into every
home alarming scenes of a vast stockpile of weapons in the
hands of fanatic cultists." 

In May, Attorney General Reno quietly released a new Justice
Department policy that bars the news media from going along
with federal law-enforcement officers on raids. 

Koresh's Crime: Criticizing the BATF?

A review of the evidence the BATF put forward to justify its
first search warrant indicates that the case it had against
Koresh was based more on his views than his actions. 

David Koresh had what most of us would consider strange
religious views. However, there is no federal death penalty
for believing oneself to be Jesus Christ. Koresh and his people
owned firearms--more than one, in fact. There is nothing
illegal about that. David Koresh didn't think much of the
BATF. That appears to have been a crime. 

The official affidavit of BATF agent Davy Aguiiera used to
justify the search warrant issued on Feb. 25 contained an
interesting passage: 

"On Feb. 22, 1993, ATF Special Agent Robert Rodriguez told
me that on Feb. 21, 1993, while acting in an undercover
capacity, he was contracted by David Koresh and was invited
to the Mt. Carmel compound.... David Koresh told
[Rodriguez] that he believed in the right to bear arms but that
the U.S. government was going to take away that right.
[Koresh then explained how it was legal for him to own a
drop-in sear for an AR-15, but not an AR-15 with the
sear.]... David Koresh stated that the Bible gave him the right
to bear arms. David Koresh then advised [Rodriguez] that he
had something he wanted [Rodriguez] to see. At that point he
showed [Rodriguez] a video tape on ATF which was made by
the Gun Owners Association (GOA). This film portrayed
ATF as an agency who violated the rights of Gun Owners by
threats and lies." 

The BATF's legendary committment to accuracy is
demonstrated here. There is indeed a GOA--but the initials
stand for Gun Owners of America, a group of over 100,000
pro-gun Americans who I am proud to represent in
Washington. GOA indeed made a tape about the BATF's
abuses of power. We called it _Breaking the Law in the Name
of the Law: The BATF Story_. The tape has been available
for years. If it were inaccurate in any way, I expect I would
have heard from the BATF by now. 

That this is the last charge made in the affidavit prior to the
raid should be an alarm to every law-abiding gun owner.
According to the BATF, it is suspicious for a citizen to
believe in the right to bear arms, be knowledgeable about
firearms laws and own video tapes critical of the BATF. If
this is grounds for a search warrant to be served by an army,
the rest of us had better step lightly. 

In fact, in another application for a search warrant on April
13, the BATF told a judge that Koresh espoused "certain
doctrines hostile to law enforcement and particularly the
ATF." The agency added: 

"Special Agent Robert Rodriguez... learned that Howell
[Koresh] had videotapes and other commercially produced
material which are critical of firearms law enforcement and
particularly the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(ATF). I therefore intend to search for and seize videotapes,
writings and other materials which evidence Howell or other
cult members' motive for wanting to shoot and kill ATF
agents." 

If these are grounds for a raid, it appears that the BATF will
police the First Amendment as well as the Second. If the
_Shotgun News_ is a "clandestine magazine" to the BATF,
the copy of _Guns & Ammo_ you are holding could be
evidence against you. Unpopular beliefs are a good way to put
a target on your back. 

 


(Author's note: the author gives permission for the unrestricted
reproduction of the following article, which was written for the
January/February 1994 issue of _The American_.) 



Assault on Waco

by Kevin S. Van Horn

On January 10 the trials of those few Branch Davidians who
survived the Waco Massacre begin. With their home, the Mt.
Carmel complex, in ruins, and families and friends dead, they
remain stigmatized by the government and press as dangerous,
lunatic "cultists." This article is an attempt to counter the
defamation they have suffered and publicize the crimes
committed against them by the government. Given the limited
space available, I have chosen to trade breadth for depth; thus
this article will consider only the accusations made against the
Davidians, the events leading up to the ATF assault on their
home, and the assault itself. 

Who Were the Branch Davidians? 

Immediately after the ATF assault on Mount Carmel the Federal
Government began a campaign of vilification against the Branch
Davidians. They were repeatedly portrayed in the press as
dangerous, insane, bloodthirsty fanatics. Yet this supposedly
sociopathic sect had lived peacefully in and near Waco for over
half a century. Let's see what their neighbors have to say about
the Davidians. 

Collective Impressions 

According to the Houston Post, Gene Chapman, owner of
Chapman's Fruit Market, has nothing but kind words for the
Davidians. "They're just all nice, decent, normal people," he
said. "Well, not normal." [30] 

A.L. Dreyer, an 80-yr-old farmer, owns a ranch adjoining the
Mt. Carmel property. "I've never had no trouble with them
people," he said. "I've always said if they stay on their side of
the fence, I'll stay on mine... I have no fear of those people." [31]

The ATF's "storm trooper tactics" were "a vulgar display of
power on the part of the feds," said former Waco District
Attorney Vic Feazell. Feazell unsuccesfully prosecuted seven
Branch Davidians in 1988. "We treated them like human beings,
rather than storm-trooping the place," he told the Houston
Chronicle. "They were extremely polite... They're protective of
what's theirs..." [12] 

"(T)hey were basically good people," said McLennan County
Sheriff Jack Harwell. "All of 'em were good people." [59] 

Koresh 

Henry McMahon, a former Waco resident and gun store owner,
described David Koresh as a likable guy. "There was nothing out
of the ordinary (about Koresh's personality)," McMahon said,
adding that Koresh was "an average Joe." [41] , [43] 

"He (Koresh) is a very gentle man," said a Waco doctor who had
treated Koresh for three years prior to the ATF assault. "He is
very intelligent and articulate. They made him sound like a
ruthless killer and that's just absurd." [18] 

Gary Coker, a Waco lawyer, said he believed Koresh wouldn't
hurt anyone unless he was bothered by outsiders. "It's sort of
like a rattlesnake. Unless you step on him, he's not going to hurt
anybody." [23] 

Steve Schneider 

Steve Schneider emerged as a chief negotiator during the
standoff, and was considered Koresh's lieutenant. FBI Special
Agent Bob Ricks called Schneider "a cool, calm, deliberate
individual." Cult Awareness Network `deprogrammer' Rick
Ross described Schneider as well-educated, and said he was "a
man with a history of deep religious conviction, honesty and
integrity." [32] 

Wayne Martin 

Douglas Wayne Martin held a position of major responsibility
among the Davidians; only he and Steve Schneider ever spoke
face- to-face with federal negotiators during the siege. Martin
was a 42-year-old black lawyer and graduate of Harvard Law
School. For seven years he was an assistant professor at the
North Carolina Central University School of Law. After
moving to Waco he maintained a law practice near Mount
Carmel. He had a wife and seven children. [38] , [42] 

Martin was viewed by many who knew him as a quiet, jovial
and religious person [38] . He was routinely described as
professional and competent in court [34] . 

"People may tend to dismiss this event as just a bunch of
religious fanatics, but having known Doug humanizes it for
me," said Mark Morris, a law professor at NCCU. "He was a
very bright, smart, able, kind person, and it's a real shock
(Martin's death)." 

"He left about a year after I got here, but he seemed to be a very
nice and personable guy," Associate Law School Dean Irving
Joyner said [38] . 

McLennan County Commissioner Lester Gibson said he and
others who knew Martin found it hard to believe he could have
been involved in anything so violent. "He was very friendly and
quiet," said Gibson. "It was common knowledge that he was a
Davidian, but he never talked religion." [34] 

Gary Coker, a Waco lawyer, described Martin as a kind man and
a particularly devoted father. 

Waco city council member Lawrence Johnson had known
Martin for five years at the time of the assault. He described
Martin as a computer whiz and as a diligent lawyer. "I enjoyed
working with him. He was smart, he was well-educated,"
Johnson said. 

After the raid, Martin, still the conscientious lawyer, managed
to send Johnson money to reimburse clients he was unable to
represent while he was holed up in the compound. "That was his
sense of responsibility coming out." [42] 

Perry Jones 

Perry Jones was Koresh's father-in-law. News reports
described him as a polite older man, bespectacled and somewhat
frail, and well known at various businesses in the Waco
community. Jones was once called "the kindest man and a
perfect gentleman." "He was nice and he had good manners,"
said Tim Jander, general manager of Star Tex Propane in Waco. 

Jones died a slow and painful death after ATF agents shot him in
the abdomen. [49] 

Unsurprisingly, the feds decided that they did not want to hold
the trials of the surviving Branch Davidians in Waco. Instead
they got a change of venue to San Antonio, nearly 200 miles
away, where the jury members would be unlikely to have
independent knowledge of the Davidians' character. 

The Roden Gunfight 

One incident which the government and press used to paint the
Branch Davidians as dangerous and violent was the gunfight
with George Roden that took place at Mt. Carmel in 1988. But
it was George Roden who was dangerous, violent, murderous
and insane. 

In 1984 a dispute arose between George Roden and David
Koresh over leadership of the Davidians. This culminated in
Roden forcing Koresh and his followers off of the Mt. Carmel
property at gunpoint [21] . Koresh led his group to the city of
Palestine, Texas [26] . 

By late 1987 things were faring badly for George Roden. He had
almost no money, few followers, mounting debts and an angry
Texas Supreme Court Justice on his trail [70] . So Roden
decided to conclusively settle the leadership dispute with
Koresh. He went to a graveyard and dug up the body of a man
who had been dead 25 years, put the casket in the Mt. Carmel
chapel, and said that whoever could raise this man from the dead
was the one to lead the Davidians. 

Koresh reported the action to the Sheriff's Department. He was
told that his word alone wasn't enough -- proof was needed. So
on November 3, 1987, Koresh and several men went out to Mt.
Carmel to take pictures of the body in the casket. The Sheriff
had warned them to be careful, because Roden was dangerous, so
they armed themselves. The plan was to open the casket, take the
pictures, and leave, but Roden caught them, and a gunfight
ensued in which Roden was wounded [64] . 

Koresh and seven other Davidians were charged with attempted
murder [20] . Jack Harwell, McLennan County Sheriff, called
Koresh on the phone and informed him of the charges. He asked
Koresh and the others to turn themselves in, and to surrender
their weapons. When deputies arrived at Mount Carmel, Koresh
and the other Davidians peacefully complied [64] . Officials
traced the weapons and found that each was legally purchased 
[22] . 

On March 21, 1988, Roden was served with a citation for
contempt of court. U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith, Jr.
sentenced him to six months in jail for continuing to file
expletive-filled motions threatening the justices with AIDS and
herpes, despite orders to cease and desist [70] , [65] , [30] . 

On April 25, Koresh's seven followers were acquitted, and the
jury hung 9-3 in favor of Koresh's acquittal. The state then
dropped the charges against him [68] , [20] . 

Koresh paid up 16 years of delinquent taxes on the Mount
Carmel property, which allowed him and his followers to move
in [68] . Upon returning to the property they found a
methamphetamine lab and large piles of pornographic material.
They burned the pornography and reported the meth lab to the
DA's office [64] . 

Fifteen months after Koresh's trial, in the summer of 1989,
Roden was approached by a man who claimed to be the Messiah.
Roden split the man's head open with an ax [67] . Odessa police
charged Roden with murder. The following year he was found
not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to a state mental
hospital [10] , where he remains to this day [26] . 

Allegations of Child Abuse 

Another tactic the federal government used to demonize the
Davidians was to accuse them of child abuse. These accusations
originally arose from Marc Breault, a former follower of
Koresh who had a bitter falling out with him. Breault quit the
sect at the end of 1989 and moved to Australia. He then threw
himself into a campaign to discredit his former mentor, in the
process leading away most of the Australian members of the
sect. 

In March 1990 Breault, his wife and a number of his Australian
followers swore out more than 30 pages of affidavits claiming
that Koresh was abusing children. A second set of affidavits was
sworn out for use in a child custody hearing in early 1992, in
which a Michigan man named David Jewell petitioned to gain
custody of his daughter, then living at Mt. Carmel with Jewell's
ex-wife. However, the allegations were mostly general and
lacking in detail [48] . 

Thus the allegations of child abuse sprung from two sources: (1)
a man who hated Koresh and was obsessed with discrediting
him; and (2) a child-custody dispute. Note that allegations of
child abuse are a common tactic in child-custody disputes. 

As a result of Breault's efforts, local authorities began an
investigation of the child abuse charges. Officials of the Child
Protective Services division of the Texas Department of
Protective and Regulatory Services, and the McLennan County
sheriff's office, visited Mt. Carmel in February and March
1992. They found no evidence of child abuse [46] . 

On April 23, 1993, in response to the Clinton administration's
continued claims of child abuse, the Texas Department of
Protective and Regulatory Services offered the following
summary of its nine-week investigation: "None of the
allegations could be verified. The children denied being abused
in any way by any adults in the compound. They denied any
knowledge of other children being abused. The adults
consistently denied participation in or knowledge of any abuse
to children. Examinations of the children produced no indication
of current or previous injuries." Texas child protection officials
also said they received no further abuse allegations after that
time [48] . 

Breault had also contacted the FBI, accusing Koresh of a number
of other crimes besides child abuse. A February 23, 1993 FBI
memo, obtained by the Dallas Morning News, stated that no
information had been developed to verify the allegations of
"child abuse and neglect, tax evasion, slavery and reports of
possible mass destruction." 

The Clinton administration alleged that the Davidians were
abusing children during the siege of Mt. Carmel. This was
contradicted by those who actually saw the children. During the
siege a man named Louis Alaniz managed to sneak past federal
officials to visit the Davidians (he was not a Davidian himself).
After leaving, he reported that the children at Mt. Carmel
appeared happy, playing and laughing continuously, and that
there were no outward signs of child abuse [44] . 

Sheriff Jack Harwell, who was the only outside negotiator
brought into the Mount Carmel siege, said there was never any
proof that children were being abused inside the compound.
None of the children who were released from the compound,
Harwell said, showed any signs of physical abuse [45] . 

According to Texas child protective services officials, none of
the 21 children released to the authorities showed signs of abuse,
and none of them confirmed that any abuse was committed. The
children were physically and psychologically examined [45] , 
[47] . Dr. Bruce Perry, the head of the team treating the
children, stated flatly: "(N)one of the 21 children had been
sexually abused or molested." [69] 

After the blaze that killed most of the Davidians, the Clinton
administration stepped up its "child abuse" offensive. White
House communications director George Stephanopoulos
claimed that "there was overwhelming evidence of child abuse
in the Waco compound." [39] But this claim was contradicted by
others within the federal government itself. 

FBI director William Sessions said his agency had "no
contemporaneous evidence" of child abuse in the compound
during the siege [48] . "(T)here had been no recent reports of the
beating of children." In response to Janet Reno's claim of
reports that "babies were being beaten," Sessions said, "I do not
know what the attorney general was referring to specifically." 
[37] 

The Justice Department itself put the lie to Clinton's and Reno's
wild accusations. In a report released in early October, the
Justice Department said there was no evidence of child abuse at
the compound during the siege or even enough evidence to arrest
Koresh on such charges before the February 28 raid [5] . 

The Gun Arsenal 

The press and the federal government made much of the
Davidians' collection of guns. President Clinton claimed the
Davidians had "illegally stockpiled weaponry and ammunition."
[1] But there is no law limiting the number of legal weapons one
may accumulate. Furthermore, by Texas standards the
Davidians' gun collection was rather small. After the siege
investigators found only 200 firearms in the ruins of Mt.
Carmel [57] , which amounts to about two guns per adult. But
Texas' 17 million residents own a total of 68 million guns, for
an average of four guns apiece, while 16,600 Texans legally own
machine guns [33] . 

The government also claimed that the Davidians were planning
an assault on Waco. This claim was based on third-hand
information related to ATF Special Agent Davy Aguilera, who
filed the affidavit for the original raid on Mt. Carmel. Aguilera
had interviewed ATF Special Agent Carlos Torres, who had
interviewed Joyce Sparks, an investigator with the Texas
Department of Human Services. According to Aguilera's
affidavit, Torres told Aguilera that Sparks had told him that
Koresh had told her "that he was the `Messenger' from God, that
the world was coming to an end, and that when he `reveals'
himself the riots in Los Angeles would pale in comparison to
what was going to happen in Waco, Texas." Furthermore, this
self-revelation "would be a `military type operation' and... all
the `non-believers' would have to suffer." Koresh supposedly
said this on Sparks' second and final visit to Mt. Carmel to
investigate child-abuse charges, on April 6, 1992 [63] . But the
LA riots broke out on April 29, more than three weeks after
Sparks last visited Koresh! 

Enter the ATF 

In Feb. 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a report
that the ATF had "disregarded rights guaranteed by the
Constitution and laws of the United States." Illegal ATF actions
included entrapment and secret lawmaking via unpublished
administrative interpretations of gun laws. The report noted that
"expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately
75 percent of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary
citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but
were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations." In
the wake of the report, plans to abolish the agency were shelved
after neither the U.S. Customs Bureau nor the Secret Service
would accept the transfer of the discredited ATF agents into
their organizations [3] . 

The ATF acted true to form in its investigation of the Davidians
-- the purpose of the raid appears to have been to bolster the
ATF's image, rather than any protection of the public safety.
From Aguilera's affidavit it appears that the ATF collected no
reliable new information for its investigation after June 23,
1992. But in mid-November "60 Minutes" began contacting
ATF personnel about allegations of sexual harrassment in the
agency [61] . In early December the investigation picked up
again, after a lapse of 5-1/2 months [62] . 

On January 12, 1993 the segment aired. It presented allegations
by female ATF agents that they had been sexually harrassed on
the job and that the agency intimidated victims and witnesses
who had pressed sexual harrassment claims. Among the charges
was one of near-rape: agent Michelle Roberts charged that
another agent had pinned her against the hood of a car while two
others tore at her clothes. ATF agent Bob Hoffman told "60
Minutes" that he had verified the complaints of one female
agent, and said, "In my career with ATF, the people that I put in
jail have more honor than the top administration in this
organization." Shortly afterwards, there was also a front-page
article in the The Washington Post about racial discrimination
in the ATF. 

The "60 Minutes" story devastated both the public image and
morale of the ATF. ATF Director Stephen Higgins must have
been in a panic. A Republican appointee, he stood a good chance
of losing his job with a Democratic administration coming in.
Even if he didn't, he was going to have a rough time at the
congressional budget hearings coming up on March 10. Said one
high-level former ATF senior official who requested
anonymity, "The show had great repercussions within the
bureau... (S)ome (within the ATF) concluded that he (Higgins)
was... looking for a high-profile case to counteract the negative
image and enable him to go to the budget appropriations
hearings with a strong hand." [52] 

This analysis was supported by a followup "60 Minutes" report
on May 23. Based on statements from ATF agents, Mike
Wallace concluded the report by saying, "Waco was a publicity
stunt, which was intended to improve the ATF's tarnished
image." Consistent with this interpretation, the ATF notified the
media before the raid [50] , [56] , [35] , and there were a large
number of television and newspaper reporters at the site on the
morning of the raid [50] . 

Appendix G of the Treasury Department report on Waco
suggests another, more disturbing motive for the raid. The
appendix, entitled "A Brief History of Federal Firearms
Enforcement," contains the following statement: 

   In a larger sense, however, the raid fit within an historic,
   well-established and well-defended government interest
   in prohibiting and breaking up all organized groups that
   sought to arm or fortify themselves... From its earliest
   formation, the federal government has actively
   suppressed any effort by disgruntled or rebellious
   citizens to coalesce into an armed group, however small
   the group, petty its complaint, or grandiose its ambition.

In other words: regardless of whether you break any law, if
some federal official doesn't like your politics and thinks you
have too many weapons, you will be exterminated. 

Serving the Warrant 

On February 25 ATF Special Agent Davy Aguilera filed for and
received a warrant to search the premises of Mt. Carmel,
claiming evidence of illegal conversion of (legal) semiautomic
weapons to automatic. Contrary to early ATF claims, there was
no arrest warrant for Koresh. The affidavit supporting the
warrant was seriously flawed, containing many inaccuracies and
patently false statements (such as the "LA riots" quote).
According to several legal experts, including a former ATF
senior enforcement official with more than 20 years' federal
firearms experience, it is questionable that the affidavit
demostrated probable cause for a search [51] , [58] . 

Steve Holbrook, an attorney in Washington, D.C. area, whose
law practice specializes in gun-related offenses, was
unequivocal: "Probable cause did not exist. There was evidence
cited of a large quantity of legal firearms and parts, including
interchangeable parts... Nowhere in the affidavit is it said all
necessary parts and materials to convert semiautomatic weapons
into machine guns were obtained (by Koresh)." [51] 

The claimed violation itself is a tricky area of the law. "This is a
very, very convoluted, technical, angels-dancing-on-
the-head-of-a-pin kind of argument," says Robert Sanders,
former enforcement chief of the ATF. "And there are no
published rulings telling you what is and isn't (a violation)." 
[62] 

Importantly, this was not a no-knock search warrant, in which
agents may knock down doors and burst in heavily armed
without prior warning to occupants; such warrants must be
specifically applied for, which the ATF failed to do [53] . Nor
was a no-knock approach necessary. As we have seen, Koresh
and his followers had peacefully cooperated with law
enforcement officers on at least three occasions in the past (once
after the Roden gunfight, twice during the child-abuse
investigation). And in July 1992 Koresh had actually invited
ATF investigators to come out to Mt. Carmel and inspect the
Davidians' guns [4] , [6] , [55] , but he was angrily told "we
don't want to do it that way." [6] 

Furthermore, the ATF knew that nearly all the guns at Mt.
Carmel were locked up and only Koresh had a key [63] . To
avoid any possibility of armed resistance from the Davidians,
they could have simply detained Koresh during one of his
frequent excursions outside of Mt. Carmel [18] , [29] and had
him unlock the store of guns in their presence. 

Absent a no-knock warrant, U.S. law (Title 18, U.S.C. 3109)
states that an officer must give notice of his legal authority and
purpose before attempting to enter the premises to be searched.
Only if admittance is refused after giving such notice is it legal
for an officer to use force to gain entry. Said one former senior
ATF official, "Irrespective of the situation inside, the notice of
authority and purpose must be given... Unless the occupants of a
dwelling are made aware that the persons attempting to enter
have legal authority and a legal warrant to enter, the occupants
have every right to defend themselves..." [54] 

Dick DeGuerin, a well-known Houston lawyer, put it more
bluntly: "...if a warrant is being unlawfully executed by the use
of excessive force, you or I or anybody else has a right to resist
that unlawful force. If someone's trying to kill you, even under
the excuse that they have a warrant, you have a right to defend
yourself with deadly force, and to kill that person." [4] 

It appears that the ATF never intended to serve the warrant in a
lawful manner. ATF agents told the Houston Post that before
the raid they had practiced to where it took 7 seconds to get out
of their tarp-covered cattle trailers and 12 seconds to get to the
front door. It is absurd to imagine that after such a mad dash to
the door, the ATF agents intended to stop, knock, calmly state
their legal authority and purpose, demand entry, and wait for a
response, all before taking further action. 

So how did the ATF serve its warrant? On Sunday morning,
February 28, 1993, 100 federal agents arrived at Mt. Carmel in
cattle cars and helicopters. About 30 agents dressed in black
commando uniforms and armed with machine guns stormed the
complex [9] , [19] . According to an Associated Press report,
"Witnesses said the law officers stormed the compound's main
home, throwing concussion grenades and screaming `Come out,'
while three National Guard helicopters approached." [2] 

Who Shot First? 

The question of who shot first is in a sense irrelevant, as the
ATF agents clearly attacked first when they threw grenades at
the Davidians' home. Once the ATF used unlawful force, the
Davidians had the legal right to resist them with deadly force. 

Nevertheless, the Davidians insist that ATF agents shot first.
"They fired on us first," Koresh told CNN. "...I fell back against
the door and the bullets started coming through the door... I was
already hollering, `Go away, there's women and children here,
let's talk.'" [19] Davidians in another part of the
city-block-sized complex said the battle began when the
helicopters circling overhead fired on them without warning 
[13] . 

David Troy, ATF intelligence chief, said a videotape was taken
of the entire mission [36] . But although parts of this tape were
released to the media, one important part was not: the start of
the raid. It seems unlikely the ATF would have withheld this
footage if it supported the ATF's contention that the Davidians
fired first. 

There is evidence to support Koresh's version of events. Federal
law enforcement sources told Soldier of Fortune magazine the
following: 

* One ATF agent had an accidental discharge getting out of one
of two goose-necked cattle trailers used to transport and conceal
agents -- he wounded himself in the leg and cried out, "I'm
hit!" [14] Unless you have a very disciplined group, you can
expect all hell to break loose once any shot is fired; and
according to Charles Beckwith, a retired Army colonel and
founder of the military's antiterrorist Delta Force, the ATF's
raid was "very amateur." [28] 

* Steve Willis, one of the ATF agents killed in the raid, was
assigned to "take out" Koresh if necessary. When Koresh came
out, Willis began firing a suppressed MP5 SD submachine gun
at him from the passenger side of the leading pickup. Reporters
kept some distance away from the action would not have heard a
silenced MP5 SD, while the cattle trailer would likely have
blocked their view [14] , [15] . 

The Assault 

Concurrent with the attack on the front of the Mt. Carmel
complex were two other attacks on the Davidians. 

According to Davidians who surrendered during the siege, the
helicopters circling overhead fired down through the roof into
the complex, killing one man and two women as they lay in
their beds [64] [72] . The children, whose dormitory was on the
second floor, crawled under their beds as bullets ripped through
the walls above them [15] , [25] . Houston attorney Dick
DeGuerin viewed the inside of the complex after the raid, when
federal officials allowed him to meet with the Davidians and try
to persuade them to surrender. He reported seeing bullet holes
on the second storey, clearly coming from the outside in, at such
an angle that they could only have come from above the
complex [64] . 

Moments after the assault began, an 8-man ATF team began
ascending the roof near an upstairs window which they believed
to be in the vicinity of Koresh's bedroom and weapons locker 
[12] , [15] . Video footage of the raid shows the agents breaking
the window, tossing grenades inside, and indiscriminately
spraying gunfire within. 

A well-placed federal official told the Houston Post that at least
10 Davidians were killed in the battle. One of those confirmed
dead was Koresh's two-year-old daughter [24] . Another was
Winston Blake, a 28-year-old printer, painter, and welder; he
was shot to death as he stood unarmed by the complex's water
tank [40] . 

Four ATF agents were killed in the gunfight, and numerous
wounded. Dan Hartnett, associate director of the ATF, claimed
that the ATF suffered heavy casualties because of strict rules of
engagement that prohibit shooting without a definite target.
"We had to wait for a target because there are so many women
and children inside," he said. But broadcast video of the raid
shows agents exercising poor fire control, firing over vehicles
with little or no view of what they were shooting at, at a rate of
two rounds per second [11] , [27] . 

The ATF's concern for the women and children inside was
further demonstrated by their use of the "9 mm. Cyclone" round
in their submachine guns. This highly-penetrating round is
available only to law-enforcement special operations teams and
the military, and is specifically designed to cut through body
armor [17] . 

Two separate federal sources told Soldier of Fortune magazine
that such a round was removed from a wounded ATF agent, and
that many, if not most, of the ATF casualties resulted from
"friendly fire." [17] Newsweek also reported that a federal
source involved in the Waco situation said that "there is
evidence that supports the theory of friendly fire," and that
during the assault "there was a huge amount of cross-fire." [8]
Furthermore, in the released video footage of the raid, there is
little or no evidence of return fire from the Davidians. 

The attack terrified the Davidians, and they were eager for a
cease-fire. Wayne Martin telephoned his friend, Waco city
councilman Lawrence Johnson. According to Johnson, Martin
said "they were in a firefight, they were taking casualties, and a
lot of people were hurt. He asked me to contact the media." [42]
The New York Times reported that after capturing four federal
agents, the Davidians disarmed and released them during the
firefight. And both Martin and Koresh phoned 911 about the
attack. 

ABC broadcast portions of the 911 tapes on its Nightline
program. Martin phoned first and spoke with Lieutenant Lynch
of the Waco Sheriff's Department. He told Lynch, "There's
about 75 men around our building and they're shooting it up in
Mt. Carmel... Tell them there are women and children in here
and to call it off!" Calling it off took some time. During a later
return phone call, even as Lynch and Martin were trying to
arrange the cease-fire, Martin's location was receiving heavy
gunfire and Martin himself was hit. When requested not to
return fire, an unidentified Davidian replied in a disgusted tone,
"We haven't been." [7] 

In the end, it was not humanitarian concerns or negotiations that
brought an end to the hour-long assault; it was lack of
ammunition. The 100 agents who participated in the assault had
a total of only 40 rounds left among them when they finally
backed off [16] . 



References

1. Press conference given by President Clinton in Washington,
D C., on April 20, 1993, 1:36 p.m. EDT. 

2. Associated Press, March 1, 1993; appeared in Knoxville
News- Sentinal 

3. Washington Times, June 1, 1993, p. E3. 

4. Houston Press, July 22, 1993. 

5. San Francisco Chronicle, October 9, 1993. 

6. Houston Chronicle 

7. ABC's "Nightline", June 9, 1993. 

8. "Was It Friendly Fire?", Newsweek, April 5, 1993, p. 50. 

9. Reuters News Service, February 28, 1993. 

10. Associated Press, February 28, 1993. 

11. "Gun Gestapo's Day of Infamy," Soldier of Fortune, June
1993, p 48.. 

12. Ibid., p. 49. 

13. Ibid., p. 50. 

14. Ibid., p. 51. 

15. Ibid., p. 52. 

16. Ibid., p. 53. 

17. Ibid., p. 62. 

18. Ibid., p. 63. 

19. Houston Post, March 1, 1993, p. A1. 

20. Ibid., p. A8. 

21. Ibid., p. A4. 

22. Houston Post, March 2, 1993, p. A8. 

23. Ibid., p. A13. 

24. Houston Post, March 3, 1993, p. A1. 

25. Ibid., p. A12. 

26. Ibid., p. A18. 

27. Houston Post, March 4, 1993, p. A1. 

28. Ibid., p. A20. 

29. Houston Post, March 5, 1993, p. A1 and A16. 

30. Ibid., p. A22. 

31. Houston Post, March 8, 1993, p. A1. 

32. Ibid., p. A10. 

33. Houston Post, March 9, 1993, p. A8. 

34. Ibid., p. A13. 

35. Houston Post, March 12, 1993, p. A20. 

36. Houston Post, March 29, 1993, p. A6. 

37. Washington Post, April 21, 1993, p. A15. 

38. Houston Post, April 22, 1993, p. A21. 

39. Ibid., p. A1. 

40. Ibid., p. A21. 

41. Ibid., p. A20. 

42. Washington Post, April 22, 1993, p. A15-16. 

43. Reuters News Service, April 22, 1993. 

44. Houston Post, April 23, 1993, p. A5. 

45. Houston Post, April 24, 1993, p. A18. 

46. Washington Post, April 24, 1993, p. A8. 

47. Washington Post, April 25, 1993, p. A1. 

48. Ibid., p. A20. 

49. Washington Post, April 28, 1993, p. A4. 

50. Washington Post, April 30, 1993, p. A1. 

51. "Waco's Defective Warrants," Soldier of Fortune, August
1993, p 46.. 

52. Ibid, p. 48. 

53. Ibid, p. 49. 

54. Ibid, p. 74. 

55. "Truth and Cover-up," The New American, June 14, 1993,
p. 24, quoting an April 21st television interview with Henry
McMahon, the man who relayed the offer to the ATF 

56. Testimony of BATF Director Stephen E. Higgins before the
House Judiciary Committee, April 28, 1993 

57. Associated Press, May 5, 1993. 

58. "Gunning for Koresh," The American Spectator, August
1993. 

59. Ibid, p. 32. 

60. Ibid, p. 33. 

61. Ibid, p. 39. 

62. Ibid, p. 33. 

63. Affidavit to obtain search warrant, submitted by Davy
Aguilera on February 25, 1993 

64. Speech by Ron Engleman on the Waco Massacre. Engleman
was a Dallas radio talk-show host whom the Davidians
requested as a negotiator during the siege Engleman's speech
was based on his own experiences and interviews with others A
videotape of the speech may be obtained from Libertarian Party
of Dallas County, P O. Box 64832, Dallas, TX 75206. 

65. Marc Breault and Martin King, Inside the Cult, p. 71 (1993).

66. Ibid, p. 100. 

67. Ibid, pp. 106-107. 

68. Ibid, p. 369. 

69. "The Waco Massacre: A Case Study on the Emerging
American Police State," The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor 19
(July 1993) 

70. Brad Bailey & Bob Darden, Mad Man in Waco, p. 81
(1993). 

71. Ibid, p. 88. 

72. Ibid, p. 173. 

 


The Aftermath of Mount Carmel

by Mike Cumpston

[as printed in U.S. Gun October/93] 

On April 19, 1993, 51 days after the ATF raid on the Branch
Davidian enclave near Elk, Texas, the combined federal task
force led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation sharply
escalated attempts to bring the standoff to a close. 

Negotiations had failed to secure the surrender of more than a
handful of Koresh followers, and Task Force spokespersons
reported to the media that Koresh was doing nothing to advance
a voluntary surrender. Although attorneys were reporting
progress in negotiating a peaceful surrender, Koresh was again
delaying action, promising to come out after he finished writing
a book on the "Seven Seals." The Bureau later reported that
listening devices planted in video tapes taken to the compound
revealed that Koresh was willfully misleading his attorneys, and
had no intentions of coming out. 

Nightly bombardments of loud music, Tibetan chants and
animal sounds apparently had no effect on the Davidians, and
the task force perimeter failed to prevent two outsiders from
sneaking into the compound. 

Accordingly, tanks equipped with tear gas dispensers began
knocking holes in the walls of the compound and inserting tear
gas in an effort to force the occupants out. The occupants, all
equipped with gas masks, responded by opening windows to
allow the high winds to carry the gas away. The substantial
small arms fire they directed at the armored vehicles had no
effect. 

At mid morning, task force vehicles continued to breach the
compound walls and continued this activity until the beginning
of the conflagration that consumed the structure and killed most
of the occupants. 

The few Davidians who escaped the fire reported that tanks had
run over containers of lantern fuel and upset a lamp, with the
resulting fire sweeping through the structure driven by the high
winds and fed by flammable building materials. This version
was repeated by each of the cultists who escaped. It does not
appear that they had opportunity to rehearse this story, as they
were captured separately. They steadfastly denied any suicide
pact. 

Official word from the task force was that the Davidians had
committed suicide by starting fires in at least three separate
locations. Post mortem reports from Dallas/Ft. Worth revealed
that many of the men, women and children died from gunshot
wounds of self-inflicted or obscure origin. Koresh and his key
followers have all been positively identified. At this time (June
04, 1993) survivors are variously housed in jail, charged with
Conspiracy to Murder Federal Officers, or as material
witnesses, in "halfway houses" as material witnesses, or have
been released. The reasons that some witnesses are being held an
inordinately long time and others released are occult. One
woman who had announced intentions of leaving the area was
scheduled for release. When she changed her mind and decided
to visit friends in the Central Texas area, her release was
canceled. Other freed Davidians have left the state. 

THE INVESTIGATION 

The intensity of the fire destroyed all structures except the metal
stand pipe and the concrete bunker at the base of the
watchtower. It seems certain that the value of any recovered
evidence is greatly compromised. To maintain the appearance of
impartiality, an independent forensic medical team was called in
for post mortem examinations of bodies, and the responsibility
for collection of physical evidence has been turned over to the
Texas Rangers. News reporters were early allowed on the scene
to record their observations. 

THE ORIGINAL SEARCH WARRANT 

I have in hand the first page of "Search Warrant W93-15m,
Western District of Texas," issued February 28, 1993, by United
States Judge Dennis G. Green. I also have Attachment Sheet D,
detailing concealed property believed to be on the premises
covered. (Attachments A, B, and C are descriptions and
photographs of the Mt. Carmel property.) 

The warrant orders the search of: "... residence of Vernon
Wayne Howell and others, Rt 7, Box 471 B, AKA: Mount
Carmel Center, Waco, Mclennan County Texas, its
appurtenances, vehicles, underground structures located on
entire premises of the 77-acre compound." 

ATTACHMENT "D": The Following Property is
Concealed: 

A quantity of firearms, including but not limited to: An
assortment of AR-15 rifles and AK-47 rifles, and parts thereof,
along with a quantity of assorted machinegun conversion parts,
machinery and implements used or suitable for use in converting
semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic and for constructing
destructive devices such as pipe bombs and homemade grenades,
this machinery would include, but not be limited to, metal lathes
and milling machines, .50-caliber anti-tank rifle, Sten guns,
grenade launchers, practice rifle grenades, practice hand
grenades, various chemicals, including but not limited to, black
powder and potassium nitrate, magnesium metal powder, metals
in various forms, inert "pineapple" type hand grenades, pipe
bombs and parts thereof, and other suitable casings of unknown
descriptions which, when assembled, would be classified as
destructive devices as those terms are defined in Section 5845
(b), and Section 5845 (f), Chapter 53, Title 26, United States
Code, which are not registered with the National Firearms
Registration and Transfer Record, Washington, D.C., as
required by law, and documentary and computerized evidence of
receipt, ownership and instructions for converting
semi-automatic firearms into machineguns, and the
construction of improvised explosive weapons, including
computer hardware, peripheral equipment and software
containing files and directories and the information thereon.
This is to include any disks, manuals, printouts and other
assorted computer equipment." 

So, ATF was looking for: (1) semi-autos converted to
machineguns, (2) homemade bombs, a .50 caliber "anti-tank"
rifle, destructive devices and/or the artifacts associated with the
construction of any of the above -- legal unless assembled. 

This list corresponds closely with the description of the arsenal I
was given by local residents shortly after the raid. It appears that
the ATF knew or suspected that the high order explosives, 50
caliber machineguns and military ordnance widely posited by
the press and trumpeted by Koresh, were not present. One post
standoff news report referred to a description given to the ATF
which resembled a "British .52 Caliber Boys Anti-Tank Rifle,"
an item which would have been a destructive device because of
the bore size. The description no doubt also fit the various legal
Barrett .50 rifles which were later found in the rubble. 

RECOVERED ITEMS 

Texas Rangers reportedly found "...a large quantity of
machineguns," indicating that some were automatic and some
were semi-automatic. They also recovered a quantity of grenade
cases, some of which had been re-armed. The concrete bunker
contained a quantity and variety of ammunition which the media
reported at "one million rounds." Two Barrett Rifles were
found. There have been no reports of high velocity explosives or
military ordnance and the huge fireball which occurred shortly
after the beginning of the fire was actually a propane cylinder
exploding. 

A statement by a former Davidian alleged that Koresh had
consulted with a California member about obtaining templates
for making "grease gun" receivers out of metal tubing and
setting up an operation to manufacture these simple
submachinguns at Mount Carmel. The manufacture of these
weapons is quite feasible, but l have seen no reports of grease
gun or Sten type weapons being found. 

A reporter on the media tour described "hand grenades lying
everywhere" and rockets with "wicked looking fins." The
rockets were purchased from a hobby company in Oregon and
were modelers' toys, incapable of carrying significant
explosives. 

MEDIA DEVELOPMENTS 

Although gun control advocates have largely turned to more
current events to promote their cause, the events at Mount
Carmel are sure to be recalled when the Administration presses
for its gun control agenda. The push for gun control has been
side-tracked by the fight over the budget, gays in the military,
and other concerns. 

The Waco Tribune Herald remains staunchly anti-gun, but there
has been an interesting side development. Roland Nethaway, the
editorial writer who branded gun owners as "nuts and cultists,"
apparently moderated (however slightly) his original stance
upon learning the breadth and depth of commitment which
exists throughout the nation for the Bill of Rights, particularly
the portion of Amendment I dealing with religious liberty, and
Amendment II. He was particularly impressed when he learned
of the size and success of the pro freedom Libertarian Party. 

An ATF agent injured in the initial raid has filed suit against the
Waco Tribune Herald and an individual employee, alleging that
a tip-off from the employee resulted in the violent response to
attempts to serve the Federal Warrant. 

A British reporter who came to Waco during the Stand-off
registered amazement at the existence of a Constitutional Bill of
Rights, and criticized the United States for having such a thing.
He reported to his home newspaper that Wacoans collect guns
because there is nothing else there to buy, and called the
community "... a one horse town where the horse has died." 

Cults in general have attracted the attention of the television
news magazines, and they have learned that there are some two
thousand of them in the United States. Some of them are heavily
armed, and all of them espouse beliefs which (1) are shared by
the larger community; (2) are rejected by the community, and;
(3) are protected by the Bill of Rights unless and until
accompanied by overt acts which constitute an immediate threat.

Efforts by elements of the media and federal law enforcement to
dismiss the individual members of these movements as mental
defectives do not hold up under objective scrutiny. I have
encountered several Davidians who, in the wake of the fire,
displayed remarkable ingenuity and fortitude in putting their
lives back together. Their apocalyptic beliefs and continued
veneration of David Koresh are incomprehensible to me, but
given their responses to personal tragedy, I cannot fault their
mental processes or moral fortitude. 

The NBC In The Line of Duty movie about the standoff,
completed well before the real life drama was over, aired late in
May. This was a highly fictionized account of the events leading
up to and immediately following the February 28 raid. The
leading actor closely resembled Vernon Howell/David Koresh,
and the outside of the compound was realistic. Other details
were essentially fiction. These included the sequence of events,
the general topography, the character and actions of the
composite Child Welfare worker, the character and actions of
the Mclennan County Sheriff and his department, and the gun
purchase related activity. This episode briefly elevated NBC to
the top of the weekly ratings, a position that network almost
never attains. 

CIVIL LIBERTIES 

In my first article about the Mount Carmel Stand Off, I referred
to two pieces of legislation in the current session of the Texas
Legislature. There was a bill banning a broad variety of
semi-auto rifles. This was summarily killed in committee. 

For the past six years, Texas has attempted to reform state gun
laws to conform to the prevailing practice of a significant
number of otherwise law-abiding Texans, who have chosen to
carry handguns for protection. Present law allows for lawful
carry only by law enforcement officers, security guards, persons
on their own property, traveling or engaging in lawful sporting
activities. Even those in compliance with the letter of the law
are subject to arrest, and may have to prove their innocence in
court. 

Conversely, many individual police officers and district
attorneys recognize the need for self-protection, and endorse the
law selectively. 

Passage of a concealed carry law would protect good citizens
from arrest, and provide for a base line of training in safe gun
handling and prevailing laws pertaining to deadly force. This
training alone would make the State of Texas a safer place for
all of its citizens. 

The drive for a law which would allow the concealed carry of
handguns by trained and licensed citizens stayed alive through
the last day of the legislative session. It was overwhelmingly
approved by both the Senate and the House of Representatives,
reconciled and presented to Governor Anne Richards. 

After the Mount Carmel events, she had harderred her
opposition to the Bill (HR 1776), promising a veto. The bill was
modified and passed first as a Binding Referendum, then as a
Non-Binding Referendum which would allow the voters to
express approval or disapproval of the legislation upon the
November election. The Governor contrived a delaying action
which prevented passage before the last day of the session,
leaving no time for an over ride. Two days after the legislative
session ended, she held a Veto Party, much like the ceremony
which accompanies the signing of a bill into law. She called the
bill a "poll for the handgun interests," and said that it would cost
Texans $60,000. 

This is the same Governor who openly supported a referendum
in favor of state supported gambling with its accompanying
crime and social problems. She has deprived Texans of the right
to vote on other important issues, and clearly considers her own
judgement to be superior to that of the electorate which placed
her in office. 

Look for the Concealed Handgun Bill to gain new life in 1995,
when Texas elects a new Governor. 

THE ATF 

The ATF is under close scrutiny with Justice Department
attention focused upon questions about the propriety of the
February 28 raid. The agency has had image problems for some
time, and radical restructuring is expected. Points currently
under investigation include: 

(1) Inconsistencies about whether the media was informed in
advance of the raid. Obviously, area news agencies were aware
of the impending raid, and influenced the course of events.
Dallas television stations report being informed of the
impending action and being advised to stand ready. 

There have been several allegations of sexual harassment and
retaliation by female agents of ATF. Some of the putative
victims report physical attacks and death threats. All say that the
Mount Carmel raid was designed as a media event to restore the
public image of the agency. 

(2) Questions about why Koresh was not arrested away from the
Compound, avoiding the raid all together. 

Early official reports indicated that Koresh had stopped leaving
the Mount Carmel property about a month before. These claims
are refuted by local residents, who report meeting him in a
Waco beer joint the night of February 27, 1993. 

Agency claims of plans for mass suicide or an attack on Waco
citizens have been consistently denied by survivors and other
local Davidians. 

Justice Department inquiries are not examining the activities of
the Joint Task Force after the initial raid. Federal activities
under the FBI had full oversight by the Attorney General. 

Since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been an agency with an
identity crisis. Technically a police agency, the ATF must
frequently resort to military tactics to reach its objectives. The
goals and tactics of police and military are quite different.
Technically, ATF is a police agency with the duty to enforce
laws, preserve evidence, and abide by due process, but the agents
have also received considerable training from military
specialists with the emphasis on winning battles. 

The agency is subject to the changing and sometimes ambiguous
expectation of the political power structure. 

There is talk of placing the ATF directly under the Attorney
General or a Federal Gun Control Czar, bringing all federal
police agencies under one directive. This is an eventuality which
would pose grave threats to personal liberty. 

GUN OWNER REACTION 

There is an awakened and often expressed realization that our
anti-gun public officials live in a different world than we do,
regard our opinions with contempt, and consider our safety to be
secondary to their conceptions of an orderly society, 

In recent months, membership in the National Rifle Association
has grown at an unprecedented rate. This is largely in response
to the election of an administration that is openly hostile to
private ownership of arms. While attending the NRA Annual
Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, I learned that Central Texas is
the largest single source of new members. 

Area NRA members are taking a more active role in the fight to
preserve the Second Amendment intact. A "Friends of NRA"
banquet is scheduled for June of 1993. Area sportsmen who have
been historically indifferent to legislative affairs are now
openly supporting the Handgun Permit Bill, and expressing their
views in public and to elected officials. Voting in run-off
elections has increased, with citizens turning out to repudiate the
anti-gun governor, her political agenda and her political
appointments. 

The tragic outcome of the Mount Carmel incident assures the
Stand Off a place in the public consciousness for many decades
to come. Central Texans can now go about their business
without encountering massed troops and road blocks. The media
have folded their tents and gone home. On Friday, June 4, 1993,
Vernon Wayne Howells, AKA David Koresh, was buried in a
private ceremony somewhere near Tyler, Texas. The grave is
unmarked, and will remain so. 

Officers of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have
said farewell to their fallen comrades and returned to Mount
Carmel, each to find some personal resolution of the events that
took place there and that continue to unfold in the highest
corridors of government. 

Hopefully, time and reason will give us all the perspective to
deal with the issues raised by this tragic episode in our history. 

    ** Why didn't BATF officials tell Congress that David Koresh
    had a legal gun business and that through his gun dealer, Henry
    McMahon, Koresh had invited BATF agents to inspect his guns
    on July 30, 1992? Why didn't they reveal that a few days later
    Koresh faxed the dealer documentation for his weapons
    purchases which was forwarded to BATF? 
    
    ** Why didn't BATF officials tell Congress that Koresh
    complained to the Sheriff's office about obvious surveillance
    weeks before the raid? (Why must Americans fear this kind of
    attack despite their efforts to cooperate?) 
    
    ** Prosecutors did not prosecute or call to the stand a Davidian
    mechanical engineer who both the woman at trial and BATF
    agents in affidavits had identified as being possibly involved in
    converting weapons. This suggests the engineer had no credible
    evidence Davidians converted weapons. 
    
    ** Hidden in paperwork BATF submitted to Congress was the
    fact that BATF knew the identity of the individuals most likely
    responsible for building a methamphetamine at Mount Carmel
    in 1986-87 before David Koresh took over. (They also knew
    Koresh dismantled the equipment and may have contacted local
    law enforcement about it.) Yet BATF used this stale and
    irrelevant knowledge to obtain free use of Texas National Guard
    helicopters and defended its actions when the Texas Governor
    complained! 
    
    ** Army Special Forces were involved in training BATF agents
    at Fort Hood. Reporter James L. Pate asserts "military sources"
    told him Special Forces illegally trained BATF agents in
    techniques of "room-clearing, fire-and- maneuver and building
    takedown," methods of indiscriminate killing of uncooperative
    enemy forces. 
    
    ** BATF did not have a no knock warrant which would allow
    them to bust in unannounced, yet they never practiced anything
    but a forced entry into several parts of the building at once.
    
    ** No agent was assigned to announce the warrant, no Davidians
    heard them do so, and no agents originally admitted doing
    so--until after they talked with Treasury Department agents. 
    
    ** At trial agents admitted agents actually forgot to bring the
    warrants with them when they raided Mount Carmel. 
    
    ** At trial National Guard pilots never directly denied there
    was shooting from the helicopters, only repeated that such firing
    would be "against regulations." 
    
    ** Davidians called "911" one minute after the start of the
    attack and can be heard yelling that helicopters flying overhead
    are shooting at them as they speak. "Another chopper with more
    people; more guns going off. They're firing. That's them, not
    us." 
    
    ** Davidian attorneys Jack Zimmermann and Dick DeGuerin,
    who entered Mount Carmel after the raid, said they saw what
    clearly were bullet holes entering the ceiling of the four story
    tower and other roofs and walls from the sky. 
    
    ** Davidians claim Perry Jones was hit in the stomach by that
    first barrage of bullets. (A Davidian prosecution witness
    confirms he was wounded.) However, the medical examiner and
    Treasury report describe no other wounds for Jones, who
    allegedly committed suicide with one shot to the mouth on
    February 28th. (While medical examiners assured Jones' family
    and attorney the body was in cold storage for an independent
    autopsy, in October of 1994 they revealed the body had been
    unfrozen for six months and had been consumed by maggots! 
    
    ** KWTX-TV video and Waco Tribune-Herald photographs
    taken in the first minutes of the raid show little or no return gun
    fire of any kind coming from the Davidians. In fact, photos
    show BATF agents standing in the wide open firing on the
    building! 
    
    ** Agents admitted at trial that shooting from the undercover
    house 300 yards south of Mount Carmel and from agents exiting
    one cattle trailer hit a BATF truck. 
    
    ** At trial one agent admitted that he probably shot the bullet
    taken from another agent wounded in the second story arms
    room. 
    
    ** There were several news reports of "friendly fire" right after
    the raid, before BATF put a gag order on all its agents. 
    
    ** BATF spokespeople originally claimed Davidian Michael
    Schroeder was killed when three Davidians tried to shoot their
    way out of Mount Carmel. In fact, they were trying to return. 
    
    ** As early as March 6th Davidians expressed fear that the
    government wanted to destroy evidence that would prove
    BATF's guilt. One told negotiators: "It wouldn't surprise me if
    they wouldn't want to get rid of the evidence. Because if this
    building is still standing, you will see the evidences of what
    took place." 
    
    ** Davidians demanded that a news crew be allowed to film
    inside of the building and record the damage before the
    government was allowed in, but the FBI refused. They refused
    to allow attorneys in for a whole month. 
    
    ** Immediately after the February 28th raid, BATF had the
    magistrate seal the contents of the affidavit and warrants to
    "ensure the integrity of the criminal investigation." However,
    these remained sealed even after Koresh saw them in March,
    preventing the public from discovering the questionable legal
    grounds for the raid or investigating the truth of the affidavits'
    many dubious allegations. 
    
    ** The FBI prohibited reporters from getting closer than two to
    three miles to Mount Carmel Center, claiming the Branch
    Davidians' .50 caliber "machineguns" could hit anyone closer
    than 3000 yards, almost two miles. (The legal .50 caliber
    weapon was not found to be a machinegun.) The day before the
    fire the FBI moved television cameras back another mile from
    Mount Carmel and away from the northern sides of the building
    where the tanks did the most damage. 
    
    ** State troopers arrested two news photographers and
    confiscated their film near the ruins of Mount Carmel on April
    22, 1993, causing the managing editor of the Houston Chronicle,
    to wonder "if the Bill of Rights has been suspended in
    McLennan County." 
    
    ** The FBI initially used Bradley fighting vehicles without
    barrels, to avoid posse comitatus prohibitions. However, when
    David Koresh (falsely) claimed he had weapons that could blow
    these vehicles into the air, the FBI obtained two Abrams tanks
    and five Combat Engineering Vehicles. The report does not state
    if these had barrels, which it admits would be illegal, but many
    claim that the tanks do. 
    
    ** On March 19th, after the FBI sent in attorneys' letters and an
    audio tape from theologian Phil Arnold, Koresh told the FBI
    that "he was ready to come out and face whatever might happen
    to him." He even joked, "When they give me the lethal injection,
    give me the cheap stuff." Between just March 19th and 21st ten
    people left Mount Carmel. 
    
    ** The FBI harassed the Davidians by blaring loud music and
    negotiation tapes and by shining bright lights all night long.
    Much of the harassment was quite violent. Loudspeakers blaring
    sounds of screeching rabbits being slaughtered, dentist drills,
    airplanes taking off. (This is reminiscent of Richard Rogers'
    Hostage Rescue Team broadcasting to the Weavers, after Vicki
    Weaver's death, "Good morning, Mrs. Weaver. We had
    pancakes for breakfast. What did you have?") 
    
    ** On April 14th Koresh sent out a letter very different from
    his previous ones. In it he declared in writing that God finally
    had spoken to him and that all the Davidians would come out as
    soon as he had completed a short book on the Seven Seals. On
    April 16th Koresh told the FBI he had finished the First Seal,
    the longest one. Ruth Riddle escaped the fire with the
    manuscript on a computer disk. 
    
    ** After the fire the surrender letter was systematically
    withheld from the press, Congress, and from the Justice
    Department outside experts. 
    
    ** After receiving Koresh's April 14th promise to surrender
    letter, Koresh attorney Dick DeGuerin had a face- to-face
    meeting with Jeff Jamar who promised DeGuerin the FBI had
    "all the time it takes" to finish the book--and certainly the two
    weeks DeGuerin estimated. Attorney Jack Zimmermann
    testified to the same thing during the trial. 
    
    ** Did the FBI lie when it said it did not know that the United
    States is one of 100 countries that signed an agreement banning
    the use of CS gas in war during the Chemical Weapons
    Convention in Paris in January of 1993? 
    
    ** Did the FBI not know about the June 1, 1988 report Amnesty
    International claimed that CS gas had contributed to or caused
    the deaths of more than 40 Palestinians--including 18 babies
    under 6 months of age--who had been exposed to tear-gas in
    enclosed spaces. American manufacturers of CS gas halted the
    export of the gas to Israel because of its misuse. 
    
    ** Why did the FBI not tell Reno that a mixture of CS gas and
    air could be ignited within a certain temperature range and that
    manufacturers clearly warn that when burned CS gas emits
    deadly toxic fumes, including hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen
    chloride--the ingredients of Zyklon B gas used by the Nazis.
    Manufacturers also warn that when water is poured on a CS gas
    fire it can create and release a lethal cloud of hydrogen cyanide
    gas. 
    
    ** The FBI probably did not reveal to Reno the dangers of both
    means of delivering the gas, gassing and ferret rounds. The
    Mark V injection system sprayed a mixture of gas and solvent
    propelled by carbon dioxide from the end of long booms on the
    tanks. What the FBI probably did not mention to Reno--it was
    not mentioned in the Justice Department report or the Fire
    Report--was that a solvent was used to dissolve the gas before
    it was mixed with carbon dioxide. The FBI asserts it used
    methylene chloride, which is flammable under certain
    conditions. 
    
    ** "Trophy" photographs were shown at trial of agents standing
    proudly as Mount Carmel burns in the background. One photo
    was of the FBI's chief negotiator, Byron Sage. It was taken only
    two or three minutes after he finished urging Davidians to exit
    the burning building! 
    
    ** Why weren't Texas Social Services workers called in on
    April 19th to help women and children at the showers after they
    surrendered, as was originally discussed with the social
    workers? 
    
    ** Davidians signaled they wanted to negotiate by hanging out a
    blanket, showing their phone was disconnected and hanging a
    banner asking to have the phones fixed. However, during the
    morning FBI press conference FBI spokesperson Ricks stated the
    FBI would not negotiate. 
    
    ** During the noon time tank attack when a tank smashed into
    the front of the building for almost two minutes, part of the roof
    of the concrete room collapsed. Autopsy reports indicate falling
    concrete and debris struck, smothered and killed at least six
    women and children before the fire started. 
    
    ** Within two hours of the time the fire started, the Justice
    Department announced two Davidians had confessed to starting
    the fires. This statement later quietly was withdrawn. 
    
    ** On April 20th FBI siege commander Jeff Jamar alleged that
    "at least three" FBI agents observed a Davidian start a fire. Later
    the FBI and Justice report claimed only one agent saw this.
    Under cross examination at trial this agent admitted, "I don't
    know what he was doing." Photographs of the area where the
    man allegedly started the fire showed no evidence of flames
    several minutes into the fire. 
    
    ** The day after the fire BATF hoisted its blue flag over the
    ruins of Mount Carmel and the 76 burned victims. 
    
    

>      What would you do???
    
    Well, George would start talking, and after a minute or two they'd
    shoot him.
    

     
    re: .30
    
    	BWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA!  :)
    
    

    Sounds like the media should be on trial along with the BATF...

RE    <<< Note 362.22 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	No George, you missed the point. The question was WHY was there a 
>	RAID at all.

  If the BTAF didn't have a warrant, then it was an illegal search. If they
did have a warrant, then they were within their rights raiding the compound.

>	There is some question concerning just who fired the first shot.
>	It could very well be that the Davidians were RETURNING fire in
>	what they beleived was self-defense.

  The story I heard is that someone tipped off the Davidians that the raid was
coming and they broke out the weapons. Maybe the feds fired the 1st shot but I
doubt it. They conduct raids all the time and in the vast majority no shots are
fired at all. We'll probably never know but I'd bet that the Davidians fired
the 1st shot. 

>	Kind of hard to file a brief when folks are shooting at you.

  They had something like a 30 minute warning that the attack was coming. That
would have been plenty of time to abandon the compound and file a suit. After
the assault they had something like a month to surrender and take their case to
court. 

>	Fireman risk their lives everyday. The fireman that finally made
>	it to the gate PLEADED with the FBI to let them in so they could
>	fight the fire.

  Regardless, the F.B.I. was still right not to let them near the compound
since they would probably have gotten shot.

>	No George, It's a grimace. I find it hard to beleive thata true
>	defender of the Constitution, such as yourself, is not bothered
>	by all the government abuse that occured during this incident.

  As I said, if the raid was done without a warrant then I would be the 1st to
agree that it was a violation of the 4th amendment and the BTAF had no business
being there. If they had a warrant then they would have been within their
rights. 

>	But then I guess you are just like all the rest. The Constitution
>	is REALLY only for those people that you like. Religious "cults"
>	need not apply for civil rights.

  In fact I am the one saying that the rights of the religious cult would have
been violated if the Davidians had been forced to surrender. From everything
I read David Koresh and his followers believed it was their religious destiny
to be consumed by fire to live out some chapter in the book of Revelations.
You seem to be the one saying that the fire that they prayed for was wrong.

  George

    
    RE: .33
    
    >The story I heard....
    
    > We'll probably never know but I'd bet....
    
    >since they would probably have gotten shot.
    

RE  <<< Note 362.34 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

  < as usual, nothing added to the conversation at all >

  George

    re: < as usual, nothing added to the conversation at all >
    
     Then why do you persist in writing so often?

RE           <<< Note 362.36 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Then why do you persist in writing so often?

  Look who's talk'en.

  George

    RE: .35
    
    > < as usual, nothing added to the conversation at all >
    
    >George
    
      On the contrary... I'm highlighting for others certain passages of
    yours that may come off, to the casual reader, as fact.. but are indeed
    nothing more than your opinions...
    
      Or are opinions a major advantage during a "debate"??
    
    
    RE: .36
    
    Doctah?? You making fun of my height??? :)

From: [email protected] (Roger White)
Subject: Transcript - Waco 911 tapes

This is my transcription of the tapes broadcast on ABC's "Nightline"
last week.  I figured some of you folk might be interested.

Take care,

Rog

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

             "Nightline,"  WABC-TV, June 9, 1993, Ted Koppel
                           "911 Waco Tapes"

Notes: Lynch is a Lt. in the Waco Sheriff's Department.  Martin
is Wayne Martin at the Branch Davidian Compound.  Koresh is
David Koresh, leader of the group at the compound.  
My comments will be in [].  What I have transcribed is what I
heard and did not always agree with what ABC showed on the
screen.

Lynch:  This is Lynch.  Hello -  hello - hello.
Martin:   Hello!
Lynch:  Yeah.  This is Lt. Lynch.  May I help you?
Martin:  Yeah.  There's about 75 men around our building and
         they're shooting at up in Mt.   Carmel.
Lynch:  Mt. Carmel?
Martin:  Yeah.  Tell them there are women and children in here
         and to call it off! [very excited]
Lynch:  All right, all right. Hello?  I hear gunfire. [shots,
         rapid fire in background]  Oh shit!  Hello? Who is this?  Hello.
Martin:  Call it off! [almost shouted]
Lynch:  Who is this?  Hello?  Hello?  God almighty.  Hello? [to
         dispatcher] Who is this coming  from?
Dispatcher:  Wayne . . .
Lynch:  Wayne Martin?  Hello?  Wayne!  [to dispatcher]  You
         might call Barber and tell him I've got an open line into the
         compound it sounds like.  [dispatcher says something and there
         are sounds of gunfire but I don't think any is full auto]  Just
         you tell him to call you and tell him I'm down here and that, a,
         I've got an open line into the compound - I believe.  I tell you
         what, ah, get on our primary channel and call radio van, see if
         they respond.  That's gonna be ATF.  Just say radio van, you
         know, Waco dispatch. [more gunfire]
Dispatcher:  West Waco to radio van.
Lynch:  They're supposed to respond.
Dispatcher:  West Waco to radio van. [more gunfire]
Lynch:  [hearing the gunfire he says, "Oooh!"] [very heavy
         gunfire now but still doesn't sound like it's full auto]  Listen
         to that!!  No response?

Ted Koppel:  From what we've just heard, the local sheriff's
department was having great difficulty trying to raise Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms agents on the scene.  But while this was
happening, a second 911 call was placed, this time by the leader
of the Branch Davidians.

BREAK
Dispatcher:  911.
Koresh:  Hello.
Dispatcher:  Yes.
Koresh:  This is David Koresh.  We're being . . .  Tough to call
         you guys.
Dispatcher:  This is who, sir?
Koresh:  David Koresh, Mt. Carmel Center, we're being shot all
         up out here. [sounds very calm]
Dispatcher:  Okay.  Where are you?
Koresh:  Where am I?  I'm at Mt. Carmel Center.
Dispatcher:  Okay.  Hang on just a second.
Koresh:  All right.
Lynch:  Yeah.  This is Lynch.
Koresh:  Hey, Lynch?  That's a kind of funny name there.
Lynch:  Ha!  [sort of a surprised laugh, as if taken aback]
Koresh:  Listen now, this . . .
Lynch:  Now who am I speaking with?
Koresh:  This is David Koresh.
Lynch:  Okay David.
Koresh:  The notorious.  What'd you guys do that for?
Lynch:  Well. David.
Koresh:  Wh . . .
Unknown: . . . ish  lis . . [it almost sounds like something
         happened or was done to the tape at this point]
Lynch:  What I'm doin' is, I'm trying to establish some
         communi-, communications links with you.
Koresh:  [It almost sounds like he is saying John to me but the
         slide shown by ABC has 5 "no's".  If he is saying no, I hear
         only one, not 5.  In any case, what I write is what it sounds
         like to me, not what ABC says.] [John(?) No(?)]  Let me tell you
         somethin'.
Lynch:  Yes sir.
Koresh:  You see, you brought ya bunch of guys out here and you
         killed some of my children,  We told ya we wanted to talk.  [I
         hear a "No, ya . . ." and again, at this point, the tape sounds
         funny.]  How come you guys try to be ATF agents?  How come you
         try to be so big all the time?
Lynch:  Okay.  David . . .
Koresh:  Now there's a bunch of us dead.  There's a bunch of you
         guys dead.  Now, now that's your fault.
Lynch:  Okay  Let, let's try to resolve this now.  Tell me this,
         now, you have casualties.  How many casualties?  Do you want top
         try to work somethin' out?  ATF is pulling back, we're trying
         to, ah . . .
Koresh:  Why didn't you do that first?
Lynch:  All I'm, all I'm doin' is handlin' communications.  I
         can't give you that answer David.
Koresh:  Okay.
Lynch:  Okay.
Koresh:  The thing of it is, is this.  Is this. [The second 'is
         this' sounds like a duplicate of the first to me.  Strange
         "hitches" in this tape.] [I can't make out the next sentence. It
         sounds like he says, "Look at the dove sits on the floor." 
         Damned if I know.]  I know it sounds crazy to you but . . .
Lynch:  No, no.
Koresh:  . . . you're gonna find out sooner or later.
Lynch:  Sure.  We all . . 
Koresh:  There are.  There are. There are 7 seals.  Now, there's
         some things in that bible, that have been held as mysteries, . . .
Lynch:  Yes sir.
Koresh:  . . . about Christ.
Lynch:  Yes sir.
Koresh:  Now, there are prophecies . . . 
Lynch:  Let me.  Can I interrupt you for a minute?
Koresh:  Sure.
Lynch:  All right.  We can talk about theology, but right now . . .
Koresh:  No.  This is life.  This is life and death with [again,
         sounds like a cut or something in the tape] theology we're (?)
         going (?) . . . 
Lynch:  That's what I'm talking.
Koresh:  . . . is life and death.
Lynch:  Yes sir.  I agree with that.
Koresh:  See.  See. You and Collins (?) step on my perimeter.
Lynch:  Okay.
Koresh:  We will serve God first.  Now, we will serve the God of
         the church.  now, we're willing, and we've been willing, all
         this time, to sit down with anybody. You've sent law enforcement
         out here before.
Lynch:  Yes sir.
Koresh:  And I've [ABC says he says 'laid it' here.  I can't
         tell but I hear 3 syllables, not 2.] straight across the table. 
         I said, if you want to know about me, sit down with me and I'll
         open up a book and show you seven seals.  Just like I told
         Robert.  You know Robert, don't ya?
Lynch:  Yes sir.
Koresh:  You know.  The guy that.  Your agent.
Lynch:  Yes sir.
Koresh:  We've known about this.  I've been teachin' it for four
         years!
Lynch:  Okay.  Now . . .
Koresh:  We, we knew you were comin' and everything.  You see, . . .
Lynch:  Yes sir:
Koresh:  . . . we knew before you even knew. [To me, these
         comments are critical.  The media was saying that Koresh had
         been warned.  If this is where they got the idea from, I suggest
         they are wrong.  I think Koresh is talking bible prophecy here. 
         You know, "The world is ending Tuesday" kind of stuff.  That's
         how he knew they were coming, eventually.  That's my guess
         anyhow.]
Lynch:  Okay.  But let me ask you this. [tape things again]  The
         present situation.  Let's start resolving it and then we can sit
         down and talk.  Right now we've got everybody cease firing. 
         Okay?  So that's what we want.  Now, we're pulling the guy back
         from the door.  ATF is gonna pull the guy back from the door.
         [dispatcher says something in background]  All right.  Can they
         come now David, with your guarantee, and pick up their injured
         officer, without being fired on?
Koresh:  Look, I cannot communicate with everybody here.
Lynch:  Okay.  Do you have any, any way?  Is there anybody that
        can?  Do you have a facility to, to, ah, communicate with the
        rest of the folks there in your, in your house?
Koresh:  Well, we would have if your guys had talked to us.
Lynch:  Okay.  But right now.  All right.  What ATF is wanting
         to do, is to take their injured troop out of your area.  Okay. 
         What you're telling me is you can't control folks because of
         the, you have no communications.  Is that correct.
Koresh:  Well, if you give us some time, we could probably get
         the message around.
Lynch:  Okay.  Standby David.  We're, we're having a heck of a
         problem with communications.  Standby just a second. <pause> All
         right.  they're going to send four men to, to.  Wayne is
         shooting again.  Hold on just a second.  Ask Wayne to please
         cease fire. [dispatcher in background, " . . .gunshot . . . the
         will,"]  No, ATF is not firing.  All right.  We're going to send
         in four ATF agents.  Can you pass the word?
Koresh:  What are they . . .
Lynch:  Pardon me?
Dispatcher:  He's trying to pass the word.

Ted Koppel:  [There is a discussion with former chief hostage
negotiator with the NYPD, Frank Bolz.  He says there are three
prime things - communications, intelligence and fire power. 
there was no communications which created more chaos.  Implies
ATF screwed up communications aspect.  Lynch tries to recontact
B.D.s.]

BREAK
[sound of phone ringing in headset, then pick-up]
Lynch:  Hello.
Koresh:  [answering machine] Hello.  I'm not in right now, so
         please leave your name . . .
Lynch:  It's a recording.  It's a recording.
Koresh:  . . .  telephone number and message after the beep. 
         Thank you.
Dispatcher:  They hear your voice maybe.
Lynch:  Hello.  This is Lynch, sheriff's office.  This is Lt,
         Lynch of the sheriff's office.  Pick up the phone.  Lt. Lynch,
         MacLennon (?) County Sheriff's Department.  Pick up the phone
         please.  Someone pick up the phone.  This is Lynch, sheriff's
         department. <pause>  Hello?  Someone there pick up the phone,
         please? [aside he seems to say, "Had hopes . . ."]
Voice:  Hello.  [Seems shouted as if it's a speaker phone.]
Lynch:  Hello.  Who is this?  Is this Wayne?  Hello, this is
         Lynch, sheriff's office.
Voice:  Tell them to call . . 
Lynch:  Wayne?
Voice:  Tell them to call it off! [shouted and sounds somewhat
         frantic]
Lynch:  Who is this, Wayne?
Voice:  Tell them to pull back!
Lynch:  Are you injured Wayne?
Voice, now identified as Martin:  No. [softly]  I'm under fire!
         [shouted]
Lynch:  Okay.  I know you're under fire, but are you hurt?
Martin: [long pause] Not yet!
Lynch:  Okay.  Wayne.  Cease firing. [slowly and distinctly] Do
         not fire anymore.  Okay? [ABC slide indicates Lynch says,
         "Wayne, talk to me.  Wayne, tell me how you are."  here, but it
         sure isn't on the tape broadcast]
Martin:  <long pause>  I have a right to defend myself.  They
         started firing first.

Lynch:  Okay.  Wh . . .  Let's resolve it.  Let's not . . .
         Let's resolve this Wayne, before someone gets hurt.  Okay?  I'm
         trying to make contact with the forces outside.  Okay?
Martin:  Okay!
Lynch:  All right.
Unidentified Davidian:  There's a chopper with more of them.
Lynch:  What!?
Davidian:  Another chopper with more people and more guns going
         off.  Here they come!
Lynch:  All right, Wayne, tell . . .
Davidian:  We're not firing.  That's not us, that's them.
Lynch:  Okay.  Tha . . .  All right.  Are you, are you ready to
         come out and give up?  Are you ready to terminate this Wayne?
Martin:  We want to cease fire!  We'll stop! [shouted and
         frantic(?)]
Lynch:  Standby.[aside to someone, "We need to get.  Try the ah,
         ah, radio van.  They're not finding (?) our frequency]
Dispatcher:  This is dispatch to the radio van. [sound of
         gunshots]
Lynch:  Sta . . . Who's firing now?
Davidian:  They are!
Wayne:  They are!
Lynch:  All right.  Standby.  I'm tryin' to reach 'em.  Stand. 
         Don't return fire, okay?
Davidian:  We haven't been.  
Lynch:  What?
Davidian:  We haven't been.  [sounds disgusted]
Lynch:  Okay.
Dispatcher: One-twenty-seven (?) that radio van emergency
         tracing (?)
Lynch:  Where are you Wayne?  In the, in, on the property.  So I
         can tell 'em.
Martin:  South wall.  [Strange sounds.  Sounds like "swish,
         swish" or an old typewriter clicking.  Incoming rounds?]
Lynch:  What?
Martin:  South wall.
Lynch:  I can barely understand you.
Martin:  Get down (?). [Two phone tones, two different pitches,
         one short, one long.] [sounds of gunfire, muffled]
Voices in background:  Here they come!  They comin'?  Sounds
         that way (?)
Martin:  They got me! [Sounds of gunfire or maybe rounds coming
         in and breaking up things.  Sounds more like whip cracks than
         gun shots.  Hard to explain.]
Lynch:  Okay.  [Larger amount of noises.  Dispatcher in
         background sounds like she says, ". . .three has been murdered .
         . . treated . . ."]  Are you returning fire Wayne?
Martin:  No.  [sounds like at least one "noise" per second]
Lynch: All right.  <pause>  Why are they shooting Wayne?
Martin:  Because that's them, they haven't kept (?) and (?)
         they're shootin' up the floor. [hard to tell what he's saying
         because of the sound of the shots plus he's shouting plus he's
         excited]
Lynch:  What?
Martin:  They're ki. . .  Oh shit! [word is bleeped but that's
         what he says]
Lynch:  What's the matter?
Martin:  They're.  What do you think?  They're doing all this
         firing at us right now. [sounds very angry now]
Lynch:  [Not clear to who.  ". . . I have not, and, and, ah,
         nobody's responding to the damn radio.  I've got, ah, <pause>
         I've got one man hurt inside here. I'm talking with Wayne now,
         he's inside, they want everybody to back off and talk.  I'm
         trying to get, ah, what radio frequency?  They told use your
         radio van, we're not getting a response."] Wayne?
Martin:  Right here.
Lynch:  Okay.  We're working on it so just hang, hang loose.  Do
         not return fire Wayne, okay?  Just kind of hold what you've got
         'til we get this situation settled and yo, your willing to talk
         to 'em?"
Martin:  Yeah. [weakly]
Lynch:  Will you visit with them?
Martin:  Yeah!
Lynch:  Okay. All right.  We'll get ya someone to talk to here
         in just a second.
Martin:  Hello, Lynch?
Lynch:  Yeah.
Martin:  I gotta pass the word.
Lynch:  What?
Martin:  I have to pass the word.
Lynch:  Okay.  Start passin' the word.  Tell 'em just to hold
         their fire.  Tell 'em not to return fire.
Martin:  Okay!
Lynch:  Okay? {A lot more gunfire, possibly some full auto.  In
         about 8 seconds, between the end of "Okay" and the start of the
         aside, I count at least 21 distinct shots.  Some seem to be 3
         shot bursts.] [Aside to someone, ". . .ow the radio van yet?"] 
         Are you getting the word out?
Martin:  I'm tryin'.
Lynch:  Okay.  [lot of commotion]  Standby.
Dispatcher:  Standby one-twenty.
Martin:  Can (?) we get word to vjay (?).
Dispatcher:  Standby one-ninety.
Martin:  [not clear - not to Lynch]
Lynch:  Wayne.
Dispatcher:  Four-eleven Tyler on a . . . 15
Lynch:  Wayne.
Dispatcher: . . . and . . . 32.  Sheila Home (?) the complainant.
Martin:  If we hold fire you ask them to hold fire.
Lynch: Wayne.
Martin:  I passed the word. [shouted]
Lynch:  Okay.  Wayne.  How many casualties?  Tell me so I can
         help get some help to ya when this thing calms down.
Martin:  I don't know yet.
Lynch:  Try to get me a head count Wayne.  Work with me so we
         can get some help to people so they don't lay there without help.
Martin:  I'll find out.
Lynch:  Okay.  Thanks. [aside, "I can't believe this!"]

Ted Koppel:  [They both praise Lt. Lynch.  Bolz thinks Martin
was being honest.  Despite Koppel's prodding, Bolz won't say
anything good about the BATF.  He says, ". . . from the
inception there was a lack of communication, lack of
intelligence  in terms of the fact that they shouldn't have gone
in at the point in time, and the discipline of firepower. 
Unfortunately, they were unable to stop and have that cease fire
that they were looking for right away."]

END

    I don't know what is SO DIFFICULT about this issue.
    The BATF is responsible for TAXATION OF Booze, Tobacco and Firearms.
    Period.
    
    The ONLY reason for the raid was the BATF SUSPECTED DK & co. failed
    to pay $400 ($200/gun * 2) tax on 2 allegedly automatic firearms.
    
    This wasn't about Koresh porkin all the wimmins, or spanking the kids
    or siting around waiting for the world to end.  It was about taxation.
    
    The search warrant (valid or not) expired the day it was served.
    The BATF wasn't rushed because of the news story per say.  They HAD
    to serve the warrant that day, or else they'd have to lie again to
    get another warrant.
    
    The BATF picked a fight and they got their ass kicked.  Irregardless
    of Koresh being an idiot, nut case, jesus freak or whatever....
    people should be outraged at what happened at Waco.
    
    We've all sat on our butts long enough that what really happened at
    waco will never come out.  The "official" story is bogus and lots
    of us know it.                           

  Why do I feel I've stumbled into yet another gun note. 

  As with that topic I see we have the technique being used where hundreds of
lines of raw data only partly related to the debate are constantly being dumped
into this file. 

  I don't think anyone will argue with the suggestion that the BATF really
fouled up their initial assault on the compound. Their tactics were terrible.
That's not in debate. 

  What is in debate is what happened next. The Davidians had something like a
month to negotiate a surrender. And in fact I believe some people did leave the
compound. Had they surrendered they could have hired lawyers or had lawyers
provided by the state and they would have had all the protections of their
constitutional rights. 

  They didn't choose to go that route. Instead they chose to sit it out and
most likely when they realized they were being gassed they started the fire. 
Yes it is possible that the fire was started by the government but that is
very unlikely.

  George

    
    
>  What is in debate is what happened next. The Davidians had something like a
>month to negotiate a surrender. And in fact I believe some people did leave the
>compound. Had they surrendered they could have hired lawyers or had lawyers
>provided by the state and they would have had all the protections of their
>constitutional rights. 
    
    	Yeah, sure. Kinda like how the ones who did get to trial got a fair
    one. Real nice how the judge found them guilty even after the jury
    found them not guilty.
    
>Yes it is possible that the fire was started by the government but that is
>very unlikely.
    
    	Why is it unlikely?
    
    jim
    
    p.s. - would you have stepped out of the compound if you saw all your
    buddies getting hit by sniper fire? Might make me think I would never
    make it to trial....
    
    
    

    
    "There is no reason to set these guilty findings aside merely
    because the verdicts cannot rationally be reconciled."
    U.S. District Judge Walter Smith (3/9/94), reinstating
    charges of weapons violations of Branch Davidians at the
    behest of federal prosecutors.
    
    

|  Real nice how the judge found them guilty even after the jury found them
|  not guilty.
   
   Like so much of your "information" that you provide, this one
   continues the tradition of your high standard for accuracy.
   
   
   The jury found them guilty.  The judge refused to set aside that verdict.
   
   								-mr. bill

RE        <<< Note 362.44 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

>    "There is no reason to set these guilty findings aside merely
>    because the verdicts cannot rationally be reconciled."
>    U.S. District Judge Walter Smith (3/9/94), reinstating
>    charges of weapons violations of Branch Davidians at the
>    behest of federal prosecutors.
    
  Yeah, I'm looking at that quote and it appears that the jury found the
defendants guilty. It says "these guilty findings", not "these innocent
findings". 

  What are you talking about?

  George

    
    
    	re: mr. Bill
    
    	puhleeze mr. bill, my info is accurate. I see you provide nothing
    but yer antagonistic replies.
    
>  Yeah, I'm looking at that quote and it appears that the jury found the
>defendants guilty. It says "these guilty findings", not "these innocent
>findings". 
    
    	I'm assuming that if the judge is reinstating charges than the charges 
    has previously been dropped. Is this a bad assumption? Why would the judge 
    do this? Also the judge says guilty findings, NOT guilty verdict. Does
    not the jury reach a verdict? Could not the "findings" have been the
    judges way of saying "the incriminating evidence"? Did not the jury
    find the 11 Branch Davidians innocent on murder and conspiracy charges?
    Were not the firearms charges the "reinstated" by the judge AFTER the
    jury reached it decision?
    
    jim

   The jury found them guilty.  The judge refused to set aside that verdict.
   
   								-mr. bill

    
    I see what Georges problem is here.  He wants lawyers to stay in
    bizness thus his answer to everything is hire a lawyer......

No, his problem is he trusts the government...

Bob

| <<< Note 362.49 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>


| I see what Georges problem is here. He wants lawyers to stay in bizness thus 
| his answer to everything is hire a lawyer......

	Get Ben Matlock!!!

RE        <<< Note 362.47 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

>    	I'm assuming that if the judge is reinstating charges than the charges 
>    has previously been dropped. Is this a bad assumption? 

  From what you wrote there is not enough to know one way or the other what
happened. 

>    Also the judge says guilty findings, NOT guilty verdict. 

  Same thing. A defendant is presumed innocent until "found" guilty by a
jury of their peers. A jury announces what they found in their verdict.

>Did not the jury
>    find the 11 Branch Davidians innocent on murder and conspiracy charges?
>    Were not the firearms charges the "reinstated" by the judge AFTER the
>    jury reached it decision?
    
  Bottom line is that no judge can "reinstate" a conviction unless either a
jury found the defendant guilty or the defendant plead guilty in the 1st place.

  It is possible that under unusual circumstances a guilty verdict might get
put aside then reinstated for some reason, but there would have to be a
guilty verdict there in the 1st place to have this done.

  If for any reason a judge declared someone guilty without the right to a
jury trial and without a conviction then that is reversible error and would
get set aside on appeal.

  George

       
       COMMITTEE FOR WACO JUSTICE 
       Box 65518 * Washington, D.C. * 20035 *
       202/986-1847 
    
    
    
    ** Despite the judge and prosecutors' best efforts,
    however, the carefully screened jury accepted the
    self- defense argument and found the 11 Davidians
    innocent of the most serious charges of conspiracy to
    murder and aiding and abetting murder of federal
    agents. However, because the judge's instructions to
    the jurors included no defense for "aiding and
    abetting voluntary manslaughter," jurors felt
    compelled to find five guilty of what they thought
    was a "minor charge" that would earn Davidians
    little jail time. 
    
    ** Misunderstanding the judge's instructions and
    using a vague verdict form, jurors also found seven
    guilty of another "minor charge"--using a firearm
    while committing the crime of conspiracy to murder
    federal agents--despite their finding defendants
    innocent of the crime of conspiracy. Because of this
    error, the judge initially set aside the weapons
    verdict, telling defense attorneys there was no need
    to send the verdict back to the jury which only could
    change it to innocent. However, a week later the
    judge reinstated the guilty verdict and said it would
    stand. Defense attorneys are charging "double
    jeopardy." 
    
    ** At sentencing Smith, who by now had been
    cleared in the Justice Department investigation,
    "threw the book" at the convicted Davidians. Despite
    their being found innocent of conspiracy charges, he
    sentenced them as if they were guilty of those
    charges. Although there was no credible evidence
    Davidian defendants manufactured, knew about,
    carried or used automatic weapons, the judge ruled
    that because the government alleged such weapons
    were found at the scene, Davidians had "constructive
    possession" of them. This opinion allowed him to
    sentence five Davidians to thirty years for weapons
    charges, as well as the maximum ten years for aiding
    and abetting manslaughter. (Four others received 3,
    5, 15 and 20 year sentences.) Six Davidians are
    appealing for new, fair trials. 
    
    

RE          <<< Note 362.50 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Rest In Peace, Peter" >>>

>No, his problem is he trusts the government...
>
>Bob

  No I don't. And that's the major reason why I am a democrat.

  Republicans are always trying to appoint judges to the bench like Renquist
and Thomas that want to slant power away from the defendant and toward
government. Democrats tend to appoint justices like Douglas and Marshall who
slant power away from the government toward the defendant. 

  Occasionally each side screws up and gets something they don't want. For
example Ike once said that appointing Governor Earl Warren of California Chief
Justice of the United States Supreme Court was one of the biggest mistakes he
ever made. The "Warren Court" was perhaps the most anti-government court in the
history of the United States and put in place many safeguards to protect
citizens from the abuse of power by government. He was equally unhappy about
William Brennan.

  Likewise John Kennedy was not trying for a conservative when he appointed
Byran White to the court but White was one of the most conservative judges
on the bench and had a very poor record on voting to protect the rights of
the individual.

  So no, I don't trust government and that's why I vote for Democrats.

  George

>  So no, I don't trust government

Your vote of confidence for the BATF as expressed in this string would
certainly lead one to believe otherwise. Perhaps it's just government
agencies that you trust.

    No, it's just Democrats. As long as you're a Democrat, you can
    be a jackbooted witch of the Reno pursuasion... as long as
    you're a member of the party. The party is everything. Arms
    extended, goose step nicely, make sure to bow before the picture
    of the Chairman.
    
    -b

    
    Um, calling Opinion Pole - isn't that a trifle simplistic, even
    for you - to have two bins, and sort all the Supremes into one
    or the other ?  For example, to pick one of your cases, Rehmquist,
    he has been a near absolutist on Fifth Amendment cases, for the
    defendent, but not on Fourth Amendment cases, where he tends to side
    often with the police.  The argument has to do with the Fourth's
    use of the word "unreasonable", which occurs ONLY in that one.
    
    Nor was the late Douglas often on the same side as Marshall, except
    on the Fourteenth.  You forget that Douglas often sided with Black,
    advocating "judicial restraint".  Marshall did not.
    
    The people on the court simply do not fit well into your model.
    
      bb

RE         <<< Note 362.55 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Your vote of confidence for the BATF as expressed in this string would
>certainly lead one to believe otherwise. Perhaps it's just government
>agencies that you trust.

  Show me a note in this string where I ever expressed a vote of confidence
in the BATF?

RE    <<< Note 362.56 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>

>    No, it's just Democrats. As long as you're a Democrat, you can
>    be a jackbooted witch of the Reno pursuasion... as long as
>    you're a member of the party. The party is everything. Arms
>    extended, goose step nicely, make sure to bow before the picture
>    of the Chairman.
    
  Woops, someone's watching the wrong convention.

  First of all, when it comes to crime Clinton and Reno are conservative
southern democrats who are more in line with Republicans than liberal democrats
from the north and west. In fact I believe it was Oran Hatch who was one of
the major supporters of Reno when she was appointed.

  Had Clinton gotten one of this 1st couple choices, the more liberal Zoe
Baird (?) or the other one, I forget the name now, most likely they would have
handled the situation in a a more liberal and less aggressive fashion.

  Of course they had committed the evil sin of hiring baby sitters and were
thus not eligible.

  George

>  Show me a note in this string where I ever expressed a vote of confidence
>in the BATF?

You've been prattling on throughout the entire string as to how the BATF
and the FBI were within their rights to do what they did at Waco, haven't
you?

RE         <<< Note 362.59 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>You've been prattling on throughout the entire string as to how the BATF
>and the FBI were within their rights to do what they did at Waco, haven't
>you?

  It's one thing to say they were within their rights. It's another to
express confidence.

  If they had a warrant then they had the right, under the constitution, to
conduct the raid.

  That doesn't mean they did a good job or went about it properly and no one
has suggested that they did.

  George

------------------------------------------------

  BRANCH DAVIDIANS' LAWSUITS MARK TWO-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF ASSAULT
  
   By MIKE DRAGO
   
   Associated Press Writer
   
   HOUSTON (AP) - Branch Davidians and their survivors sued the
   government for $63.5 million Monday, claiming it meant for church
   members to die in the federal raid on their compound and the fire that
   destroyed it.
   
   "This is a fundamentally different approach than any of the other
   lawsuits," said lawyer James Brannon, who filed the lawsuit in federal
   court.
   
   "The others claim that the government made mistakes," he said. "This
   is the only one that takes a position that they calculatedly destroyed
   the compound and everything in it."
   
   Fifty-six relatives of Davidians who died and a few surviving church
   members are each seeking $10 million in damages plus $7.5 million for
   the church, claiming federal agents "willfully, wantonly and
   intentionally planned an illegal, violent paramilitary operation which
   they knew or should have known would result in unnecessary violence,
   personal injury and loss of life."
   
   Also Monday, an earlier lawsuit against Treasury and Justice
   department officials was expanded to include the U.S. government as a
   defendant.
   
   That lawsuit, which seeks more than $1 billion, accuses the government
   of negligence that resulted in excessive force in the initial assault
   and ensuing siege. It also says officials ignored alternative
   strategies that might have shortened the standoff and saved lives.
   
   "What we're about is asking the government to accept its share of the
   responsibility for what happened," said lawyer Michael Caddell, who
   represents 10 surviving Davidians and the relatives or estates of 84
   others.
   
   Joe Kroviski, a Justice Department spokesman in Washington, said
   officials hadn't seen the lawsuits and would have no comment Monday.
   
   Two years ago, on Feb. 28, 1993, about 100 agents from the Bureau of
   Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms arrived in cattle trailers at the
   compund outside Waco where David Koresh and his followers lived. They
   planned to arrest Koresh on weapons charges.
   
   Four agents and six Davidians died in the gun battle that followed.
   Seventy-nine Davidians, including Koresh and 18 children, died 51 days
   later, when the FBI mounted an armored assault and the compound went
   up in flames.
   
   The government blames Davidians for the fire; the church blames the
   government.
   
   Nearly a dozen civil lawsuits have been filed by federal agents and by
   Davidians. None have gone to trial yet.

 
------------------------------------------------

>  It's one thing to say they were within their rights. It's another to
>express confidence.

Here we go with the semantics games again . . . 

You feel that they were within their rights. From that standpoint, you
support their actions. What do you think the phrase "vote of confidence"
means?

    
    Any idea who the agents are suing and why?
    

    
    
    	I believe they are suing the BATF for a badly organized raid that
    lead to their being shot/injured.
    
    jim

RE         <<< Note 362.61 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>You feel that they were within their rights. From that standpoint, you
>support their actions. What do you think the phrase "vote of confidence"
>means?

  No that is not correct.

  A doctor has a right to remove your appendix if you give him permission to do
so. If, however, he takes a chain saw, cuts you in half, then yanks out your
appendix the fact that he had the right to proceed is not a vote of confidence
for his actions.

  The BATF had a warrant which gave them a right to raid the complex. It did
not give them the right to botch up that raid.

  George

    
    
    ...but the warrant was a load.
    
    

RE        <<< Note 362.66 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

>    ...but the warrant was a load.
    
  Well maybe it was but under our current system we trust judges to act
responsibly with regard to warrants. 

  I've never heard a suggestion on how that should be changed. One possibility
would be to inform the subject of a warrant that it was going to be heard by
a judge to allow that subject to argue against the warrant. Of course that
would take the surprise out of searches.

  Another possibility would be to require that a secret public defender be
present who's job would be to play devil's advocate and argue against any
warrant.

  That's a tough one. I'm not sure that there is a good solution,
  George

    
    	true, there's no easy solutions to a corrupt judicial system.
    
    
    
    
    

    ...but it was loaded by a DEMOCRAT...

    
    
    
    No George, they had no right to "raid" the compound.  They had a right
    to serve the warrant, search the premises for what the warrant
    indicated.  All this BS about the welfare of the children is just that,
    BS!  Where in BATF is children mentioned?  Isn't child neglect/abuse a
    function of the state government? 
    
    
    Mike

    Boy, the BATF certainly saved those children, too, eh?  
    
    I don't buy that excuse at all.  Evidence by previous government agency
    states that they found no evidence of abuse.  
    
    Reno should be canned and the BATF should be brought up on criminal
    charges, after which all government funding of this agency should
    cease.
    
    I'm not too sure we wouldn't be better off without the FBI as well,
    considering their part in this escapade.
    
    We CANNOT allow rogue government agencies to exist.  It's time to put
    some pressure on Washington to defund the BATF.  It may be 2 years after 
    the fact, but such a flurry of public action against this agency would
    show the government that the American people do NOT forget such
    unlawful actions, nor  will we tolerate it.
    
    If we do not stand up and put hard pressure on our elected officials to
    do something, then we all will be responsible for the next "botched"
    raid and the death of X number of innocent people.  We will also be
    responsible for putting one more nail in the coffin of the BoR.
    
    
    -steve 

    I just have one question, 
    
    Why didn't the Davidian church let them search the place, it's not like
    the fbi went in and started blowing people up....it took 51 days of hot
    and sweaty days and nights, I think the Davidian church WILLFULLY
    avaided  the law. If they had nothing to hide, why wait 51 days for the
    FBI to take action. Did they think the FBI would just walk away..?
    I don't think so, they acted like they had something to hide...I think
    suspicious might be the word. 
    
    just a question. 
    

>    If we do not stand up and put hard pressure on our elected officials to
>    do something

While I agree in principle with the concept, Steve, I actually wonder how
many of our elected officials have the gonads to step forth and attempt to
do something about it, without fear for their own lives or livelihoods.
There seems to be more than enough evidence that people in powerful positions
connected to these agencies have exercised their muscle sufficiently to
ensure that the status quo was maintained. J. Edgar Hoover was never
nominated for any Great Humanitarian Awards, to the best of my knowledge.
I'd like nothing better than to see the BATF and the FBI disbanded, but
I'm at a total loss as to how that could be brought about.

RE                    <<< Note 362.72 by ABACUS::MINICHINO >>>

>    Why didn't the Davidian church let them search the place, it's not like
>    the fbi went in and started blowing people up....it took 51 days of hot
>    and sweaty days and nights, I think the Davidian church WILLFULLY
>    avaided  the law. 

  From what they said it appears that they wanted the confrontation so that
they could live out the chapter of Revelations that Koresh kept talking about.
They believed they had to do that because they were some sort of chosen people.

  George

    re .72,
    
    Michelle,
    
    Actually they did go in blasting.  Having large numbers of black
    uniformed people piling out of cattle trailers armed, is not exactly my
    definition of serving a search warrant that is not specified as a "no
    knock" warrant.  it is strictly grandstanding by an agency which IMO
    has outlived its usefulness and is becoming the secret police for the
    US.  
    
    meg

Note 362.72 by ABACUS::MINICHINO 
         
>    Why didn't the Davidian church let them search the place, it's not like
>    the fbi went in and started blowing people up....
    
    Actually, this may very well be exactly what happened, except it was
    the BATF who was doing the shooting.  Going on the 911 calls, it would
    seem that the Dividians didn't have much of a chance to comply with
    authorities.
    
    Since Koresh complied with local authorities priviously (who did not
    need an army with weapons drawn) without any resistance, why did the
    BATF go in with 70+ men?  Why did they practice this raid, when Koresh
    had a history of complying with the law?
    
>    it took 51 days of hot
>    and sweaty days and nights, I think the Davidian church WILLFULLY
>    avaided  the law. If they had nothing to hide, why wait 51 days for the
>    FBI to take action. Did they think the FBI would just walk away...
    
    If you have nothing to hide, why not take away the "illegal search and 
    seizure" clause?  If you have nothing to hide, why not create laws where 
    federal officers can search your house periodically to make sure you are not
    harboring fugitives or illegal weapons/items?  
    
    I know that IF the feds fired first, I would not have trusted them,
    either (especially if the helecopters were firing through my
    ceiling...I'd get the idea that they did not WANT me to stand trial).
    IF the feds fired at me before attempting to serve a warrant, I would
    be within my rights to shoot back in self defense.  If I killed one, it
    would be THEIR fault, not mine.  
    
>    I don't think so, they acted like they had something to hide...I think
>    suspicious might be the word. 
 
    If you got all your information from the media during the time of this
    travesty, you would undoubtedly be geared towards thinking this way.  I
    was...until I began looking at the facts of the situation.  The one
    thing that I was never able to reconcile with the raid was the fact
    that 80+ men, woman and children were murdered due to *alleged* illegal
    firearms (which means that Koresh, if guilty, was guilty of not paying
    a couple hundred bucks for a tax stamp for fully automatic weapons).  I
    think that the methods used, in light of Koresh's history and in light
    of other KNOWN information at the time of the raid (like the fact that
    NO child abuse was ever confirmed), were extreme.  I'm also lead to
    believe that they were PLANNED.  I don't buy the "botched raid" thoeory
    at all.  No one is that stupid.  It was a test, IMO.  Our reaction will
    determine whether another "test" will be planned.
       
    Of course, the fact that the BATF conveniently destroyed all the
    evidence, I find that the government has NO defense of this raid, nor
    do they have ANY reason to put the surviving Dividians on trial.  Of
    course, they defend the incident with lies and have jailed those evil
    "cultists" anyway.
    
    The sad part is that most people will never use their head to think
    through this event.  Most will never realize what a true travesty of
    justice this was.  Most will go on thinking all is well.
    
    If it had been a band of outlaws who tried to force their way in the
    compound, killing 80+ men, woman and children in the process, the
    public would be out for blood.  Since it was the government which did
    this, it is all somehow okay.  After all, the government is on our side,
    right?  It would never violate the BoR or due process of law, right?
    
    This is a frightening mentality that Americans seem to embrace, IMO.
    
    
    -steve

I wrote my Congresscritters shortly after this mess... result: none of them
bothered to write me back.

BATF/FBI conduct during the raid bordered on sick, twisted... Example: one of
the Davidians trying to re-enter the compound was shot while climbing the
fence. His body was left rotting on the fence for several days, after which a
helicopter attempted to remove it with a grappling hook. By that time, the
body was in such bad shape that it just fell apart. Hmm, wonder what the
children inside thought of that? Wonder if they backed it up with rabbit
screams?

                     <<< Note 362.33 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  If the BTAF didn't have a warrant, then it was an illegal search. If they
>did have a warrant, then they were within their rights raiding the compound.

	Even if the ATF Agent lied, quite explicitly, in order to obtain
	the warrant?

>Maybe the feds fired the 1st shot but I
>doubt it. They conduct raids all the time and in the vast majority no shots are
>fired at all. We'll probably never know but I'd bet that the Davidians fired
>the 1st shot. 

	Well, the evidence that would have shown just who fired first
	(the front door) became "unavailable". 

>>	Kind of hard to file a brief when folks are shooting at you.

>  They had something like a 30 minute warning that the attack was coming.

	It does my heart good to see even you label this as an "attack".
	;-)

> That
>would have been plenty of time to abandon the compound and file a suit. 

	Until the faulty warrant is served, they have no standing to file.

>After
>the assault they had something like a month to surrender and take their case to
>court. 

	Given the scenario that I believe (that the ATF fired 1st, probably
	after Koresh slammed the door in their faces) it wouldn't all that
	unusual for for them to want to negotiate a SAFE surrender. The
	FBI neogiators apparently did not satisfy the Davidians that
	this was the case.

>  Regardless, the F.B.I. was still right not to let them near the compound
>since they would probably have gotten shot.

	I doubt it. Thge Davidians had already show a willingness not to
	fire on ATF Agents when they went to pick up their dead and
	wounded.

>  As I said, if the raid was done without a warrant then I would be the 1st to
>agree that it was a violation of the 4th amendment and the BTAF had no business
>being there. If they had a warrant then they would have been within their
>rights. 

	What if the warrant was based on lies told to the magistrate?
	Isn't that a violation of the 4th Amendment as well?

Jim

    
    I cannot help but wonder what Georges replies would be if a 
    repub administration was in office during this debacle.

    
    <--------
    
    Content free response!!!!
    
    Content free response!!!!
    
    
    Monkey Doctor!!!! Monkey Doctore!!! Monkey Doctor!!!!
    

                     <<< Note 362.65 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  The BATF had a warrant which gave them a right to raid the complex. It did
>not give them the right to botch up that raid.

	Uh George, the warrant gave them the right to SEARCH the complex.

	It did NOT give them the right to "raid" the complex with an
	assault team.


Jim

    Can't anyone see the parallel between this situation and what is
    currently happening in Japan?
    
    IMHO I too think Koresh was trying to force a showdown.  I'm not
    certain he intended to be among the deceased, but I believe he pro-
    voked the situation.  
    
    In Waco authorities were concerned about illegal weapons; in Japan
    authorities are concerned about components to make nerve gas.
    
    Whenever you have to deal with cult figures, religious  figures, whatever
    there's always the potential for disaster because these leaders have
    not shown much reluctance to sacrifice their followers for whatever
    "the goal to be attained".  Sometimes there just is no "good way" to
    handle situations like these.
    
    It sounds like Japan has laws to protect religious groups, but now
    you have someone who has amassed enough chemicals to wipe out a
    large portion of the Japanese population if he chooses to do so.
    (Not to mention if some misguided follower goes off the deep end
    and strikes out on his/her own).  When the subway attack occurred,
    the world seemed horrified.  I recent note in the Japan topic now
    seems to question the wisdom in conducting raids on this cult's
    various locations.                                
    
    Hindsight shows that many women and children would have been saved
    if someone at taken action at Jim Jones' complex in Guyana.  The
    authorities probably would have been criticized there when they
    unearthed large amounts of Kool-Aid, if they did not also find the
    poison that was later used in that Kool-Aid.
    
    I'm not saying the situation was well-handed in Waco; but I DO
    remember lots of publicity being generated by family members of
    those who were members of Koresh's group.  These family members
    wanted the government to "do something"; we all know the results.
    
    Tragic errors in judgment were made on BOTH sides; there is plenty
    of blame to go around.
    
    
    

RE    <<< Note 362.78 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Even if the ATF Agent lied, quite explicitly, in order to obtain
>	the warrant?

  This is a problem with the way warrants are issued in general and is not
limited to Waco. Again the question is, what are you going to do?

  If the subject of the warrant were notified and allowed to appear at a
hearing to contest the warrant, then that would be the end of surprise assaults
by groups like the DEA. It would be almost impossible to catch someone with
drugs. 

  While that would sound great to liberals who supported the rulings of the
Warren Court back in the late 60's, it would irritate the opponents of that
court no end. And I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for saying this but
it was the Republicans who were most against the rulings of that court.

  Then there's also the idea of having a special branch of the public defenders
office who's job it would be to appear at secret search warrant hearings to
argue on behalf of the subject of the search without their knowledge, but
how would then know if they were properly representing their client's best
interests? How could they prepare without conferring with their client?

  It's a tough one. I don't know the answer. 

>	Well, the evidence that would have shown just who fired first
>	(the front door) became "unavailable". 

  If there are multiple bullet holes in a door, some going in and some going
out, it's almost impossible to tell which order they were fired.

>	What if the warrant was based on lies told to the magistrate?
>	Isn't that a violation of the 4th Amendment as well?

  I believe the statements are given under oath. If that's the case then they
could be charged with perjury.

  George

RE            <<< Note 362.79 by HANNAH::MODICA "Journeyman Noter" >>>

>    I cannot help but wonder what Georges replies would be if a 
>    repub administration was in office during this debacle.

  It would be the same. I would feel that Koresh and his followers had a right
to religious freedom and that right included dieing in a blaze if that's what
they wanted. 

  Most likely they would have started the fire and burned themselves to fulfill
their prophesy regardless of who was in the White House. 

  George

>    <<< Note 362.83 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>
>    Can't anyone see the parallel between this situation and what is
>    currently happening in Japan?
    
Not the same at all 
   
>    In Waco authorities were concerned about illegal weapons; in Japan
>    authorities are concerned about components to make nerve gas.

In the US Guns are legal property Koresh had not conducted or was even accused 
of conducting "attacks" on subways filled with commuters. The tragedy in Japan
included apparently terrorist type attacks on the general population.
Also world-wide the possesion of Nerve-gas is illegal. It is not a personal
arm or legitimate arm of civilians or military.
    

>    "the goal to be attained".  Sometimes there just is no "good way" to
>    handle situations like these.

Actually the Japanese police are using far more restraint than the BATF ever 
did. and are seemingly being kinder to prisoners(you did read about ATF goons 
stomping a kitten to death in a raid in PA? or throwing a woman against a wall 
causing a miscarriage @ 6 months pregnant?)

    
>    those who were members of Koresh's group.  These family members
>    wanted the government to "do something"; we all know the results.
I believe the only calls to "do something" came from jack-boot Janet with her 
lies about child-abuse(not a federal offense, no jurisdiction)

    
>    Tragic errors in judgment were made on BOTH sides; there is plenty
>    of blame to go around.
    
The errors were on the gov't side     
    
Amos

    I repeat,
    
    They did not have a "no Knock" warrant, about the only time you are
    "justified" in having a swat team beat down a door.  
    
    I am probably one of the more "liberal" people in this file, and I
    agree that what the ATF did in WACO and in Idaho was nothing short of
    premeditated murder.  This does not include their other abuses of
    citizens when "searching" for illegal weapons.  The ATF has a long
    history of goon-squadship, and should be either dismanteled, or if the
    guvmint insists that this is a necessary function, all the goons
    involved in the raids and on up into all management over these debacles
    should be canned.
    
    meg

    
    <------
    
    Sorry meg...
    
    This makes you a "right-wing whacko" in my book....

    <<< Note 362.83 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    Can't anyone see the parallel between this situation and what is
>    currently happening in Japan?
 
	I certainly can't. Until the attack (thanks George) by government
	forces, the Davidians had committed no crime, had harmed no one,
	had threatened no one.

	VERY different than the recent situation in Japan.

>    IMHO I too think Koresh was trying to force a showdown.

	How so? He invited the ATF, in writing, to visit and check out
	their firearms. He had cooperated fully with local law enforcement
	authorities when they had questions/concerns about happenings at
	the complex. Koresh and the other Davidians complied with all
	applicable Federal firearms laws and ATF regulations. How is
	abiding by the law "trying to force a showdown"?

Jim

    Thanks Meg...
    
    Also, there was a question about why the BDs didn't let them in.
    
    a) they did let the sheriff in, a week earlier, no fuss at all.  The
    sheriff found no violations.
    
    b) the BATF didn't ask to come in.  They didn't knock ON the door, they
    knocked DOWN the door.  And the walls, ceiling, and eventually the
    whole place.
    
    c) throughout the ordeal, the Davidians waved flags begging for an
    interview with a media person.  These were huge banners visible from
    three miles away.  The BATF refused to allow the press within the three
    miles.  The BATF cut off all communication from the Davidians.  Even if
    they were irrational, what harm could have been done by allowing an
    interview by phone?
    
    Anybody who defends the actions of the BATF as legal either believes in
    a totalitarian dictorship as the preferred government, or simply hasn't
    a clue how ruthless those animals were.
    
    I have zero sympathy for the BATF as an entity.  It currently exists
    only for the propogation of evil and the undermining of the US
    Government.  As far as I'm concerned, the whole agency is guilty of
    treason against the government, the basis of which is overt acts agaist
    state and federal governments and people of the United States of America.
    
    (now let me tell you what I REALLY think!)
    
    Later,
    	   Mike

    Mike,
    
    don't hold back!!!
    
    As a gun totin' liberal, I prefer not to have a government with it's
    nose in my busness all the time.  
    
    I guess that may make a a bill of rights conservative, huh.  right win
    Whacko?  I don't think they would have a socially liberal, pro-choice,
    anti-prohibitionist, goddess worshipping, earth-loving tree hugger in
    their midst. 
    
    right dick?
    
    meg

    .91 - Meg,
    
    Well, I figure more than a few people would be pretty digusted with
    some of my "liberal" leanings.  Why I've been known to actually
    appreciate nature on occasion, and (don't repeat this) am a supporter
    of worthy charities.  If the fact that I studied liberal arts and am
    married to an artist and dollmaker got out my right wing wackoe beer
    swilling southern good ole boy buddies would belch methane.  And
    although everybody knows I chase dogs for relaxation, the fact is I
    seldom catch any.  And have two at home.  Not to mention the bird and
    cat.  And our yard is covered with flowering things.
    
    And if certain opera singer types ever found out that I play in two
    brass chamber groups before I go shootin', why I'd never hear the end
    of it.  
    
    Ah, me.  Sounds like we're just too complex for most box types.  I'll
    just continue to be a right wing wackoe (I kind of like the term) and
    you go on and be a tree hugger.  But if you're ever in the
    neighborhood, there are lots of trees around here, so be sure to stop
    by...

                     <<< Note 362.84 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>>	Even if the ATF Agent lied, quite explicitly, in order to obtain
>>	the warrant?

>  This is a problem with the way warrants are issued in general and is not
>limited to Waco. Again the question is, what are you going to do?

	Well, the question I'm asking is a bit different. We seem to be
	discussing two issues. One, legalities. Two, right and wrong.

	I'm looking for your position on the latter, not the former.

>  If there are multiple bullet holes in a door, some going in and some going
>out, it's almost impossible to tell which order they were fired.

	That is true. According to the Davidians, the bullet holes
	in the door would show that the ONLY holes were fired
	from the outside. Their lawyers tried VERY hard to get this
	door entered into evidence. The government lawyers tried
	very hard to keep it out. When the judge said that the 
	door had to be produced, the government claimed to have
	"lost" it. I don't know about you, but 'lil ole paranoid
	me finds this curious.

>  I believe the statements are given under oath. If that's the case then they
>could be charged with perjury.

	On this we agree. But no such charges have been filed. Why?

Jim

>	On this we agree. But no such charges have been filed. Why?

Oh, what's the difference "why", Jim? George will be perfectly happy to
settle for a single perjury conviction in order to settle up for the
80+ (what's the number?) citizen deaths at the hands of Reno's Rangers.
That is, afterall, the important point, no?

RE         <<< Note 362.94 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Oh, what's the difference "why", Jim? George will be perfectly happy to
>settle for a single perjury conviction in order to settle up for the
>80+ (what's the number?) citizen deaths at the hands of Reno's Rangers.
>That is, afterall, the important point, no?

  No that's not correct.

  The perjury charge is to "settle up" for obtaining a false warrant, not for
any claim of wrongfull death.

  George

    Look, Koresh was anything but "just your average " citizen.  If he did 
    indeed father children with underage girls most of you would be
    casting stones at him; but let the BATF or guns come into the
    picture and all of a sudden the guy's an upstanding dude.
    

>  The perjury charge is to "settle up" for obtaining a false warrant, not for
>any claim of wrongfull death.

So what do we do with that one?

    I never said Koresh was my kind of guy.
    
    However, child abuse is a state and local dss and law enforcement
    issue, not the feds, and certainly not the BATF's.  
    
    DSS did investigate the compound and found no evidence of child abuse.  
    
    Apparently their sleeping arrangements at the compound didn't violate
    any local laws either, although there again, the rumors make this man
    someone I wouldn't be interested in. 
    
    Koresh and crew had opened the doors to law enforcement with no
    problems before.  
    
    As in the Randall Weaver case, the feds were less than forthcoming with
    evidence.  RW isn't exactly my cup of tea either, but being politically
    incorrect is not grounds for murder by the government, any more than
    being a Dr. who performs abortions is grounds for murdering the dr.
    
    Only governments that fear their populace would have a reason to
    practice this jack-booted nonsense.  
    
    meg

RE         <<< Note 362.97 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>>  The perjury charge is to "settle up" for obtaining a false warrant, not for
>>any claim of wrongfull death.
>
>So what do we do with that one?

  One of the problems we have today with Federal Police (i.e. BATF, FBI, DEA,
etc) is that many of the reforms of the Warren court are being rolled back
instead of pushed forward.

  During the late '60s the Warren court made a lot of progress raining in the
powers of police and restoring civil liberties to the public. The problem is
that this has been seen by many people as "allowing criminals to get off on
technicalities" and the pressure has been on to appoint justices to the court
to reverse or to soften the protections advanced by that court.

  I believe that we should toughen up the restrictions on police abuse of power
with stronger 4th amendment protections including an end to secret warrants. 
Many of the roll backs on the Exclusionary rule over the last decade or so
should be reinstated and violations of the 4th amendment by police should
result in a right to sue the State or the United States that is not protected
by sovereign immunity.

  That would be a start,
  George

waco wacko compounded snarf!

    re: Koresh's sex habits.
    
    I really don't know about that.  Everything I've heard from the
    survivors indicates that at worst he may have had an "alternative
    lifestyle".
    
    However, even supposing he were abusing women and children in that
    compound (which I doubt), since when do we empower a BUREAU of people
    to go murder everybody there?  With tanks, helicopters, automatic
    weapons, snipers, gas, etc, etc?
    
    I mean, if there were abuses at a day care center, do you figure the
    best thing to do is just drop a bomb on it and kill all the adults and
    kids?

    .99, George.
    
    BATF are not police.  Never were.  Aren't now.  It's a revenue
    collection bureau.  If they want to arrest somebody, they're _SUPPOSED_
    to get a warrant and have an officer of the law present it.
    
    This, by the by, is Federal Law.  The warrant and arresting officer
    must be of the jurisdiction of the individual.  This is why the Waco
    sheriff was involved, and why they had a warrant.  The bit about
    commandos and heavy artillery is just their version of an exclamation
    point.

                     <<< Note 362.95 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  The perjury charge is to "settle up" for obtaining a false warrant, not for
>any claim of wrongfull death.

George,	A case COULD be made that the defective warrant was the proximate
	cause for the wrongful deaths.

Jim

    <<< Note 362.96 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    Look, Koresh was anything but "just your average " citizen.  If he did 
>    indeed father children with underage girls most of you would be
>    casting stones at him; but let the BATF or guns come into the
>    picture and all of a sudden the guy's an upstanding dude.
 
	It is quite possible to believe that Koresh is the scum of the
	Earth (even if no charges were ever proved against him) and
	STILL believe that the ATF is an out of control government
	agency.

	No matter the beliefs of a person or group, they are still
	protected by the law. No matter how unpopular those beliefs
	might be, they do not desrve to be murdered by the government.

Jim   

    re.91
    
    you gonna drag me into this mess aren't ya...you...you...right winged
    tree huggin back alley boobock barbarian...so there!!!
    
    dick
    

RE    <<< Note 362.103 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>George, A case COULD be made that the defective warrant was the proximate
>	cause for the wrongful deaths.

  Perhaps but the case wouldn't get to far. The government could claim that
any judge or magistrate issuing a warrant is protected by sovereign immunity.

  You might get away with bringing a suit against the judge himself (read
shallow pockets) but you'd never succeed against the United States (read
deep pockets) unless you had their permission to sue.

  What's needed here is reform of the process of issuing warrants such that
people are informed when a warrant against them is being requested and have
a voice at an open hearing before the judge.

  George

    George, ya cain't sue the gummint, but you CAN sue some bastard SOB for
    *LYING* to a judge when the subsequent ruling led to the death of
    innocent people, or the needless death of even not-so-innocent people.
    
    The CFR specifically allows for charges to be brought against federal
    employees when they misrepresent their legal status while acting as an
    agent of the government.  Lying to a judge does count for that. 
    Exclusive of perjury or wrongful death claims, the misrepresentation is
    a felony under federal law.  

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 26 MAR 1995 14:38:56 -0600 
From: Carol Moore <[email protected]>
Newgroups: alt.activism, alt.conspiracy, alt.politics.org.batf
Subject: APRIL 19th D.C. "WACO" EVENTS (fwd) 

              APRIL 19, 1995 D.C. "WACO" EVENTS
 
     Please join our events in Washington, D.C. commemorating
the second anniversary of the FBI massacre of 76 members of
the Branch Davidian religious group in Waco, Texas.  We are
looking for people to help organize and contribute to as well
as participate in these events.
 
DAVIDIAN CROSSES AT ELLIPSE SOUTH OF WHITE HOUSE
Saturday, April 15 to Wednesday, April 19th
     Coordinated by Committee for Waco Justice.  For more
information call Alan Forschler 202-986-1847.
 
12:30 PRESS CONFERENCE AT FBI
FOCUS ON: U.S. GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC TERRORISM
     Representatives of groups fighting federal law
enforcement terror and murder against Americans from Native
Americans, to the Weaver families, to the Branch Davidians, to
homeless people to anyone accused of being "terrorists." 
(Protest and leafleting will run from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. 
     Coordinated by Waco Remembrance, C. Valentine, 703-323-
7484.
 
FREE THE DAVIDIAN PRISONERS' PROTEST
     Seven men and two women dressed in drab prison garb,
wearing large yellow stars of David, and wearing Davidian
prison numbers on their arms will appear at this event and
read from Davidian prisoner statements at a later evening FBI
event. 
     Coordinated by Committee for Waco Justice.  Volunteers
for either event welcome.  Call Carol Moore 202-986-1847, eves
and weekends best.)
 
6:30-8:00 PM PROTEST AT FBI 
PROTEST FBI MASSACRE OF BRANCH DAVIDIANS
     We expect 30 to 50 protesters to join together to tell
the FBI (and Justice Department which is right across the
street) that we will not tolerate law enforcement terrorism
and murder.  Bring signs or signs will be provided.
     Coordinated by Committee for Waco Justice, 202-986-1847
or 202-797-9877
 
WASHINGTON TIMES ADVERTISEMENT
     3"x4"  $360 advertisement.  Text will read: "NO MORE GAS
AND TANK ATTACKS ON AMERICANS  (With graphic of tank smashing
into Mount Carmel)  Congress must investigate BATF and FBI
Crimes in Waco -- Free the Branch Davidian Prisoners"
     Coordinated by Committee for Waco Justice. 
To help us pay for the ad, since we are a low budget organization,
make checks to: Carol Moore, Box 65518, Washington, D.C. 20035. 
Contributors will received xerox of both ads and other April
19th materials.

MOUNT CARMEL MEMORIAL CEREMONY IN WACO
     On April 19th the few surviving Davidians in Waco, Texas
will plant a Crepe Myrtle tree for each of the 76 men, women
and children who died that day.  Six have been planted for
those who died on February 28th.  Participants to help plant
the trees or otherwise join in the memorial are welcome.  This
will be an expensive undertaking, each tree costing $30 to
$50.  To help members cover the cost send contributions to:
The Mt. Carmel Survivors Memorial Fund, Inc.  Box 120, 
Axtell, TX 76624.  For more information call survivor Clive
Doyle, (817) 754-2146


Please feel free to distribute this message
Carol Moore  [email protected]







% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA27680; Wed, 29 Mar 95 12:24:52 -050
% Received: from bigboote.WPI.EDU by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 2/22/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA01059; Wed, 29 Mar 1995 09:08:02 -080
% Received: from bigwpi.WPI.EDU (bigwpi.WPI.EDU [130.215.24.56]) by bigboote.WPI.EDU (8.6.11/8.6) with ESMTP id MAA20043 for <[email protected]>; Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:06:33 -0500
% Received: (rearwin@localhost) by bigwpi.WPI.EDU (8.6.11/8.6) id MAA17471; Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:06:32 -0500
% Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:06:32 -0500 (EST)
% From: Matt Rearwin <[email protected]>
% To: amos hamburger <tis::hamburger>
% Subject: APRIL 19th D.C. "WACO" EVENTS (fwd)
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

RE             <<< Note 362.107 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    The CFR specifically allows for charges to be brought against federal
>    employees when they misrepresent their legal status while acting as an
>    agent of the government.  Lying to a judge does count for that. 
>    Exclusive of perjury or wrongful death claims, the misrepresentation is
>    a felony under federal law.  

  No one ever has nor will anyone ever get rich suing government employees.
As a group they are not what you would consider deep pockets.

  For the most part they have middle class to lower middle class incomes and
are up to their eyeballs in debt. So fine you get a judgment for a gizzillion
dollars, how are you ever going to collect? And that's IF you win.

  It costs well over $10,000 minimum to get a suit like this to court and
probably a whole lot more. If you are not figuring on making 20 grand or
more it's hardly worth the paper to file the suit in the 1st place and very
few Government employees will ever be able to come up with that much money.

  George

                     <<< Note 362.106 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Perhaps but the case wouldn't get to far. The government could claim that
>any judge or magistrate issuing a warrant is protected by sovereign immunity.

	I'm not sure that sovereign immunity applies in cases where a 
	government employee is guilty of deliberate misconduct.

Jim

    
    Re: > No one ever has nor will anyone ever get rich suing government
      	> employees. As a group they are not what you would consider deep pockets.
    
        > For the most part they have middle class to lower middle class
        > incomes and are up to their eyeballs in debt.
    
    George, where does this information come from?
    And if per chance, what you wrote is true about the middle class
    then why is more taxation always your answer to questions about
    the federal budget/deficit/debt?
    
    						Hank

    Typically, large settlements are not paid in a lump sum,
    particularly when an individual is sued. More often, the
    judge will force the person on a payment plan where they
    pay just enough to make their lives miserable, without
    forcing them into bankruptcy. Also, legal judgments are
    one of the few things that don't disappear when one files
    bankruptcy.

    Waco stormtroopers being miserable for the rest of their
    lives as they struggle to pay off a huge debt is not
    a bad thing, IMHO...

    -b

RE            <<< Note 362.111 by HANNAH::MODICA "Journeyman Noter" >>>

>    George, where does this information come from?
>    And if per chance, what you wrote is true about the middle class
>    then why is more taxation always your answer to questions about
>    the federal budget/deficit/debt?
    
  I don't see how the two things are related. Taxes effect everyone, not just
government employees.

  George

RE    <<< Note 362.112 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>

>    Waco stormtroopers being miserable for the rest of their
>    lives as they struggle to pay off a huge debt is not
>    a bad thing, IMHO...

  I don't believe you would have any chance at all of getting judgments
against all or even most of the "stormtroopers". At best you might get one or
two guys who you could prove lied to obtain the warrant. 

  Maybe you would win (probably you would not) and even then the amount of
money you would be able to collect would be rather small. Even if you did
manage to attach their pay they'd probably quit rather than making those
payments and go mow lawns for cash paid under the table. 

  Throughout history no one has ever been successful at enforcing the 4th
amendment by bringing either criminal or civil charges against the government.
The only thing that has had any impact is civil liberty protections like the
Exclusionary rule.

  Toughening that up would make a case like the one against the Davidians
difficult to prosecute if they were not allowed to use what ever they found
searching the compound. Allowing subjects of warrants to challenge the warrant
in an open warrant hearing would have an impact as well.

  Bringing a suit against a $30,000 Federal Employee is about as effective as
squeezing blood out of a rock.

  George

>  Maybe you would win (probably you would not) and even then the amount of
>money you would be able to collect would be rather small. Even if you did
>manage to attach their pay they'd probably quit rather than making those
>payments and go mow lawns for cash paid under the table. 
>  Bringing a suit against a $30,000 Federal Employee is about as effective as
>squeezing blood out of a rock.

I disagree. While it may be true that you will not receive much in the way
of a monetary settlement, that isn't necessarily the point. After you're
done squeezing that rock, it will just lay there on the ground forever as
the same rock, unaffected. After you've made it clear to a gummint agency
employee that you'd like to do whatever is within your power to make the
rest of his life miserable, he has to spend each waking day with that on
his mind.

It would "do it" for me, but then, as you know, George, I tend to be one
helluva vengeful SOB.

RE        <<< Note 362.115 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I disagree. While it may be true that you will not receive much in the way
>of a monetary settlement, that isn't necessarily the point. 

  Ok, let me put it another way.

  If you walked into the office of just about any lawyer I've ever met and
suggested filing this suit they'd probably tell you about what I did that
there is little chance of making all that much money.

  If you insisted on going forward, most lawyers would probably tell you that
they couldn't work on contingency alone, they'd need a retainer of at least
$5,000 to file the suit and another $5,000 if it went to trial.

  So the question is, would you be willing to fork over $10,000 to fight this
battle even though your chances of winning would be not all that great?

  George

    
    Re: .113 George
    
    	
    	You stated: 
    
    >No one ever has nor will anyone ever get rich suing
    >government employees. As a group they are not what you would consider 
    >deep pockets.
    
    >  For the most part they have middle class to lower middle class
    > incomes and are up to their eyeballs in debt.
    
    Having written the above, how can you advocate higher
    taxes* (which will certainly affect that group) to address
    the federal budget problems.
    
    *you mentioned this in the politics of the right topic I believe.

    
    
    
    George, most of them have right healthy salaries.  What you say about
    what govt employees make is bull.
    
    
    Mike

RE            <<< Note 362.117 by HANNAH::MODICA "Journeyman Noter" >>>

>    Having written the above, how can you advocate higher
>    taxes* (which will certainly affect that group) to address
>    the federal budget problems.
    
  The salaries of government employees tend to be fairly low relative to the
same jobs in industry. As a result, any increase in graduated income taxes
would impact them less than people with higher pay. 

  But I still don't see the relationship between the two. In this topic we are
discussing suing a small group of people for a large amount of money to cover
damages and as a punitive measure. In the other topic we are talking about
raising taxes on a very large group to help erase the deficit.

  George

RE   <<< Note 362.118 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    George, most of them have right healthy salaries.  What you say about
>    what govt employees make is bull.
    
  When ever I've looked at employment opportunities I've always found that
the private sector pays a lot more for what I do than the government. How
much money are we talking about here? More than $100,000?

  And remember, even if there is a large judgment filed against these people
what's going to make them go on working for the government if they know that
someone else is going to benefit by getting all of their salary? I know if
it were me, I'd be headed to Europe or Australia to avoid having all of my
salary confiscated.

  It never seems to work. I can't think of a case where heavy criminal or civil
penalties did anything to protect citizens from unreasonable search under the
4th amendment. The only thing that seems to work is throwing out evidence
improperly seized. Informing people and allowing them to attend warrant
hearings is the only thing that would substantially improve a citizen's 4th
amendment protection. 

  George 

    
    
    There's a lot of government employess down here in Maryland, George. 
    The ones I know are making comparable money to what they could make 
    at a nongovt job.  When you think that the average income for a dual
    income household in the US is around 35K, many of the govt employees
    make more than that on one salary.
    
    
    Mike

>  It costs well over $10,000 minimum to get a suit like this to court and
>probably a whole lot more. If you are not figuring on making 20 grand or
    
    I should know better than to reply to you George.  It costs zero to lay
    criminal charges against an individual.
    
    I do not want MONEY from criminals, I want their butts thrown in jail.
    

                     <<< Note 362.116 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  So the question is, would you be willing to fork over $10,000 to fight this
>battle even though your chances of winning would be not all that great?


	Based on the court cases alreasy on the docket, it appears that
	SOMEONE answered "yes" to your question.


	I'm still waiting for your response to the "right or wrong"
	question that I asked you.

Jim

RE   <<< Note 362.121 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    There's a lot of government employess down here in Maryland, George. 
>    The ones I know are making comparable money to what they could make 
>    at a nongovt job.  When you think that the average income for a dual
>    income household in the US is around 35K, many of the govt employees
>    make more than that on one salary.
    
  So how much are these people making? A salary of $35K is not very much, even
suing someone in the $50K to $70K range you would be lucky to break even. Most
people in that range have a significant amount of debt and little net worth.
If they quit their jobs, there would be almost nothing to collect.

  George

RE             <<< Note 362.122 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    I should know better than to reply to you George.  

  ... but of course you don't.

>It costs zero to lay
>    criminal charges against an individual.
>    
>    I do not want MONEY from criminals, I want their butts thrown in jail.
    
  Ok fine, what's the charge? Perjury? That almost never works against any
officials applying for warrants. Remember, in criminal court it wouldn't be
good enough to say they probably lied to get the warrant, you would have to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied to get the warrant.

  George

Re    <<< Note 362.123 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	I'm still waiting for your response to the "right or wrong"
>	question that I asked you.

  My most sincere apologies but in the process of trying to argue against
many people at once I'm afraid I often miss questions.

  If you would re-ask it or give me a reference I'd be happy to give you
my opinion.

  George

                     <<< Note 362.126 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  If you would re-ask it or give me a reference I'd be happy to give you
>my opinion.

	In simple terms, Was the raid on the Davidian complex right
	or wrong (not was it LEGAL, was it RIGHT).

Jim

    
    Of course it was right Jim!!!
    
    All those right-wing Koresh-type wackos wanted to go to Valhalla
    anyway's...
    
     All the BATF did was oblige them donchaknow...
    

    
    
    george...you stated that gvmt employees salaries are lower than their
    counterparts in industry.....just where in industry do you find the likes
    of BATF, DEA, FBI etc???
    
    just curious dude
    

    
    
    re: .129
    
    	they're called "hit men" in the civy world...
    
    
    

    re.-1
    
    oh I see........but does george...nawwwwwww

.116>  So the question is, would you be willing to fork over $10,000 to fight this
.116>battle even though your chances of winning would be not all that great?


No - that isn't the question. You missed the point of .115 entirely, George.
The point isn't to "win" a monetary settlement. The point is to make life
miserable for the BATF-waffen by hounding them. And don't think for a minute
that there aren't plenty of citizen's groups who would gladly throw together
the $10K to accomplish that. As many times as might be necessary.

	Would it be possible to get government agents together to storm
George's house? Or even better, how about Mr. Check-in/out?


Glen

    
    
    	re: .133
    
    	easy, just call and tell them there's a methamphetamine lab in the
    cellar and he owns a gun.
    
    jim (ever helpful)

<---- you've done this before, haven't you....

    
    
    	didn't I tell you I used to live in Waco Texas....?
    
    

RE    <<< Note 362.127 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	In simple terms, Was the raid on the Davidian complex right
>	or wrong (not was it LEGAL, was it RIGHT).

  I'd call the original raid stupid for sure. They really botched it up.

  As for it being right or wrong, I don't know. I'm somewhat biased against
using para-military tactics against citizens in general and as I've stated I
think that in most cases people should be informed that a search warrant is
being issued and should be allowed to appear in court to contest the warrant. 

  Now there are going to be exceptions, for example, when the public is at
great risk (probable cause someone is building bombs and intends to use them,
probable cause someone is building nerve gas and intends to use it) but those
cases are few and far between. 

  So I guess I'd say that in my opinion it was wrong. 

  George 

RE                     <<< Note 362.129 by CSC32::D_STUART >>>

>    george...you stated that gvmt employees salaries are lower than their
>    counterparts in industry.....just where in industry do you find the likes
>    of BATF, DEA, FBI etc???
    
  Well like most agencies I would imagine that most of the payroll in those
agencies goes to support people like administrators, clerks, secretaries, lab
technicians, lawyers, etc. In general those people seem to make more in the
private sector than in the government. Or at least that's been my experience. 

  As for the agents themselves, I don't know, do you make more money working
for the BATF than working as a security agent for Pinkerton? Maybe, but in
any case you are still not talking a lot of money.

  Would you be willing to spend $10,000 up front to sue a couple BATF agents
on the chance that you would get big judgments against them? If you won do
you really think you'd ever get your $10,000 back?

  My guess is that the average BATF agent has at best half that in the bank
and a mortgage on their house putting their net worth near zero.

  George

RE        <<< Note 362.132 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>No - that isn't the question. You missed the point of .115 entirely, George.
>The point isn't to "win" a monetary settlement. The point is to make life
>miserable for the BATF-waffen by hounding them. And don't think for a minute
>that there aren't plenty of citizen's groups who would gladly throw together
>the $10K to accomplish that. As many times as might be necessary.

  Ok, good luck.

  In fact, need a lawyer? If you are willing to put $10,000 up front maybe
I can hook you up with someone that would take the case.

  George

RE              <<< Note 362.133 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	Would it be possible to get government agents together to storm
>George's house? Or even better, how about Mr. Check-in/out?

  Yeah, it would be a snap. But why do you want them storming my house? I'm
against that sort of thing.

  Why not have them storm the house of someone who is against 4th amendment
protections.

  Unless, of course, you've got something against my cats and just want to
scare them to death.

  George

    
    	I wouldn't send the BATF to your house George.....not now that I
    know you have cats anyway (I like cats)....;*)
    
    
    jim

    re: Note 362.72 by ABACUS::MINICHINO
    
    > Why didn't the Davidian church let them search the place, it's not
    > like the fbi went in and started blowing people up.
    
    On several occasions, local and state authorities showed up and
    checked up on the Branch Davidians with no problems.  No one will
    ever know "who shot first".  The BATF showed up and was looking for
    a fight, it was obvious, they trained and were prepared to assault
    the church.  IMO: The reason why the place burnt down is to destroy
    evidence, such as bullet holes in the front door indicating the
    shots came from outside not inside.  Today, there is VERY LITTLE
    hard evidence of what happened, only people saying "did not, did to
    did not, did to".  There is proof that federal law enforcment
    ammunition was removed from the bodies of ATF agents, proving they
    did have some problems with the marksmanship department, and the
    media footage showing the agents breaking department guidlines. etc... 
    
    > If they had nothing to hide, why wait 51 days for the
    
    If you want to talk to me, ask me nicely, don't punch me in the
    face to get my attention, otherwise I'm going to punch you back.
    The whole issue was botched from the start.  Remember, the ATF
    went to someones home.  The BD's aren't going anywhere.  There attitude
    was "hey, if you want us, come and get us" both sides were looking
    for a fight after the initial confrontation was over.  This brings
    up the other point, which George should see.  This is America.
    Leave me alone until/unless I do something wrong.  Don't come over
    to my house, kick in my door and assault me or my family.  There
    are proper procedures to use to serve a warrant.
    
    It took 51 days, of government spin to "resolve" the issue.  They
    were like a kid who did a real bad thing and then panics while
    trying to fix things.  "Man, if anyone investigates what happened
    were screwed.  We shot our own people, we're caught on tape breaking
    the rules".  so they spun the concocted version of "what happened"
    The victor gets to write history.  If you notice, the only way
    the Branch dividians could communicate with the outside world was
    with a white sheet, and towards the end, with their attorney.  You
    know their was only ONE phoneline in and out of their home and it
    rang a telephone at the fbi outside.  The fbi "spokesman" gave an
    update of "what happened" every day.  The media was kept away from
    the site "for their own safety".
    
    Next time you get to see the footage of the tanks inserting CS
    gas, notice the squished up cars in the background.  Why is that?
    If the place was so hot that the media and firefighters couldn't
    enter, then WHY IS IT OBVIOUS THAT FBI AGENTS ARE RUNNING ALL OVER
    THE PLACE WHILE IT WAS STILL SMOULDERING?  This is on film even.
    Why is the tank battering ram collapsing the stairwells (while
    inserting the CS gas).  Supposedly the BD's were shooting at the
    tanks.  How rediculous.  
    Notice the agents firing blatonly at the house from behind the
    parked cars.  Notice the parked cars show NO infication of recieving
    fire (no broken glass, or dirt kicking up).
    
    BTW: It is a violation of Posse Commatatus
    (sp?) to use military hardware against civilians.  This should
    have flipped out EVERYONE who saw this on teevee.  But it didn't.
    The BD's could only sit it out and hope the American people would
    call off the dogs and they could settle this in court.  Public
    pressure became great (no doubt because the siege cost $1M/day)
    so they finally burnt the place down, then continued to run their
    tanks over everything to make sure they didn't leave any stone
    unturned.  The steel (front) door is "lost".  It's gone.  The
    whole site today is quaranteened.  I.e. you can see it, from a
    distance but your can't get close.    
    
    Ask questions.  We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
    This is America.  This isn't supposed to happen.
    
    MadMike

| <<< Note 362.140 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

| Unless, of course, you've got something against my cats and just want to
| scare them to death.

	George, wouldn't that be BURN them to death? :(

  Get use to it MadMike. This is exactly the type of thing that the Civil
Liberties Union and liberals in general have been trying to warn people
against.

  This is why we need strong 4th amendment protections, right to due process,
and restraint on the police powers of the state. This is why people need to
have a right to an attorney and a right to remain silent. This should make it
clear why you can't automatically assume that any "confession" like the one
"given" by Susan Smith is valid. Would people who you feel gassed hundreds
to death hesitate to coerce a confession out of a single frightened woman?

  Yes get use to it MadMike, if a Republican is elected president the next
few appointees to the Supreme Court will have no great love for the 4th
amendment, due process, or any other protections of defendants in court and
the Republican Senate will have no problem confirming these guys.

  George

    
    
    	c'mon George. Repubs, Dems, it doesn't matter. The constitution is
    a wash if the American PEOPLE don't stand up and make a stink about it.
    99% of the politicians don't care about the constitution...they care
    about advancing their careers. If they thought scrapping the
    constitution would get them re-elected, they would do it in a
    heartbeat.
    
    
    jim

	Aren't the repubs doin that now with some sort of contract Jim? :-)

    re:  Note 362.83 by DECLNE::REESE 
    
    > Can't anyone see the parallel between this situation and what is
    > currently happening in Japan?
    
    Karen, there is no parallel.  In Japan SOMEBODY committed a crime,
    they gased & killed some folks, and the japanese police seem to
    think they've found the  people.  In Waco, the government went
    looking for someone who allegedy was dodging some taxes.  *IF* the
    BD's WERE gearing up to freak out, the FBI has every right to "watch" 
    them closely.  Even question DK & Co.  
    
    Prior restraint is the issue.  Your not supposed to kill people
    because THEY MIGHT eventually go haywire.  You keep tabs on them
    and stop them as they begin to commit a crime.
    
    We're supposed to be abiding by the Constitution.  We're supposed
    to be a nation of law.  
    
    > IMHO I too think Koresh was trying to force a showdown.
    By sitting at home and watching tee-vee?  How so?
    
    > but I believe he provoked the situation.
    by answering the door?
                     
    I don't think so.
                                                                         

    re: Note 362.144 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
    > Get use to it MadMike.
    
    NEVER!  
    I think this is where your "logic" problem is.  You've bought into
    the dems as being the saviours, and the repubs are the bad guys.
    George, fer christ sakes, they're almost ALL bad guys.  It seems
    to me that the Repubs are less evil, and we can work together on
    correcting them.  The dems sold our country out, so I have zero
    faith in them.  I can see the spin from Rush L. too, it don't matter
    what party the players come from.  The issue is OBEY THE LAW.
    I'm getting sick and tired of CONSTANTLY having to watch my back 
    because every time you turn around the government is taking just
    one more "first step".  The spin job of the republican "contract
    with America" is not something that I like.  I don't want a 
    Balanced budget amendment, or term limits amendments.  GD'it, I'll
    vote there buts out, that's term limits.  I don't have too much
    difficulty it thinking that those bozo's in DC have violated
    Article 3, Section 3 paragraph 1 of the Constitution.  They've
    got more gd problems from me.  I don't call my hired help and
    beef about the contract with America or don't cut social security
    or can my favorite pork program.  I'm beyond that. 
    
    I don't care what the label is.  I will, and do DEMAND
    performance of the Constitution.  And because of this I very
    well jeopordize me and my family with the treat of someone burning
    down my house.  But you can bet my neighbors won't be watching CNN 
    while I'm getting shot up.
    
    I won't "get used to it" and neither should you.  But you SHOULD
    open your eyes and hole them ALL accountable.
    
    MadMike
    

>              <<< Note 362.143 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>
>| Unless, of course, you've got something against my cats and just want to
>| scare them to death.
>	George, wouldn't that be BURN them to death? :(

Er, actually, it's STOMP them to death. Believe it or not, BATF's already
done it to some hapless couple's cat, during (surprise!) a raid, with a
questionable warrant.

RE       <<< Note 362.145 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

>    99% of the politicians don't care about the constitution...they care
>    about advancing their careers. If they thought scrapping the
>    constitution would get them re-elected, they would do it in a
>    heartbeat.

  Here we agree.
    
>    	c'mon George. Repubs, Dems, it doesn't matter. The constitution is
>    a wash if the American PEOPLE don't stand up and make a stink about it.

  People are standing up and making a stink. Rush and the Radio mouths have got
people all riled up about how our judicial system "turns criminals lose on the
streets on technicalities" and how a stop must be put to this. 

  Problem is, however, those "technicalities" they are talking about are our
constitutional rights. Those technicalities include such things as the
Exclusionary rule that tosses out evidence when a warrant is improperly
obtained. With each new conservative judge the court moves further and further
to the right and it becomes much more difficult to convince the trial judge
that a search was improper. 

  Could you imagine what these talking mouths would say if someone suggested
that defendants be informed of a hearing for a search warrant? I can hear
Rush now yelling about how "Liberals had come up with a scheme that forces
police to telegraph their moves to criminals".

  You even see it here in this file. How about our constitutional right to a
presumption of innocence? People make a mockery out of that by constantly
posting cynical notes against the idea of saying that a defendant "allegedly"
committed a crime. The standard here and the standard in any conservative forum
is the Ed Meese standard "If you are accused then you are probably guilty
unless the word WEDTEC is mentioned".

  So much for the presumption of innocence. So much for our constitutional
rights.

  George

    
    
>  People are standing up and making a stink. Rush and the Radio mouths have got
>people all riled up about how our judicial system "turns criminals lose on the
>streets on technicalities" and how a stop must be put to this. 
    
    	People are p*ssed of George, and they're making some rash
    judgements. *I* don't believe in increased police powers, *I* do
    believe everyone should have the right to a fair trial with an
    impartial jury, *I* don't listen to Rush. I think there are alot more
    folks that tow this line than fall in line with Rush or other
    extremists. I think it's the middle of the road American that's got to
    make the real changes in this country. High paid entertainers like Rush
    don't make the grade in my book so don't toss his views in my direction....
    
    
    	jim
    

    re: Note 362.116 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
    George, it's not about money.  Someone could go down to the
    nearest Federal Court, pay the $120 filing fee and swear out
    complaints against SPECIFIC - NAMED people.
    
    Jackboot-Janet
    The Draft Dodger
    The Boss of the ATF, -----> down to each individual atf goon
    LLLLLLLLLOyyyydd  Benson on down.
    
    Cripes, I'd start with Title 18, section 242 just for starters, and
    that calls for a year in prison (and $1000 fine)  I'm sure if I
    got the ball rolling I could crank up the federal prison time but
    I honestly never looked for anything more drastic.
    
    In reality, I'd get (written, most likely) "excuses" from the prez
    and top officials.  I'd wind up having a few scalps/badges of the
    peon's once the dust settled.
    
    Keep in mind, also, lawyers are members (or certified) of/by the bar.
    They have certain "rules" about what they can do, otherwise they'll
    loose their ability to practice law.  I am not bound by those rules.
    And yes, this is one of the things the Repubs are trying to junk
    (aka frivilous lawsuits).
    
    MadMike

  Yeah but Jim, how often do you hear guys like Rush criticize conservative
Republicans? He uses the word "liberal" as if it were the word "leper" and he
talks of the civil liberties union as if it were a snake pit. 

  Far more people in the Republican party sympathize with Rush and want to
turn back the progressive decisions of the Warren Court in the area of 4th
amendment search and due process.

  Honestly, do you really feel that police power with respect to warrants will
decrease if a Republican President is appointing Supreme Court justices with
a Republican Senate to back him up?

  The Civil Liberties union's main concern is strengthening the protections
of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments while Rush et.al. are constantly attacking
those protections.

  In the battle between Rush and the Civil Liberties Union you can't tell me
with a straight face that there is any doubt over which one lines up with the
Democrats and which one lines up with the Republicans.

  George

RE   <<< Note 362.153 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    George, it's not about money.  Someone could go down to the
>    nearest Federal Court, pay the $120 filing fee and swear out
>    complaints against SPECIFIC - NAMED people.

  Sure MadMike, you can probably do that but ultimately a prosecutor would
have to take over the case. How often do you hear of some guy walking off the
street and successfully prosecuting a case involving federal agents as
defendants.

  And remember, in a civil court you only need to show that the preponderance
of the evidence is in your favor where as in a criminal court you'd have to
prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you really feel you have a case
against the BATF that is that strong?

  Sounds like a hard sell to me,
  George

    
    
>  Yeah but Jim, how often do you hear guys like Rush criticize conservative
>Republicans? He uses the word "liberal" as if it were the word "leper" and he
>talks of the civil liberties union as if it were a snake pit. 
    
    	As I said before, I don't listen to Rush, but I do get the picture.
    He's an entertainer George, nothing less, nothing more. I think folks
    tend to put wee bit too much stock in his influence....he's just
    another talking head.
    
>  Far more people in the Republican party sympathize with Rush and want to
>turn back the progressive decisions of the Warren Court in the area of 4th
>amendment search and due process.
    
    	Then we, as the people of the United States, must not let them. If
    they do something to upset us and we feel they are in the wrong, we
    have a right to redress the government. If most folks would get off
    their dead arses and do something, it wouldn't matter if it was a
    democrate, republican, or a libertarian in office. 
    
    	And again, I think you put too much stock in Rush's influence over
    congress and the republican party. He's just a radio personality fer
    cripes sake!
    
>  Honestly, do you really feel that police power with respect to warrants will
>decrease if a Republican President is appointing Supreme Court justices with
>a Republican Senate to back him up?
    
    	I personally won't allow it. But, to make a point, Clinton was the
    one to call for ILLEGAL warrantless searches in public housing. He even 
    made a point to say that he was 'testing the constitutionality' of such a
    move. That certainly isn't going in the right direction.
    
>  In the battle between Rush and the Civil Liberties Union you can't tell me
>with a straight face that there is any doubt over which one lines up with the
>Democrats and which one lines up with the Republicans.
    
    	There's that Rush again....is he some omni-present political god? I
    think not. I also don't think the lines are delineated as clearly as
    you like to imagine. There are conservatives republicans and there are
    conservative democrats...not all of them are at the extremes. I also
    don't believe the American people will stand for any more
    infringements on their rights. More and more people are tired of trying
    to get the govt to protect them, help them, etc....they want to take
    care of themselves. If we all work towards that end then we will have
    truly made progress. Everything else mentioned here is just political
    bantering.....
    
    
    jim
       

RE       <<< Note 362.156 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

>    	I personally won't allow it. But, to make a point, Clinton was the
>    one to call for ILLEGAL warrantless searches in public housing. He even 
>    made a point to say that he was 'testing the constitutionality' of such a
>    move. That certainly isn't going in the right direction.

  No, that is going in the "right" direction. The "left" direction would be
to have stronger 4th amendment protections and not allow those searches.

  I realize that conservatives don't like to hear this but when it comes to
legal issues, Clinton is not much of a liberal. He is for the death penalty,
against constitutional rights of the accused, and pretty much law and order. 

  He did support programs to prevent crime in his crime bill but somehow
I get the feeling that guys like Kennedy did a little arm twisting to get
him to include those things in his bill.
    
>    	There's that Rush again....is he some omni-present political god? 

  You are right, I'm using Rush as an icon for conservative talk radio and
conservative demagoguery in general. It's sort of like saying Kleenex when you
mean tissue or Scotch tape when you mean adhesive. 

>    I also
>    don't believe the American people will stand for any more
>    infringements on their rights. More and more people are tired of trying
>    to get the govt to protect them, help them, etc....they want to take
>    care of themselves. 

  I hope you are right but I can't tell you how many debates I've had in which
someone rails on and on about how murderers are getting turned out on the
street and it's all the fault of bleeding heart liberals who want to coddle
criminals. 

  As soon as I start talking about constitutional rights I either get eyes
glazing over or out and out ridicule like what we saw in the Susan Smith
note.

  George

re: (george)

So THIS is what this, and the Gingrich note come down to.

You WANT bad, unconstitutional things to happen, so you can blame it
on the republicans and claim how this wouldn't happen under democrats.

You're sick. 

\joh

              <<< Note 362.143 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	George, wouldn't that be BURN them to death? :(

	Based on the ATF's previous history, cats are stomped to death,
	not burned.

Jim

                     <<< Note 362.144 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Yes get use to it MadMike, if a Republican is elected president the next
>few appointees to the Supreme Court will have no great love for the 4th
>amendment, due process, or any other protections of defendants in court and
>the Republican Senate will have no problem confirming these guys.

	Maybe so, but there does not seem to be any great relief
	in relying on the Democrats either. Lloyd Bensten was the
	Cabinet officer responsible for the BATF at the time of the 
	initial attack and Janet Reno was responsible for the final
	murders.

	Maybe you and I can join forces to elect a Libertarian.

Jim

Jaysus George, I think we're getting somewhere.

re: 362.154

>  Yeah but Jim, how often do you hear guys like Rush criticize conservative
>Republicans? He uses the word "liberal" as if it were the word "leper" and he
>talks of the civil liberties union as if it were a snake pit. 

Conservative, liberal, democrat, republican, civil liberty unions, radicals
psycho's, militia, cop-killer bullets, assault weapons, Rush, CNBC, 
Jeraldo, whos_gonna_get_Chunged, Eye of Newt...

Skip the BS, skip the labels, cut through the trash and see what's happening.
Everyone these days is reading the Constitution as it suits THEM.
AND HOW MANY "NORMAL" PEOPLE EVEN READ THE GD THING?  So they don't know
any better when Rush says "DEMAND GATT", or Senator blah-blah blasts the 
repubs for junking the constitution, or the dems did it, not my fault, is 
too, is not, is too...
Balanced budget amendment?  WRITING BAD CHECKS IS ALREADY A FELONY Y'ALL.
Line item veto is additional power to the exec branch?  Maybe, but if
the prez can already JUNK THE WHOLE PACKAGE, he outta be able to strike
a couple lines of malicious pork projects hidden inside of possibly 
beneficial legislation without negating the Constitution.  WHOOP IT UP... 
Liberals, NRA, EPA, did not, did too.... not my fault man, $4 Trillion in 
the hole, ophra's on...

re: Note 362.155

>  Sure MadMike, you can probably do that but ultimately a prosecutor would
>have to take over the case. How often do you hear of some guy walking off the
>street and successfully prosecuting a case involving federal agents as
>defendants.

Page 736 in the Stinkweed Times, late edition.  "Settled out of court".

>  And remember, in a civil court you only need to show that the preponderance
>of the evidence is in your favor where as in a criminal court you'd have to
>prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you really feel you have a case
>against the BATF that is that strong?

True, a civil action puts burden of proof on the prosecution.  In the
Waco incident, I'd simply wheel a TV set in front of the jury.  If it were
some other issue, I'd make a condition of settlement that whoever screwed 
up print a public apology in a major paper.  I wouldn't be wasting my
time sueing the gov't for lack of chunky peanut butter.  I'd probably
have a very valid grief and a lot of ammo lined up prior to filing an 
action of this type.

MadMike

    re: Note 362.150 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
    and your "crooks getting off on technicalities" issue. 
    
    George, I think here the spin is coming from the media (hey man,
    don't dick with our 1st amendment rights).  The media is playing up 
    the issue of bad guys getting off on a technicality, or of crooks
    sueing because they can't sacrifice chickens during religious
    cerimonies, or because the toilet paper is too scratchy for their
    arse.
    
    The people are in an uproar and the repubs latched onto the issue
    and off they went.  Hopefully, people will be able to get educated
    as to what these protections are, and why they exist.  To protect
    people from having some thugs burst into your home at 3am and shoot
    your wife, stomp on your pets and trash your house... then find out
    the warrant is for 3-3-FOUR St. James ave.... awshyte you mean we're
    at 3-3-FIVE?  oopps, sorry about yer wife... see ya. 
    
    These issues are blown up by irresponsible journalism.  Trash sells,
    especially when you burn your crotch with hot coffee.  Most people
    get there "news" from TV, quick hitting, not a lot of depth.  Hell,
    how many folks can't read (THANKS DoE!) a newspaper.  Especially
    a newspaper which takes the time to cover issues in depth and look
    at more than just one angle.  
    
    The American people as a group have abdicated their RESPONSIBILITY
    to control our own government.  Cripes, how many people p&m about
    jury duty, and then finally when they hear a case, hear the judge
    read the "jury instructions" (which basically say "if the law says
    no blue house, and the gov't proved beyond a reasonable doubt
    the defendant did in fact have a blue house, you must find him
    guilty")  so the jurors say... "hey... lettermans on in 30 minutes...
    F*** it... he's guilty... let's get outta here!"  They don't say
    "wait a minute, this law is STUPID.  NOT GUILTY"
    
    MadMike

    
    
>>    	I personally won't allow it. But, to make a point, Clinton was the
>>    one to call for ILLEGAL warrantless searches in public housing. He even 
>>    made a point to say that he was 'testing the constitutionality' of such a
>>    move. That certainly isn't going in the right direction.

>  No, that is going in the "right" direction. The "left" direction would be
>to have stronger 4th amendment protections and not allow those searches.
    
    	Ummmm...my usage of right was in the context of being the "correct"
    direction, not political position.
    
>  I hope you are right but I can't tell you how many debates I've had in which
>someone rails on and on about how murderers are getting turned out on the
>street and it's all the fault of bleeding heart liberals who want to coddle
>criminals. 
>  As soon as I start talking about constitutional rights I either get eyes
>glazing over or out and out ridicule like what we saw in the Susan Smith
>note.
 
    	Like I said before, people are p*ssed off and are lashing out
    indiscriminately. I would say that 90% of the people out there haven't
    even LOOKED at the constitution since high-school are probably only
    know what the 1st and the 2nd amendment are about (and that's just
    because of the media exposure of the two). Folks want quick fixes and
    the scary part is that the government is trying to give them just that
    (at the expense of personal freedom). We (pro-freedom people) need to
    help to balance out the oscillation of the liberal/conservative wave.
    The truth is somewhere in the grey area in between and it needs to be
    sought out and publicised. The general public needs to be informed. I
    think we sometimes forget that most of the U.S. is not on the net (not
    every person has a PC and an e-mail address) and gets there info from
    the newspaper and TV (if they even watch/read the news at all!). Those
    mediums need to be used more as well as keeping the net alive and free.
    
    sorry for the babbling. It's early and my coffee's finally kicking in.
    :)
    
    jim

    Ban legalisms.
    
    We rely on technicalities rather than common sense, letter of the law
    rather than right and wrong (there are no absolutes, don't you know),
    and whine about how we have the "right" to do things that those who
    wrote the Constitution (and BoR) would find appalling (things that were
    illegal in their day, mind you).
    
    What's going on?
    
    Answer:  The lawyers took over and the common people got the shaft,
    about 100 years ago when the Bar Association was getting on its feet
    (talk about a consentration of power).
    
    Forget the fact that the Constitution denies a specific group of people
    the freedom to run for Congress- a group that lawyers
    fit into by proper definition of terminology.
    
    The greatest social changes in America can be traced back to legalisms
    and manipulation of the Constitution.  And guess who was doing the
    interpreting?  Yup, you know the answer to that one, don't you.
    
    
    -steve

RE             <<< Note 362.158 by ALPHAZ::HARNEY "John A Harney" >>>

>So THIS is what this, and the Gingrich note come down to.
>
>You WANT bad, unconstitutional things to happen, so you can blame it
>on the republicans and claim how this wouldn't happen under democrats.

  When did I ever say such a thing?

>You're sick. 

/Harney mode on

  You're an idiot

/Harney mode off

  George

    
    
    Tsk.. tsk... tsk...
    
     Such "hate"....
    

RE   <<< Note 362.161 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>True, a civil action puts burden of proof on the prosecution.  

  "Plaintiff". In a civil action you have a "plaintiff" v. a "defendant". In a
criminal action you have the "prosecution" v. a "defendant".

>In the
>Waco incident, I'd simply wheel a TV set in front of the jury.  

  What would that prove MadMike? If you were trying to get them to convict
the guy who requested the warrant of perjury, how would that prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that he lied? If you were trying to sue, how would that
show a preponderance of evidence that the government started the fire?

  In either case the defense would just claim the Davidians started the fire
then they would remind the jury that it was your obligation, not theirs, to
prove your case.

>If it were some other issue, I'd make a condition of settlement that whoever
>screwed up print a public apology in a major paper.  

  I doubt they'd settle.

  George

RE   <<< Note 362.162 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    To protect
>    people from having some thugs burst into your home at 3am and shoot
>    your wife, stomp on your pets and trash your house... then find out
>    the warrant is for 3-3-FOUR St. James ave.... awshyte you mean we're
>    at 3-3-FIVE?  oopps, sorry about yer wife... see ya. 
    
  So how about the idea of a Federal Law beefing up the 4th amendment by saying
that if any Federal or State police force wants a warrant, they have to either
show that they are trying to stop one from committing a violent act that would
put the public at great danger or they have to inform the subject and allow him
to challenge the warrant in a hearing? 

  Except for someone preparing to bomb or gas a public building this would put
an end to all SWAT type raids on the public. All searches would be pronounced
and non-violent.

  What do you think?

  George

RE       <<< Note 362.163 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

>    	Like I said before, people are p*ssed off and are lashing out
>    indiscriminately. I would say that 90% of the people out there haven't
>    even LOOKED at the constitution since high-school are probably only
>    know what the 1st and the 2nd amendment are about (and that's just
>    because of the media exposure of the two). Folks want quick fixes and
>    the scary part is that the government is trying to give them just that
>    (at the expense of personal freedom). 

  That's about as well as I've seen this point written in a long time.

  George

    re: Note 362.167 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
    Granted, I'm loose with the terminology. (plaintiff/prosector)
    
    Obviously it'd take a major portion of BACK40:: to lay out a
    prosecution for crimes committed at waco.
    
    I'd produce a lot of video tape of CS gas and it's effects.
    I'd show how using a method of inserting CS gas can possibly
    start a fire.  I can show tanks knocking into the building rupturing
    gas lines or knocking over a gas lantern.
    I'd show blatant acts of failure to obey dept. guidelines.
    I'd point out suttle things, like why was it necessary to drive
    over the deceased's cars with tanks?
    I'd grill the person who swore out the warrant, he'd be toast.
    etc...

re: Note 362.168 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
>  So how about the idea of a Federal Law beefing up the 4th amendment by saying
>that if any Federal or State police force wants a warrant, they have to either
>show that they are trying to stop one from committing a violent act that would
>put the public at great danger or they have to inform the subject and allow him
>to challenge the warrant in a hearing? 

The 4th Amendment is pretty specific, you'll get a warrant.  Of course,
there is probable cause if your getting shot at, or if your chasing
someone who's trying to evade.  I don't think you need to allow someone
to challenge a warrant in a hearing.  For example, someone can swear out
a warrant for me, because I'm a prick.  I'm allegedly growing pot in my
house.  So, the fuzz obtain a warrant and come over to my house. They
knock on the door (NOT KNOCK MY DOOR DOWN).  They show the warrant to me
and we walk through my house.  No pot whatsoever.  NOW, I can then find out
who SWORE OUT THAT WARRANT, and go after THEM.  But this doesn't happen.
If people were held accountable for tossing allegations around, either
due to very little proof, or no proof at all, bogus warrants would STOP.
The current fad is to nark on people and turn in your neighbors and sometimes
little or no (even a grudge) reason to issue a warrant is needed.
A simple "We're sorry to bother you sir" after leaving my house is a lot
more pleasant than telling the nation why you burnt my house down and
murdered my family.  I think violence is met with violence, it goes
both ways.  I think the "War on Drugs" is the main problem.  Resolve the
WoD and you've eliminated many other issues (gang warfare, violent raids,
destruction of constitutional freedoms).

>  Except for someone preparing to bomb or gas a public building this would put
>an end to all SWAT type raids on the public. All searches would be pronounced
>and non-violent.

Again, something strange is going on over at the MadMike household.
Lot's of chemicals and stuff showing up.  Get a warrant to either
visit me, or put me under surveillance.  Wire taps show I'm talking mainly
for work, to my broker, and to my family.  A search of my house shows I'm
stripping/painting/restoring some cars in my garage.  "Sorry to bother you
sir".  If I was someone who might have been renting a ryder truck in new
jersey and I was a "foreigner", a closer look might have prevented the
World Trade Center bombing... but no, our police forces are too busy putting
the screws to the average joe.  After all, there's profit in it (seizing
of property without due process of law) these days.

We don't need to do more things, we need to go back to and obey the
foundation of our law (the Constitution & BoR).  All this bickering
of exclusionary rules is miscellaneous crap, avoiding the real problem(s). 

MadMike 

	Has anyone wondered why Reno hasn't stormed eye of newts house? :-)

RE   <<< Note 362.170 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    I'd produce a lot of video tape of CS gas and it's effects.
>    I'd show how using a method of inserting CS gas can possibly
>    start a fire.  

  This may or may not be admissible. You might have to prove that it was
a CS gas fire before you could use this.

>I can show tanks knocking into the building rupturing
>    gas lines or knocking over a gas lantern.

  Was it clear from the picture that the tank ruptured a gas line or knocked
over a lantern? You might get someone to testify that the tank might have
done these things but on cross he'd be grilled as to whether he could say
for certain the tank did these things.

>    I'd show blatant acts of failure to obey dept. guidelines.

  This might help at a civil trial if negligence were the issue but it might
not even get in to a criminal trial.

>    I'd point out suttle things, like why was it necessary to drive
>    over the deceased's cars with tanks?

  I can't imagine that this would ever get in unless you were suing to recover
the money for the cars themselves

>    I'd grill the person who swore out the warrant, he'd be toast.
>    etc...

  Maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't. It depends on what kind of proof you
had that he lied. Remember you would not only have to show that what he said
was wrong, you'd have to provide evidence that he knew it was wrong at the
time he asked for the warrant.

  George

RE   <<< Note 362.171 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>The 4th Amendment is pretty specific, you'll get a warrant.  

  Yes, you need to get a warrant. But the way the system now works, law
enforcement officials wake up a judge, argue their reason for wanting the
warrant, and the judge decides based on what the law enforcement officials
tell him.

  I'd like that changed so that instead of waking up a judge, they ask to
see him in court and the clerk of courts informs the subject of the warrant
that there will be a hearing as to whether his property can be searched.

  Then both the law enforcement group and the subject and his attorney would
show up at the hearing. After the cops made their case the subject of the
potential search (or his attorney) would get to argue against the warrant.

  That sounds like a system that would be a lot more fair than the current
system under which the subject is not informed of the courts action until the
SWAT team knocks down his front door.

  George

    
    
    Is it me, or has anyone else noticed that George has appointed himself
    boxbarrister.........
    
    
    Mike

    among other things

  Actually I think I asked for comments on a suggestion.

  George

    
    
    .......if it please the court.

  Proceed GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER 

  George

    
    
    Whereas the party of the first part unwantonly and without regard for
    the constitutional rights the party of the second part hereby referred 
    to as........

re .25:

>On June 9, 1992, I was contacted by Lt. Barber who told me
>that he had learned from Larry Gilbreath that in June of 1992,
>the UPS delivered 90 pounds of powdered aluminum metal
>and 30 to 40 cardboard tubes, 24 inches in length and 1 1/4 to
>1 1/2 inches in diameter, which were shipped from the Fox
>Fire Company, Pocatello, Idaho, to "Mag-Bag." From

I find this item in the warrant interesting.  The company is almost certainly
Firefox in Pocatello, Idaho, not "Fox Fire".  This company will not sell
powdered aluminum without proof of a proper BATF explosives permit.
Certainly not in that quantity.

This warrant item means either:

1) Koresh and company had a proper explosives permit from the BATF so as far as
   they knew everything was hunky-dory as far as the BATF were concerned.

2) Koresh and Co. forged an explosives permit that fooled Firefox.

3) Koresh ordered the stuff without a permit and someone at Firefox screwed
   up and shipped the stuff.

4) The aluminum was a coarse grade not suitable for making explosives, and
   therefore not requiring a permit, and not worth mentioning in the warrant.

There may be a couple variations:

1a) Koresh applied for a permit and the BATF granted it solely to allow them to
    dig themselves deeper into a potential bad light by ordering this stuff,
    then the BATF could go to the judge/public and say "Look at all the bad
    stuff they have!" (and simply not mention they obtained it legally).

2a) Koresh forged the proof, Firefox caught it and notified the BATF, BATF
    said to Firefox "ship it anyway, we'll deal with them..."

    Today is payback.  2 years ago, today.
    
    
    
    A federal office building in Oklahoma City was just bombed.

	well yahoo and hallelujah, huh?

    re: payback
    
    Or is it tax-time related?
    
    In either case, more innocent children are dead.  NOT the right
    way to do it, IMHO.
    
    Chris

    The dust hasn't even settled yet Mike... no one's sure who did
    it; Islamic fundies may be involved. I wouldn't conclude anything
    about what this is payback for yet. I will also point out that
    the bombing coincided with this year's tax deadline too, and
    there's probably more pissed off taxpayers than there are
    people pissed off over the Waco incident.

    P.S. I predicted there would be at least one major terrorist
         attack on US soil this year, check out the verifiable
         predictions note.

    -b

    > there's probably more pissed off taxpayers than there are
    > people pissed off over the Waco incident.
    
    Only takes one nutter to set off a bomb that kills kids.
    
    DougO

    No yippie or whatever.  We're seeing what happens when our legal
    system breaks down.  This is not the way to voice your grievances.
    but What do you expect?  This country is being torn apart, today
    just happened to be a very visible example.  
    
    The media is going out of their way to not mention waco.  It's some
    islamic fundy, ala WTC bombing. Ya, that's the ticket. ANYONE but
    waco.  Ya, the Branch Davidians were all nutters, and they're all
    dead now, so it ain't them.  Yup.
    
    The ATF was targetted.  Innocent children, and people were killed.
    Unfortunantly, this little message will be lost on those people
    it was intended to enlighten.  That is too bad.
    
    My form of protest today was to fly the ANV battleflag.  Normally I fly
    the state flag.  This morning I hung up the one which doesn't have
    the state seal on it.  I came in from fixing my lawn during lunch and
    my wife had the news on, and the deal hit me like a ton of bricks.
    
    Obviously I'm speculating and have no knowledge of who did this.  I
    have a gut feeling it's because of waco. It's not taxes, it's not
    the islamic folks. but I know why.
    
    At midnight I was watching the news for several hours.  Lot's of OJ,
    lot's of everything EXCEPT waco.  HELLO!  Never forget.  I was 
    expecting today to be just another apathetic day with not a peep about
    what happened 2 years ago.  
    

    [I have deleted the note which previously occupied this space
    because it was a commentary on the effect the OK bombing
    will have if it turns out it's Waco-related, and it appears
    now that it was _not_ Waco-related, and thus irrelevant.]

    -b

    OK.  I don't think any American entity has the resources to, or
    the audacity to target children.  Maybe it was fundies.  I don't
    know.

>    OK.  I don't think any American entity has the resources to, or
>    the audacity to target children.  

You presume the children were the target.   No reports I have read indicate
that.  Only that they were killed, with potentially more victims.  It could
still be Waco related, with the other claims used to calm people (hey, an
external enemy is better for the common 'good' than an internal one).

It will be interesting to see what the various news agency come up with in
terms of conflicting reports.  Everyone is probably in a rush to get facts
and might not take time to verify anything.

    -1
    
    We'll just have to wait out the misinformation.  They jumped the
    gun and mentioned Davidians and then backed away.  Now the networks
    seem to be back-pedaling on Islamic fundamentalists.
    
    I don't think anyone was presuming the children were the targets;
    I thought the point was is would be VERY difficult to believe that
    any American-based group (no matter how radical they might seem to
    some) would knowingly target a building/area/group where they knew
    children would be present.
    
    I have a difficult time thinking it is Waco related; I didn't think
    there were that many Davidians still around.
    

    >I don't think anyone was presuming the children were the targets;
    >I thought the point was is would be VERY difficult to believe that
    >any American-based group (no matter how radical they might seem to
    >some) would knowingly target a building/area/group where they knew
    >children would be present.
    
    Who would know, other than employees who took their children
    to work with them?

    >I have a difficult time thinking it is Waco related; I didn't think
    >there were that many Davidians still around.

    Waco is a symbol (like the Alamo) to a large and potent political
    faction in this country; such an attack would be consistent with
    the way the underdog fights a guerrilla war in the 20th century.
    We've seen many examples of this worldwide, there is no reason
    to believe that such political groups will not apply these
    methods here...

    -b

    
    <-----
    
    -b
    
    It doesn't sound kosher to me at all... It's just not the American way,
    no matter if you're (generic) considered wackos or not...
    
      My personal opinion is that it's a diversion...
    
    I wouldn't put it past anybody.... ANYBODY to have done this...
    

    The target was the federal government.  A pissed off american
    organization would go OUT OF THEIR WAY to make a statement when
    children are NOT present.  IMO.  Blow the place up at midnight, or
    something of that sort.  The fact it was done at 9 am shows the
    folks who did this to be lower than whale caca- or they didn't know
    who all specifically was inside the target, and they're STILL lower
    than whale crap.
    
    IMO:  It is a shame the federal gov't is so worried about US, and
    not paying attention to THE REAL CRIMINALS.  GD'it, where've we
    heard THAT before?  Some of our federal agencies are very effective
    when used properly.  Key word is properly.

    Still can't buy it Brian.  Whoever pulled this off must have planned
    everything to the nth degree.  They must have watched this building,
    waited, planned and moved.  Anyone watching the building for more
    than a day shouldn't have too much difficulty seeing that people were
    entering the building with children and leaving at the end of the
    day with same children.
    
    I'm not ruling out a Waco connection, I'm just saying that this
    theory would be at the bottom of my list.
    

I think you have too much faith in the goodness of your fellow citizens.
There are outer fringe U.S. organizations that would consider anybody in a
federal building to be consorting with the enemy and therefore deserving of
death.

    Karen,

    You assume people were marching in and out the front door with
    children. There may have been underground parking. It is
    entirely possible, children were missed in the surveillance
    of the building.

    As for when, there's no point blowing up a building when no one
    is in it. Bombs are intended to kill. I'm sure the idea of
    civilian casualties occurred to whoever did this.

    Blowing up an empty federal office building doesn't make much
    of a statement. Killing dozens of people does.

    Whoever did this meant to kill. Mostly federal employees, but
    anyone else who got in the way too. Such is the nature of
    terrorism.

    It certainly is uncivilized by US standards, but so is a lot
    of the crap our government routinely pulls abroad and more
    recently at home.

    Don't get me wrong. I am 100% in favor of a military response
    if it turns out the responsible party was Islamic fundies.

    But I think saying "it's just not fair", or "bad form" is
    really going to have much effect on this, whether it was
    Islamic fundies or pissed off ex-Davidians, or whomever...

    -b

It's dissappointing to see anyone jump to any conclusions has to who the
responsible party might be given absolutely NO EVIDENCE.

Doug.

    Hmmmm, what is supposed to happen here?

>    Don't get me wrong. I am 100% in favor of a military response
>    if it turns out the responsible party was Islamic fundies.

Taking this a step further then, if it was in fact Islamic fundies,
which sovreign nation should we send the armed forces to attack first?

    You asked, I'll tell you: IRAN first, SYRIA second, then IRAQ.

    By the way, we still have an airbase in Iran chock full of
    nuclear-ready B52s. All it takes is a political leader with
    some 'nads. Unfortunately, we don't have any...

    -b

    P.S. To my previous.

    I don't think nukes are the correct response... yet. But
    we need to send a firm message to all three countries
    to leave the US out of their squabble with Israel, and
    the best way to do so is a military strike.

    JMHO, and worth exactly what you paid for it...

    -b

Wow - and I thought I was the only baby-and-bathwater kinda guy in here!
:^)

No love lost betwixt yours truly and any of the republics you mentioned
Brian, but making a case for taking them all out in retaliation for what
might have been done by a handful of looneys acting independently seems
a tad severe.

    I'm with polski.  Any "American" entity which resorts to this
    method of behavior can kiss my big georgian arse.  They don't 
    represent me.  I was content to fly my battleflag and keep my
    mouth shut and watch the 6 o'clock news and hear about OJ - still.
    
    "Waco's over."  My rep knows I'm bent out of shape.  My rep knows
    what I expect of him.  That's all I can do.  If he wants to forget
    about Waco (which to me, represents an out of control federal 
    agency(ies)) I'll kick his ass out of office.  And he knows it (and 
    just switched to the republican party).
    
    This is why I was bitching about "tort reform".  If you've got a beef
    with someone, deal with them in court, hell, that's the way our
    system is SUPPOSED to work.  Blowing up stuff is not good.
    The pentagon is on alert, watch what happens in the coming future.
    Listen to spin.  Who did this will be a "national security" secret.
    We won't know.  I'm confident if an outside entity has anything to
    do with this, the feds knew something was up.  What they do with that
    information is debatable.  Maybe they were to busy killing Americans
    in Guatemalla (sp?) and let the real bad guys do their thing.
    
    Diversion, domino, smoke screen... I don't know.  I'm just going to
    pay attention to the situation.

    Brian,
    
    I wasn't trying to be PC on this; my personal feelings run a
    lot stronger than "its just not fair" or "bad form".
    
    Color me hopeless, but right now I'm having a very, very hard
    time believing that any American-based group (no matter what fringe
    area they abut) would knowingly, willingly blow up a building full
    of innocent people and children.
    

    Jack,

    My opinion is rather independent of the Oklahoma incident.
    I think Israel has it right, you plant a bomb here, we fly
    over and zap the crap outta you.

    The terrorists are getting their money and support from
    somewhere, and we all know damn well who it is. Even
    if it's not them directly, it is them indirectly, and if
    they get used to the idea that EACH AND EVERY TIME something
    like this happens, we're gonna shoot at them, they might,
    just might, be convinced to exert their influence on
    the terrorist factions...

    -b

Car bomb explodes in Oklahoma City; 78 reported dead, hundreds injured

Times of London

In Europe we have become grimly inured to the horrible realities of
terrorism, but in America a blast like the one which ripped through the
middle of downtown Oklahoma City Wednesday carries with it psychological
reverberations for which the American public is almost wholly unprepared.

America has had no terrorist threat to compare with the IRA, the
Baader-Meinhof gang or ETA, and since its founding the country has rested
on the comfortable belief that it is all but invulnerable to terrorist
attacks on innocent civilians on its home territory.

Disgruntled post office workers might open fire in crowded shopping malls
from time to time, but terrorist mass murder was a largely foreign concept
-- the sort of thing that happened in Europe or the Third World, where
ancient animosities run deep, but not in America -- and certainly not in
Oklahoma.

Whoever planted Wednesday's bomb could hardly have chosen a more apt and
chilling way to explode that myth.

Oklahoma City, perhaps the quintessential quiet Midwestern town, is about
as far across the American landscape as one can get from the brutalities of
terrorism and the complexities of political violence.

An "Okie," a term part-affectionate, part-derogatory, is the classic
cornball Midwesterner, a simple fellow who minds his own business and wants
no trouble. The message implicit in Wednesday's explosion is a stark one,
that has left America reeling: if Oklahoma City can be attacked, then
nowhere is safe.

Wednesday's blast is the third event in less than three years to punch a
hole in America's assumptions about its own security from domestic
terrorist violence on a European scale.

The first was the bombing of the World Trade Centre in February 1993, the
worst terrorist attack on American soil until that date, in which six
people died and thousands were injured. Here was terrorism writ large and
in blood, an attempt to knock out key landmarks and cause slaughter on a
huge scale, yet in the aftermath of the Trade Centre bombing the alleged
Muslim terrorists were portrayed as bumbling incompetents, a group of
over-zealous and under-prepared radicals who were rounded up within days.

America breathed more easily, having become convinced that this was an
isolated incident rather than the harbinger of a new terrorist era. The
trial of the men accused of carrying out the attack continues in New York,
but usually relegated to back-page news and largely forgotten.

Soon after the attack on the World Trade Centre came Waco, an event if
anything more stunning in its raw violence and naked rebellion. For 51 days
the country watched in disbelief as the Branch Davidian compound was
besieged by government forces, and then saw the entire building and its
inhabitants choose self-immolation rather than surrender as the FBI moved
in with gas-propelling tanks.

But again America sought, and in many instances found psychological comfort
in the belief that Waco was an aberration. Yet it wrought a subtle and
profound change in America's self-perception that continues to be felt.

Many who found the bizarre views of David Koresh repugnant, nonetheless
argued the federal forces had behaved with reckless abandon in deciding to
launch a military attack on the Waco compound.

In the subsequent investigation, fingers were pointed at federal officials
and heads rolled, while on the more extreme fringes of American society
Waco came to symbolise what happens when an overweening government takes up
arms against its own citizens.

Throughout America, but concentrated in parts of Montana and Idaho, citizen
militias have begun to spring up determined to protect, and if necessary
fight for, the right to bear arms and defend themselves against government
intrusion. Most of these groups are paranoid to an almost ludicrous degree,
but almost without exception they regard the Waco siege and its tragic
denouement as the prime example of an aggressive federal power attempting
to curtail constitutional rights.

To the more extreme, the self-proclaimed messiah David Koresh was a martyr
merely exercising his dual rights to practise his own religion and collect
guns.

Most U.S. citizens, even those wholly wedded to their weaponry, would not
consider taking up arms to defend their right to own them, but with the
passage of the Brady Bill and other efforts to impose gun control the
groundswell against interference is growing perceptibly.

In some political circles the Waco disaster, and its inept handling by the
federal government, served only to reinforce fears that the influence of
Washington has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

Few would disagree that the Waco debacle was an event of domestic
terrorism, but whether the terrorists were inside the cult compound or
outside it remains an issue of continuing and bitter debate.

Yet whether Wednesday's incident reflects an upsurge of violence by
disgruntled Americans or the work of external, politically motivated
forces, terrorism in the U.S. has passed a new and dismaying milestone.

The World Trade Centre bombing shook America's traditional and
self-confident approach to terrorism; the Waco catastrophe undermined it
still further and with Wednesday's explosion at the Alfred Murrah Building,
it may have finally evaporated.

As the authorities searched the rubble for bodies and clues Wednesday,
America, belatedly but in earnest, joined the dour roster of nations who
have felt the scourge of terrorist fanaticism.

    Another issue which shouldn't be lost on people is, if this
    daycare place was for federal employees, it shouldn't have been
    located in the same spot as a potential US target.
    
    Sure it might be convenient, but for crying out loud, these people
    work for agencies which piss some folks off (foreign & domestic).
    Putting your kids in the same spot as an ATF/IRS/DEA/FBI/CIA branch
    office, etc... is not too smart.  
    

    re: Note 362.207 by MPGS::MARKEY
    
    Don't forget, when we bombed libya we "accidentally" bombed the
    french embassy too.  Seems our pilots were tired because they
    had to fly AROUND france, and not over france to deliver their
    goodies.  "Sorry".

    TV report says main goal of terrorist attacks are to inject fear
    where there had been none.  Well, if WTC didn't do it, this attack
    certainly did.
    
    IF the terrorists are from outside our borders they just may have
    made the same mistake the Japanese did during WWII.  Once the fear,
    shock, grief passes they will have to deal with one PO'd America.
    We won't need a bunch of politicians to "rally the troops".  If
    /john's posting is true, those 3 sorry SOB's better pray to someone
    that they make it out of the states ASAP.  We're a disparate group,
    a lot of the time we're a mess, but don't push us too far.
    
    Looks like someone has forgotten about the last time someone woke
    the sleeping giant.
    

Buildings evacuated in Boston, Wilmington, Seattle, and elsewhere, but no
other bombs found.

/john

I notice that Bob Ricks of Waco fame was doing a press briefing in OKC.  I'm
sorry, but after he lied in Waco, I can't believe anything he says unless it
is independently confirmed.

Bob

    Re .207:
    
    > I think Israel has it right, you plant a bomb here, we fly
    > over and zap the crap outta you.

    Which is the chicken and which is the egg?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Bob,
    
    One of the analysts covering noticed the irony of Ricks seeming to
    be at the forefront too.  Was he cleared of any wrong-doing in
    Waco?
    
    

For those who say "American's would never do this" please ask what 
nationalities are those who kill doctors and workers at Women's clinics.

Amos

re: .216

Karen,

He probably got promoted:-(

Bob

FBI agent at Waco says bureau pressured him on Koresh reports
  __________________________________________________________________________

    New York Times
    
   
   
   
   
   WASHINGTON (3:45 p.m.) -- Links between the April 19 Oklahoma City
   bombing and the 1993 FBI siege at the Branch Davidian compound in
   Waco, Texas, have renewed questions about the FBI's handling of the
   51-day standoff.
   
   Now, two years after religious cult leader David Koresh and 74
   followers died in the fire that swept the compound, Peter Smerick, the
   FBI's lead criminal analyst and profiler of Koresh, has broken his
   silence to charge that bureau officials pressured him into changing
   his advice on how to resolve the situation without bloodshed.
   
   Smerick, now retired from the bureau and working as a consultant in
   the Washington area, said he had counseled a cautious,
   non-confrontational approach to Koresh in four memos written from Waco
   for senior FBI officials between March 3 and March 8, 1993.
   
   But he was pressured from above, Smerick says, as he was writing a
   fifth memo March 9. As a result, that memo contained subtle changes in
   tone and emphasis that amounted to an endorsement of a more aggressive
   approach against the Davidians.
   
   The following month, the FBI got the go-ahead from Attorney General
   Janet Reno for its plan to inject tear gas into the compound. Koresh
   and his followers then set the place on fire, according to a Justice
   Department review of the siege.
   
   Interviewed several times before the terrorist bombing at the Oklahoma
   City federal building, exactly two years after the Waco fire --
   Smerick was at first loathe to point an accusatory finger at his
   former superiors within the bureau. He changed his mind, he said,
   after becoming convinced that the traditionally independent process of
   FBI criminal analysis had been compromised at Waco.
   
   "The whole point of our assessment was to provide unbiased
   intelligence (to FBI decision-makers)," he said. "If I couldn't
   analyze it as I saw it on site, the process was jeopardized."
   
   Smerick's complaint takes on new meaning as evidence grows that
   Timothy James McVeigh, the former Army sergeant charged in the
   Oklahoma City bombing, had visited the Waco compound and had voiced
   dismay over what happened there.
   
   McVeigh's views are shared by many people in two dozen or so
   paramilitary groups around the country. They see the Waco fire as
   evidence of a government conspiracy to kill anyone who resists
   government control. The FBI, in its nationwide hunt for additional
   suspects, is interviewing members of the groups.
   
   Smerick said he believes the bureau rushed to judgment on what kind of
   man Koresh was, as well as what it would take to make him give up.
   
   At the time of Waco, Smerick was a senior agent from the bureau's
   Behavioral Science Center in Quantico, Va. He was in Waco from March 2
   to March 17, the standoff's crucial early period when the FBI's
   strategy was still evolving.
   
   Smerick wrote psychological profiles of Koresh to counsel FBI
   tacticians and negotiators on what kind of approach might work best.
   These memos urged the FBI to out-wait Koresh and warned that Koresh
   might order a mass suicide if he felt threatened.
   
   While pressure tactics might work in typical hostage situations,
   Smerick advised, such a strategy when dealing with a charismatic
   zealot like Koresh, "if carried to excess, could eventually be
   counter-productive and could result in loss of life."
   
   The warning was clear: Confront Koresh at your peril. But FBI
   officials not only rejected this advice, they sought to get Smerick to
   change it.
   
   Senior FBI officials had complained the first four memos counseling
   caution "were tying their hands," Smerick said. He declined to name
   the officials involved, saying only their views were communicated to
   him through intermediaries manning the Waco desk at the command center
   at FBI Headquarters in Washington.
   
   These senior agents "didn't want a memo coming up (to FBI
   headquarters) saying the same thing," Smerick said. In several phone
   conversations on March 9, the intermediaries made clear Smerick needed
   to discuss what he was saying with headquarters before the fifth memo
   could be sent.
   
   At that point, Smerick said, he realized his viewpoint was being
   sanitized. "You don't have to be hit with a two by four to get message
   they want their own input on memos coming up," he said.
   
   As a result, he adopted a get-tough approach in his March 9 memo and
   downplayed caution. Since talks had met with limited success, the memo
   said, "other measures" should be employed, such as turning utilities
   on and off, moving agents and equipment outside the Davidians' house
   around suddenly and cutting off negotiations.
   
   Smerick said he left Waco in disgust after writing the fifth memo
   rather than see his work compromised.
   
   The following month the memo emerged as a key ingredient in the
   factors Reno weighed in deciding to back the FBI's gas-insertion plan.
   
   In the torrent of criticism and self-examination that followed the
   Waco fire, the FBI sought to justify its decision to attack the
   Davidian compound by arguing that its criminal-behavior experts had
   concluded Koresh would never give up peacefully. The inference drawn
   by agents: The messianic zealot would have to be forced out.
   
   Reno told reporters after the fire that she had approved the FBI plan
   "after very careful studies, after discussion with people in the
   field, after unanimous representation from the field, that this was
   the best way to achieve a resolution of this matter without further
   loss of life."
   
   FBI spokesman Mike Kortan, asked whether FBI executives had pressured
   Smerick to change his assessment, declined comment.
   
   AThe bureau will not discuss the Waco episode because the U.S.
   government is the target of seven civil lawsuits accusing it of
   causing the wrongful deaths of those in the compound, both from the
   FBI tear-gas attack and an earlier aborted raid (Feb. 28, 1993) on the
   compound by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, in which four
   agents and five Davidians died and 28 agents were wounded.
    
    ****

    Hey, it worked for McNamara, so why not?  Public atonement,
    rationalization, and denial are the "in thing" now.
    
    Speaking of McNamara, anyone see that Boston-area exchange between him
    and the Vietnam veteran who was asking a question in what seemed to
    be a reasonable manner, and McNamara screamed " S H U T   U P ! ! !"
    at the poor guy.  It was the first time I'd seen McNamara since
    his recent crawl out whatever hole he'd been hiding in, and seeing
    him evoked a visceral reaction in me that took quite a while to
    recover from.
    
    Chris

    the guy's tone was one of attacking McNamara, but then McNamara is nothing
    but a bitter, arrogant pig!
    
    Chip
    
    

Article 84032 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: mrnews.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!jac.zko.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!blue.weeg.uiowa.edu!rbeach
From: [email protected] (R. Beach)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: waco
Date: 8 Apr 95 19:35:21 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Lines: 750
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: red.weeg.uiowa.edu
Summary: Repost: Penthouse Waco article-full article
Keywords: ATF, FBI

"Holocaust at Waco,"
by Gary Null
 
   The story is now a series of fading memories and images in most 
Americans'minds, but mention Waco and people still can call up 
many of those discomforting pieces of the 1993 news story. There 
was a Jonestown-like suicide cult down in Texas headed by a 
psychopathic megalomaniac, David Koresh, a modern-day self-proclaimed 
messiah... He had a tremendous arms cache... His Branch Davidian 
cult abused children... They were willing to take over the town of 
Waco... They were defiant of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms, and of the F.B.I.... They were planning to commit mass 
suicide...
   All of these "facts" were supposed to explain why we saw that 
final image on TV -- the Branch Davidian compound burning to the 
ground. They were supposed to explain why 96 children, women, and 
men had to die in that conflagration. The problem is, they are not 
facts. Many are distortions or outright lies fed to the media, 
swallowed, broadcast, and never questioned.
   People in  Waco describe the Branch Davidian community as a group 
of ordinary people and as helpful, friendly, and kind. The Branch 
Davidian sect was formed in 1893 as an offshoot of the Seventh-Day 
Adventist church. Many of the approximately 130 people in the compound 
held regular jobs outside, and the group had been in Waco since 1935. 
They had built with their own hands the house that was destroyed in the 
1993 fire.
   James Scott Trim, a researcher who studied the Branch Davidians for 
more than a year and a half, offers this perspective: "They were no 
threat, particularly, to anybody.They had been there since the 1930s 
and certainly hadn't done any damage to anyone thus far. They weren't 
a group of idiots." Various members of the group, he points out, were 
highly educated in theology, comparative religion and law.
   Was this a cult? One of the reasons that the pejorative label stuck 
to this group was that film clips were widely broadcast in which David 
Koresh, the group's leader, was shown saying, "You better watch out -- 
I'm God." Was wasn't revealed was that this segment was actually part of 
a longer film clip. A reporter from an Australian network had been asking 
Koresh about accusations made by an ex-Branch Davidian leader that he, 
Koresh, had gotten the former leader's 70-year-old mother pregnant. In 
reply to this obviously around-the-bend assertion, Koresh had said that 
if he could get a 70-year-old woman pregnant, then you'd better watch out, 
because he is God. It was a joke. In the uncut film segment, laughter is 
heard in the background. In the clip, Koresh's remark was taken out of 
context and played as if it were a serious statement. This deceptive use 
of a piece of film was enough to paint Koresh as a nut.
   Bill Cooper, a former member of the office of Naval Intelligence, also 
has looked into the Waco affair. Cooper offers and interesting perspective 
on the idea of cults. "The definition of a cult is extremely difficult to 
pin down," he says. "It depends largely upon who is labeling something as 
a cult. If you really want to get honest with all of this, all of our 
forefathers who left Europe to come to the United States to escape 
religious persecution belonged to cults. You could say that this nation 
was built by cultists. Many of our forefather belonged to the fraternity 
known as Freemasonry, which through out history has been labeled a cult 
and persecuted."
   David Koresh believed that God wanted him to deliver the message of 
the Book of Revelations to the world. But concerning the apocalyptic 
aspects of the Branch Davidians' beliefs, Cooper points out that "the 
entire Christian religion and segments of the Jewish religion are 
apocalyptic. Both religions believe in the imminent return of a messiah 
and the end of the world as we know it, and the beginning of a new heaven 
on earth. That is certainly apocalyptic. The view of the Branch Davidians 
was no different. They believed in the interpretation of the Book of 
Revelations just as the church that they branched off from."
   And, cooper adds, "The truth is that we have protection in this 
country under the Constitution to practice whatever religion we wish, 
as long as we're not harming anyone else in the practice of that religion. 
The truth is that the Branch Davidian religion, their church, were adults 
and had the right to believe and practice whatever they wished."
   To support people's right to follow David Koresh as a leader does not 
mean that you have to agree with his teachings. Yes, the man may have 
been a fanatic. Yes, his followers may have been equally zealous. But 
being religious is not a crime. Christian fundamentalist groups and 
Jewish ultra-orthodox groups may keep to themselves, or dress, eat, and 
act in ways others find strange. And many religious groups follow 
charismatic leaders who act as if they have the inside word from God. 
You can call these leaders and their followers zealots or fanatics or 
cultists if you like, but they still have a right to live as they choose. 
The Branch Davidians had that right, too.
   At least they thought they did. Two of the people who found out that 
this was not the case, and who managed to live through that discovery, 
were Sheila Martin and Clyde Doyle. Martin had lived at the Waco complex 
and Mt. Carmel for five years, with her husband and seven children. She 
lost five members of her family in the fire. Doyle had lived with the 
group for at least three years, and he lost his daughter in the fire. 
Their descriptions of the life at the compound are certainly at odds 
with the picture of a bunch of crazed cultists that the media portrayed.
   People came to Mt. Carmel from many different walks of life, Doyle 
recalls. "Many of them were educated. They were high school teachers, 
computer programmers, university teachers, and so forth. They were 
ministers, and they were common people. They were from all different 
countries and all different nationalities. We lived in harmony. We got 
along great for such a diverse group of people."
   Although people lived communally, they had their independence, 
Martin says. "Some people say we were controlled and that we had to 
live a certain way, but that's untrue. We had a choice." She goes on 
to refute the myth that the Branch Davidians stayed within their 
complex and never came out. "That's not how it was. We had freedom 
there. we could go into town. We could go shopping. we had all 
different types of things, but the main object was to know that we 
were there to read the Bible."
   Daily life was primitive, but since people were there for Bible 
study, they were usually able to overlook the lack of amenities. 
Doyle recalls that the Mt. Carmel complex was evolving. "When we first 
began to develop the place, there were a series of small houses in 
poor condition. Many of them were deteriorating so badly that we began 
to tear them down. We took the ones that were worst first and used what 
lumber we could. We bought new lumber and began to build the complex 
[shown in media coverage of Waco]. There was continual building going 
on. New rooms were being added to make new room for people to come and 
stay."
   But what of the allegations of child abuse at the Davidians' 
compound? They are not true, says Martin. "There was no abuse of 
children. David said the worst abuse children could suffer was when 
their mothers and fathers did not bring them up to love God and to 
respect their parents and other people. David said that any of us 
there who did not treat our children with love and respect were 
really abusing them."
   So where did the allegations come from? Linda Thompson, a lawyer 
who is investigating the case, believes they started with one man -- 
Mark Breault, often described as a disgruntled former member of the 
Branch Davidians. A documentary produced by KPOC-TV in Oklahoma reported 
that some other former Branch Davidians may have alleged that child 
abuse was taking place in the complex. In any event, the government 
has never presented any evidence that any child was ever abused at the 
Waco compound.
   And what about allegations of illegal gun caches at the group's 
compound? For one thing, Thompson says that the Waco sheriff's 
department found these allegations to be false. Bill Cooper elaborates, 
"The sheriff investigated on several occasions the allegations that 
they had illegal weapons, were engaging in illegal activities with 
those weapons, and had one time even confiscated all their weapons 
and taken them to the sheriff's facilities for inspection, and ended 
up returning them all. There were no illegal weapons, nor illegal 
activity concerning those weapons, whatsoever. In fact, [per capita] 
the people at the Mt. Carmel facility possessed less than half the 
number of weapons possessed by the average citizen of the state of 
Texas."
   Doyle and Martin, as Branch Davidians, certainly have a stake in 
proclaiming the group's innocence. But this claim has been 
corroborated by others. A special investigative team under former 
United States attorney general Ramsey Clark has been researching the 
events leading up to the deaths at Waco. They found a number of 
discrepancies between the public story and actual events, and they 
support what Doyle and Martin are saying. And Dave Hall, a reporter 
and the manager of KPOC-TV, has done extensive work on the Waco story. 
Much of what he and his colleagues at the station have uncovered 
about this tragedy has been so disturbing that Hall has presented 
his findings to the member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with 
the hope that they will commission a special investigation of the 
whole affair. Hall's is another voice that asserts there was no 
evidence of illegal firearms at Waco. He mentions something else, 
too. "We saw evidence the A.T.F. admitted that they had left their 
weapons mingled in with the weapons that were taken into evidence 
[at the trial]... That was put in the court records. So the evidence 
that was admitted in court in the trial period was contaminated. 
Why the judges let it happen, I do not know."
 
The Initial Raid
   No crimes had been committed by David Koresh or the members of 
his group when, on February 28, 1993, they were invaded by agents 
of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. There had been 
some unsubstantiated talk about the group planning to commit mass 
suicide, but even if this had been true, this is not within the 
A.T.F.'s purview. Nor is child abuse -- not that that charge had 
been substantiated, either, nor had the weapons-cache charge. So 
the first attack on the compound was totally uncalled for.
   Film footage of the raid is included in a revealing video put 
together by Linda Thompson. (The video, Waco: The Big Lie, can be 
obtained from the American Justice Federation, 3850 S. Emerson Ave., 
Indianapolis, Indiana 46203; [317] 780-5204 or [800] 749-9939; 
fax: [317] 780-5209. A second video, Waco II: The Big Lie Continues, 
is also available.) In the first video, the viewer can see A.T.F. 
agents firing at the Branch Davidian compound with automatic weapons. 
There are helicopters flying overhead. The A.T.F fire does not seem 
to be returned. 
   As reporter Dave Hall explains his findings, "For nine to 12 
minutes, these people were being attacked, unannounced, with bullets 
flying indiscriminately through that building. There were calling 
for help from the sheriff's department... Wayne [a Davidian] is 
telling the 911 operator that there are men out there shooting at 
them. He was asking them to get the police out to call these people 
off them... We have reporters that have told us the A.T.F. did not 
announce themselves until well into the shooting. And judging from 
the 911 tape, we come to the conclusion that, at the very least, 
they were under attack for nine minutes by over 100 men, and 
possibly as much as 15 minutes, before firing back."
   He points out that the A.T.F. men were not identifiable to the 
people in the house because the lettering labeling them as A.T.F. 
agents appear on the back of their black uniforms, not the front. 
So to the Davidians, the men attacking them were unknown assailants 
dressed in black. Adding to the confusion and fear of February 28, 
as well as to the body count, was a helicopter gunship firing down 
on the roof of the house. Why this brutal, military-style assault, 
in which six Davidians died, was necessary is puzzling. Hall asks, 
"Why did they not take the sheriff out there, who several times 
before had served warrants down there and never had a problem? 
Why didn't they just go down there with a couple of men in business 
suits?"
   An account of the raid by a Davidian survivor is chilling. Clyde 
Doyle recalls, "David [Koresh] advised everybody to stay cool and to 
go back to their rooms. He would go and talk [to the officials] at 
the front door. I then went back to my room, which was in front of 
the building on the first floor, up towards the north end. Within a 
minute or so, I heard his voice saying, 'Hold on a minute. There are 
women and children here. We need to talk about this.' Before he could 
get his last words out of his mouth, shots came from the outside...
   "My reaction was to run down the hall towards the front door. I 
was thinking that some people were bound to be shot and hurt. As I 
ran down the hall towards the door, I found Perry Jones laying in the 
hall crying in great pain, saying he had been shot. Perry Jones was an 
older man, in his sixties. He apparently had been standing behind 
David as David opened the door. I asked him if he could hang in 
there a minute. I wanted to see if anyone else was hurt, but as I 
ran towards the door, I found nobody there...
   "I ran back to Perry and helped him up. A young black man from 
England appeared and gave me a hand. As he began to lift Perry up 
on his left side, Perry let out a scream. We helped Perry up into 
the north end of the building, where the men's quarters were, and 
put him on a bunk bed away from the front wall, where the bullets 
were continuing to fire. Perry was in great pain.
   "I asked two or three guys to stay with him to help him with 
whatever he needed and went running back down the hall to see what 
happened at the door. As I was running, people were yelling at me 
to get down. People were shooting through the walls from the 
outside. I noticed a line a bullets down the hallway from the 
kitchen on down through the front door. It was as if somebody with 
a machine gun on the outside blindly sprayed bullets, hoping to hit 
somebody running down the hall without being able to see them 
because there were no windows. It was like somebody made a sweeping 
arc with a machine gun. This row of bullet holes penetrated into 
the hallway.
   "Wayne Martin was in the process of getting the 911 calls going. 
During the shootings that day, I spent part of my time running back 
and forth, getting messages. The sheriff's deputy that was talking 
on the 911 line with Wayne was asking various things.
   "He was trying to get things set up because we didn't have any 
communications with David.  You would have to run up and down stairs 
to verbally pass these messages along. we eventually did get a cease-
fire, but in the course of running back, I was told that Winston Blake 
had been shot.
   "I went to [Blake's] room, which was at the very north end of the 
men's section, on the inside. His was the only room on the right-hand 
side of the hall looking north that had any windows in it. All the rest 
didn't have windows because they were up against the cafeteria. You 
couldn't see out of his windows because there were three big plastic 
water tanks outside, where our water supply was.
   "As I went up towards his room, I could hear water running. By 
the time I got to his doorway, I could see Winston laying down in a 
pool of water. The water tank, which was right up against his window, 
was riddled with bullets. Since the tank was at an angle, I would 
almost bet my life that Winston was shot from a helicopter. That was 
the only thing out there that could shoot at that angle. There weren't 
any buildings there. There weren't any A.T.F. people on the ground 
who would have been able to shoot at that angle. I checked his pulse 
and was convinced that the was dead.
   "There was a lot of pandemonium. I went upstairs with messages 
for David and the whole top-level hallway, where the women and 
children were. The women were all laying in the halls, almost one 
on top of the other, so as not to get shot. One of the women, 
Jadine Wendell, had been shot in her bed. She had a nursing baby, 
just a few months old."
   Doyle reports that David had been shot twice, once in the wrist 
and once through his abdomen. The bullet had gone through his back. 
For a time, Doyle says, Koresh believed he might die from his wounds.
   "I never saw anybody shoot back," Doyle says, "although I'm not 
saying that they didn't. From all the evidence presented, I believe 
there were a few people who grabbed some weapons. I believe they 
retaliated because Perry and David had both been shot at the front 
door without being armed. I guess some people took the stand that they 
were defending the women, the children, and their teacher. You might 
say it was in self-defense, or as a reaction to seeing people get 
gunned down for no reason."
   Among the results of Dave Hall's KPOC-TV investigation are these:
   * A.T.F. agent Darrell Dyer, when he arrived at Waco on 
February 23, 1993, was stunned to find that no mandatory documentation 
of the raid plan had been made. Dyer and agent Krone set out to draft 
a plan. But on the morning of February 28, the plan was never 
distributed. It remained in Krone's desk.
   * The very warrant they were to serve was left behind.
   * Ten days after the raid, A.T.F. agent Roland Ballesteros made 
two statements to the Texas Rangers that the A.T.F. shot first and 
made no announcement that they were federal agents.
   * A.T.F. agent Eric Ever mad a tape-recorded statement to the 
Texas Rangers just after the raid that the first shots he heard came 
from a team of agents with dogs.
   * It is well documented that Koresh had left the compound many 
times while under the surveillance of as many as eight A.T.F. agents. 
Agent Robert Rodriguez told Hall that the reason Koresh was not 
arrested when he was observed leaving was that they had a search 
warrant, but no arrest warrant. But when Hall checked at the 
courthouse in Waco, he found that the warrant was, in fact, an 
arrest warrant.
   Linda Thompson's video footage raises other questions. It shows 
a group of four agents climbing ladders to reach a first-floor roof. 
Once there, they break into a second-floor window, apparently after 
throwing some kind of smoke grenade into the house. No one seems to 
be firing at them as they do so. The fourth man seems to throw a 
grenade and then fire a machine gun into the room. Is the fourth 
man attacking his fellow agents? As the film narrator informs us, 
the three agents who entered that window died in the assault.
   Branch Davidian Mike Schroeder's death that day was particularly 
shocking. He had left the compound before the raid and later attempted 
to return home. He never made it. According to his father, Ken 
Schroeder, who has spent enormous energy investigating the death of 
his son, "There was an outer perimeter already established at that 
time. And he and these two other guys that were with him were disarmed 
by the Texas Rangers and let go to go on in. At that time, they were 
ambushed... Surprisingly, the particular spot where his body had been 
found, all the ground 20 feet around where he was found, a foot 
deep, has been removed." Schroeder's son had been shot seven times, 
with most of the shots in his back, and his body had been left to 
rot for several days. The official lie at the time was that Mike 
and his compatriots had tried to shoot their way out of the compound. 
Ken Schroeder's attempts to get his legislators to do something 
about this aspect of the Waco tragedy and cover-up have been met 
by bureaucratic non-answers.
   The F.B.I. took charge of the Waco scene a few days after the 
initial assault, and during that bureau's long siege of the compound, 
the media was kept three miles from the Mt. Carmel center. Every 
morning at 10:30, a press conference was held in which an F.B.I. 
spokesman told the nation what was supposedly going on.
   If the news media had been fully informed about the Branch 
Davidians and about the nature of the attacks against them, there 
would probably have been outraged protest by the American people, 
who were paying for the siege and for the killings.
 
The Siege
   During the 51 days between the initial A.T.F. raid and the 
final holocaust at the compound, the F.B.I. cut off all utilities 
and sanitation. Phone lines to everyone except the F.B.I. were 
severed, and radio communications were jammed. Government loudspeakers 
blared nonstop with such sounds as chants by Tibetan monks, jet 
planes, Nancy Sinatra singing "These Boots Are Made for Walking," 
and the cries of rabbits being slaughtered. Tanks fired percussion 
grenades. Stadium lights kept the house illuminated around the 
clock. Black helicopters flew overhead. Linda Thompson notes that 
around the 40th day of the siege, Koresh indicated that the children 
and babies were out of milk. Yet relief efforts to bring baby food 
to the compound were turned back. The authorities were supposed to be 
concerned about the children in the compound; in fact, that was the 
main rationale for the government's actions. So why were its agents 
trying to starve the children?
   Sheila Martin described the aftermath of the February 28 raid. 
"We began to stock up on water," she says. "When it rained, we 
collected water in buckets and brought it back to into our rooms 
to wash our hands and clothes. We stayed close to our rooms and 
didn't venture down hallways as much. We tried to avoid walking 
past windows.
   "We were in the dark every night. Except for the lights outside, 
we couldn't see anything. We were glad when the morning came because 
we felt they weren't going to get us then. We stayed as close as 
possible to each other for encouragement. We prayed a lot and read 
our Bibles.
   "One time they told David to tell the people to come out, and he 
answered that he didn't see us. For three weeks we did not really 
see him. We stayed there because we wanted to. We believed that if 
we stayed close to each other, they would not do anything to hurt us. 
We believed that God would take care of us.
   "We didn't know what was going to happen to us. One Tuesday 
morning, Margaret and Catherine Madison went out and were taken to 
jail. David said, 'Those are 70-year-old women. How could they put 
them in jail? How could they accuse them of conspiracy to murder?' 
The government removed those charges after they stayed in jail for 
a week or so.
   "After that happened, we knew that we would be going to jail. We 
accepted that. Since we didn't do anything, we believed that we 
would be out just as soon as they realized that we weren't capable 
of committing any of those actions."
   The F.B.I. was supposedly urging the Branch Davidians to surrender 
all this time. Yet Linda Thompson reports that a bureau spokesman 
announced on April 17, that "anyone who came out would be considered 
a threat to the A.T.F. agents and would be shot. Shots and percussion 
grenades were fired at a person who tried to leave through a window 
that day."
 
Holocaust
   A sickening event occurred early in the morning of April 19, 1993. 
A tank maneuvered repeatedly back and forth over a large underground 
bunker. This bunker was a short distance from the house, connected to 
it by an underground passageway. The tank shown in the video seems to 
be destroying the means of egress for the people in the bunker, and 
the viewer sees smoke coming up out of the ground there.
   The fire in the house started at about noon. The video shows a tank 
with an extension that looks like a blazing blowtorch pushing into the 
house, then pulling out. Also, A.T.F. agents are shown jumping from the 
burning building, and it looks as if they are removing fire-repellent 
clothing as they head away from the building. The question of government 
men being inside the compound and then leaving during the fire has 
never been investigated.
   Again, an account of what happened at Waco from a Branch Davidian's 
perspective is riveting. Clyde Doyle describes his experience. "Shortly 
after noon," he begins, "somebody came running into the church saying 
the building was on fire... There was a two-by-four partition on the 
stage of the chapel, with Sheetrock on one side only. We had put a 
big-screen TV there to watch videos. There was a little doorway cut 
on the left of that. I went through the doorway, still on the stage 
but around the back of this partition. The tanks had knocked a fairly 
large hole in the south wall of the chapel behind this partition. 
It had a lot of rubble in front of it.
   "People began to gather in that area, not knowing what to do. 
They would ask, 'Where's the fire?' "What's going on?' 'What should 
we do?' 'Should we jump out?' More and more people crowded into this 
narrow area. I was closest to the opening.
   "We made efforts to throw a little dog out, but she attached herself 
to me and kept coming back in. She'd had pups in the church during the 
siege. David Tibidia kept on throwing her out. He said he didn't want 
to see the dog get burned. Eventually, she stayed out.
   "Just about that time, a lot of smoke started coming in. Within 
30 seconds to a minute, the whole place was pitch black. You could 
hardly see a thing. You had the feeling you were totally surrounded 
by heat. You couldn't see any flames for a while, but you could feel 
this tremendously unbearable heat.
   "One time a tank came in the front door and sprayed gas. It got all 
over a couple of the guys. All they had on were tank tops. Their 
discomfort was unbearable, and they were hollering from the stinging 
sensations.
   "[The authorities said] that they stepped up the gassing after 200 
rounds of firing went off from the inside that day. That's not a true 
statement. There was no firing going on from inside. I have never seen 
any proof of it, but they continue to claim that is the reason they 
stepped up the gassing.
   "I put on as much clothing as I could. I had on a couple of jackets, 
a hood, and a gas mask... I began to feel the heat in gusts. The wind 
caused the heat to hit us in tremendous waves. The next thing I knew, 
I was on the floor. A lot of people further into the building were also 
on the floor. I could hear them rolling around in pain and praying 
and screaming, 'Oh my God!' Hearing that voice, the pain, the trauma, 
and everything that was going on galvanized me to jump up and make a 
lunge for the hole that was in front of me. I couldn't see it in the 
smoke and darkness, but I knew it was there, and I lunged for it.
   "I landed on a heap of Sheetrock and wood, and didn't make it to 
the outside. I just bellied down this Sheetrock and slid over it until 
I landed on a heap outside.
   "As I stood up, I could see the skin rolling off my hands. I wasn't 
blistering regular blisters. The skin was just rolling off in big 
rolls. My hands were badly burned. I looked back over my shoulder 
at the hole I had just come out of. It was a mass of flames. I thought, 
'My God, I'm the only one who got out.'"
   Doyle wound up in a medical tent, where he lost consciousness. He 
woke up the next day in the hospital.
   This is some of what Sheila Martin remembers of the inferno:
   "Five members of my family died in the fire. My husband, Larry 
Lynch, was killed on April 19. We did not know the complex was on 
fire at first, but we started smelling smoke. We didn't know what to 
do. We were afraid that if we came out of the building, we would be 
shot. All of a sudden, the smoke came. I couldn't see my husband 
any more.
   "Recently, Marjorie Thomas, a woman who was burned very badly in 
the fire and who lives in England now, said that she came down a ladder 
from the third floor on the left side, facing the building that 
eventually started leaning. She stepped on someone and realized that 
it was my daughter, Sheila, and apologized. She said, 'Oh, I'm sorry,' 
and my daughter replied, 'That's all right.'
   "My first thought was, 'Oh, my goodness, that means she was alive 
during all that smoke and fire and hadn't died yet. Then I thought, 
here were are, in the midst of all this horror, and we had the time to 
say, 'I'm sorry.'"
 
The Suicide Story
   It has been said and generally accepted that the Branch Davidians 
committed suicide. But Gordon Novel, the strategic planner for Ramsey 
Clark's investigative team, believes that the government may have 
murdered people.
   According to investigators, C.S. gas was pumped into the compound 
from six a.m. to noon on the day of the fire. C.S. is a toxic tear gas 
designed for open-air use to disperse riots. In confined spaces, it has 
been known to combine with other compounds to form the deadly hydrogen-
cyanide gas. At noon, government tanks hit the compound with a big 
injection of an atomized mixture of orthochlorobenzylidene malononitrile 
and ethanol. The mixture was heated so that it would release hydrogen 
cyanide and carbon monoxide into a vapor. Autopsies indicate that large 
numbers of people were dead from hydrogen cyanide gas before the fire. 
People died from cyanide poisoning within four to five minutes.
   In a documentary videotape produced by KPOC-TV and aired on more 
than 100 stations last year, Novel states, "I believe [the government's] 
intent was to trap them, and to incapacitate them, and to poison them 
with cyanide gas, and they probably came through there in the last 
three or four minutes, right when the fire began to ignite and the 
hydrogen cyanide was in there -- we have indications of that from the 
F.B.I. agents taking their respirators off right after the fire started, 
and you can see them exiting the building -- so based upon.... the fact 
that the Davidians had no .45-caliber pistols, one can reasonably 
deduct that they were shot while they were wriggling on the ground, 
including the babies."
   According to Novel, .44- and .45-caliber pistols were found at the 
scene of the fire. But the government must have known that the Davidians 
did not own these types of guns, because they had a list of every 
weapons purchase the Davidians had made. Although the government claimed 
many of the Davidian deaths were demonic suicides, Novel says, "The 
Davidians were totally non-suicidal... very Christian in their 
mentality."
   The government's use of C.S. gas inside the house is one of the 
most disturbing aspects of the entire tragedy. C.S. gas is never 
supposed to be used inside a building. Used inside, it can create 
fires, and it can produce cyanide, which can immobilize and kill. 
Dave Hall, who has conducted his own exhaustive investigation of 
the role of C.S. gas, believes that the gas contributed to the mass 
casualties at Waco. He talked with the manufacturer of C.S. gas, 
Aldridge Chemicals. The company emphasized that this product was 
intended for outdoor riot control only; it was not supposed to be a 
weapon. In fact, the company says it stopped selling C.S. to Israel 
in 1988 because the government there was shooting the chemical into 
buildings occupied by Palestinians. Many of those people subjected 
to the gas became ill, and others died from the exposure in enclosed 
quarters, as reported by Amnesty International's Chemical Report on 
C.S. Agent #6.
   Hall has learned that the C.S. gas played a large part in the Waco 
tragedy. It both contributed to the very high-temperature fire and 
incapacitated its victims so that they could not move to escape the 
building. In the autopsies of Waco fire victims, cyanide -- from 
breathing the C.S. gas -- was found in the victims' blood. Also, Hall 
reports, "Our state fire marshal says they aerated the building in 
such a way as to create the fire and to contain the gas in there, 
which was as flammable as coal dust. They knew all these things."
   There was a very long delay before fire trucks reached the site. 
Hall explains that the fire trucks were held back by the A.T.F. 
because, had they shot water on that fire, the gas present would 
have combined with the water to create a hydrogen-cyanide steam cloud 
that would have been deadly to the agents surrounding the place.
   Hall provided this chronology: Smoke was seen coming from the 
complex at 12:05 p.m. Within minutes, fire was spotted in four 
different locations. But fire trucks were not called until 
approximately 12:30 p.m. They were held back under the claim of 
danger from exploding ammunition.
   Dr. George F. Uhlig is a professor of chemistry at the College of 
Eastern Utah and a retire Air Force lieutenant colonel. Here's some 
of what he had to say in a report for KPOC-TV:
   "In my opinion, the C.S. gas was diluted with either acetone or 
ethanol, as the autopsies indicated both solvents were in the lungs 
of the individuals killed at the Branch Davidian complex... The 
liquid aerosol... came into contact with a flame, and the flame front 
traveled from particle to particle rapidly to create the 'fireball' 
described by survivors. We used a similar concept in designing fuel-
air explosive devices in the Air Force. An explosive device would 
detonate, sending out an aerosol of either liquid or solid material 
of the proper particle size. A second explosion would then 'touch off' 
the aerosol mix, with devastating results. While the flame front in 
the case of the Branch Davidians did not generate the overpressure 
of the fuel-air explosive device, the results were similar. The 
structure burned rapidly to the ground, and the C.S. agent was burned 
in the process. Cyanide radicals were generated as the C.S. burned, 
combining with the normal fluids in the lungs of the people to 
generate hydrogen-cyanide gas...
   "It was probably a good decision on the part of federal agents on 
the scene not to attempt to put out the fire using water. The resulting 
steam generated by the water coming into contact with the hot structure 
would further generate hydrogen cyanide, and the resulting cloud of 
cyanide gas and steam could have been carried by the prevailing winds 
over populated areas. This could have killed people not even involved 
in the incident, or at least made them extremely sick."
   Dave Hall says that for six hours straight -- from 6 a.m. to noon on 
the day of the fire -- massive amounts of the C.S. gas were injected 
into the Davidians' home. This was despite a previously agreed-upon plan 
to use "light doses" because the children had no gas masks. At this 
point, Hall notes, we must keep in mind that the F.B.I. and the A.T.F. 
were fully aware that the Davidians were using kerosene lanterns inside 
the compound both day and night. They knew this because they had 
infrared surveillance equipment in the air and on the ground at the 
complex. They were also, of course, aware of the lethal capabilities 
of C.S. gas, because these were spelled out in their manual.
   A telling fact is that after the fire, the A.T.F. destroyed 
everything that remained of the Branch Davidians' home and its site. 
Usually, after a disaster, authorities take pains to preserve evidence 
so that it can be studied to fully understand what happened. So why 
would they immediately level the evidence at Waco?
   Texas state fire marshals were refused access to investigate the fire 
scene. They were told it was the jurisdiction of the A.T.F. (After the 
whole thing was over, the A.T.F. raised its own flag over the ruins.)
   A disturbing constitutional aspect of the events at Waco is that 
helicopters from the Texas National Guard were supplied, along with 
military tanks and manpower from Ft. Hood, Texas, for a police action 
against civilians. This is probably illegal. How did this happen? How 
did the military get involved? The F.B.I., through the Department of 
Justice, requested that Texas Governor Ann Richards allow the use of 
helicopters from the Texas National Guard at Waco. Texas law forbids 
the use of the National Guard in police action against a citizen of 
the state, except when drugs are used in a criminal action. But the 
A.T.F. apparently fabricated a drug charge to gain use of the 
helicopters. Later, Governor Richards stated publicly that she had 
been lied to by the Department of Justice.
   One other fact that was not publicized. The Davidians would have run 
out of water a week or two after the fire date. To achieve their total 
subjugation, there was never really any need to incinerate their home.
   The survivors of the fire at Mt. Carmel have not had an easy time. 
Clyde Doyle recalls his agony in the hospital after the fire. "When I 
finally came to, the doctors and nurses asked me to identify two 
females who were brought in who were badly burned," he says. "They 
didn't want me to get out of bed, but they described them to me. The 
first woman they described as tall, black, and around 30. The only 
tall black woman I could think of was Marjorie Thomas. It turned out 
that I was correct. She was badly burned on her face and just about 
all over.
   "Then they began to describe the other woman. All of a sudden, I 
welled up, thinking that it might be my 18-year-old daughter. I wanted 
to see her, but they told me I couldn't. They said they would get 
something and that I might be able to identify her from that. I was 
thinking they would bring me some clothing to look at. Instead, one 
of them walked in with a great big hunk of hair, like a scalp. They 
said, 'Do you think this is your daughter?' Looking at the hair, I 
had the feeling it wasn't hers, unless the fire had changed the color 
slightly. But I still wasn't sure.
   "The next day, I was watching television when the news came on and 
identified two of the bodies," Doyle continues. " one, they said, was 
David Jones. The other was identified as my daughter... Usually on the 
news, names are withheld until the next of kin is first notified. Here, 
my mother was never told. My other daughter was never told. And I was 
never told. We learned about my daughter's death from television. To me, 
that was just another indication that we were not considered normal 
people, and that anything was good enough for us. They could do 
anything they liked and it would be all right."
   Sheila Martin was similarly mistreated by the authorities, but she 
overcame her hardship through prayer and faith. "With all our people 
dead," she says, "we didn't have a normal life. We couldn't see family 
and friends. We couldn't go anywhere. We had to stay in the correctional 
institution. We were watching TV, seeing the building burn, hearing them 
say there are 20 survivors, there are nine. We wondered what was really 
going on.
   "They asked us who died, and wanted to know their ages. It's not 
like someone came and put their arms around you and said, 'Oh, we're 
so sorry.' We had none of that. We had to be strong. We didn't want to 
look like we were giving up or that he hated anyone. At the same time, 
we wanted to cry our eyes out. I had three children who still needed 
me, and they were somewhere else. I only got to see them one hour a 
week for three weeks."
 
The Trial
   The surviving Branch Davidians were sentenced harshly in the 
aftermath of Waco. According to Doyle, "We've been accused of killing 
four A.T.F. agents and wounding 15 other people. I feel sorry that 
four agents died and that some of them are badly wounded, but I went 
through a trial in San Antonio and spent ten months in jail after the 
fire. I was one of three who were eventually totally acquitted, 
although everyone was found not guilty of any major crime, such as 
conspiracy, murder, and aiding and abetting murder.
   "[The judge] did not follow the recommendations of the jury. In 
fact, during the sentencing, which was in July [1994], he made a 
statement that he personally believed that we were all guilty. He said 
the only reason some of us were not being sentenced that day was 
that some of us had better lawyers. He said we were all guilty of 
conspiracy and murder.
   "Back in February, when the verdict was handed down, we were found 
not guilty on count one and not guilty on count two. Then the jury 
turned around. It might have been due to a confusion on their parts. 
We talked to a few of them, and that seems to have been the case. 
There were so many instructions and misconceptions that they 
basically made a grave mistake as far as certain charges go...
   "[But] I believe that as a result of the trial, for the first 
time, the media began to have a different feeling about this whole 
thing. During the 51-day siege, very few people in the media bothered 
to question what was happening. They never asked hard questions or 
rocked the boat in any way. Instead, they just printed up whatever was 
told to them in the morning briefings from the F.B.I. and the A.T.F.
   "By the time this case came to trail, based on all the evidence that 
was being compiled at the time, I believe they began to see that there 
was a massive cover-up and a massive injustice done."
   Sheila Martin adds, "It's very sad. The people who put this whole 
thing together have said that they're sorry. They've taken the blame for 
it, but our people are still in jail. How can you say you're the cause 
of it and that all this has happened as a result of things you did 
wrong, but still keep our people in jail?"
   In his letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee asking for an 
independent investigation, Dave Hall summarizes the conclusions of his 
TV station's investigation of the tragedy. Those conclusions read, in 
part, "The Branch Davidians were shot upon without warning; subjected 
to psychological warfare tactics; their children were killed before 
their very eyes; and finally, after 51 days, they were cyanided, many 
to the point of incapacitation, others to the lethal point. The building 
was set on fire with pyrotechnic tear-gas shots to destroy the evidence 
of the crimes the agents had committed. Within two days, bulldozers 
were brought in to further complicate any further investigation."
   Why did this nightmare happen?
   The government's confrontation with the Branch Davidians may have 
started as a kind of public-relations ploy to show how good the 
government was at maintaining law and order my cracking down on cults 
with illegal arms caches and weird ways. But then the publicity stunt 
got out of control.
   Linda Thompson's opinion is that "Waco was merely one of the first 
tests of using federal law enforcement with military, and using military 
tactics. The government proved it could use the major media to tell the 
government's version of the story to the public. It was a victory for 
mass propaganda.
   "They murdered 96 people in front of our eyes on national TV, and 
the public bought it."
   And Waco has one final, totally chilling message to the people of 
America: "It is useless to resist... Don't confront your government, or 
you'll be dealt with." Anyone who accepts without question the official 
version of the government's war against the Branch Davidians has, in 
reality, already surrendered.
 
   Editor's note: Dave Hall, of KPOC-TV in Oklahoma, has been a major 
investigator of the government's mishandling of the Waco disaster and 
was of great assistance to us in preparing this article. Hall and KPOC-TV 
have produced a documentary entitled The Waco Incident that is available 
from Southwest Video ([800] 284-7566).
 
Null, Gary. "The Holocaust at Waco." Penthouse, April, 1995.

    I'm not surprised at .222.  My oldest son and I were discussing how in
    the media world i.e., news/cinema Christianity is portrayed as a
    deviate way of living.  We've just about come to the conclusion to
    boycott all films from this industry, even Disney.
    
    

    
    
    	re: .223
    	
    	Yup, that seems to be the way the media portrays Christians (or
    anyone religious for that matter).
    
    	If you're a christian, you're a religious extremist.
    
    	If you believe in the constitution, you're a constitutional
    extremist.
    
    	If you believe in saving the environment, you're an environmental
    extremist.
    	
    	etc, etc, etc......
    
    
    

    deviant 

If, as is alleged in .222, there was no search warrant, would that make the
raid on Waco an illegal raid, or would the existence of the arrest warrant
allow them to behave as they did?

Is it an illegal search if a search warrant is issued but not present at the
scene of the search?

Thanks,

Bob

From:	US4RMC::"[email protected]" "Carol Moore"  5-MAY-1995 02:31:23.01
To:	Libernet <[email protected]>
CC:	distribution:;@us4rmc.pko.dec.com (see end of body)
Subj:	Waco Fire on Nightline 5/5

Report from Carol Moore, Committee for Waco Justice
5/4/95
 
     Friday, May 5 ABC's Nightline is doing a whole show on
the fire at Mount Carmel.  Not one but two heavy-duty critics
of the government's actions have been interviewed for the show
and may appear.  One is Michael McNulty who is with the
Citizens Organization for Public Safety, a group of
investigators who have studied the fire.  The other is yours
truly Carol Moore, author of THE MASSACRE OF THE BRANCH
DAVIDIANS which Gun Owners of America is speeding through the
production process so that it will be out by July or sooner.
     It will be interesting to see if the media takes the one
or two possibly confused or "far out" things we may have said
and use those, while ignoring the substantive ones.  Since the
interviewer asked me three times to explain the concept that
the FBI's motivation for sabotaging negotiations and
destroying Mount Carmel was to cover up evidence of BATF
firing from helicopters, there's a chance they'll actually use
one of those quotes!  We can dream.  (They never even asked me
if Davidians committed mass suicide.)
     Others that I have heard they've invited, but do not know
for sure are: Dr. Alan Stone, the Justice Department "outside
expert" most critical of the government, Alex Heard who wrote
the article for New Republic about Waco investigators, and at
least one fire investigator, probably one who will be more
sympathetic to the government's line.  We shall see!
     The media have been contacting the Committee for Waco
Justice and me as author of the book almost every day for the
last two weeks.  (McNeil Lehrer is going to cover our next
meeting and interview us/me.)
   What is amazing is to see in just two weeks as they become
educated about the issue how (print anyway)  their attitudes
 are changing. From relative hostility and lack of
understanding (of why these right wing whackos are concerned
about Waco) to -- Gosh, could it be something terrible
happened and we overlooked it and  better check it out quick.
So there is hope. :-)
 
 
ON A $OMEWHAT MORE MUNDANE LEVEL...
 
     The Committee for Waco Justice has raised $2800.00 in
last 18 months and spent $3000.00.  Mostly on postage and
xeroxing, and $1000 on Washington Times Memorial ads.  We owe
a couple members who can't afford it some money.  Plus we want
to do some heavy duty mailings and xeroxing in our lobbying
effort around upcoming hearings.
     We sure could use a quick $4-500.  So if any of you would
like to send us $20 or $50 bucks, as you have so generously in
the past, we'd appreciate it.  We'll send you a few
interesting clippings and photos in thanks.
     Send cash or checks to Committee for Waco Justice. 
CHECKS TO CAROL MOORE only.  (You can see why we haven't
bothered with hassle and expense of bank account.)  Box 65518,
Washington, D.C. 20035 202/986-1847  202/797-9877
 
                       ** THANKS!! **


[email protected]

NEW YORK (Reuter) - A Harvard professor hired by the Justice Department to 
evaluate the raid and siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas two 
years ago has told CBS news that the raid was an incompetent provocation. 

    ``There was incredible stupidity, incompetence and provocation by a 
reckless and over-reaching federal agency,'' Dr. Alan Stone, a professor of 
psychiatry and law, says on the edition of ``60 Minutes'' to be aired Sunday 
night. 

    ``They had a very complicated, cockamamie plan that was crazy,'' Stone 
continued. ``And they knew that this place was filled with women and children. 
And yet they were prepared to go in with their own automatic weapons for what 
they called a dynamic entry.'' 

    Four agents of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, in search of 
illegal weapons, were killed by Branch Davidians defending their compound; 
five members of David Koresh's cult were killed in the initial face-off. 

    A 51-day armed standoff ensued, ending when the Federal government tried 
to force a surrender by using tanks and CS gas. But cult members set the 
building on fire, killing Koresh and more than 70 others, including 25 
children. 

    CBS say it was reporting on Waco now because Timothy McVeigh, accused of 
bombing the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killing 167 people, 
was said to have been disturbed by the government's actions in Waco. 

    The Oklahoma City bombing took place on the second anniversary of the 
final assault on the Davidians' compound. 

    Stone concedes that the government might have been correct about cult 
members assembling machineguns and grenades. 

    ``I accept all that,'' Stone said. ``What I don't accept is that justifies 
.. the largest raid in the history of the BATF ... with 80 agents who weren't 
trained, who were incompetent, with a plan that wasn't even written down 
anywhere.'' 

    Also appearing on the program was Dean Kelley, described as an expert on 
religious freedom for the National Council of Churches, who investigated Waco 
and has written a report. 

    Kelley said the FBI agents who took over from the BATF agents knew about 
rescuing hostages, but cult members did not consider themselves hostages and 
the FBI did not know how to deal with Koresh. 

    ``He was using a vocabulary that they did not understand. They were 
thumbing frantically through their Gideon Bibles, trying to keep up. And it 
was bewildering (to them).'' 

    Ron Noble, the Treasury Department official who oversees the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms defended the raid as a move against criminals, 
not religious zealots. 

    The only mistake Noble conceded was the raid should not have gone ahead 
after it was known that Koresh found out 40 minutes before that it was going 
to occur -- a fact which ``60 Minutes'' said was agreed upon by all sides. 

    ``What was absolutely clear ... was that no raid should proceed once the 
element of surprise was lost,'' Noble told CBS. `` ... It was a mistake that 
has cost lives of four treasury agents.''


------------------------------

    So why is the arsonist queen of Waco still Attorney General?

RE: 362.229 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

Reading is an art.  See what 362.228 said about the fire.


Phil

    They may have set the building on fire but from what I understood, the
    BATF crashed a tank into a fuel tank within the building which caused
    the fire to ignite that much more.  
    
    I find this to be the height of stupidity.  Especially since they knew
    where everything was supposed to be.
    
    

    >Reading is an art.  See what 362.228 said about the fire.
    
     Well, that's the government's claim, anyway. And with all of the
    evidence destroyed by the government, it's not so easy to prove either
    way.

    There was a man on CNN who was one of 4 fire inspectors brought
    in from different parts of the country to survey what was left.
    He said there was definite signs that the Davidians set four fires
    simultaneously (I can't remember the name of the accelerant he said
    was used).  The tank breaking through the wall caused that wing to
    go up faster because of the additional oxygen allowed in.
    
    The video tapes CNN had seemed to back up his theory.  You could
    see signs of fire breaking out at 3 locations simultaneously.  The
    3 areas were at varied points in the complex.  This particular fire
    marshal said if a fire starts accidentally in one area, it spreads
    much differently that these fires did.  A fourth fire could be
    seen breaking through a few minutes after the first 3 fires.
    
    The man wasn't working for the ATF or FBI and said he wasn't there
    to address the issue of whether or not the raid should have happened.
    He said he was just part of a team used to determine exactly how
    the fires got started.  He pointed out that the weather had been
    very dry for days prior to the raid, couple that with the munitions
    and explosives inside the buildings and the inferno that resulted
    was inevitable.
    
    He said the team did find evidence of where explosives lobbed into
    the building by the government went up; but said the patterns left
    and traces of those explosives contained a different type accelerant
    than was found at the 4 initial flash points.
    
    The man even compared CNN's tapes to the tape from The Big Lie; when
    you have a fire marshal analyzing what was happening (as opposed to
    the voice on The Big Lie) it seems to bear out his conclusions.
    
    I hope the DC crowd does re-open the investigation into Waco; aside
    from proving beyond a doubt that the govt screwed up, IMO I think
    they'll find that many anti-govt groups have used it to further their
    own agendas.
    
    

    A Tainted FBI Promotion

    FOR A FINE example of arrogance and bad judgment, it would be hard to
    beat FBI Director Louis Freeh's recommendation this week of his tainted
    pal Larry Potts to be promoted to deputy director, second in command of
    the agency.

    And Attorney General Janet Reno's enthusiastic approval of the
    promotion just adds to the perception of an administration that is
    politically tone deaf and serenely insensitive to reasonable public
    concerns about the behavior of federal police agencies.

    It was Potts who oversaw the disastrous 1993 standoff and fiery
    destruction of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, that left
    85 dead, including 17 children. He also was the senior FBI official in
    charge of the 1992 siege at the home of white separatist Randall Weaver
    in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in which Weaver's wife and 14-year-old son were
    shot to death by an FBI sharpshooter. Potts was disciplined by Freeh in
    April for ``improper judgment and neglect of duty'' in the Idaho
    debacle.

    A month later, Freeh recommended Potts for deputy director and
    described him as ``the very best the FBI has.'' Besides marveling at
    Freeh's flexibility in being able to censure and promote the same
    person within so short a time span, we wonder about the rest of the FBI
    personnel.

    The ill-advised promotion comes at an awkward moment for the
    administration, when congressional Republicans are leaping at the
    prospect of holding hearings on federal law enforcement actions against
    both the Weavers and the Branch Davidians, incidents that have received
    renewed interest since the Oklahoma City bombing.

    Potts is currently directing the investigation of the Oklahoma
    disaster, and by all official accounts is doing a fine job. But until
    the air is cleared of the swirling fog of acrimony, suspicion and
    administration hubris that surrounds his promotion, Potts' reputation
    and moral authority as one of the nation's top law enforcement officers
    will remain in doubt.

    5/11/95 , San Francisco Chronicle, All Rights Reserved

    New York Times, Wed May 10  page D21
 
                F.B.I. Leader at 1992 Standoff in Idaho
                   Says Review Shielded Top Officials
 
                           by David Johnston
 
    WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Federal Bureau of Investigations's
    commander at a 1992 standoff with a white separatist in Idaho
    charges in a letter to the Justice Department that the F.B.I.'s
    review of the operation was a cover-up intended to shield top
    officials, including a trusted top aide to Director Louis J. Freeh.
 
    The commander, Eugene F. Glenn, charges that the FBI review blamed
    him for the managerial lapses in the Idaho operation and sought to
    let off Mr. Freeh's top aide, Larry A. Potts, whth a mild rebuke.
    Mr. Potts was recently promoted to be the bureau's deputy director.
 
    Mr. Pott's role in the standoff and his promotion, approved last
    week by Attorney General Janet Reno, have been the subject of
    criticism by Republican lawmakers. On Sunday, Speaker Newt Gingrich
    criticized Mr. Potts's actions in the Idaho incident and the tear
    gas assault at Waco, Tex., in April 1993, which ended with a
    disastrous fire and the deaths of more than 80 Branch Davidians.
    Among some conservatives, both events have become symbols of
    oversealous law enforcement, and procesutors have said that Waco
    appeared to have motivated the only suspect charged in the Oklahoma
    City bombing, Timothy J. McVeigh.
 
    Mr. Potts helped draft the plan for the Waco assault and was the
    primary supervisor from Washington in the standoff with the
    separatist, Randall Weaver. Mr. Potts now has overall responsibilty
    for the Oklahoma City investigation.
 
    The May 3 letter by Mr. Glenn, the agent-in-charge of the FBI's Salt
    Lake City office, represents a highly unusual breaking of senior
    ranks. The FBI review it criticizes was described by Mr. Freeh in
    January as a "careful and thorough" assessment of the facts.
 
    Mr. Glenn said in his letter, addressed to Michael E. Shaheen, head
    of the Office of Responsitility at the Justice Department, that the
    review was incomplete, inaccurate and undercut by flaws that "reveal
    a purpose to create scapegoats and false impressions."  The Office
    of Professional Responsibility investigates charges of misconduct
    against the department's lawyers and investigators. The letter was
    given to a reporter by people who have questions about the FBI's
    handling of the Idaho incident. Mr. Glenn's lawyer, William L.
    Bransford, whould not comment on the letter.
 
    Howard Shapiro, the FBI's general counsel, said Mr. Glenn's charges
    were groundless. "To make these baseless accusations at a time when
    there is such overwhelmingly important work to be done is absolutely
    irresponsible and destructive to the FBI," Mr. Shapiro said in an
    interview today. "Despite their apparent baselessness Mr. Glenn's
    accusations will be fully reviewed and carefully considered by the
    Department of Justice."
 
    The bureau's confrontation with Mr. Weaver occurred after a shootout
    in which a Federal marshal and Mr. Weaver's son were killed. In
    response, the FBI sent its Hostage Rescue Team, a 50-person team of
    assault specialists and sharpshooters, to Mr. Weaver's mountainside
    cabin of Ruby Ridge. The next day a FBI sniper shot and killed Mr.
    Weaver's wife, Vicki.
 
    Mrs. Weaver was shot while standing in the door of the cabin holding
    her child. Mr. Freeh concluded that her death was a tragic accident
    that did not warrant any disciplinary action. He found that the
    sharpshooter who killed her was justified under the FBI's standard
    deadly force policy, which allows agents to shoot when they believe
    they are under an imminent threat of harm.
 
    But Mr. Weaver's lawyers said later that she was shot after FBI
    officials decided to loosen the rules restricting use of lethal
    force just for this operations. And they contended that the rules,
    which some agents later said was a "shoot on sight" policy, was part
    of an overly aggressive Federal response that almost inevitably led
    to the shooting.
 
    Based on the review, Mr. Freeh in January recommended discipline of
    12 FBI empolyees, reserving the harshest for Mr. Glenn. The director
    said Mr. Glenn should be removed from his field command, suspended
    for 15 days and reassigned to FBI headquarters. The Justice
    Department has not yet ruled on the recommendation.
 
    Mr. Freeh has subjected Mr. Potts to a milder rebuke -- a letter of
    censure for failing to provide proper managerial oversight regarding
    the rules of engagement.
 
    In his letter, Mr. Glenn contended that he was not asked who had
    written and approved the rules of engagement. He said the FBI review
    was biased because the agent chosen to lead it was Charles Mathews,
    a close associate and one-time subordinate of Danny O. Coulson, who
    was Mr. Potts's chief deputy during the siege on Ruby Ridge. Mr.
    Glenn referred to Mr. Mathews as an "A-SAC," a title that means
    assistant special agent in charge.
 
    "The only logical conclusion that can be drawn to explain the
    deception and lack of completeness in this investigation is that
    A-SAC mathews' relationship with Coulson caused him to avoid the
    development of the necessary facts, and caused him to cover up facts
    germane to the central issues."
 
    Mr. Glenn also said that two unidentified witnesses at FBI
    headquarters who were in the agency's top scret command center
    during the standoff have infromation about the rules, suggesting
    that they could shed light on who approved the change. One, Mr.
    Glenn said, was a high-level official, and the other was a mid-level
    supervisor, who overheard Mr. Coulson discussing the rules with
    another FBI employee.
 
    Mr Shapiro said Mr. Potts deserved to be promoted to the deputy's
    position. "It remains the unwavering position of the FBI that Larry
    Potts is exceptionally qualified to be deputy director as
    demonstrated by his long career in public survice of the his
    exemplary talents and his thorough-going professionalism."
 
    In recent days, Repulican lawmakers have said they would hold
    hearings on the incidents at Waco and Idaho. But today two veteran
    Republican Senators assailed each other as political opportunists
    about the timing of such hearings and who should hold them.
 
    Last week, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary
    Committee, said the House should take the lead in re-examining Waco.
 
    Soon afterward, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a Presidential
    aspirant, announced that his terrorism subcommittee would hold a
    hearing on May 18
 
    Mr. Hatch quesioned Mr. Specter's approach in a Monday letter that
    was released today, saying, "The hearing you propose is an important
    one, but I believe that it is unrelated, in any true sense, to the
    broader issue of the prevention of domestic terrorism."
 
    Today, in a statement on the Senate floor, Mr. Specter defended his
    panel's jurisdictions, saying, "I do think it is important that
    hearings proceed and that other senators and the public be aware of
    the status of this matter."

So where is Randy Weaver now?

I understand he was acquitted of the firearms charges against him (jury disgust
with the FBI's behavior, entrapment, photos of the "flat dog", etc.).

Is he still tied up in the legal system over something-or-other? Did they let
him go? Did he go home to Ruby Ridge, or did he lose it? Does he have custody 
of the baby that Vicki was holding when she was shot? Here is a guy whose
family was murdered by the Feds. If he is free, has he said anything publicly?

He's building potato guns in Idaho.

    A blight on the nation.

    
    
    	re: .236
    
    
    	Last I heard of randy weaver he had filed suit against the fbi.
    Other than that, haven't heard  a peep...
    
    jim

    
    
    Interesting reading, what Gerry Spence has to say about the Randy
    Weaver incident.  A bit chilling.
    
    
    Mike

    Chilling, but ultimately loaded, as is right for the writings of
    Weaver's defense lawyer.

    
    
    May, maybe not.  If this was indeed a letter sent to a friend and there
    were no plans to divulge it at the time it might not have been.
    
    
    Mike

brrrr mike.... brrrr......

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Newgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: (fwd) From Freedom To Slavery, The Rebirth Of Tyranny In America

Originator: [email protected]

Subject:First They Came For The Fascists...by Gerry Spence

(This is an excerpt from a remarkable book by Gerry Spence called "From
Freedom To Slavery, The Rebirth Of Tyranny In America".  DB)

First They Came For The Fascists....
                    by Gerry Spence

Randy Weaver's wife was dead, shot through the head while she clutched her
child to her breast. His son was shot, twice. First they shot the child's
arm, probably destroyed the arm. The child cried out. Then, as the child
was running they shot him in the back. Randy Weaver himself had been shot
and wounded and Kevin Harris, a kid the Weavers had all but adopted was
dying of a chest wound. The blood hadn't cooled on Ruby Hill before the
national media announced that I had taken the defense of Randy Weaver. Then
all hell broke loose. My sister wrote me decrying my defense of this
"racist". There were letters to the editors in several papers that
expressed their disappointment that I would lend my services to a person
with Weaver's beliefs. And I received a letter from my close friend Alan
Hirschfield, the former chairman of chief executive officer of Columbia
Pictures and Twentieth Century Fox, Imploring me to withdraw.

He Wrote:

"After much thought I decided to write this letter to you. It represents a
very profound concern on my part regarding your decision to represent Randy
Weaver. While I applaud and fully understand your motives in taking such a
case, I nonetheless find this individual defense troubling. It is so
because of the respectability and credibility your involvement imparts to a
cause which I find despicable.

The Aryan Nation, The Brotherhood, and The Order are all groups dedicated
to only one premise--hatred of the unlike by the like. They deny the
Holocaust and preach the gospel of ethnic debasement and racist supremacy.
They are societal malcontents and misfits who espouse nothing worthwhile.
It is the beliefs of these groups that Mr. Weaver represents."

Mr. Hirschfield went on to argue that my involvement would lend dignity to
an illicit and repugnant movement.

"This is not Huey Newton and the Black Panthers fighting 200 years of
prejudice and second class citizenship, nor even the PLO seeking a homeland
by terrorist methods. While I abhor terrorism of any kind I do understand
its politics. Not so with the philosophy of the groups Mr. Weaver stands
for.

The issues involved are reminiscent of the recent national uproar over the
Warner Brothers recording made by a rap singer Ice T which advocates
killing cops. Other tracks on the CD were virulently anti-semetic and
homophobic. The right of Ice T to publicly record these songs was not the
issue. What was troublesome to myself and others was the role of Warner
Brothers in disseminating his message in the name of preserving their
"creative integrity":. I gave an interview on this subject and suggested
that at least in business there was a line to be drawn between unbridled
creative freedom and corporate responsibility. In Warner's case they could
have chosen not to distribute this record (it still would have found a
distributor), instead they trumpeted the creative freedom argument and by
lending their world renowned prestige to the issue they imparted to Ice T
and his message a legitimacy wholly undeserved, and in doing so made the
recording a national hit in contrast to his previous mediocre results.
My premise, therefore, is not the right of Weaver or anyone else to the
best possible defense but rather the message sent out when the finest trial
lawyer in America undertakes that defense, simply to make that point. The
message, I believe, will embolden those espousing the cause Weaver
represents and encourage other mindless haters to join up. The resultant
media attention will provide a platform previously never enjoyed by these
people.

I clearly know this is not your intent in defending Mr. Weaver but I
believe...there _is_ a time when a person of your extraordinary talent and
commitment, and knowing full well the notoriety that comes with your
representation, perhaps demurs, rather than allow your prominent and
respected persona to add legitimacy and notoriety to a sick and twisted
philosophy.

As you know I am not a religious person...but I am keenly conscious of my
heritage and the endless persecution Jews throughout the world have
suffered.There is in my mind no worse group of people than those involved
here who espouse both hatred and violence against Jews, blacks and other
minorities without any purpose other than the hatred itself. They don't
seek a homeland, they don't propose alternatives and they don't want a
solution other than the one Hitler sought. As a result of your involvement
these same people will be given a greatly expanded voice at this trial.

It is because of this that I write and ask you to reconsider your decision
to involve yourself in this case. I do so out of total respect and personal
affection for you. And, of course, whatever your decision you will always
have the same respect and the same affection from me.

                                   Your friend,
                                   Alan J Hirschfield



The next morning I delivered the following letter by carrier to Mr
Hirschfield

"I cherish your letter. It reminds me once again of our friendship, for
only friends can speak and hear each other in matters so deeply a part of
the soul. And your letter reminds me as well, as we must all be reminded,
of the unspeakable pain every Jew has suffered from the horrors of the
Holocaust. No better evidence of our friendship could be shown than your
intense caring concerning what I do and what I stand for.

I met Randy Weaver in jail on the evening of his surrender. His eyes had no
light in them. He was unshaven and dirty. He was naked except for yellow
plastic prison coveralls, and he was cold. His small feet were clad in
rubber prison sandals. In the stark setting of the prison conference room
he seemed diminutive and fragile. He had spent 11 days and nights in a
standoff against the government and he had lost. His wife was dead. His son
was dead. His friend was near death. Weaver himself had been wounded. He
had lost his freedom. He had lost it all. And now he stood face to face
with a stranger who towered over him and whose words were not words of
comfort. When I spoke, you, Alan, were on my mind.

"My name is Gerry Spence" I began. "I'm the lawyer you've been told about.
Before we begin to talk I want you to understand that I do not share any of
your political or religious beliefs. Many of my dearest friends are Jews.
My daughter is married to a Jew. My sister is married to a black man. She
has adopted a black child. I deplore what the Nazis stand for. If I defend
you I will not defend your political beliefs or your religious beliefs, but
your right as an American citizen to a fair trial." His quiet answer was,
"That is all I ask." Then I motioned him to a red plastic chair and I took
a similar one. And as the guards marched by and from time to time peered
in, he told his story.

Alan, you are a good and fair man. That I know. Were it otherwise we would
not be such friends. Yet it is your pain I hear most clearly--exacerbated,
I know, by the fact that your friend should represent your enemy. Yet what
drew me to this case was my own pain. Let me tell you the facts.

Randy Weaver's principal crime against the government had been his failure
to appear in court on a charge of possessing illegal firearms. The first
crime was not his. He had been entrapped--intentionally, systematically,
patiently, purposefully entrapped--by a federal agent who solicited him to
cut off, contrary to Federal law, the barrels of a couple of shotguns.
Randy Weaver never owned an illegal weapon in his life. He was not engaged
in the manufacture of illegal weapons. The idea of selling an illegal
firearm had never entered his mind until the government agent suggested it
and encouraged him to act illegally. The government knew he needed the
money. He is as poor as an empty cupboard. He had three daughters, a son
and a wife to support. He lived in a small house in the woods without
electricity or running water. Although he is a small, frail man, with tiny,
delicate hands who probably weighs no more than a hundred and twenty
pounds, he made an honest living by chopping firewood and by seasonal work
as a logger.

This man is wrong, his beliefs are wrong. His relationship to mankind is
wrong. He was perhaps legally wrong when he failed to appear and defend
himself in court. But the first wrong was not his. Nor was the first wrong
the government's. The first wrong was ours.

In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we
know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government
does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the
notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the
people but, at last has become the people's master. We have stood by like
timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then
those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock
belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays.
they were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer
edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards
the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges.
Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when
the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was
our wrong.

That none of us felt responsible for having lost our freedom has been a
part of an insidious progression. In the beginning the attention of the
flock was directed not to the marauding wolf but to our own deviant members
within the flock. We rejoiced as the wolf destroyed them for they were our
enemies. We were told that the weak lay under the rocks while we faced the
blizzards to rustle our food, and we did not care when the wolf took them.
We argued that they deserved it. When one of our flock faced the wolf alone
it was always eaten. Each of us was afraid of the wolf, but as a flock we
were not afraid. Indeed the wolf cleansed the herd by destroying the weak
and dismembering the aberrant element within. As time went by, strangely,
the herd felt more secure under the rule of the wolf. It believed that by
belonging to this wolf it would remain safe from all the other wolves. But
we were eaten just the same.

No one knows better than children of the Holocaust how the lessons of
history must never be forgotten. Yet Americans, whose battle cry was once,
"Give me liberty or give me death", have sat placidly by as a new king was
crowned. In America a new king was crowned by the shrug of our shoulders
when our neighbors were wrongfully seized. A new king was crowned when we
capitulated to a regime that is no longer sensitive to people, but to non
people--to corporations, to money and to power. The new king was crowned
when we turned our heads as the new king was crowned as we turned our heads
as the poor and the forgotten and the damned were rendered mute and
defenseless, not because they were evil but because, in the scheme of our
lives, they seemed unimportant, not because they were essentially dangerous
but because they were essentially powerless. The new king was crowned when
we cheered the government on as it prosecuted the progeny of our ghettos
and filled our prisons with black men whose first crime was that they were
born in the ghettos. We cheered the new king on as it diluted our right to
be secure in our homes against unlawful searches and to be secure in the
courts against unlawful evidence. We cheered the new king on because we
were told that our sacred rights were but "loopholes" but which our
enemies: the murderers and rapists and thieves and drug dealers, escaped.
We were told that those who fought for our rights, the lawyers, were worse
than the thieves who stole from us in the night, that our juries were
irresponsible and ignorant and ought not to be trusted. We watched with
barely more than a mumble as the legal system that once protected us became
populated with judges who were appointed by the new king. At last the new
king was crowned when we forgot the lessons of history, that:when the
rights of our enemies have been wrested from them, we have lost our own
rights as well, for the same rights serve both citizen and criminal.

When Randy Weaver failed to appear in court because he had lost his trust
in the government we witnessed the fruit of our crime. The government
indeed had no intent to protect his rights. The government had but one
purpose, as it remains today, the disengagement of this citizen from
society. Those who suffered and died in the Holocaust must have exquisitely
understood such illicit motivations of power.

I have said that I was attracted to the case out of my own pain. Let me
tell you the facts: a crack team of trained government marksmen sneaked on
to Randy Weaver's small isolated acreage on a reconnaissance mission
preparatory to a contemplated arrest. They wore camouflage suits and were
heavily armed. They gave Randy no warning of their coming. They came
without a warrant. They never identified themselves.

The Weavers owned 3 dogs, 2 small crossbred collie mutts and a yellow lab,
a big pup a little over a year old whose most potent weapon was his tail
with which he could beat a full grown man to death. The dog, Striker, was a
close member of the Weaver family. Not only was he the companion of the
children, but in winter he pulled the family sled to haul their water
supply from the spring below. When the dogs discovered the intruders they
raised a ruckus, and Randy his friend Kevin, and Randy's 14 year old son
Sam, grabbed their guns and followed the dogs to investigate.

When the government agents were confronted with the barking dog, they did
what men who have been taught to kill do. They shot Striker. The boy,
barely larger than a 10 year old child, heard the dog's yelp, saw the dog
fall dead. and as a 14 year old might, he returned the fire. Then the
government agents shot the child in the arm. He turned and ran. the arm
flopping, and when he did, the officers, still unidentified as such, shot
the child in the back and killed him.

Kevin Harris witnessed the shooting of the dog. Then he saw Sam being shot
as the boy turned and ran. To Kevin there was no alternative. He knew if he
ran these intruders, whoever they were, would kill him as well. In defense
of himself he raised his rifle and shot in the direction of the officer who
had shot and killed the boy. Then while the agents were in disarray, Kevin
retreated to the Weaver cabin.

In the meantime Randy Weaver had been off in another direction and had only
heard the shooting, the dog's yelp and the gunfire that followed. Randy
hollered for his son and shot his shotgun into the air to attract the boy.

"Come on home Sam, Come home."

Over and over he called.

Finally he heard the boy call back "I'm comin' Dad". Those were the last
words he ever heard from his son.

Later that same day, Randy, Kevin, and Vicki Weaver, Randy's wife went down
to where the boy lay and carried his body back to an outbuilding near the
cabin. There they removed the child's clothing and bathed his wounds and
prepared the body. The next evening Weaver's oldest daughter, Sarah,
sixteen, Kevin, and Randy went back to the shed to have a last look at Sam.
When they did, government snipers opened fire. Randy was hit in the
shoulder. The three turned and ran for the house where Vicki, with her 10
month old baby in her arms stood holding the door open. As the 3 entered
the house Vicki was shot and slowly fell to her knees, her head resting on
the floor like one kneeling in prayer. Randy ran up and took the baby that
she clutched, and then he lifted his wife's head. Half her face was blown
away.

Kevin was also hit. Huge areas of muscle in his arm were blown out, and his
lung was punctured in several places. Randy and his 16 year old daughter
stretched the dead mother on the floor of the cabin and covered he with a
blanket where she remained for over 8 days as the siege progressed.

By this time there were officers by the score, troops, armored personnel
carriers, helicopters, radios, televisions, robots, and untold armaments
surrounding the little house. I will not burden you with the misery and
horror the family suffered in this stand-off. I will tell you that finally
Bo Gritz, Randy's former commander in the special forces, came to help in
the negotiations. Gritz told Randy that if he would surrender, Gritz would
guarantee him a fair trial, and before the negotiations were ended, Randy
came to the belief that I would represent him. Although Gritz had contacted
me before I had spoke to Randy, I had only agreed to talk to Randy. But the
accuracy of what was said between Gritz and me and what was hard by Randy
somehow got lost in the horror, and Randy's belief that I would represent
him if he surrendered was in part, his motivation for finally submitting to
arrest.

And so my friend Allan, you can now understand the pain I feel in this
case. It is pain that comes from the realization that we have permitted a
government to act in our name and in our behalf in a criminal fashion. It
is the pain of watching the government as it now attempts to lie about its
criminal complicity in this affair and to cover its crimes by charging
Randy with crimes he did not commit, including murder. It is the pain of
seeing an innocent woman with a child in her arms murdered and innocent
children subjected to these atrocities. Indeed, as a human being I feel
Randy's irrepressible pain and horror and grief.

I also feel your pain, my friend. Yet I know that in the end, if you were
the judge at the trial of Adolph Eichmann, you would have insisted that he
not have ordinary council, but the best council. In the same way, if you
were the judge in Randy's case, and you had a choice, I have no doubt that
despite your own pain you might well have appointed me to defend him. In
the end you must know that the Holocaust must never stand for part
justice,or average justice but for the most noble of ideals--that even the
enemies of the Jews themselves must receive the best justice the system can
provide. If it were otherwise the meaning of the Holocaust would be
accordingly besmirched.

Alan, I agree with your arguments. They are proper and they are true. I
agree that my defense of Randy Weaver may attach a legitimacy and dignity
to his politics and religion. But it may, as well, stand for the
proposition that there are those who don't condone this kind of criminal
action by our government. I view the defense of Randy Waver's case as an
opportunity to address a more vital issue, one that transcends a white
separatist movement  or notions of the supremacy of one race over another,
for the ultimate enemy of any people is not the angry hate groups that
fester within, but a government itself that has lost its respect for the
individual. The ultimate enemy of democracy is not the drug dealer or the
crooked politician or the crazed skinhead. The ultimate enemy is the new
king that has become so powerful it can murder its own citizens with
impunity.
To the same extent that Randy Weaver cannot find justice in this country,
we too will be deprived of justice. At last, my defense of Randy Weaver is
a defense of every Jew and every Gentile, for every black and every gay who
loves freedom and deplores tyranny.

Although I understand that it will be easy for my defense of Randy Weaver
to be confused with an endorsement of the politics of the Aryan Nation, my
challenge will be to demonstrate that we can still be a nation where the
rights of the individual, despite his race, color, religion, remain
supreme. If this be not so, then we are all lost. If this is not so, it is
because we have forgotten the lessons of our histories--the history of the
American Revolution as well as the history of the Holocaust.

And so my friend Allan, If I were to withdraw from the defense of Randy
Weaver as you request, I would be required to abandon my belief that this
system has any remaining virtue. I would be more at fault than the federal
government that has murdered these people, for I have not been trained to
murder but to defend. I would be less of a man than my client who had the
courage of his convictions. I would lose all respect for myself. I would be
unable to any longer be your friend, for friendship must always have its
foundation in respect. Therefore as my friend, I ask that you not require
this of me. I ask instead for your prayers, your understanding and your
continued love.

                                   As ever,

                                   Gerry Spence
                                   Jackson Hole, Wyoming



"From Freedom To Slavery, The Rebirth Of Tyranny In America"
by Gerry Spence
$10.95
St. Martin's Press
175 Fifth Ave
NY, NY, 10010 USA

    Yeah, that's the thing Mike was talking about.  And here, verbatim
    (typo and all), is what I said to Mike about it in mail.  Hell, if
    Gerry Spence can publish his letters, why can't I?  (Of course, he's
    making money from his...)
    
    --------
    
    Interesting read.  I have to agree that Spence's choice to defend
    Weaver is right.
    
    But Weaver's choice to cut off shotgun barrels, even if instigated
    by a deliberate attempt on the part of a federal agent to entrap
    him, was ENTIRELY his own.
    
    My brother served in thge Navy; his duty station was the Key West Naval
    Air Station.  One of the favorite stunts of the Key West police was to
    follow a car at night, on a two-lane road with curbs and no breakdown
    lanes.  The cop would come up right behind the victim, headlights
    blazing in the victim's mirror, just urging the victim to speed up.
    When the victim sped up, WHAM!  On went the blues, and there was one
    more ticket for the revenue collection.  My brother never suckered.
    
    Weaver's situation was like my brother's.  He could simply have said
    no.  And he could have repeated it as often as he was asked.  He
    didn't.  When he chose to violate the law, the consequences - up to and
    including the deaths of his wife and son - fell on his hands and his
    hands alone.  Even after he cut off the guns, he could have appeared
    when summoned and spared his family all the death and destruction.  He
    didn't.  Then, when they showed up to besiege his cabin, he could have
    thrown out his guns and walked out, hands behind his head.  He didn't.
    The law says that the person last able to avoid an automobile accident
    is responsible for that accident.  Weaver had the chance to avoid the
    "accident" in Idaho; but he didn't step aside, he walked into it with
    guns blazing.  With his first shot he bought the bullets and the blood,
    all of it.
    
    The feds cheated, and they screwed up, yes.  Yes, yes, and again yes.
    This is why Spence made the right choice in taking Weaver's defense.
    But the feds are not at fault for the deaths of Weaver's wife and child
    or the wounding of Weaver himself.

    Dick,

    Weaver cut the barrel after the agents pestered him... on
    several occasions. And... he very well may have cut it
    too short by accident. Supposedly, the margin between the
    legal length and the length he cut it was 1/4", and was
    more than accounted for by how one might measure the barrel
    (where does the barrel length start).

    AND... the real clincher. They did not arrest Weaver when
    he cut the barrel. No, the came back with an army to do
    that...

    We're not talking about the games dimwitted townie cops
    play here...

    -b

    Gerry Spence is a good and eloquent lawyer; he's provided some
    of the best commentary and analysis in the Simpson case.
    
    Last week, when asked point blank if he would represent Timothy
    McVeigh he said he would probably have to decline.  He said that
    after defending Weaver he couldn't put his family through that
    sort of ordeal again.
    
    

    
    Mr. Binder
    
     I do belive if you reserch deeply that Weaver couldn't show up on the
    right date as the Feds had the court date changed and failed to tell
    weaver about the change...
     There is more to this than has been let out to the public and thats
    the big problem.
    
    Dave

    .246
    
    > Weaver cut the barrel after the agents pestered him...
    
    Okay, Brian, how much will I have to pester you to get you to cut the
    barrel of my shotgun to 15.9" in length?
    
    WEAVER COULD HAVE SAID NO.  HE COULD HAVE KEPT ON SAYING NO.  HE
    DIDN'T.

�         When he chose to violate the law, the consequences - up to and
�    including the deaths of his wife and son - fell on his hands and his
�    hands alone.  

  So binder, does this mean when the police fail to notify you of a 
  court date to show up to answer a summons, its okay for government agents 
  to sneak up on your house and shoot your family without warning???

    .250
    
    So the agents sneak up and say come out or we'll shoot, I'm not fool
    enough to send small pieces of lead out to do my talking.

    
    
    	re: .251
    
    	Agents didn't say anything. They shot his dog and his son without
    so much as a verbal response. 
    
    
    jim

    Re .245:
    
    > When he chose to violate the law, . . .
    
    Weaver was acquitted.
    
    > . . . the consequences - up to and including the deaths of his wife
    > and son - fell on his hands and his hands alone.
    
    If the consequences are on the hands of the person who violated the
    law, then the consequences are on the hands of the government agents
    who violated the law.
    
    > Even after he cut off the guns, he could have appeared when summoned
    > . . .
    
    Sure, he could have appeared when summoned if the court had bothered to
    send him a notice of the changed trial date.  They did not.
    
    > Then, when they showed up to besiege his cabin, he could have thrown
    out his guns and walked out, hands behind his head.  He didn't.
    
    > The law says that the person last able to avoid an automobile
    > accident is responsible for that accident.  Weaver had the chance to
    > avoid the "accident" in Idaho; but he didn't step aside, he walked into
    > it with guns blazing.  With his first shot he bought the bullets and
    > the blood, all of it.
    
    You have the facts wrong.  Weaver didn't 'walk in" guns blazing; he was
    at home, not walking anywhere.  The FBI went in, guns blazing.  The FBI
    shot first.  The FBI killed first.  The FBI killed a dog, a friend of
    Weaver, and an unarmed woman holding a baby.  Weaver did none of those.
    
    With the FBI's first shot, they bought the bullets and the blood, all
    of it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    
    Dick, looks like the ball's in your court.
    

Previous to this encounter the authorities had met several times with Weaver
as federal agents and several times as undercover agents. What possessed them
to sneak up, shoot a dog and a kid all before announcing who they were
is beyond me. I can only think that the commander had a rambo complex.

"Hey! He finally did something wrong! (didn't show up for a court, bigtime 
criminal act eh!) let's go get em!!!! Lock and load!"


Doug.

    I guess according to the ATF, failure to appear in court is punishable
    by firing squad.  
    
    So what crime did the dog, Weaver's kid and wife, and the neighbor
    boy commit?  Jaywalking through the woods?  Possession of an assault
    baby?  Barking without a license?  Conspiracy to investigate an exited
    pooch?  
    
    
    -steve

|So where is Randy Weaver now?          
    
    Do you want the truth?  Or do you want more of the misinformation and
    lies spread over the net?
    
    The truth:
    
    
    Randy Weaver was *CONVICTED* of two counts of failing to appear in
    court.  He served 18 months in federal prison, and is now free on
    parole.  He is living with his parents and surviving on suplemental
    social security income checks.  As is true many convicted paroled
    felons his travels are now restricted.  He says he plans to return
    to Ruby Ridge at the end of the year when his parole is over.
    
    He is still pressing on with his frivolous lawsuit against the
    government, seeking damages and punitive damages in the 8 figures.
    
    The lies:
    
    Well, we've all read the lies here and on the information highway,
    again and again and again and again.
    
    								-mr. bill

>    The lies:
>    
>    Well, we've all read the lies here and on the information highway,
>    again and again and again and again.

Sob!  I admit it.  I lied in .237.

    re: .257
    
    The only thing frivelous about the lawsuit is the amount (if your
    estimate is correct).  Of course, how do you put a dollar figure on a
    wife and son that were needlessly killed by overzealous gubmint agents?
    
    -steve

    I lied.
    It is a nine figure lawsuit.
    
    And it is a frivolous lawsuit at one figure.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Why do you say that, Mr. Bill?

    
    	re: weaver conviction
    
    	He was convicted of failing to appear for court, but was found not
    guilty as far as altering the firearms went (barrels cut too short).
    
    	Failure to appear in court gets your wife and kid killed (along
    with the family dog)? Seems a bit harsh, wouldn't you say?
    
    
    jim
       

    Not if you are a right winger. Then anything goes, and blame the victim
    is the most enjoyable of all pastimes.

          <<< Note 362.263 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    Not if you are a right winger. Then anything goes, and blame the victim
>    is the most enjoyable of all pastimes.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, Doctah. Is it:

This would never happen under Reagan?

or

Me and 'ol Weaver are like two peas in a pod?

or both?

   <<< Note 362.257 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Do you want the truth?  Or do you want more of the misinformation and
>    lies spread over the net?
 
	One interesting piece of data that I learned yesterday. The Defense
	believed that the Fed's case was so weak, they chose not to present
	any testimony. They rested without calling a single witness.

Jim

   <<< Note 362.260 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    I lied.
>    It is a nine figure lawsuit.
    
>    And it is a frivolous lawsuit at one figure.
 
	Are you then supporting the actions of the ATF agents? I'd would
	very much like to hear your defense of the fact that they opened
	fire, killing Weaver's dog, without announcing their presence or
	the fact that they were Federal Agents. Then of course, there is
	the bullet hole in the BACK of Weaver's son. And that was before
	the event got totally out of hand with the FBI's HRT.

Jim

    
    Forget it Jim... they were criminals, and being criminals.. they got
    what they deserved....
    

    >Forget it Jim... they were criminals, and being criminals.. they got
    >what they deserved....
    
     Nay, nay! If they had merely raped and tortured a series of young
    girls to death, been involved in gangland killings, or merely been
    violent hoodlums with long histories of mayhem, Bill would be
    outrayyged at their treatment by authorities. Society would have
    somehow been at fault in the first place, so the police would have had
    to have used kid gloves on them. But, fortunately this was a man who
    did not like black people and wanted to live away from them, so he is
    clearly the lowest form of scum inhabiting the earth and therefore
    entitled to see his family summarily executed by the benevolent
    protectors of our country. My goodness gracious, the guy even believed
    he had a right to arm himself! There's nothing they can do to such an
    individual that he doesn't deserve.

    WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
    >>this was a man who did not like black people and wanted to live away
    >>from them,
    
     Is it so hard to say racist ? Or would that tarnish the image of
    St. Weaver ?
    
    							Derek.

    
    
    	Derek, are you that obtuse? No one is calling Mr. Weaver a saint.
    Yes, he is a racist. That is not a crime and if it were I doubt it
    would be punishable by killing off one's family. I suppose it would be
    easier just to kill off everyone who's opinion and lifestyle does not
    match yours eh?
    
    
    jim

    what jim said.

    >Is it so hard to say racist ? Or would that tarnish the image of
    >St. Weaver ?
    
     I didn't think the label had much impact, frankly, and I wanted to
    distinguish between Weaver's actual beliefs and the "white supremacist"
    pejorative so casually applied in the media. White separatist is far
    more accurate. Rather like MinLouF, without the hate preaching and
    large following (and wealth).

    WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
     And I was trying to point out, that to me, the difference between a
    "white supremacist" and a "white separatist" is the second knows how
    bad the first sounds so they don't use it. Racist is the word I use to
    describe both, because the label fits. When I see people couch the
    reality in nice wording like white seperatist I call them out on it.
    If you honestly think there is a real difference between a racist and
    "a man who did not like black people and wanted to live away from them"
    then I suspect you need either to clean your glasses, or get new ones.
    
    							Derek

    
    "There **should** be a law..."
    
    What kind of law did you have in mind, Derek?
    

    >Racist is the word I use to describe both, because the label fits. 
    
     It has also become so overused and casually slung that it has just
    about lost its meaning. hence the boxterm "rassist."
    
    >When I see people couch the reality in nice wording like white 
    >seperatist I call them out on it.
    
     I'll take you seriously when you start "calling" people when they use
    the term black separatist.

    
    
    
    Actually they are different, Derek.  One holds no anymosity towards
    people of different nationalities and color, they just don't think the
    races should mix.  The other thinks one is superior to the other. 
    There are very few true seperatists.
    
    
    Mike

    SUBPAC::SADIN
    
     Jim,
    
     Please do not assume what I think. I live in a country with no death
    penalty, and agree with it. I suspect you would be more willing to
    "kill off" people than me. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE DEATH PENALTY ?
    
    I deplore the amount of killing done by American law enfocement types. I
    just don't think the nice guy, I just want to stay away from bad people
    label, is appropriate. I am sure I have read that he was an instigator,
    not a innocent, in the racial problems America has.
    
    							Derek.

    TROOA::COLLINS
    
     Our hate crime law would be a good start.
    
    				Derek.

    WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
    >>I'll take you seriously when you start "calling" people when they use
    >>the term black separatist
    
     Show me where, and I'll "call" on them too. The 50 year memorials
    recently have forcibly reminded me where this type of thinking leads,
    and that I have a responsibility to ensure that all those lives were
    not lost for nothing.
    
     As for the "separatist" being peaceful. What happens when the
    undesireable move into the same housing development ? The peaceful
    seperatists move elsewhere ?  I don't think so Tim.
    
    							Derek.

     GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER
    
     Could you explain *why* the seperatists "just don't think the races
    should mix" without saying someting racist ?
    
    							Derek.

    
    .278, Derek:
    
    I fail to see how wanting to live in the woods away from blacks is
    any kind of hate `crime'.  Was Weaver guilty of something else that
    I might not be aware of?
    

    re: Percivial (.266)
    
|   Are you then supporting the actions of the ATF agents?
    
    No.
    
    Nobody deserved the mayhem that took place on that ridge.
    
    NOBODY.
    
    But unlike you, I know who is responsible for that mayhem.
                        
    (If this frivolous lawsuit ever gets to a jury I bet the jury will
    know who is repsonsible too.  But that will just prove the conspiracy
    is that much larger, won't it?)
    
    re: Krawiecki and Levesque (.267, .268)
    
    Helpful hint.  Since you clearly have such a hard time thinking for
    yourselves, don't even think of trying to think for somebody else.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    re: .282
    
    Helpful hint back at ya...
    
     My "inane" response was to be an echo of your "inane" response...
    
     As for your usual cracks... get bent...
    

    
    re: .273
    
    >    -< There **should** be a law.... >-
    
     Good!! The you wouldn't mind seeing the likes of "Rev" Jesse Jackson
    or "Rev" Al Sharpton get what the "law" has coming... right??
    

    
    
    Well, since I don't feel that way, I can't really say.  If the motive
    is a feeling of superiority over someone who is different, than it's 
    supremacy.  There are those who honestly feel that it's just that the
    people are different and shouldn't mix.  I've seen this attitude from
    Blacks, Whites, Orientals, Asians, etc, etc, etc.
    
    
    Mike

    TROOA::COLLINS
    
     I will have to look up some info, but in America, you can publish and
    distribute holocaust denial literature and claim it is freedom of
    speech. You cannot do that here. That is the specific starting point I
    was refering to. As I said, I am sure Mr. Weaver was not an innocent in
    this, but that in no way justifies the death of his family. Since i
    don't think the state has the right to put any of it's people to death,
    it follows that I think these deaths were wrong too.
    
    								Derek.

    And who is responsible, in your mind, Mr. Bill?  Inquiring minds...

    >As I said, I am sure Mr. Weaver was not an innocent in this,
    
     Well, then it will be a simple matter to list his crimes.
    

    SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI
    
     Equal under the law. JJ seems to be right on the edge, I don't follow
    him or Al Sharpton, so I can't really say wether they are racist or
    not. If they promote hate, then they are as bad as the rest.
    
    							Derek.

    
    Derek,
    
    I am familiar with Canada's `hate' law.  In what way would such a law
    apply to Randy Weaver?
    

    WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
     In america it is not a crime to be a racist, so it may not be a "simple
    matter" to list them. I said he was not an innocent (as in innocent
    bystander) in the racial problems of America. That does not equate to
    criminal. I beleive the Mcleans article I referenced is where I saw the
    background on this guy, and what a suprise, I don't have a two month old
    mag at my desk for reference. With the wealth of knowledge in here you
    mean to tell me that a Canadian has to supply you with a bio on him ?
    Or maybe it is not pretty, so those that know are not telling ?
    
    								Derek.

    
    re: .289
    
    > JJ seems to be right on the edge,
    
    
    Sorry Derek.... that's like saying someone is "just a little bit
    pregnant"...
    
      Racists should not be defended by double-talk... no matter what their
    color...
    

    TROOA::COLLINS
    
     I don't think I ever said it did. You asked what kind of law, I gave
    an example of a good place to start.
    
    							Derek.

    
    Context is everything, Derek.
    
    :^)
    

    SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI
    
     Fine, JJ is a racist, I really don't know, because I virtually never
    see anything about him. What little I do see, does not qualify him as a
    racist, but I will bow to your superior knowledge.
    
    							Derek.

    Derek,
    What is this "Hate Crime" Law that you keep talking about?  What does
    it prevent people from doing?
    
    Dan

    
    re: .295
    
     > superior knowledge.
    
     You want to be sarcastic? Fine... 
    
    "superior knowledge" has nothing to do with it... his own words speak
    for themselves...
    
      The hypocrisy of the whole thing is that everyone seems to focus on
    the white man when racism/bigotry comes up (justified in many cases,
    btw), but when some of the same things are said by "people of color",
    there's usually an excuse/explanation for it... 
    
    >What little I do see, does not qualify him as a racist,
    
     Selective media... but then I'll be accused of being paranoid and/or a
    conspiracy nut...

    
    .296
    
    It is against the law in Canada to publish false *and* malicious
    statements about identifiable groups, such as blacks, Jews, etc.
    

    >I said he was not an innocent (as in innocent
    >bystander) in the racial problems of America.
    
     Fine. Now support that contention. What, specifically, did he do to
    promote "the racial problems of America"?
    
     You're bleating about a purported "inability" to call a racist a racist,
    but that's just smoke to cover your inability to support your
    accusations with facts. My statement clearly defined Weaver's behavior,
    far better than a simple pejorative moniker. You were offended by the
    lack of a simple label that could be used to discredit the victim.
    Tough noogies. The man wasn't going around burning crosses on people's
    lawns, after all, he was living in the wilderness away from black
    people. A horse of a different, dare I say, color. But because you find
    it convenient to lump racists of all stripes together, from people who
    say honky or "darkies" to people who participate in actual lynchings,
    we should be all a-twitter about being more accurate and saying exactly
    what the guy is about.
    
     Get off it. Pony up with facts that show Weaver to have been more
    active in making "the racial problems of America" worse or bog off.
    
     Then you can explain why anything he's done justifies, excuses, or
    mitigates the government's response (since that is the real issue we've
    been talking about for lo these many notes- NOT the stupid racist label
    quibble.)

    SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI
    
     I would propose that a more complete knowledge of what the man says is
    "superior knowledge". To which I bow. 
    
    							Derek.

    WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
     A little testy today are we ? I already stated:
    
     1. The information I needed to reference was not here
     2. There is no justification for what happened to his family
    
     And i will point out that just by believing there is merit in the
    "white seperatist" cause he is contributing to the racial problems in
    America. OR do you not see it that way ?
    
    How much further he has gone is apparently up to a selective media starved
    Canadian to supply. I will look for the article, if I don't find it,
    sorry, R Weaver is a saint, and all those anti-black feelings he has are
    not really a sign that he is a racist.
    
    								Derek.

    WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
    >>lump racists of all stripes together, from people who say honky or
    >>"darkies" to people who participate in actual lynchings,
    
     As has been stated, to me, "a little racist" is like "a little pregnant".
    
    
    							Derek.

    
      Actually, I was trying the other day to determine if I'm a
     racist, but failed.  A liberal friend (yes, I have one) said
     he has wondered the same thing.
    
      How can you tell ?
    
      bb

    >A little testy today are we ? 
    
     Annoyed by your asinine and increasingly disjointed statements.
    If you don't have anything to add, then consider the wisdom of silence.
    
    > And i will point out that just by believing there is merit in the
    >"white seperatist" cause he is contributing to the racial problems in
    >America. OR do you not see it that way ?
    
     I disagree, but, again, that is a completely separate issue. What made
    this particular racist so different that the government decided to pick
    on him? Hmmm? He wasn't bothering anybody, so his beliefs are
    irrelevant. Staying in the woods to avoid black people is no different
    than staying in the woods to avoid people in general; it's called
    minding your own business and is generally not considered to be
    problematic.
    
    >I will look for the article, if I don't find it, sorry, R Weaver is a 
    >saint, and all those anti-black feelings he has are not really a sign 
    >that he is a racist.
    
     You so utterly miss the point that it astounds me. First of all, I
    take exception to your adolescent obsequiousness. Nobody ever said he
    was a saint, so WTF are you bringing up such a canard? It sounds like
    you just paid your five shillings to get an argument.[Simple
    contradiction is not an argument. Yes it is. Isn't. 'Tis. etc, ad
    nauseum] The issue of whether he is or is not a racist could hardly be
    less relevant to his treatment by the government, some of whom are
    likely as racist (or more) as he is. So why bring it up? Claiming that
    he is not "an innocent" by virtue of his racism has what value? One can
    only presume it serves to mitigate the harm perpetrated upon him by the
    government, which you inconsistently then claim was unjustified to do
    to him what they did.
    
     So, Derek, tell us what exactly was the point you were trying to make,
    and please, oh, please tell us how it is relevant to the subject being
    discussed. If possible.

    Derek,
    
    Who determines that the statement is false and malicious?
    Is it enough that the statement is false, or must there have been a
    malicious intent?  I'm not really trying to nit pic, I'm trying to
    understand the law you have, that you are proposing we, your southern
    neighbor consider.
    
    Dan

    yeah, better to delete that one, bill.

    WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
     My point ? I think I made it pretty clear in .273.
    
    >>When I see people couch the reality in nice wording like white
    >>seperatist I call them out on it
    
     Additionally, you state
    
    >>One can only presume it serves to mitigate the harm perpetrated upon him
    >>by the government
    
     The fault is in the word "presume". If you think being a racist
    somehow mitigates the tragedy that this man went through in my mind,
    you really are reading in far more than has been stated. The reason I
    refer to him as a saint, is because the white washing of his racist
    views to make him more pityable, is as bad as saying that because he
    was a racist he deserved what he got. Pointing that out was the desire,
    maybe I should have called him a "Good 'ol Boy" ?
    
    							Derek.

    
    Note 362.305, Dan:
    
    Tho' I am not Derek:
        
    >Who determines that the statement is false and malicious?
    
    The court, if a charge is laid.  A charge is laid only at the discretion
    of the Attorney-General (or is it Solicitor-General?  I never could
    keep those two straight! :^)
    
    >Is it enough that the statement is false, or must there have been a
    >malicious intent?
    
    Both must be present.  It's kind of like a slander law, except that
    the slandered party is a minority group rather than an individual or
    business.
    
    jc
    

   <<< Note 362.282 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>|   Are you then supporting the actions of the ATF agents?
    
>    No.
    
>    Nobody deserved the mayhem that took place on that ridge.
    
>    NOBODY.
 
	Then the logical conclusion would be to look for the person
	or persons that escalated the situation. Right?

	According to the court testimony presented BY THE PROSECUTION,
	that person was a US Marshall.

>    But unlike you, I know who is responsible for that mayhem.
 
	I realize that you relish the role of professional victim,
	never even THINKING about responding to an agressor with equal 
	force, but most normal humans will react poorly to being shot at
	by an unknown assailant. 

	I know that I would react to an unknown person shooting one of
	my dogs, or firing shots at me or my home.

	REMEMBER, the Marshall did not announce who he was OR why he
	was there. He simply opened fire. That fire was returned.
	He then shot a 14 year old boy IN THE BACK. And the boy's
	father, STILL not knowing who was doing the shooting, shot
	and killed him.

	Then it got really ugly. 400 Federal agents. At this point, it
	certainly would have been better for Weaver to have surrendered.
	But given the events AND his dead son, I can at least appreciate,
	if not approve of, his reluctance to do so.

	It took the death of his unarmed wife, shot by a member of the
	FBI's HRT who testified UNDER OATH that he could shoot the center
	out of a quarter at 100 yards but claimed that the headshot that
	killed Mrs. Weaver was an accident, to convince Weaver that he
	should give himself up.

	You so desperately want to believe that you know who is responsible,
	but it's quite obvious that you don't have a clue.

	Please note that ALL of the above sequence of events comes 
	DIRECTLY from the court testimony of PROSECUTION witnesses.
	The defense did not even have to present a case in order
	to win an aqcuittal on all but two misdemeanor counts.

	You don't judge the actions of police officers or Federal agents
	based on who the suspect is. You judge their actions seperately.
	That way, you deal with the problems of abuse of power, excessive
	force and incompetency regardless of whether there are Democrats
	or Republicans in office or whether their victims are right wingers
	or liberals.

Jim

    
    	re: Derek
    
    	You are an idiot. No one here has given "saint" status to Mr.
    Weaver, or even said they approve of his lifestyle. Your argument is
    based entirely on semantics and I've seen better points made by a 6yr
    old that doesn't want to go to school. Quit before you fall more behind
    than you already are...
    
    
    jim

    
    Ok mr bill
    
    Who was responsible?
    
    Don't pull a chelsea now, just swallow hard and state it!

Racist or not, seperatist or not, saint or not, who the hell cares? It's
irrelevant to the point we're trying to make.

Read the details of the attack (no other adequate word). This Rambo style of
law enforcement has become all too common.

WHY are law enforcement officers getting military training of late? What army
are they being trained to fight? Drug gangs? Their alleged penchant for
military weapons and tactics is demonstrably false.

    .308
    
    On the information that I have right now, I would be opposed to such a
    law.  It basically amounts to giving the government the right to
    prosecute any individual who's beliefs they (the government) disagree
    with or find objectionable.  For example if a person were to write
    something that highly criticised the govenment (which is an
    identifiable organization) they could be prosecuted if there were ANY
    inaccuracies in what they wrote.  All the government would have to do
    would be to prove that the writer did it with malice.  The question
    comes down to the definition of malice.  Is this document sufficent to
    be defined malicious?  It might be for a judge appointed by our fearless
    leader(s) Bill and Hillary Clinton.
    
    Just a thought,
    Dan
    

    
    Dan,
    
    I will look up the exact wording of the law this weekend, but take my
    word for it...it is not written in such a way as to allow a gov't to
    use it in that fashion.  It specifically protects racial, ethnic, and
    religious groups.  It is no more dangerous than any libel or slander
    law that is now on the books, and one might argue that this law
    actually protects such groups from political persecution of the type
    that occurred in Germany in the '30s and 40's.
    
    jc
    

    SUBPAC::SADIN
    
    You say I think it's ok to kill people who don't agree with my
    opinions. I prove that this cannot be true, and I am the idiot who
    can't make a point ?
    
    I am sorry if you were somehow insulted in the fray.
    
    							Derek.

    >The reason I refer to him as a saint, is because the white washing 
    >of his racist views to make him more pityable
    
     There has been no whitewashing. Your erroneous assumption is now
    obvious.
    
     His actions were laid out for the reader. Most readers, despite your
    fears to the contrary, are capable of recognizing those actions as
    racist without needing the label thrown at them.

     WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
    >>Most readers, despite your fears to the contrary, are capable of
    >>recognizing those actions as racist without needing the label thrown at
    >>them.
    
     When I see people saying that wanting to live apart from another race
    is being a seperatist and not a racist, I have to doubt the truth of
    your assumption.
    
    							Derek.

    Ah, but Derek, Mark never said it wasn't racist, he said he didn't
    feel the need to utilize the label.  There's a big difference between
    the two.

    
    
    If there is no hostility towards other people, how is it racist (not
    saying he wasn't, I do not know having not known the person in
    question).
    
    
    Mike

    WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
     perhaps it was a misunderstanding. When you said:
    
    >>I wanted to distinguish between Weaver's actual beliefs and the "white
    >>supremacist" pejorative so casually applied in the media. White
    >>separatist is far more accurate. 
    
     I took it as a white wash. I have heard white seperatists on TV, and
    no matter how they slice it, they are racists, with a large amount of
    hate for non-whites. I see no real difference between the two. Scratch
    a white seperatist, and you'll find a white supremacist. For me the
    term racist "is far more accurate".
    
    							Derek.

    GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER
    
    >>If there is no hostility...
    
     Judging people based on race, is racism.
    
    
    				Derek.

    
    
    
    But thinking that the races shouldn't mix is not judging them.  As I
    said before, there are very few true seperatists.  The majority are
    racist.
    
    Mike

    People are judged in various ways all the time, where does one draw the
    line? I think it's when people are affected in some way.

    Mike,
    
     I honestly cannot envision a seperatist not being a racist. The ones I 
    have seen claim no ill will towards other races. They just want them
    all to move out of Toronto to northern Ontario. If you have ever been
    in northern Ontario during black fly season, you would understand why I
    assume they must hate the other races.
    
    							Derek.

    
    
    That's why I say they are few and far between.
    
    
    And, I was up in new hampster during black fly season, still have the
    bites to prove it. :')
    

    .313, Dan:
    
    Here is the hate law Derek and I were referring to.  I imagine it's 
    probably not to American tastes, but I think it's a pretty good law,
    all things considered.
    
    
  Criminal Code Of Canada

  Section 318:

  (1) Everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable
 offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeeding five years.

  (2) In this section "genocide" means any of the following acts committed
 with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
  (a) killing members of the group; or
  (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
 bring about its physical destruction.

  (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted
 without the consent of the Attorney General.

  (4) In this section "identifiable group" means any section of the public
 distinguished by colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin.

  Section 319:

  (1) Everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites
 hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to
 lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offense and is 
 liable to imprisonment  for a term not exceeding two years.

  (2) Everyone who, in communicating statements, other than in private
 conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is
 guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term
 not exceeding two years.

  (3) No person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (2) 
  (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
  (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument
 an opinion upon a religious subject;
  (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the
 discussion of which was for public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he
 believed them to be true; or
  (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal,
 matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred towards an
 identifiable group in Canada.

  (4) Where a person is convicted of an offense under Section 318 or subsection
 (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the 
 offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other
 punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge to be
 forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is
 convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

  (5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circum-
 stances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section. 

  (6) No proceeding for an offense under subsection (2) shall be instituted
 without the consent of the Attorney General.

  (7) In this section,

 "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting, or other
 audible or visible means;

 "identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318

 "public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right
 or by invitation, express or implied;

 "statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or
 electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible
 representations.

     <<< Note 362.326 by TROOA::COLLINS "On a wavelength far from home." >>>

>    Here is the hate law Derek and I were referring to.  I imagine it's 
>    probably not to American tastes, 

	True.

>but I think it's a pretty good law,
>    all things considered.
 
	Your choice, I guess.

	BTW, we should note that Randy Weaver would not be charged
	under this law.

   
Jim

    
    Note 362.327

	>BTW, we should note that Randy Weaver would not be charged
	>under this law.
    
    Ummm...in case I have not been clear on this point...I am not
    proposing that the U.S. adopt such a law, nor do I believe it
    applies to the Randy Weaver case.
    
    jc

    No, you did not propose that this law be adopted, but I believe that
    Derek suggested that it should be.  I must agree with Jim though, that
    this law is NOT to at least my liking.  It goes against many of the
    basic beliefs in this country.  Freedom of speech, deprivation of
    property, etc.
    
    Dan
    

re: 309 SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO"

>	REMEMBER, the Marshall did not announce who he was OR why he
>	was there. He simply opened fire. That fire was returned.
>	He then shot a 14 year old boy IN THE BACK. And the boy's
>	father, STILL not knowing who was doing the shooting, shot
>	and killed him.

  I had read that the boy shot the officer after the officer shot the dog,
  and that the boy was then shot by a second officer while running back to 
  the house.  Which version is accurate?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: 310 SUBPAC::SADIN "We the people?"

>    	re: Derek
>    
>    	You are an idiot.

  Jim, lets not stoop to Mr. bills level ...  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: 282 PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left"

>    But unlike you, I know who is responsible for that mayhem.

   I would truely like to know who you think was responsible and why you came
   to that conclusion.


>  Helpful hint.  Since you clearly have such a hard time thinking for
>   yourselves, don't even think of trying to think for somebody else.

  Yet another example of trying to say something without saying anything.
  
  Doug.
  

    
    .329, Dan:
    
    Yes...well...freedom of speech, even in the U.S., is not absolute.
    
    Consider, say, ten or twenty years from now, when Dan Killoran is a
    presidential candidate, and I decide to smear him by publishing
    statements to the effect that he used to sexually molest 10-year-old
    boys, steal Pentium chips from work, beat his wife, and leave gum 
    under his desk.
    
    How free am I to publish these statements without retribution?
    
    How free are you to threaten to kill the President?  Or to kill
    your neighbour?
    
    jc
    

    
>  Jim, lets not stoop to Mr. bills level ...  
    
    	Sorry 'bout that. Hard to keep myself in check when dealing with
    garbage like this....
    
    
    jim

    .331, jc:
    
    What you are talking about is a personal assault on an individual. 
    This is not a CRIMINAL matter, it is a CIVIL matter.  I, as the
    offended, person must decide whether or not to take offense.  I decide
    to take you to court or not, not the state.  Also, as far as I know,
    there is no way that a person would be forced to serve JAIL TIME for
    slander.  There is a difference between saying that you would like to
    cause someone grave personal injury, and actually doing it.  In my
    opinion, the president should not be allowed greater protection under
    law, than any other citizen of this country.  There is a fine line
    between saying you would like to hurt someone, and actual assault which
    is a criminal offence.
    
    Dan

                       <<< Note 362.330 by BRITE::FYFE >>>

>  I had read that the boy shot the officer after the officer shot the dog,
>  and that the boy was then shot by a second officer while running back to 
>  the house.  Which version is accurate?

	The Marshall shot the dog, the boy fired in the direction of
	the shots to no effect. Weaver called to his son to return to the
	house, the Marshall shot the boy, Weaver shot the Marshall.

Jim

    
    	RE: Dan
    
    	Assault is the act of attacking/threatening someone.  This doesn't
    	require physical contact.
    
    	An armed asailant that points a gun [loaded or not] at someone is
    	guilty of assault.
    
    	Battery is the act of striking/contacting someone.
    
    	An armed assailant that whacks someone over the head with a weapon
    	is guilty of battery.
    

    .333, Dan:
    
    >What you are talking about is a personal assault on an individual.

    So if the offended party is a person or a business, then there is
    recourse under the law.  But if the offended party is the entire
    black or hispanic or jewish community...?
  
    >This is not a CRIMINAL matter, it is a CIVIL matter.

    So?  It's still punished, and financial punishment can be as oppressive
    as incarceration.

    >I, as the offended, person must decide whether or not to take offense.

    And who speaks for the black or jewish community?  Should those groups
    as a whole institute class-action suits against the liar?  Or should
    the liar be required to defend himself against a multitude of such
    suits?  And, finally, isn't the end result the same...that the liar
    DOES NOT have unfettered rights of free speech?

    >There is a difference between saying that you would like to
    >cause someone grave personal injury, and actually doing it.

    I'm not so certain about that, Dan.  To incite violence against a group
    can easily precipitate that violence, as Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda,
    and the former Yugoslavia have shown us.  Besides, the mere threat of
    violence is often enough to produce a desired result, if the threatened
    one firmly believes in the capacity and preparedness of the threatening
    one.

    What this law says to minorities in Canada is that they have the right
    to live free from such threats and harassment.

    jc

    .335,  I am aware of the definitions of assault, as well as battery. 
    Did I make a mistake in my statements?
    
    .336
    
    >So if the offended party is a person or a business, then there is
    >recourse under the law.  But if the offended party is the entire
    >black or hispanic or jewish community...?
  
    There is legal CIVIL recourse, as you pointed out ...
    
    >And who speaks for the black or jewish community?  Should those groups
    >as a whole institute class-action suits against the liar?  Or should
    >the liar be required to defend himself against a multitude of such
    >suits? 
    
    I believe that a class action suit would be the appropriate response.
    
    >So?  It's still punished, and financial punishment can be as oppressive
    >as incarceration.

    Horse hockey !  If this were true, why do we send murderers to jail and
    fine people for speeding?
    
    >>There is a difference between saying that you would like to
    >>cause someone grave personal injury, and actually doing it.

    >I'm not so certain about that, Dan.  
    
    Excuse me !?!?  I find it difficult to believe that you equate saying
    with doing.  There are a number of individuals that I would like to
    cause injury to for various reasons, but I would not because I am a
    responsible and reasonable adult; and I wish to remain a citizen of my
    community.  That is one of the costs of being a citizen, respecting the
    rights of the other citizens.
    
    >To incite violence against a group
    >can easily precipitate that violence, as Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda,
    >and the former Yugoslavia have shown us.
    
    Inciting a riot is a criminal offence in this country I believe.
    
    >Besides, the mere threat of
    >violence is often enough to produce a desired result, if the threatened
    >one firmly believes in the capacity and preparedness of the threatening
    >one.

    This is why assault is a criminal offense.  But it is very stringently
    defined.
    
    >What this law says to minorities in Canada is that they have the right
    >to live free from such threats and harassment.

    No, what the Canadian law says is that the government is going to take
    away the freedom of individuals in exchange for a sense of security.  A
    sense of security, because the only true security comes from the people
    of the country, not the government.
    
    Dan

    
    >law, than any other citizen of this country.  There is a fine line
    >between saying you would like to hurt someone, and actual assault which
    >is a criminal offence.
    
    
    	This is the statement I picked up on.
    
    	A threat is assault.
    

    The threat of force should be punished just slightly less than the force
    itself. Both steal the feeling of security from an individual and both
    are objective crimes.
    
    ...Tom

   >>law, than any other citizen of this country.  There is a fine line
   >>between saying you would like to hurt someone, and actual assault which
   >>is a criminal offence.
    
   >This is the statement I picked up on.
   >A threat is assault.
   
    Correct, but saying "I'd like to punch his lights out..." is not
    necessarily a threat.
    
    Dan
    

    .337, Dan:
    
    >There is legal CIVIL recourse, as you pointed out ...

    Then free speech is not absolute, is it?
    
    >I believe that a class action suit would be the appropriate response.

    Under this law, the gov't can step in to represent the offended group.
    
    >Horse hockey !  If this were true, why do we send murderers to jail and
    >fine people for speeding?

    Does speeding carry a million dollar fine?  How about ten million?
    One hundred million?  What figure do you think would be sought, based
    on the current litigiousness of your citizenry?
    
    >Excuse me !?!?  I find it difficult to believe that you equate saying
    >with doing.

    Shawn made this point about as clearly as it can be made.  Threatening
    to kill me to get my wallet is liable to get you my wallet.  Threatening
    to eat a thousand marshmallows to get my wallet will not likely have
    the same result.  That's why one is legal and the other is not, in both
    our countries, I imagine.

    >That is one of the costs of being a citizen, respecting the
    >rights of the other citizens.

    Well, Canadian citizens apparently enjoy at least some rights that
    American citizens do not, if I'm following your argument.  The right
    to freedom from harassment and defamation based on race, colour, or 
    religion.
    
    >Inciting a riot is a criminal offence in this country I believe.

    Which would seem to differ little from Section 319, subsection (1).
    
    >No, what the Canadian law says is that the government is going to take
    >away the freedom of individuals in exchange for a sense of security.

    The only freedom that has been lost here is the freedom to utter lies
    of a malicious nature.

    >A sense of security, because the only true security comes from the 
    >people of the country, not the government.

    Security also comes from a populace that supports a gov't that protects
    the rights of individuals within that society; particularly minorities
    who might otherwise have no recourse.  Whose rights take precedence:
    the rights of the liar, or the rights of the offended group, when those
    rights come into conflict?

    Lies are not protected by the First Amendment, are they?
    
    jc
     

    
    .340
   
    >Correct, but saying "I'd like to punch his lights out..." is not
    >necessarily a threat.
    
    Saying "Blacks in this country should be rounded up and executed
    because they are a dangerous threat to our genetic pool..." is,
    I would submit, a potentially SERIOUS threat.  Again, as has been
    demonstrated in locales near and far throughout this century.
    

    re: .342
    
    I disagree.  You overlook the common sense of most people, who would
    look at someone espousing such rubbish and quickly label him a rassist
    idjit.  Once he tries to act upon such thoughts, though, he should be
    strung up as far as the law allows.
    
    It would only be dangerous if folks listened, then ACTED out on it (in
    which case, the law steps in and buries them).
    
    We don't need speech police, thought police, or any similar garbage.
    We, in fact, have too many laws already- the goal of which is to
    replace common sense with political correctness, it seems, in far too
    many laws.
    
    
    -steve

    
    .343, Steve:
    
    You DISAGREE!!  How DARE you!!!    :^)
    
    I would like to rely on the common sense of most people, but the fact
    is, Steve, that like Urban Legends, lies of this sort propogate easily
    into the thick skulls of the intellectually lazy.  And, let's face it,
    there are places like Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, and Nazi Germany
    where the `common sense' of most people apparently was not enough to
    stem the tide.
    
    You often argue in favour of an armed populace by saying: If it
    happened over there, why can't it happen here?
    
    Well...why not, indeed?
    
    jc
                           

    >Then free speech is not absolute, is it?
    
    My friend, nothing is absolute.  As much as you or I would like it to
    be.  
    
    >>I believe that a class action suit would be the appropriate response.
    
    >Under this law, the gov't can step in to represent the offended group.
    
    The government should not be allowed to step in.  That is the point of
    contension.  There are steps in place to allow offended groups to seek
    compensation, without resorting to calling in CRIMINAL procedings. 
    What the Canadian law does is allows the GOVERNMENT to determine what
    is offensive.  BAD IDEA ! ! !
    
    >>Horse hockey !  If this were true, why do we send murderers to jail and
    >>fine people for speeding?
    
    >Does speeding carry a million dollar fine?  How about ten million?
    >One hundred million?  What figure do you think would be sought, based
    >on the current litigiousness of your citizenry?
    
    I do not understand what your point is.

    >Shawn made this point about as clearly as it can be made.  Threatening
    >to kill me to get my wallet is liable to get you my wallet.  Threatening
    >to eat a thousand marshmallows to get my wallet will not likely have
    >the same result.  That's why one is legal and the other is not, in both
    >our countries, I imagine.

    The question comes down to what is a threat and what is a statement of
    opinion.
    
    >Well, Canadian citizens apparently enjoy at least some rights that
    >American citizens do not, if I'm following your argument.  The right
    >to freedom from harassment and defamation based on race, colour, or 
    >religion.
    
    Interesting theory, but wrong.  Canadians have to labor under a threat
    from their government, that if someone says what they think, they can
    go to jail.
    
    >>Inciting a riot is a criminal offence in this country I believe.

    >Which would seem to differ little from Section 319, subsection (1).
    
    Which is where the Canadian law is wrong.
    
    >The only freedom that has been lost here is the freedom to utter lies
    >of a malicious nature.
    
    Wrong again.  There has never been a freedom to lie, that is why there
    are CIVIL slander laws.
    
    >Security also comes from a populace that supports a gov't that protects
    >the rights of individuals within that society; particularly minorities
    >who might otherwise have no recourse.  Whose rights take precedence:
    >the rights of the liar, or the rights of the offended group, when those
    >rights come into conflict?
    
    I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying.
    

    
    	And he swears it was in self-defense.
    

    .345, Dan:
    
    >My friend, nothing is absolute.

    So then, slanderous lies are punishable.
    
    >The government should not be allowed to step in.  That is the point of
    >contension.  There are steps in place to allow offended groups to seek
    >compensation, without resorting to calling in CRIMINAL procedings. 

    So the offended groups must then take responsibility for constantly
    ferreting out those who would slander them, and must take financial
    responsibility for the prosecution of such slander.  If the slander
    is indeed wrong, why should the victim have to prosecute the crime,
    any more than the victim of a robbery should have to investigate,
    arrest, charge and try the robber?  I have no problem with an elected
    gov't representing the interests of such groups, since those groups are 
    just as likely to be tax-paying voters as myself.  Who knows, I may need 
    such protection some day.

    >What the Canadian law does is allows the GOVERNMENT to determine what
    >is offensive.

    In terms of the laying of the charge, perhaps, but the court is the
    final arbiter, and our courts have proven reluctant to return guilty
    verdicts under this law.  Bear in mind also that the elected gov't
    decides whether the charge will be laid or not, so they have to weigh
    the potential political damage of frivolous prosecution.

    Usually, the charge would only be laid after considerable public pressure,
    which means that the society is stating what it finds offensive.
    
    >>Does speeding carry a million dollar fine?
    >I do not understand what your point is.

    My point is that a ten-million dollar lawsuit, particularly if lost,
    can be just as serious a punishment for some as a two-year jail term.
    Also, the jail term could be more of a deterrent to someone who has
    nothing of worth to make restitution.

    >The question comes down to what is a threat and what is a statement of
    >opinion.

    Advocating genocide is more than just a statement of opinion.  The same
    can be said for the spreading of deliberate falsehoods.
    
    >Canadians have to labor under a threat from their government, that
    >if someone says what they think, they can go to jail.

    I submit that very few Canadians "labour" under this threat.  I submit
    that considerably more Canadians labour under the threat of racial
    discrimination, defamation, and harassment.
    
    >>>Inciting a riot is a criminal offence in this country I believe.
    >>Which would seem to differ little from Section 319, subsection (1).
    >Which is where the Canadian law is wrong.

    Ummm...so inciting a riot in the U.S. is "wrong", too?
    
    >There has never been a freedom to lie, that is why there
    >are CIVIL slander laws.

    Then we would seem to be talking about six of one and half-a-dozen of
    the other.
    
    >>Security...rights come into conflict?
    >I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying.

    That the secure population consists of various groups that have NO right
    to infringe upon the rights of others.  When racists spread malicious
    lies, they poison the environment, and frankly, they have no such right.
    In Canada, we feel strongly enough about it to prohibit it in our Criminal
    Code.

    Sorry, but if that's a freedom you crave, then Canada is not the place
    for you.

    jc
    

    The lies continuing to be spread about Weaver are incredible.
    
|	REMEMBER, the Marshall did not announce who he was OR why he
|	was there.
    
    Bald faced lies.  The murdered US Marshal William Degan shouted
    "STOP, US Marshal!"
    
|   He simply opened fire.
    
    More untrue!  Kevin Harris simply opened fire!  He didn't even bring
    the gun to eye level, he shot from the hip!
    
    I wish I could honestly say I can't believe that you would smear the
    good name of a dead man!  But unfortunately I can believe that you
    would smear the good name of US Marshal William Degan.
    
|   That fire was returned.
    
    You betcha.  William Degan managed to get off 7 shots (on semi-auto)
    between the time he was hit and the time he died.  Larry Cooper shot
    at and hit Kevin Harris.  
    
|   He then shot a 14 year old boy IN THE BACK.  And the boy's
|   father, STILL not knowing who was doing the shooting, shot
|   and killed him.
    
    You really are confused about what happened, aren't you?
    Randy Weaver did *not* participate in the initial shootout.
    He was walking down the road toward the "y" from the
    cabin.  Kevin Harris murdered US Marshal William Degan.
    After Kevin Harris went down during the return fire, Samuel
    Weaver was unhurt and untargetted.  It was when somebody from
    the cabin opened fire that Larry Cooper returned three shots
    in the direction of the cabin.  One of those shots hit Samuel
    Weaver.

    Randy Weaver was responsible for what happened on Ruby Ridge.
    Kevin Haris was responsible for what happend on Ruby Ridge.
    
    Period.
    
    Fantasies about "thugs" and "storm troopers" are nothing more
    than that.  Fantasies.
    
    
    								-mr. bill

 <rubs eyes, blinks>

        <<< Note 362.346 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>.334>	Weaver shot the Marshall.

>    	...but he did not shoot the deputy...


	Actually the guy was a Deputy US Marshall.

Jim

    
    >So the offended groups must then take responsibility for constantly
    >ferreting out those who would slander them, and must take financial
    >responsibility for the prosecution of such slander.
    
    Correct.  
---
    >If the slander
    >is indeed wrong, why should the victim have to prosecute the crime,
    >any more than the victim of a robbery should have to investigate,
    >arrest, charge and try the robber?
    
    Are you making a case for making slander a CRIMINAL offense?
---
    >Advocating genocide is more than just a statement of opinion.  The same
    >can be said for the spreading of deliberate falsehoods.
    
    Although you and I may be opposed to it, until some person ACTS on it,
    it is just a statement of opinion.
 ---
    >>Canadians have to labor under a threat from their government, that
    >>if someone says what they think, they can go to jail.
    
    >I submit that very few Canadians "labour" under this threat.  I submit
    >that considerably more Canadians labour under the threat of racial
    >discrimination, defamation, and harassment.
    
    This statement is false by definition.  ALL Canadians labor under the
    threat of prosecution.  In the worst case the total number would be
    even.
---
    >That the secure population consists of various groups that have NO right
    >to infringe upon the rights of others.  When racists spread malicious
    >lies, they poison the environment, and frankly, they have no such right.
    
    I'm sorry, but I still don't understand this.
---
    >... Canada is not the place
    >for you.

    This is the first thing that you've said that I can whole heartedly
    agree with ! !
    
    Dan

    .352, Dan:
    
    >Are you making a case for making slander a CRIMINAL offense?

    Umm...yes...has that not been clear?  It IS a criminal offence, here.

    >Although you and I may be opposed to it, until some person ACTS on it,
    >it is just a statement of opinion.

    Obviously, I disagree, and have given examples of why it should be 
    prevented.  Face it, Dan, we only disagree on the method of intervention.
    I don't believe that it is fair to require the victim to pursue a civil
    remedy, particularly if the offender has nothing of value with which to
    make restitution.

    >>I submit that very few Canadians "labour" under this threat.  I submit
    >>that considerably more Canadians labour under the threat of racial
    >>discrimination, defamation, and harassment.
    >This statement is false by definition.

    No it's not.  The only poor souls "labouring" under this are the same
    poor souls who would face CIVIL action down there.

    >In the worst case the total number would be even.

    How so?

    >>That the secure...no such right.
    >I'm sorry, but I still don't understand this.

    Well I don't know how else I can restate it, Dan.  Perhaps the basic point
    is that you believe the gov't has no role in preserving minority rights, 
    and I think it does.

    jc

    

    >It IS a criminal offence, here.
    
    Slander is a criminal offense in Canada !
    If this is the case than you are quite correct in saying that Canada is
    not a place I would want to live.  Any place that can CRIMINALLY
    prosecute its people for something that may have been said in a heated
    exchange is not a place where people can communicate freely !
---
    >>>I submit that very few Canadians "labour" under this threat.  I submit
            .          .           .            . 
    >>This statement is false by definition.

    >No it's not.  The only poor souls "labouring" under this are the same
    >poor souls who would face CIVIL action down there.

    Afraid it is, no one is exempt from prosecution by the government,
    therefore you ALL are laboring under the threat of prosecution.
---
    >>In the worst case the total number would be even.
    >How so?
    
    See above.
---
    >Perhaps the basic point
    >is that you believe the gov't has no role in preserving minority rights, 
    >and I think it does.
    
    Not so.  My bone of contension is that it is not right that minority
    groups should be protected by CRIMINAL statutes while the rest of us
    are only protected by CIVIL statutes.
    In fact the concept of protecting a group with CRIMINAL statutes is
    patently wrong, because it puts that group into a protected class where
    if you criticize them, you can go to jail.  This will in no way indear
    the minority group.  It will only cause additional division.  The US
    v.s. THEM syndrome, which is bad for ANY community.  This is the kind
    of law which promotes hate groups, by exacerbating the situation
    instead of defusing it.
    
    Dan

    
    Actually, it is less of a problem than you might think in Canada.
    
    It was my impression that Canadians can barely understand
    each other's words at all, assuming any two Canadians get within
    earshot of each other, an improbable event, a priori.
    
    If Quebec and Ontario separated, for example, how could you tell ?
    
      bb

    I never thought of it that way!  Good point.  I guess all my concern
    was unfounded ! :-)   
    
    I really do feel much better now :-))))
    
    Dan

    You might be able to tell if you knew where Quebec and Ontario were.
    Perhaps you have a friend living in Toronto that I know, or
    Tuktoyaktuk.

    Seven Canadians per square mile!  
    But we've got a good phone system, so...
    
    ;^)
    
    .354, Dan:
    
    >Slander is a criminal offense in Canada !

    Yes, as per Section 318 and 319, as I posted.  You *just* came to this 
    conclusion?

    >Any place that can CRIMINALLY
    >prosecute its people for something that may have been said in a heated
    >exchange is not a place where people can communicate freely !

    This statement makes the whole thing sound rather frivolous, but is in
    fact a misreading of the legislation and its intent and its application.
    Tell me, how many charges have been laid under these sections, and under
    what circumstances?  Offhand, I can only think of two or maybe three
    people who have been charged (out of 28 million).

    >>>This statement is false by definition.
    >>No it's not.
    >Afraid it is, no one is exempt from prosecution by the government,
    >therefore you ALL are laboring under the threat of prosecution.

    Dan...the law only applies to those who break it.  In Canada, what
    number do you think that represents?  Do you worry about how the 
    murder laws will be applied to you?

    >>>In the worst case the total number would be even.
    >>How so?
    >See above.

    No answer.  Let's go back.  I said that the number of people affected
    by the law (i.e. racists spreading malicious lies) is far smaller than
    the groups of people potentially malingned by those statements.

    >Not so.  My bone of contension is that it is not right that minority
    >groups should be protected by CRIMINAL statutes while the rest of us
    >are only protected by CIVIL statutes.

    STRAWMAN!  You are trying to paint this law as an issue of `special
    rights'.  Show me where the wording of the law does not protect WASP
    males like myself from radical black hate literature.

    >In fact the concept of protecting a group with CRIMINAL statutes is
    >patently wrong...

    IYHO.

    >...because it puts that group into a protected class where
    >if you criticize them, you can go to jail.

    You have definitely misread the law.

    >This is the kind of law which promotes hate groups, by exacerbating 
    >the situation instead of defusing it.

    Actually, you are closer now than you ever have been in this string to
    the one of the two really good arguments AGAINST this law; that hate 
    groups thrive on the visibility they get when they attempt to prove, in
    a highly-publicized trial, that the Holocaust didn't occur (or whatever
    other crap it is they're claiming).
    
    jc

    >Tell me, how many charges have been laid under these sections, and under
    >what circumstances?  Offhand, I can only think of two or maybe three
    >people who have been charged (out of 28 million).

    You missed the point.  The problem is that the government CAN do it.
    Even if it hasn't YET it still can.  If you are sitting next to a stick
    of lit dynamite, even if it hasn't gone off YET, you are STILL in
    danger.
    ---
    >Dan...the law only applies to those who break it.
    
    No, the LAW, at least down here, applies to everyone!
    ---
    My assesment from this discussion is that you have been lulled into
    trusting your government and that which it does, without considering
    the vast potential abuses of the powers.  You have been sold the "Just
    give us your freedom, and we will protect you..." line of horse hockey.
    Its been tried in many countries and has always resulted in fewer
    freedoms, and a more oppressive government.
    
    "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."
        grossly butcher from the original source.
        One of the Founding Fathers. (I forget which one)
    
    P.S. does anyone know?  If so please respond.
    
    Dan

    
    
    Quote, I believe by Ben Franklin
    
    ed

                            
    .359, Dan:

    >You missed the point.  The problem is that the government CAN do it.
    
    Or, you missed the point...that slander is wrong and punishable, one
    way or another.  You have your way, we have our way.  Both limit free
    speech.  Both have abuse potential.  Ours isn't limited to those who
    can afford it, nor is the justice limited by the financial means of
    the offender.
    
    >No, the LAW, at least down here, applies to everyone!
    
    Perhaps "applies" was the wrong word.  Let's say, "affects" or "is
    applied to".  The point being that a law like this will affect only
    those who slander, whom I can't dream of a good reason to defend.
    
    >My assesment from this discussion is that you have been lulled into...
    
    Same old stuff.  I could say that MY assesment is that you have
    swallowed a couple of old quotes and the Libertarian dogma whole, or
    that you have been convinced that government is some evil `other' dropped
    from the sky, or I could say that you have been brainwashed into believing
    in non-existant "rights", but all those are probably no more true than
    the statement quoted above. 
    
    I have examined my position, as you have yours, and I am satisfied with it.
    Sorry you don't agree.
    
    jc
    

   <<< Note 362.349 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    The lies continuing to be spread about Weaver are incredible.
 
	Well, you are doing your best.

	From a report based on trial transcripts.

	Weaver sold the shotgun with the illegally shortened barels in 
	1989.  He failed to appear in court on the charges and a warrant 
	was issued for his arrest. US Marshalls then began a 18 month 
	surveillance of Weaver's property (at a cost of $130,000). On
	August 21, 1993 6 Marshalls entered Weaver's property. Three of
	the Marshalls threw stones to attract the attention of Weaver's dogs.
	Sam Weaver, Randy's 14 year old son, and Kevin Harris went to 
	investigate the barking dogs. As one of the dogs approached one
	of the Marshall's hiding place, the Marshall shot the dog dead.
	Sam Weaver fired in the direction of the shots. Randy Weaver 
	called to his son to come back to the house. The Marshall shot
	him in the back, killing him. Harris saw the Marshall shoot Sam,
	returned fire, killing the Marshall.

	At no pojnt in this initial confrontation had the Marshalls 
	identified themselves, announced that Weaver was under arrest, 
	or demanded his surrender.

	400 Federal agents (including the FBI HRT) were dispatched to 
	the scene. HRT members were given order to shoot any armed adult
	outside the cabin.

	Weaver and Harris left the cabin to attend to the body of Sam Weaver
	(in an outbuilding). HRT member Lon Horiuchi shot Weaver in the back.
	Weaver and Harris ran back to the cabin. Vicki Weaver, Randy's wife
	was standing in the doorway holding her 10 month old baby. Agent
	Horiuchi fired again striking Vicki in the temple, killing her.

	Eleven days after the death of his wife, Weaver and Harris surrendered. 

	At the trial, Harris was found to have shot the Marshall in 
	self-defense. Weaver was convicted of failing to appear on the 
	original charges and a second charge of illegally altering
	the shotguns.

	The Federal Judge that heard the case, sent a detailed list 	
	of FBI and DOJ misconduct to the DOJ. These included fabrication 
	and alteration of evidence.

	NOW, my dear friend Bill, justify shooting a 14 year old in the 
	back and shooting an unarmed woman in the head (points you neglected
	in your nitpicking post).

Jim

     <<< Note 362.361 by TROOA::COLLINS "On a wavelength far from home." >>>

    
>    Or, you missed the point...that slander is wrong and punishable, one
>    way or another.  You have your way, we have our way.  Both limit free
>    speech. 

	One difference. Slander in the US is a crime against individuals,
	not groups.

	That, and of course the fact that we prefer to have our extremists
	out in the light of day so that we may scoff at them.


Jim

    
    BINGO!!  Jim Percival hit on the *other* good argument I alluded to
    earlier (as I knew he would  :^).
    
    There is a guy in Vancouver, I think his last name is McVey.  He
    doesn't seem to have much of a life, as he spends just about every
    waking hour on the Internet hunting down and refuting holocaust
    deniers (denyers?).  He has amassed a spectacular online collection
    of documents relating to the holocaust, and has become a major source
    of information for those investigating the holocaust, war criminals,
    etc.
    
    He was recently quoted saying something to the effect of: "I don't want
    these people censored.  I want them out in the open where I can refute
    their statements."
    

    
    .363

	>One difference. Slander in the US is a crime against individuals,
	>not groups.
    
    Against individuals, OR corporations, yes?  So why should ESSO or Ford
    be better protected against lies than Jews or blacks?   And, ummm...is
    it actually a `crime'?  Dan led me to believe it wasn't.
    
    When the group is maligned publicly, aren't each of the members of that
    group diminished in some way?
    
    jc
                            

     <<< Note 362.365 by TROOA::COLLINS "On a wavelength far from home." >>>

    
>    Against individuals, OR corporations, yes? 

	TO be honest, I'm not sure. Under US law a corporation is considered
	a legal person. But I am unaware of a slander suit being successfully
	argued by a corporation. Doesn't mean that it didn't happen, It just
	means that I've not heard of such a case.

> So why should ESSO or Ford
>    be better protected against lies than Jews or blacks?

	I don't believe that they are. A corporate entity made up of a 
	minority group would have the same protections. Individuals
	are protected as well, just as the President of Ford Motor 
	would be if the accusation were made against him personally.

>   And, ummm...is
>    it actually a `crime'?  Dan led me to believe it wasn't.
 
	Semantics. There is criminal law and civil law.

>    When the group is maligned publicly, aren't each of the members of that
>    group diminished in some way?
 
	You ask a question like this of a member of the NRA?!

	But even your law has some very strict limits. Simply maligning
	a recognized group would not be enough. If I read it correctly
	there must also be a call for violence against members of that
	group. Out laws recognize actions like incitment to riot or
	conspiracy, but for the most part ideas and words are protected.

Jim

|	From a report based on trial transcripts.
    
|	Weaver sold the shotgun with the illegally shortened barels in 
|	1989.
    
    Shotguns.  Plural.  TWO!  Contrary to lies spread here and elsewhere
    (including Playboy) the barells were *NOT* 1/4" too short.  Physical
    evidence is a stupid thing.  Here's the facts from the "trial
    transcripts":
    
    H&R 12 gauge shotgun		13" barrel	/ 19.25" overall length 
    Remington 12-ggauge shotgun		12.75" barrel	/ 24.5" overall length
    NFA requires			18" barrel	/ 26" overall length
    
|   He failed to appear in court on the charges and a warrant was issued
|   for his arrest. 
    
    You got one right.  He failed to appear for February 20, 1991.  He
    failed to appear for March 20, 1991.
    
|   US Marshalls then began a 18 month surveillance of Weaver's property
|   (at a cost of $130,000).
    
    Half right.  There was indeed an 18 month surveillance, but reports
    from the "trial transcripts" are half-a-million or a million dollar
    cost for the surveillance.  (BTW, contrary to reports spreading
    on the various *.nutters.* newsgroups, August 21, 1992 did not
    fall between February 20, 1991 and March 20, 1991.)
    
|   On August 21, 1993 6 Marshalls entered Weaver's property.
    
    Hey, bonus points, another one right.  Of course, half-a-truth, the
    entered on a surveillance mission, not an arrest mission.
    
    BTW, your "report" based on "trial transcripts" also leaves off the
    fact that during this 18 month period, the federal government was
    attempting to get Weaver to turn himself in for failure to appear
    in court (on *either* February 20, 1991 *or* March 20, 1991).  Your
    "report" also fails to mention the inconvienient fact that they had to do
    this through intermediaries, as Weaver maintained a 200 yard "kill zone"
    around his cabin.  (If you stood on two feet, and you weren't one of
    them, and they found you in the "kill zone" you were dead.  But that's
    just self-defense, huh Jim?)  Your "report" also fails to note that
    Weaver knew he was under surveilance, knew he was a fugitive, knew
    federal law enforcement officials were on his property.  Harris
    and Weaver did *NOT* mistake the federal law enforcement officials
    for local scum trying to steal a pickup truck.  They knew *EXACTLY*
    who they were shooting "in self defense".
    
|   Three of the Marshalls threw stones to attract the attention of
|   Weaver's dogs.
    
    *ONE* Marshall, Inspector Author Roderick, threw two rocks into
    a gully to see if the dogs would bark.  One dog not only barked,
    but charged up the gully.  The three agents *fled* away from
    the gully (and cabin, they were clearly in full retreat) and hid
    momentarily, but the yellow lab "Striker" kept coming.
    
|   Sam Weaver, Randy's 14 year old son, and Kevin Harris went to 
|   investigate the barking dogs.
    
    Yup, like I said, Kevin Harris and Samuel Weaver, *NOT* Randy
    Weaver were at the original shootout.
    
|   As one of the dogs approached one of the Marshall's hiding place, the
|   Marshall shot the dog dead.
    
    Not approached.  Striker was attacking Degan.  Cooper shot
    Striker.
    
|   Sam Weaver fired in the direction of the shots.
    
    Samuel has very good ears!  Near as I can tell, Striker was shot with
    a "9mm Colt Commando submachine gun with a silenced barrel."  Exact
    quote from the "trial transcript."
    
|   Randy Weaver  called to his son to come back to the house. The Marshall
|   shot him in the back, killing him. Harris saw the Marshall shoot Sam,
|   returned fire, killing the Marshall.
    
    Well, what few points your "report" based on "trial transcripts" got
    for accuracy were just blown away by this bit of fiction.
    
    The order is simple.  Testimony in the trial was completely clear.
    
    Day one:
    	Striker shot by Larry Cooper.
    	William Degan shot by Kevin Harris.
    	Kevin Harris shot by Larry Cooper.
    	Samuel Weaver shot by Larry Cooper.
    
    Day two:
    	Randy Weaver shot by Lon Horiuchi.
    	Vicky Weaver and Kevin Harris shot by Lon Horiuchi.
    
    You got that?  THIS IS THE TESTIMONY GIVEN AT THE TRIAL!  Not the
    friday is make up facts day presented by defense lawyers.  THIS IS
    THE TESTIMONY GIVEN AT THE TRIAL!
    
    ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU OTHERWISE IS MAKING UP FACTS!  INCLUDING YOUR
    "REPORT" BASED ON "TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS".
    
|   At no pojnt in this initial confrontation had the Marshalls  identified
|   themselves, announced that Weaver was under arrest,  or demanded his
|   surrender.
    
    Well, there you have it.
    
    Testimony presented at trial clearly states that Degan cleary
    identified himself by shouting "Stop!  U.S. Marshal!"  Kevin
    Harris's response?  Murdering William Degan.  "In self-defense"
    of course.
    
    No demands were made for his arrest or his surrender.  Negotiations
    for the *peacful* arrest of Weaver had been going on for 18 months,
    and they continued for nearly two more weeks after the shootings.
    
|   400 Federal agents (including the FBI HRT) were dispatched to 
|   the scene. HRT members were given order to shoot any armed adult
|   outside the cabin.
    
    HRT members were *not* given order to shoot any armed adult outside the
    cabin.  They were given *permission* to shoot any armed adult outside
    the cabin.  (These rules of engagement were criminal.  But they were not
    followed!)  In the final "gun battle," the shooting of Randy Weaver and
    Kevin Harris and Vicki Weaver took place because of "imminent danger".
    Horiuchi testified that Kevin Harris was threatening a helicopter when
    he decided to shoot.
    
    You think this is an irrational fear?  Randy Weaver, in his initial
    arrest, resisted arrest by BATF Special Agents Lance Hart and
    Barbara Anderson.  He lunged for an Agents gun, attempted to
    use his own gun, but was subdued before shots were fired.  But
    you know these waffen types, they probably made this all up, huh?
    
    Furthermore, G. Wayne Smith testified that while riding in a helicopter
    they had been fired upon.
    
|   Weaver and Harris left the cabin to attend to the body of Sam Weaver
|   (in an outbuilding).
    
    Weaver and Harris left the building to harrass a helicopter.
    
|   HRT member Lon Horiuchi shot Weaver in the back.
    
    He thought he shot Kevin Harris, he thought he saw Kevin Harris
    "flinch" but it turns out that Randy Weaver was hit and injured
    slightly by this shot.
    
|   Weaver and Harris ran back to the cabin. Vicki Weaver, Randy's wife
|   was standing in the doorway holding her 10 month old baby. Agent
|   Horiuchi fired again striking Vicki in the temple, killing her.
    
    Horiuchi fired again striking Kevin Harris *and* Vicki Weaver, who
    was not standing *in* the doorway but standing *inside* the doorway.
    Horiuchi testified that he did not see Vicki Weaver.  I believe him.
    You do not.
    
|   Eleven days after the death of his wife, Weaver and Harris surrendered.
    
    Would it not have been better for Weaver to have surrendered the day
    before his wife died?  Or the day before his son died?  Or perhaps
    show up for his trial?  Or maybe even, during the entire 18 months
    before the shootout, surrender?
    
    Nah.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .361
    
    The best that I can say is that, I'm glad you're there and I'm not.
    
    Dan

   <<< Note 362.367 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Samuel has very good ears!  Near as I can tell, Striker was shot with
>    a "9mm Colt Commando submachine gun with a silenced barrel."  Exact
>    quote from the "trial transcript."
 
	It's quite obvious that you completely ignorant about just how
	much sound a "silenced" submachinegun produces.

>    The order is simple.  Testimony in the trial was completely clear.
    
>    Day one:
>    	Striker shot by Larry Cooper.
>    	William Degan shot by Kevin Harris.
>    	Kevin Harris shot by Larry Cooper.
>    	Samuel Weaver shot by Larry Cooper.
 
	Apparently this "completely clear" order of events was found to
	be not credible by the jury. THat order of events would have
	resulted in a conviction for Kevin Harris.

>    Testimony presented at trial clearly states that Degan cleary
>    identified himself by shouting "Stop!  U.S. Marshal!"  Kevin
>    Harris's response?  Murdering William Degan.  "In self-defense"
>    of course.
 
	Self-defense was the decision of the jury. Kevin Harris was not
	convicted of murder. No murder took place. Again, the jury apparently
	did not believe that the Marshalls identified themselves.

>    Horiuchi testified that Kevin Harris was threatening a helicopter when
>    he decided to shoot.
 
	So this agent that DID testify that he was an incredibly accurate
	shot, "accidently" hit an unarmed woman in the temple.   
    
>    Would it not have been better for Weaver to have surrendered the day
>    before his wife died?  Or the day before his son died?  Or perhaps
>    show up for his trial?  Or maybe even, during the entire 18 months
>    before the shootout, surrender?
 
	Certainly. But the fact that he did not does not exonerate the actions
	of the agents involved from that point on.

Jim

|	Apparently this "completely clear" order of events was found to
|	be not credible by the jury. THat order of events would have
|	resulted in a conviction for Kevin Harris.
    
    You clearly do not understand reasonable doubt.
    
    You can not conclude that the jury found the order of events not
    credible.  You can not conclude that the jury believed that Degan did
    not shout "Stop!  U.S. Marshall!"
    
    You can conclude only that the jury had enough doubt to the facts that
    they returned a not-guilty verdict.
    
    
    What you can cleary *NOT* do, which you and your report have done, is say,
    based on trial testimony, and the not guilty-verdict, that this is the
    order the shooting took place:
    
    Striker was shot by Larry Cooper.
    Samuel Weaver was shot by Larry Cooper.
    Degan was shot by Kevin Harris.
    Kevin Harris was shot by Larry Cooper.
    
    
    That's simply not supported by any evidence whatsoever!
                                 
    								-mr. bill

    
    .368:
    
    Thank you!  I'm glad I'm here, too.
    
    ;^)
    

   <<< Note 362.370 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    You clearly do not understand reasonable doubt.
 
	Oh, I most certainly do. The fact that the defense elected not
	to even bother presenting a case does, however, color my opinion
	of how the jury viewed the government testimony.

	Issues still not reviewed.

	14 year old shot in the back and killed.

	Unarmed woman holding a 10 month old infant shot in the head.

Jim

    Summary of the "report" of the "trial transcripts"...
    
    Damn the facts, there's conspiracy theories to weave.
    
    FACT -
    
    The trial does *NOT* support your summary of the facts, which
    I'll summarize again:
    
    	* Striker was shot by Larry Cooper.
    	* Samuel Weaver was shot by William Degan.
    	* William Degan was shot by Kevin Harris.
    	* Kevin Harris was shot by Larry Cooper.
    
|   Issues still not reviewed:
    
|   14 year old shot in the back and killed.
    
    14 year old caught in the crossfire between Larry Cooper and person(s)
    unknown firing from the area near the cabin.
    
|   Unarmed woman holding a 10 month old infant shot in the head.
    
    Friend going for cover after threatening helicopter puts mother and
    10 month old infant in danger.  Mother puts 10 month old infant
    in danger.  Father puts mother and 10 month old infant in danger.
    
    Lon Horiuchi testified that he was aiming for the man running for
    cover.  He testified that he aimed at that man, leading him.  Guess
    what?  He hit him.  Two shots, one hit Randy Weaver, one hit
    Kevin Harris.  Guess he was that good shot that you keep talking
    about.  Tragically, the second shot also hit Vicky Weaver as well,
    who he did not see standing *INSIDE* the doorway.
    
    You can argue all you want that Lon Horiuchi made a deadly mistake in
    not verifying the backdrop of his target.  But you can not honorably
    argue that Lon Horiuchi targetted Vicki Weaver.
    
    Unless of course....
    
    Damn the facts, there's conspiracy theories to weave.
    
    
    There is not even enough evidence to indict the agents, let alone
    convict them of murder.  And let's be frank.  You are acusing them
    of murder.
    
    But of course, the fact they haven't been indicted just goes to prove
    that your fantasies are correct.  Because, you see....
    
    Damn the facts, there's conspiracy theories to weave.
    
    
    There's members to recruit.  Members for the NRA.  Members for the
    militias.  So....
    
    Damn the facts, there's conspiracy theories to weave.
    
    								-mr. bill

    	Wow.  It looks like everybody is a liar, and everybody is ignorant,
    	and everybody is wrong, and everybody is right.
    
    	It looks like it is more important to insult and beat up the
    	other guy than anything else.  

    .374
    
    > It looks like it is more important to insult and beat up the
    > other guy than anything else.
    
    Give that the "other guys" being insulted are federal agents, and "your
    guys" are the NRA and the militias, you are absolutely right.  Insult
    and impugn away.
    
    Damm the facts, there's conspiracy theories to weave.

    Not everybody.
    
    Somebodies.
    
    
    Everytime the myth that the sawed off shotguns were only 1/4"
    short is sent over the net, that's a lie that's part of this web.
    
    Everytime the myth that the government did not try to get Weaver to
    surrender peacefully is sent over the net, that's a lie that's part of
    this web.
    
    Everytime somebody accuses Lon Horiuchi of intentionally targetting
    Vicki Weaver, that's a lie that's part of this web.
    
    Everytime somebody repeats the myth that Degan was shot after Samuel
    Weaver, that's a lie that's part of this web.
    
    Everytime somebody repeats the myth that Randy Weaver was targetted for
    his unpopular beliefs, that's a lie that's part of this web.
    
    
    The saddest thing, the truth of what happened on Ruby Ridge is damning
    enough.  But when the Congressional hearings finally take place, the
    lies that have been spread far and wide will just serve as fog
    obscuring the truth.
    
    								-mr. bill
                        

    .367,
    
    mr. bill:
    
    >HRT members were *not* given order to shoot any armed adult outside the
    >cabin.  They were given *permission* to shoot any armed adult outside
    >the cabin.  (These rules of engagement were criminal.  But they were not
    
    This is a somantic difference.  From a combat stand point they are
    equivalent.
    ---
    FBI Agent Lon Horiuchi, in my professional opinion, is guilty of
    murder.  I have extensive experience in riflery, especially long range
    high powered rifles.  An accident, or fluke like the one that is
    attributed to Agent Lon Horiuchi's shot does not happen.
    
    Dan

   <<< Note 362.373 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    There is not even enough evidence to indict the agents, let alone
>    convict them of murder.  And let's be frank.  You are acusing them
>    of murder.
 
	At a minimum, negligent homicide. At a maximum, murder in the
	second degree.

Jim

    
    re: "Another Magic Bullet"
    
    Not bad.  The gummint is getting so good at this stuff, that they have
    been accused of using *TWO* Magic Bullets, not one on Ruby Ridge.
    
    Do I hear three magic bullets?  Do I hear four?  How about five?
    
    Hey, as many magic bullets as it takes to weave this conspiracy,
    that's how many there will be.
    
    re: Jim
    
|	At a minimum, negligent homicide. At a maximum, murder in the
|	second degree.
    
    You haven't even stopped to consider that some of the "facts" you
    believe to be true are false?  No, you've tried and convicted these
    men of at least negligent homicide.  I wish I could say unbelievable.
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 362.379 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    You haven't even stopped to consider that some of the "facts" you
>    believe to be true are false?  No, you've tried and convicted these
>    men of at least negligent homicide.  I wish I could say unbelievable.
 
	Reckless disregard for human life. Firing a highpowered rifle
	without regard for individuals downrange of the target fits
	the description pretty well if you ask me.

	Even if I accept your report of events, something the jury
	chose not to do, the fact that Sam and Vicki Weaver were killed
	"by accident" would still warrant an indictment on at least the
	minimum charge.

	
Jim

(Senate - May 26, 1995) Sen. SPECTER

Mr. President, I will also take this opportunity to make some 
comments on the incidents at Ruby Ridge, ID, and Waco . With 
the Senate being fully occupied for the last several days on 
the budget, I did not have an opportunity to do so before, but 
it fits right in at this juncture, and I shall be relatively 
brief in summarizing some of the preliminary findings which I 
have come to.

As the Congressional Record will show--and my distinguished 
colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is in the 
Chamber--it has been my view that we ought to hold hearings on 
Waco and Ruby Ridge promptly. And by that I mean on or before 
August 4. I am well aware of the consideration of not impeding 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's inquiries into Oklahoma 
City. But as I said some time ago, in conversations with the 
Director of the FBI, he thought that a period by mid-August, 8 
to 10 weeks from the time of our conversation as I reported it 
on the Senate floor, would allow ample time for the FBI to 
complete its Oklahoma City investigation without having any 
problems created by a Senate inquiry of the full Judiciary 
Committee.

But in the absence of that full inquiry and in the absence of 
the setting of a date, I had said that I was going to make a 
preliminary inquiry myself. I did have occasion to report very 
briefly on these matters last week, but I want to comment a 
little more extensively this morning on my preliminary findings.

With respect to the incident at Ruby Ridge, ID, which came to a 
head back on August 21, 1992, I have had occasion to talk to a 
number of the people who have knowledge of that matter, 
including FBI Director Louis Freeh; FBI Deputy Director Larry 
Potts; the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms, John Magaw; Jerry Spence, the attorney for Mr. 
Weaver; Mr. Weaver, whom I talked to when I was in Des Moines 
earlier this month in the presence of his attorney, Michael 
Mooma, Esq. I have also talked to Randy Day, Esq., the Boundary 
County attorney in Idaho who was considering possible State 
prosecutions arising out of that incident. During the course of 
my conversations with Mr. Weaver, his daughters Sarah, Rachel, 
and Alicia, ages 19, 13, and 3, were also present.

One of the critical aspects of the matter involving Mr. Weaver 
concerns the issue as to how the entire incident arose. In my 
meeting with Mr. Weaver, he described the incident as starting 
out when an undercover agent associated, as Mr. Weaver thought, 
with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, came to 
purchase sawed-off shotguns from Mr. Weaver. As Mr. Weaver 
himself recounted the incident, he did provide two sawed-off 
shotguns to the ATF undercover agent.

In my later conversations with the Director of the Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms unit, John Magaw, he said that, during the 
course of the trial, there was an acquittal of Mr. Weaver on 
grounds of entrapment. Mr. Magaw described it as borderline 
entrapment, but it raises a fundamental question as to the 
appropriate course of conduct of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms on initiating such a matter through an undercover 
agent, a confidential informant, where the incident has all the 
preliminary earmarks of entrapment. And that, in fact, was the 
conclusion of the court, and that is the concession made by the 
director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms unit.

Mr. President, a more critical aspect of what happened at Ruby 
Ridge, ID, of the tragedy which occurred there--including the 
killing of a deputy U.S. marshal, the killing of Mr. Weaver's 
son, Sam Weaver, the killing of Mr. Weaver's wife, Vicky--is 
the issue of the change in the FBI's rules of engagement from 
the standard shooting policy. On that issue, there is a direct 
conflict between representations made by Mr. Eugene F. Glenn, 
who is now the special agent in charge at the Salt Lake City 
office of the FBI and Deputy Director Larry Potts of the FBI.

In my conversation with Mr. Potts on May 17 of this year, Mr. 
Potts advised me that there were never any changes in the rules 
of engagement and that he, Mr. Potts, had no authorization to 
change the deadly force policy.

We do know, in the course of the incidents there, that Mrs. 
Weaver was killed by the bullet of an FBI sharpshooter. The 
contention has been made by officials of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation that that was a matter which was necessary to 
defend other agents who were involved in the effort to take Mr. 
Weaver into custody.

There is a very significant question as to the circumstances of 
that shooting with respect to a Bureau representation that Mrs. 
Weaver was shot through a door, which raises the inference and 
suggestion that the shooter might not have been able to see 
Mrs. Weaver, contrasted with the representation of others that 
the door had a glass pane so that, in fact, the shooter may 
have been able to see Mrs. Weaver. That is not ascertainable 
based upon what I know of the facts, because there is a 
possibility of glare, there is a possibility of some 
obstruction of vision even with a pane of glass, but that is 
certainly something which requires inquiry.

Focusing in specifically on the conflict or at least apparent 
conflict between Mr. Potts and Mr. Glenn--as I have said, 
Deputy Director Potts told me that there were never any changes 
in the rules of engagement and that he had no authorization to 
change the deadly force policy of the FBI.

In a letter from Special Agent Glenn to Michael A. Shaheen, the 
Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility at the 
Department of Justice, seeking an investigation into what 
occurred, Mr. Glenn refers specifically to adjustments to the 
Bureau's standard shooting policy at Ruby Ridge, and he 
attributes those to Deputy Director Potts.

This statement appears at page 6 of the letter from Mr. Glenn 
to Mr. Shaheen:

On August 22, 1992, then Assistant Director Potts advised 
during a telephonic conversation with SAC.

That means special agent in charge Glenn.

that he had approved the rules of engagement, and he 
articulated his reasons for his adjustments to the Bureau's 
standard shooting policy. During the ten days of the Ruby Ridge 
stand-off, there were several occasions when SAC Glenn and AD 
Potts telephonically communicated with one another, and during 
these conversations they mutually agreed that the rules of 
engagement should continue to exist. On Wednesday, August 26, 
1992, AD Potts approved the FBI returning to the standard 
shooting policy. This is reflected in the SIOC Log, page 13, 
item 7.

Then it follows to have the specification as to what occurred 
there.

When Mr. Glenn requested this special investigation, he draws 
this conclusion at page 1 of the letter:

* * * investigative deficiencies reveal a purpose to create 
scapegoats and false impressions, rather than uncovering or 
reinforcing the reality of what happened at Ruby Ridge.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of 
this letter from Mr. Glenn to Mr. Shaheen be printed at the 
conclusion of my statement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I shall abbreviate these comments 
because we are in the middle of the consideration of the 
broader terrorism bill, but these comments are directly 
relevant to this bill. I know, however, that others are waiting 
to speak. While I will have more to say about this at a later 
time, I will condense these comments at this time.

Relating to the incident at Ruby Ridge, there are questions 
which have already been raised by many as to why Mr. Potts was 
made the Deputy Director of the FBI while this matter was 
pending and certainly before there was a congressional inquiry 
by the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Those are 
among my reasons for thinking that a congressional inquiry into 
Ruby Ridge should have been held a long time ago, but at least 
ought to be held as promptly as possible.

|>    You haven't even stopped to consider that some of the "facts" you
|>    believe to be true are false?  No, you've tried and convicted these
|>    men of at least negligent homicide.  I wish I could say unbelievable.
| 
|	Reckless disregard for human life. Firing a highpowered rifle
|	without regard for individuals downrange of the target fits
|	the description pretty well if you ask me.
    
    Uh huh.  Here's what you said in another case, where there was reckless
    disregard for human life, where a firearm was discharged repeatedly
    without regard for individuals downrange of the target....
    
from 330.60
    
|	The guard should be slapped. Anyone that requires 14+ rounds to 
|	hit 3 targets needs to practice more.

    I guess you thought you were being cute?
    
    								-mr. bill

    mr bill,
    I was not going on something I read on the net, I was using you as the
    source:
    
    >Tragically, the second shot also hit Vicky Weaver as well,
    >who he did not see standing *INSIDE* the doorway.
    
    ...also hit Vicky Weaver ... (in the temple, by accident,.... right)
    I repeat, not possible, try again!
    
    Dan

    >You have a severe blind spot....
    
     _You_ are talking?!!!

    .383
    
    I think I'd like from you an explanation of why it would be impossible
    for the bullet to have hit Vicky Weaver in the temple by accident.  Do
    bullets know that they're supposed to hit people in vital places if it
    was accidental?  And do bullets always follow a straight line from the
    muzzle to their final resting places?

    I wouldn't say impossible, personally, but I would say unlikely. This
    would definitely be in the "magic bullet" category, in which a single
    projectile takes a highly unlikely path in order to conform to a
    convenient explanation. My personal guess as to what happened was that
    the shooter could see the outline of a person so he took a shot and hit
    exactly where he aimed. Only later did he discover that it was Vicky
    Weaver, who happened to be holding an infant at the time. Certainly one
    could understand the shooter's reluctance to admit the truth of
    the matter, were that the case. Not left with many options, he took the
    "it was an accident" route. Quite understandable.
    
     I remember reading newspaper accounts of the trial as it occurred, and
    the judge rebuked the government repeatedly for lying and covering up.
    Thus I find the "official" account to be less than trustworthy. I
    suppose, however, that the judge in the case was an NRA stooge/militia
    type...

    The area on a human that would constitute an imediate kill is somewhat
    smaller than a softball.  The ability to hit that target at any kind of
    range on a stationary target is no mean feat.  To hit that on a
    potentially moving target, "opening or holding a door", is quit an
    accomplishment.  To manage to hit it by accident rapidly approaches
    impossible, and to happen to hit that spot by accident after going
    through a previous target... as I said not possible.
    
    In actual fact, a bullet does not travel in a straight line, it follows
    a trajectory in a manner similar to a football thrown down field.  They
    are subject to all physical phenomena including but not limited to
    wind, thermals, vegitation, or anything else that could effect the
    trajectory.
    
    Dan

    >To manage to hit it by accident rapidly approaches
    >    impossible, and to happen to hit that spot by accident after going
    >    through a previous target... as I said not possible.
    
     I disagree. Extremely unlikely, but completely impossible.

    .387
    
    > To manage to hit it by accident rapidly approaches
    > impossible,
    
    Pfui.  One does not "manage" to hit something by accident, one misses
    one's target and the bullet goes astray into an unexpected place.
    
    I do not say that Weaver's death was not intentional, I merely dismiss
    your silly argument as the hogwash that it is.

    It appears that you dismiss any that disagree with you, regardless of
    the validity of what they say.  You also try to improve you position by
    belittling the knowledge and experience of other.  This is an
    inadvisable path for anyone to take.  I did not indicate that this was
    a conspiracy.  Most likely the officer made a mistake in who his target
    was.  Potentially 2nd degree murder, but I'm still not convinced.  It
    could not have been an accident.
    
    Dan
    

    .390
    
    No, I don't dismiss any who disagree with me, only those who make
    preposterous claims like yours.
    
    Accidents happen.  They sometimes defy explanation.  Their having done
    so does not mean that they didn't happen.  The fact that agents were
    shooting at Randy Weaver's cabin and the people thereabouts is not
    denied.  The specific allegation that Vicky Weaver's death cannot have
    been due to an accident is still poppycock.  Or would you also climb on
    the bandwagon with those who insist that the bullet that passed through
    JFK's neck couldn't possibly have hit Governor Connolly because that
    would have required it to turn some 60 degrees from its original
    course?

    My claim is not preposterous.  Find a single inaccuracy in what I have
    said.  You will not find one.  I maintain that you have mearly
    disregarded what I have said because it does not fit your preconceived
    notions.
    
    My comments were directed specifically at the incident at Ruby Ridge. 
    They potentailly could be applied to the Kennedy assination, I do not
    now for sure.  I would need more information to make an assessment on
    the plausablity of the governments case.  My reference to a magic
    bullet was more for effect.  Although from the little that I have heard
    about the original "magic bullet" the allusion may be closer than
    intended.
    
    I must however say again that I do not believe that the murder of Mrs
    Weaver was a conspiricy, more likely a case of an officer making a
    mistake and trying to rationalize his actions.
    
    Dan
    

   <<< Note 362.382 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>|	Reckless disregard for human life. Firing a highpowered rifle
>|	without regard for individuals downrange of the target fits
>|	the description pretty well if you ask me.
    
>    Uh huh.  Here's what you said in another case, where there was reckless
>    disregard for human life, where a firearm was discharged repeatedly
>    without regard for individuals downrange of the target....
 
	I didn't think it neccessary to point out "resulting in death"
	since the discussion was obviously about the death of two individuals.

>from 330.60
 
	And at that time I agreed with you, the guard's actions were 
	dangerous. If he had killed a bystander with one of those stray
	shots, he would also have faced negligent homocide charges. I also
	doubt that you would call a suit on the part of victim's family
	"frivolous" had such a sequence of events occurred.

Jim

    .392
    
    > My claim is not preposterous.
    
    Yes, it is.  A flat statement that a bullet fired in the general
    direction of Vicky Weaver could not POSSIBLY have struck her, either
    directly or by deflection, is preposterous without some forensic
    evidence to back it up.
    
    > Find a single inaccuracy in what I have
    > said.  You will not find one.
    
    The word "impossible" is an inaccuracy.  "Highly unlikely" or
    "statistically improbable" would be accurate.  "Impossible" is not.

    re: Several "professional" opinions by Dan Killoran:
    
    
    Fact - there were two shots fired on August 22, 1992 by Lon Horiuchi.
    	(Testimony of Lon Horiuchi and others, confirmed by physical
    	 evidence that two and only two shots were fired by Lon Horiuchi.)
    Fact - no other law enforcement officers discharged their weapons
    	on August 22, 1992.  (Testimony, confirmed by physical evidence.)
    Fact - three people were hit with bullets on August 22, 1992.
    	* Randy Weaver (minor injury)
    	* Kevin Harris (serious injury)
    	* Vicki Weaver (fatal injury)
    
    I would submit that there are only two plausible explanations for
    Vicki Weaver's wound:
    
      1 Lon Horiuchi fired two shots, which hit three people
    	(Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, Vicki Weaver).  But your
    	"expert professional" testimony is that this is simply
    	not possible.
    
      2 Lon Horiuchi fired two shots, which hit two people
    	(pick two: Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, Vicki Weaver).
    	So somebody else fired a third shot which injured the
    	third victim.
    
    	Since testimony and physical evidence confirms that such a
    	"magic bullet" did not come from law enforcement, you come
    	to your own conclusions.  (The shot came from:  Pick one of
    	Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, Vicki Weaver, another
    	Weaver child, or, if you are into massive mean spirited
    	irrational conspiracies, somebody from law enforcement,
    	but since we are now into let's make believe friday, why
    	not a space alien or a rip in the space time continuum?)
    
    Not only is it *possible* for three people to be wounded by
    two bullets, it is the most likely explanation of what
    happened in this case.
    
    								-mr. bill

|	And at that time I agreed with you, the guard's actions were 
|	dangerous.
    
    That's all we agree about.
    
|   If he had killed a bystander with one of those stray shots, he would
|   also have faced negligent homocide charges.
    
    I don't understand why, having not killed anyone, you don't believe
    the guard should face reckless endangerment charges?
    
    But, no, the guard would not face negligent homicide charges.
    The three bank robbers would have faced murder charges.
    
|   I also doubt that you would call a suit on the part of victim's family
|   "frivolous" had such a sequence of events occurred.
    
    There where three "victims" wounded that day.  But you are absolutely
    wrong, I would call a suit by any of those three completely frivolous.
    
    								-mr. bill

re: .326

I find the exclusion of religion from this statute interesting.

Bob

   <<< Note 362.396 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    I don't understand why, having not killed anyone, you don't believe
>    the guard should face reckless endangerment charges?
 
	He probably could have. It appears that the Boston DA chose not
	to press the issue (somewhat suprising, I must say).

>    But, no, the guard would not face negligent homicide charges.
>    The three bank robbers would have faced murder charges.
 
	Again, it would depend on the DA. He could choose to file the
	charges and he could win. THe robbers could also be charged with
	felony murder, but there is a question as to the possibility of
	conviction, since there would hgave no overt act of their that
	would have resulted in the accidental deaths. Could go either
	way.

>    There where three "victims" wounded that day.  But you are absolutely
>    wrong, I would call a suit by any of those three completely frivolous.
 
	We were discussing a hypothetical scenario where a bystander 
	was killed. Would a lawsuit filed by their family be frivolous?

Jim

    re .395
    
    oh most wise one, I believe that someone is feeding you a line of
    poppycock.  What you suggest does not mesh with reality.  Someone is
    lying, who remains to be seen.
    
    Dan
    

|	He probably could have. It appears that the Boston DA chose not
|	to press the issue (somewhat suprising, I must say).
    
    ?????  Yeah, sure, so *that's* what you meant by should be slapped
    for being such a poor shot.  Uh huh.  For someone who believes
    so little, you are asking me to believe a lot.
    
|	We were discussing a hypothetical scenario where a bystander 
|	was killed. Would a lawsuit filed by their family be frivolous?
    
    No bystanders were killed on Ruby Ridge.  NONE.
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 362.400 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    ?????  Yeah, sure, so *that's* what you meant by should be slapped
>    for being such a poor shot.  Uh huh.  For someone who believes
>    so little, you are asking me to believe a lot.
 
	Bill, we are going to have to award you the 1st Annual Meowski
	award. You even argue with my replies when I say things like
	"Bill has a point".

>    No bystanders were killed on Ruby Ridge.  NONE.
 
	Really? What crime was Vicki Weaver accused of? Note that
	I'll GIVE you Sam Weaver, but you have to explain about
	the woman.

Jim

|	Really? What crime was Vicki Weaver accused of? Note that
|	I'll GIVE you Sam Weaver, but you have to explain about
|	the woman.
    
    Part of the 18-month negotiations for the surrender of Randy Weaver
    was the government's promise that they would not prosecute Vicki
    Weaver or other family members.  The negotiations broke down when
    the Federal Government could not promise that the Weaver's children
    would never be taken away by the state.  (They could not make such
    a promise for Idaho, but the nutters take that as proof that the
    Feds intended to take away their children.)
    
    The negotiations became moot when Kevin Harris openned fire.
    
    Vicky Weaver was never charged because she was *dead*.
    
    
    
    As far as what did Vicki Weaver have to do with this?  You really
    don't want me to enter her letters to U.S. Attorney Maurice Ellsworth,
    do you?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    Damn Mr. Bill, you ought to be in the circus contorting yourself like
    that.
    

   <<< Note 362.402 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Part of the 18-month negotiations for the surrender of Randy Weaver
>    was the government's promise that they would not prosecute Vicki
>    Weaver or other family members.......
    
>    Vicky Weaver was never charged because she was *dead*.
 
	I didn't ask what she was charged with, though it IS intersting
	that you admit that she was NOT charged. I asked what crime she 
	was accused of committing.
   
>    As far as what did Vicki Weaver have to do with this?  You really
>    don't want me to enter her letters to U.S. Attorney Maurice Ellsworth,
>    do you?
 
	Have at it.

Jim

    
    An envelope addressed to "Servant of the Queen of Babylon" was
    sent to U.S. Attorney Maurice Ellsworth.  It contained to letters:
    
    -----
    
    						January 22, 1991
    
              To: The queen of Babylon
    
              Yahweh lives!
    
              A man cannot have two masters.  Yahweh Yahshua
              Messiah the annoited One of Saxon Israel is our
              law giver and our King.  We will obey him and no
              others.
    
              "The deities that have not made the heavens and
              the earth, they shall perish from the earth and
              from under these heavens" - Jeremyah
    
              Halleluyah!  Yah Yahshua will be magnified and
              honored.
    
              "...a long forgotten wind is starting to blow. 
              Do you hear the approaching thunder?  It is that
              of awakened Saxon.
    
              War is upon the land.  The tyrants blood will
              flow." - Matthews
    
              Mrs. Vicki Weaver
    
    -----
    
    						Febrary 3, 1991
    
              Sir:
    
              Please pass this attached letter up the line of
              your chain of command.  Yah-Yahshua the Messiah
              of Saxon Israel is our Advocate and our Judge.
    
              The stink of your lawless government has reached
              heaven, the abode of Yahweh our Yahshua. 
              Whether we live or whether we die, we will not
              bow to your evil commandments.
    
              Mrs. Vicki Weaver
              
    -----
              
    
    Furthermore, the negotiations for the surrender of Randy Weaver
    was broken off by Vicky Weaver, with the following letter given
    to an intermediary:
    
              My husband was set up for a fall because of his
              religious and political beliefs.  There is nothing
              to discuss.  He doesn't have to prove his
              innocence, nor refute your slander.
    
    -----
    
              							-mr. bill

    
    
    
    Was there a point that was supposed to be made by you posting the
    letters, Bill?  
    
    Who was it who said, "Give me liberty or give me death?"
    
    
    

    
    	Yeah, were those letters supposed to incriminate her somehow?
    
    	If so, I guess I need a little more practice in "reading between
    	the lines".
    

    
              >The stink of your lawless government has reached
              >heaven, the abode of Yahweh our Yahshua. 
              >Whether we live or whether we die, we will not
              >bow to your evil commandments.
    
    
              >My husband was set up for a fall because of his
              >religious and political beliefs.  There is nothing
              >to discuss.  He doesn't have to prove his
              >innocence, nor refute your slander.
    
    While these do not implicate her in any specific crime, they are a
    pretty clear statement of her intent to defy the rule of law.
    
    jc
    

    
    	Well, I disagree.
    
    	That's like being arrested for owning a Ferrari in the US be-
    	cause "you bought it to defy the law".
    

    
    Shawn, owning a Ferrari is no more a display of your intent to break
    the law than owning a gun.
    

Ah, but we know that all gun owners are raving psychopaths though.

Chris.

    
    	Says who??
    
    	[Kidding!!!!  8^)]
    

   <<< Note 362.405 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

    
>    An envelope addressed to "Servant of the Queen of Babylon" was
>    sent to U.S. Attorney Maurice Ellsworth.  It contained to letters:
 
	Could you please point to the section of the US Code that was
	violated in these letters?

Jim

    The government concluded, correctly, that the first two letters
    indicated that Mr. Randy Weaver might not appear in court.
    
    The government concluded, correctly, that the last letter indicated
    that Mr. Randy Weaver would never appear in court without a
    forcible arrest.
    
    
    But for the people who are still having trouble "reading between
    the lines," I'll translate the obvious for you.
    
    -----
    
              					January 22, 1991
              
              To:  U.S. Attorney Maurice Ellsworth
              Subject:  Regarding your request for Mr. Randy Weaver
              		to appear in court.
              
              No!
              
              Mrs. Vicki Weaver
              
    -----
              					February 3, 1991
              
              To:  U.S. Attorney Maurice Ellsworth
              Subject:  Further clarification regarding your request
              		for Mr. Randy Weaver to appear in court.
              
              NO!!!!!!
              
              Mrs. Vicky Weaver.
              
    -----
    
              					October 1991
              
              To: whom it may concern
              Subject:  Your request that Mr. Randy Weaver
    			consider appearing in court at his
    			convienince subject to
    			contraints of his choosing.
    
              NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
              
              Mrs. Vicky Weaver.
              
    -----
    
    Randy Weaver was indeed convicted of failing to appear in court.
    If you can't see that Vicky Weaver played a significant role
    in Randy Weaver's failure to appear, well....
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	two letters indicate all that eh? Must be a whole book between them
    lines....
    
    
    

    mr. bill,
    
    You still have not shown where Mrs. Weaver violated any laws.
    
    Dan

   <<< Note 362.414 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    The government concluded, correctly, that the first two letters
>    indicated that Mr. Randy Weaver might not appear in court.
    
>    The government concluded, correctly, that the last letter indicated
>    that Mr. Randy Weaver would never appear in court without a
>    forcible arrest.
 
	Bill, I fear your attention span is slipping. The question I posed
	concerned MRS. Weaver.

	Even so, a letter from MRS. Weaver does not and can not constitute
	a violation of the US Code by MR. Weaver.

Jim
   

    Well, Mrs Weaver isn't an oppressed minority of any kind, so her
    "guilt" is unmitigated, and is what brought upon her death. So it's
    unfortunate and all that, but it's all her fault anyway.

The dead _are_ an oppressed minority.

>The dead _are_ an oppressed minority.

I heard somewhere that the dead outnumber the living by 10-1.  I
wonder how they worked it out...?  Unless they were just talking
bollocks, I suppose.

Chris.

    49 USC Sec. 1071
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 362.421 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>            -< Mrs. Vicki Weaver - "Concealing person from arrest" >-

>    49 USC Sec. 1071
 
	Now we ARE reaching. She did not conceal him from arrest Bill.
	She merely stated her opinion concerning the likelyhood of his
	giving himself up.

	I can't decide if it's sad or funny that one of our resident liberals
	is defending the FBI with such tenacity.

	Now I know that you believe that Weavers are scumbags, and on 
	this point I agree wholeheartedly. But, in the US, even scumbags 
	have rights.

	The sad fact is that the same tactics used on the Weavers may 
	someday be used against individuals or groups that you support.
	Let's imagine for a moment that it's the Spring of 1997. President
	Phil Graham, backed by the Christian Coalition Party majority in
	both Houses of Congress declares that Planned Parenthood and all
	other abortion rights organizations are terrorist groups. The
	raids have already begun and there are early reports of many 
	dead and wounded terrorists.

	It would ALMOST be worth it to have this happen and listen to your
	bleating about the abuse of civil rights and excessive use of
	force.

Jim

    Survey says ....... AAAAANNNNNNN
    
    Not even close mr. bill
    
    Dan

    I guess facts are stupid things.  In the negotiations for the
    surrender of Randy Weaver, the "feds" agreed not to prosecute
    Vicki Weaver for *guess what* - 18 USC Sec. 1071.  And before
    you say she did not conceal him from arrest, read the relevant
    us code.  (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1071.html)
    
    Kevin Harris was charged with the same crime.  His lawyers argued
    that he was just a guest and a friend staying at Ruby Ridge,
    therefore he could not have been harboring Randy Weaver.  The
    jury bought that line of defense.  Such a defense was not
    available to Vicki Weaver.
    
|	I can't decide if it's sad or funny that one of our resident liberals
|	is defending the FBI with such tenacity.
    
    I've said before.  I'm defending the truth.  The truth is damning
    enough!  The more you and yours heep lie after lie upon Ruby Ridge,
    the more you give aid and comfort to those you say you oppose.
    The more you lie about Waco, the more you give aid and comfort
    to those you say you oppose.
    
    The hearings this summer are going to be a complete farce.  The
    outcome is completely clear.   The nutters will be totally
    discredited.  There will an admission "some mistakes were made"
    and nothing will change.
    
|	Now I know that you believe that Weavers are scumbags, and on 
|	this point I agree wholeheartedly.
    
    Speak for yourself.  I disagree wholeheartedly.

|	The sad fact is that the same tactics used on the Weavers may 
|	someday be used against individuals or groups that you support.
    
    Good god, man.  WAKE UP!  This is not a hypothetical future someday,
    this is a *PAST* tense, been there done that.  These things have
    happened against groups I supported and against groups I opposed.
    
    But because they had nothing to do with guns, you didn't notice!
    
    
    
    The truth about the tactics is enough.
    
    SO WHY LIE ABOUT RUBY RIDGE?
    
    
    I know, I know, the truth won't get more members into the NRA or
    the militias.
    
    Damn the truth, there's conspiracy theories to weave.
    
    								-mr. bill

    mr. bill,
    
    Just because the Feds "threatened" to prosecute Mrs. Weaver, does not
    mean they had a case.  What I said still stands.  You have not yet
    provided any evidence that Mrs. Weaver commited a crime.
    
    Try again.
    
    Dan

    
    
    Bill, 
    
    Doesn't that scare you a little bit?  That the fed would 'threaten" to
    charge someone with something unless they do what they want?  It scares
    the hell out of me.  Ve hav wais ov makink you talk.  
    
    
    Mike

    Mr. Bill,
    
    You are assuming that the agents were telling the truth on the witness
    stand.  If they *did* commit murder, they certainly would not attest to
    this fact on the witness stand.  
    
    Apparently, the jury did not believe all the agents' statements.
    
    -steve

    I can see it now, The feds prosecuting VW under USC 18 1071.
    
    "Yup, we had 'em under surveillance for 18 months... flying over
    their cabin and everything... finally... we shot her in the head".
    
    CASE DISMISSED!!!!!
    
    What a stretch bill, while yer surfin why don't you go post USC 18 
    section 241 and 242.  I'd love to see Randy Weaver slap everyone even 
    remotely connected to this event with these charges under the
    federal rules of civil procedure.  By By Lon...
    
    MadMike  

                
    I'll save you the legwork Mr. Bill.
    
    I think someone would have someone else nailed quite handily
    under the following laws.  It doesn't take a brain surgeon to
    think this deal out.  I'd bet this would get settled very quickly.
    and quietly.
    
     * UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18 PART I  CHAPTER 13
                                           
    � 241. Conspiracy against rights
    
   If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
   intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the
   free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by
   the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his
   having so exercised the same; or
   
   If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
   premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
   exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
   
   They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than
   ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to
   imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

     * UNITED STATES CODE  TITLE 18  PART I  CHAPTER 13
                                             
    � 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
    
   Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or
   custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or
   District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
   secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
   or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such
   inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than
   are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more
   than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if
   bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
   not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be
   subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

    It's bad enough that Bill Licea-Kane so often argues by allusion, but
    to cite an agreement NOT to prosecute a person as evidence of
    wrong-doing by that person is absurd.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Good gawd Bill, .429 is also usefull for people who AREN'T held up
    in their cabin out in the woods under assault.  "Color of Law" is
    generally reserved for whacking state agents, such as ticket givers
    and people who dictate how your yard should look, etc...
    It's defined in 42 USC 1983, I think.
    
    Have a nice day.

   <<< Note 362.431 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>"Color of Law" is
>    generally reserved for whacking state agents, such as ticket givers
>    and people who dictate how your yard should look, etc...
>    It's defined in 42 USC 1983, I think.
 
	I believe it's also the section under which the Rodney King cops
	were prosecuted.

Jim

   
    Have a nice day.

    
    >stand.  If they *did* commit murder, they certainly would not attest to
    >this fact on the witness stand.  
    
    
    	Of course they would ... they were under oath!!
    

    
    Just a note of thanks to Mr. Bill for taking the time to express his
    views in a manner more animated and complete than I've seen of him in
    a long time.
    
    Refreshing ...  and informative.
    
    Doug.

    
    
    
    Bill, 
    
    A point was brought up which needs to be addressed.  If the arguments
    are so damning, why did the jury find RW not guilty?
    
    
    Mike

    re: .425 by Dan Killoran
    
|   Just because the Feds "threatened" to prosecute Mrs. Weaver, does not
|   mean they had a case. 
    
    re: .426 by Mike Wannemacher
    
|   Doesn't that scare you a little bit?  That the fed would 'threaten" to
|   charge someone with something unless they do what they want?  It scares
|   the hell out of me.  Ve hav wais ov makink you talk.  
    
    Bravo, had to get some sort of NAZI references in there, didn't
    you?????
    
    What kind of newspeak and newsthink do we have here?
    
    
    The Feds did not *threaten* to prosecute Vicki Weaver.
    
    
    The *Weavers* believed that Randy Weaver violated the law when he
    did not show up for trial.  (They were quite right about that.) 
    They also believed that Vicki Weaver violated the law when she
    assisted him during his time as a fugitive from justice.  (And
    they were quite right about that too.)
    
    They also believed that the law did not apply to them.  (They were
    quite wrong about that.)
    
    For a period, they "negotiated" through an intermediary on
    conditions that were *ACCEPTABLE TO THEM* before Randy Weaver
    would consider walking down off that Ridge.
    
    Conditions such as don't prosecute Randy Weaver for failure to
    appear in court.  Conditions such as don't prosecute Randy Weaver
    for failure to meet other conditions of his release.  Conditions
    such as don't prosecute Vicky Weaver for harboring a fugitive.
    Conditions such as don't prosecute anyone else in the family.
    Conditions such as don't prosecute anybody who's lived on the
    property over the past several months.  Conditions such as
    promise Idaho will never take away our children.  Conditions
    such as a friend of ours will stay in the jail cell with Randy
    Weaver and keep him company.
    
    The Feds said, essentially, OK to all but the last two "conditions".
    
    It didn't matter.  Vicki Weaver already sent the "NEVER!!!!!!!!"
    letter.
    
    
    Now, in the waffen batf storm-trooper everyone who has a gun is a
    victim world vision of yours, how does this work out....
    
    
    Weavers say - Please don't prosecute Mrs. Vicki Weaver for harboring a
    fugitive.
    
    If Feds say - *YES*, we won't prosecute Mrs. Vicki Weaver,
    that's evidence that they threatened to prosecute Mrs. Vicki Weaver.
    
    If Feds say - *NO*, well hell, that's evidence that they threatened to
    prosecute Mrs. Vicki Weaver too.
    
    
    So, you tell me, how should the Feds have answered that
    question?????
    
    Ah, never mind.
    
    Damn the truth.  There's conspiracy theories to weave.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   It's bad enough that Bill Licea-Kane so often argues by allusion, but
|   to cite an agreement NOT to prosecute a person as evidence of
|   wrong-doing by that person is absurd.
    
    Let's see.  So citing evidence that the participants believed they
    would be prosecuted is not enough?
    
    18 USC Sec. 1071
    
              Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose
              arrest a warrant or process has been issued under
              the provisions of any law of the United States, so
              as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after
              notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or
              process has been issued for the apprehension of
              such person, shall be fined not more than $1,000
              or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
              except that if the warrant or process issued on a
              charge of felony, or after conviction of such
              person of any offense, the punishment shall be a
              fine of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment for
              not more than five years, or both. 
    
    1 - FACT - There was a warrant issued for the arrest of Randy
    Weaver.
    
    2 - FACT - That warrant was issued under the provisions of a
    law of the United States.
    
    3 - FACT - Vicki Weaver had knowledge of that warrant for the
    arrest of Randy Weaver.
    
    4 - FACT - Vicki Weaver harbored Randy Weaver so as to prevent
    his arrest.
    
    
    This one isn't even a close call.
    
    
    For the people who argue that she could *NOT* be guilty of this
    section because the feds knew exactly where they were (she didn't
    prevent his discovery, nya nya nya nya), LEARN TO READ.
    
    Please note that people have been charged and sucessfully prosecuted
    simply for standing between a person and an officer in an attempt
    to prevent that person's arrest!
    
    								-mr. bill

	At the risk of being told to LEARN TO READ, blah, blah, blah,
	what did she actually do that constitutes "harboring"?  I don't
	know what the law is around that, so I'm just asking anyone who
	might.

    
    
    
    I see it as they believed that they did nothing wrong and weren't going
    to go through the BS, Bill.  I don't see it the other way at all.
    
    
    Mike

|   A point was brought up which needs to be addressed.  If the arguments
|   are so damning, why did the jury find RW not guilty?
    
    This is what happened with the charges for Randy Weaver.
    
    Conspiracy
    NOT GUILTY
    
    The government case hinged on proving that Randy and Vicki Weaver
    specifically moved to Idaho so that they could provoke a
    confrontation and murder federal agents.
    
    The government didn't even come close.
    
    Illegal Firearms
    NOT GUILTY
    
    Government had to prove that Randy Weaver knowingly sold two illegal
    firearms.  They did indeed prove this.  Defense claimed entrapment.
    Defense claimed trumped up charges.  Defense claimed feds only
    went after Weaver so they could have an informant.  Defense
    claimed Weaver was persecuted for his beliefs.
    Ask the jury why they did not convict.
    
    Failure to appear
    GUILTY
    
    Government had to prove that Randy Weaver failed to appear.  This
    hinged on evidence from the judicial branch of the government.  The
    paper trail was crystal clear, even though there was an error in the
    date to appear, Randy Weaver did not appear on any day, and letters
    were sent by Vicki Weaver clearly showing they had no intent in
    complying with the law.
    
    Violating conditions of release
    GUILTY
    
    Government had to prove that Randy Weaver agreed not to possess
    firearms, and that he did possess firearms.  Again, paper trail from
    the judicial branch, including some recordings of Randy Weaver at
    the release hearing agreeing not to possess firearms.  Law
    enforcement entered into evidence weapons seized at Ruby Ridge,
    as well as photo surveilance, proving that Weaver violated this
    condition.
    
    Assault
    NOT GUILTY
    
    Government had to prove that Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris assaulted
    federal operatives.  Randy Weaver was never charged with the murder
    of anyone, only Kevin Harris was.  Between prosecution misconduct,
    sloppy sloppy evidence collection, tainted physical evidence (most
    damning of all staged photos), and given the admission by
    prosecution expert that it was *possible* (not likely at all,
    but *possible) that Degan fired seven shots before he was hit,
    the jury legitimately found more than enough reasonable doubt
    to find Kevin Harris not guilty.  The assault charge against
    Randy Weaver fell away after that.
    
    Contrary to implications over and over and over again, the jury
    would not have to find that federal agents lied on the witness
    stand.  They just had to have reasonable doubt about the sequence of
    events.
    
    								-mr. bill

    minor nit:  mr. bill, the gov't couldn't have proven their case
    well enough if the jury found a not guilty verdict for the firearms
    charge.

    
|   minor nit:  mr. bill, the gov't couldn't have proven their case
|   well enough if the jury found a not guilty verdict for the firearms
|   charge.
    
    So you believe that Randy Weaver did *NOT* sell two sawed off
    shotguns in violation of the Federal Fireams Act of 1934?  Maybe
    you might want to mention that fact to Gary Spence, Randy Weaver's
    lawyer, who admitted his client sold the guns, but claimed he
    was entrapped, etc etc etc etc etc....
    
    								-mr. bill

I'm not saying it's the case here, but juries can sometimes do perverse
things.  Consider the acquittal on murder charges of the guy who killed
Meir Kahane.

    mr bill, i don't know what happened and i'm not sharing my opinion.
    i was commenting on your listing of charges/verdicts and the heading
    of not guilty under the illlegal fire arm followed by your commentary
    that the gov't did prove this.  my point was simply that they obviously
    didn't do well enough.  doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    
    
    	My question is why the agent went and asked him to cut the barrels
    down in the first place. Why was he originally targeted?
    
    
    jim

Several things still bother me. 

Why were government agent carrying silenced firearms? 

(from .362)

Why did a the  Federal Judge that heard the case feel it necessary to send a 
detailed list of FBI and DOJ (BATF?) misconduct to the DOJ. These included 
fabrication and alteration of evidence.
 

Which witness indicated that the Federal agents announced themselves? At what
point did they annouce (before or after the dog attacked/was shot)?


It's been my experience that more lies are spoken than truths in court and so
I read the following with some interest and wondered if a copy of the misconduct
list was available:

(from .386)
  
>   I remember reading newspaper accounts of the trial as it occurred, and
>    the judge rebuked the government repeatedly for lying and covering up.
 

Doug.

    
|   My question is why the agent went and asked him to cut the barrels
|   down in the first place. Why was he originally targeted?
    
    Because of his religious views, of course.  (Which rings as true
    as Mayor Barry was tarageted because he was black.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	great answer Mr. Bill....thanks a bunch. Anyone else have a real
    answer?
    
    
    jim

|Why were government agent carrying silenced firearms?            
    
    In case the dogs came after them during the surveillance mission,
    with a silenced weapon they were far less likely to be detected.
    
|Why did a the  Federal Judge that heard the case feel it necessary to send a 
|detailed list of FBI and DOJ (BATF?) misconduct to the DOJ. These included 
|fabrication and alteration of evidence.
    
    Not BATF misconduct.  Their initial arrest went very smoothly,
    setting up Randy Weaver with a "broken down" pickup truck where
    a couple asked for help.  The couple were BATF agents, in the
    back of the pickup were 4 BATF agents, they managed to arrest
    Randy Weaver despite his resist, despite his attempt to use his
    own weapon, despite wrestling with an agent and attempting to
    go for the agent's weapon.  (BTW, there was *no* dispute at
    all that the BATF agents failed to identify themselves.
    Hypothetically, if he had managed to kill one or more BATF agents
    on January 17, 1991, would he have been likely to claim that
    they never identified themselves and just shot them in self-defense?)
    
    
    The sanction for misconduct during the trial was failure to supply
    evidence to the defense in a timely fasion.  Prosecution was fined
    $3,240.00.
    
    Most seriously, and most damaging, they were also sanctioned for
    not admitting up front that some photos were of reconstructed crime
    scene (aka fabricated).  One FBI agent collected evidence in the
    mistaken belief that photos had already been taken.  There was
    confusion at the scene, some people thinking the photos had been
    taken, some thinking they had not.  They replaced the evidence,
    and took more photos.  (Unbelievable.)  When the photos came in,
    more confusion, where somebody thought the staged photos were
    the original photos.
    
    So, several photos of evidence were tainted.  This was revealed
    by U.S. Attorney Ronald Howen *after* the several photos were
    placed in evidence.
    
    Sanction for this was telling the jury that the photos were staged.
    (Which effectively and legitimately was a get out of jail free card
    for Kevin Harris and Randy Weaver.)
    
    
    By far the most serious problem in the judge's mind seems to be
    the rules of engagement on August 22, 1992.  (Shoot on sight.)
    
|Which witness indicated that the Federal agents announced themselves? At what
|point did they annouce (before or after the dog attacked/was shot)?
    
    Cooper and Roderick testified under oath that Degan announced himself
    after he was attacked by the dog.  Degan was unable to testify to
    this fact, since he was dead.  Of the other people who could
    hear, Samuel Weaver was also dead, and Kevin Harris never
    testified under oath but claimed that he shot in self-defense.
    (Unlike the marshalls, Harris had no motive to lie, right?)
    
|It's been my experience that more lies are spoken than truths in court and so
|I read the following with some interest and wondered if a copy of the
|misconduct list was available:
    
    At least you are open about your bias.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: Note 362.442 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE
    
    > So you believe that Randy Weaver did *NOT* sell two sawed off
    > shotguns in violation of the Federal Fireams Act of 1934?
    
    Oh, I believe Randy Weaver sold 2 shotguns.  But let's skip the
    cutesy stuff (entrapment, etc...)  I don't think that's a crime.
    And if I'm on a jury, I'd NOT CONVICT Weaver of this "crime".
    Furthermore, I'd raise holy hell that our federal government is
    WASTING ITS TIME AND OUR MONEY <r.o.>ing around with stupid CRAP
    like this.
    
    Aren't there REAL CRIMINALS the FBI can be chasing?

|   great answer Mr. Bill....thanks a bunch. Anyone else have a real
|   answer?
    
    Hey, that's the only answer defense provided, I guess you don't buy
    it.
    
    
    Prosecution's contention was that they had reasonable cause to
    suspect Randy Weaver was involved with distribution of illegal
    firearms.
    
    Randy Weaver met informant Gus Magiosono (real name Fadeley) who
    was posing as an illegal guns dealer at several annual Arian
    Nations meetings at Hayden Lake in July 1986, 87, and 89.
    Magiosono says they discussed sawed off shotguns at Hayden Lake,
    and then met again at a resturaunt in Sandpoint, Idaho on October
    11, 1989 to setup the transaction.  On October 24, they met behind
    the resturaunt where Weaver showed him the two guns, and argued
    over he fact that Magiosono came up short with the cash.
    
    								-mr. bill

>   So you believe that Randy Weaver did *NOT* sell two sawed off
>   shotguns in violation of the Federal Fireams Act of 1934?
    
    [...]
|   I don't think that's a crime.
    
    Really?  I'm shocked.  (NOT!)
    
    I believe it's a crime.
    I believe it's a crime to violate release conditions you agree to.
    I also believe it's an even bigger crime not to show up at your own
    trial.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: 5683.256-5683.265
    
    Next time, why don't you just ask me.
    
    								-mr. bill

    candy-armed?

   <<< Note 362.437 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    4 - FACT - Vicki Weaver harbored Randy Weaver so as to prevent
>    his arrest.
 
	This is an assertion on your part. Please explain how Mrs. Weaver
	prevented his arrest? 

>    Please note that people have been charged and sucessfully prosecuted
>    simply for standing between a person and an officer in an attempt
>    to prevent that person's arrest!
 
	How about standing BEHIND someone while the officers are firing
	at them? Anyone been prosecuted for that?

Jim

   <<< Note 362.453 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>        -< Just ask the "bed-wetting candy-a**ed Liberal crybaby".... >-

	Someone else's opinion, not mine.

>    Next time, why don't you just ask me.
 
	Didn't feel right. But if you are willing to offer......

Jim

>    4 - FACT - Vicki Weaver harbored Randy Weaver so as to prevent
>    his arrest.
 
    mr. bill,
        How can a person be guilty of "harboring" a fugitive in the
    fugitive's own home ?  What I said STILL stands, you have not provided
    any proof of Mrs. Weaver having commited a crime.  To quote a somewhat
    crass friend of mine "Put up, or Shut up!"
    
    Dan

>|Why were government agent carrying silenced firearms?            
>    
>    In case the dogs came after them during the surveillance mission,
>    with a silenced weapon they were far less likely to be detected.
 
I think you missed the point of this question entirely.

>|It's been my experience that more lies are spoken than truths in court and so
>|I read the following with some interest and wondered if a copy of the
>|misconduct list was available:
>    
>    At least you are open about your bias.
 
  It's taken some time to learn, but the truth, if not an outright victim, is
often last to cross the finish line (which is why I want to hear all sides of
an issue and don't hold steadfast to one belief without hard evidence).

Case in point: Brother number 3 makes black and white photo copy of a 5 dollar
bill with a different portrait (a joke) and gave it to brother number 1 who,
while drinking in a dark, noisey and busy bar, paid the tab with many real
bill and this one phoney (it was purely accidental). The police were called, 
brother #1 arrest and prosecuted by the feds for counterfieting. The bullsh$t
presented by the federal prosecuter would have you believe brother #1 was a big
time mobster with $20 printing plates hiding in his trunk. The charges were
dropped.

Case #2: Brother #2 is in the vehicle of a friend who has a small cocaine 
problem. They met at a chinese restaraunt. Brother #2 locks his car
and hops into friends truck. Officer is told by an informant in the restaraunt
that brothers friend bought some cociane that evening (true), goes out to 
the vehicle and arrests both parties. He found no evidence of possesion on 
Brother #1 but finds a packet stuffed in a glove under the seat of friends truck.

This same officer had bought cocaine from the informant that evening and had
used some just before the bust (He was well known as a user by many townies). 
The cops weren't interested in this part of the story. 

After 6 months of many visits to the local court house and a bunch of pure
bullsh$t testimony from the officer my brother was found not involved. 

Two months later, the officer was arrested for passing bad prescriptions. I only
hope that information my brother supplied was a catalyst for the investigation.

Bias? Naw,   a realist.

Doug.
 

    
    
    	I hear ya Doug. I have a friend who's son is paralyzed from the
    neck down due to the beating he received from some kinder, gentler
    Worcester police officers who didn't like the look of his leather
    jacket. They dragged him from his truck, beat him severely (breaking
    his back) and then dumped him in his parents driveway at 2am.
    
    	He would've been better off if they shot him outright....
    
    
    jim

    whose
    parents'

Why did the feds 'negotiate' for 18 months?
On the day of the shootings were the feds intending to make arrests on that
day or did they intened it to be another day of surveillance only?

    Re .437:
    
    > | It's bad enough that Bill Licea-Kane so often argues by allusion, but
    > | to cite an agreement NOT to prosecute a person as evidence of
    > | wrong-doing by that person is absurd.
    >
    > Let's see.  So citing evidence that the participants believed they
    > would be prosecuted is not enough?
                                                                           
    The words "to cite an agreement NOT to prosecute a person as evidence
    of wrong-doing by that person is absurd" do not mean "citing evidence
    that the participants believed they would be prosecuted is not enough".
    The words "to cite an agreement NOT to prosecute a person as evidence
    of wrong-doing by that person is absurd" mean "to cite an agreement
    NOT to prosecute a person as evidence of wrong-doing by that person is
    absurd".
    
    >     4 - FACT - Vicki Weaver harbored Randy Weaver so as to prevent
    > his arrest.

    A "fact" unsupported by any evidence you've presented or even alluded
    to.  Neither living with somebody nor sending protest letters to the
    government meet the criteria of "harboring" in the USC.
    
    > This one isn't even a close call.
    
    Congratulations, you actually wrote something true!
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re: .462
    
    Citing evidence that the particpants believed they would be prosecuted
    as evidence of wrong doing by those persons is *NOT* citing an agreement
    NOT to prosecute a person as evidence of wrong doing by those persons.
    
|   Neither living with somebody nor sending protest letters to the
|   government meet the criteria of "harboring" in the USC.
    
    How about a citation from the USC supporting this outlandish claim?
    (Then we'll deal with your highly questionable assumption that
    Mrs. Vicki Weaver was simply "living with" Randy Weaver and
    just sent a few "protest letters" and nothing more.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .463:
    
    > Citing evidence that the particpants believed they would be prosecuted
    > as evidence of wrong doing by those persons is *NOT* citing an
    > agreement NOT to prosecute a person as evidence of wrong doing by those
    > persons.
    
    It is if the citation of the agreement is intended to evidence the
    participants' belief they would be prosecuted, which is in turn
    intended to evidence wrong-doing.  Even if it were not, one's belief
    that one would be prosecuted isn't evidence of wrong-doing either. 
    Otherwise, every person who was arraigned would believe they would
    probably be prosecuted, and this would be evidence of their guilt.

    > How about a citation from the USC supporting this outlandish claim?

    You've already cited 18 USC 1071.
    
    > (Then we'll deal with your highly questionable assumption that Mrs.
    > Vicki Weaver was simply "living with" Randy Weaver and just sent a few
    > "protest letters" and nothing more.)
    
    I made no such assumption.  I stated that neither of those met the
    criteria; I did not state they were all that Vicki Weaver did.  If you
    want to demonstrate her guilt, it's up to you to present the evidence,
    not to implicate her by asserting that she didn't do only the things
    which aren't evidence of her guilt.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    News and personal reports of the trial written while it was occurring
    and other reports are in the very long following response.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

               <<< RUSURE::NOTES1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]REASON.NOTE;2 >>>
                                  -< Reason >-
================================================================================
Note 288.0                Excessive Force by Government               11 replies
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        303 lines  18-SEP-1992 08:46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've reordered the following to place the description of events first.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
				BACKGROUND

   During the afternoon of Friday, August 21, 1992, former Green Beret Randy
Weaver, 44, and his 13-year old son Sam, were walking near their forest cabin
with family friend Kevin Harris, 24.  When the family dog began barking, Sam
and Kevin approached the sound to see if a deer had been flushed out.  Someone
wearing body armor and a camouflaged uniform emerged from the brush and told 
Kevin to "freeze".  Someone else shot the dog, and 13-year old Sam turned and
immediately made a loud protest about shooting his dog and apparently fired a
30-30 rifle at the intruder.  Sam had met an assault team of U.S. Marshals in
body armor, who were top specialists in hostage and terrorist situations.  They
were there without a warrant and without identifying themselves.  Upon hearing
the shots, Randy, a short distance away, fired his shotgun into the air and
yelled for Kevin and Sam to come to him and to the safety of the cabin.  As
young Sam came running, someone shot Sam in the arm.  A second shot was fired
at Sam, as he headed to the homebuilt cabin, striking him in the back.  Kevin
stopped and checked for Sam's pulse, thereupon pronouncing Sam dead.  Kevin 
proceeded to run for the cabin.  Randy and Kevin made it safely back to the 
cabin.  In the cover of darkness, Randy and Sam's mother, Vicki, recovered
Sam's body, cleaned it up and then wrapped it in a sheet in preparation for
burial.  The body was then placed in a woodshed near the cabin.  Saturday,
August 22, 1992, Randy went out to the shed to say his last goodbye to Sam.
When he reached up to unlatch the door of the shed, Randy was shot through his
arm, with the sniper's bullet exiting via his armpit.  Randy turned and told
Kevin to take cover in the cabin and then ran quickly back to the cabin 
himself.  However, in the process, Vicki opened the door while holding her
10-month old daughter Alishba.  Vicki was shot in the head approximately 
between the eyes, killing her instantly. Fragments of Vicki's skull and of the
well-aimed sniper's bullet also hit Kevin, breaking a rib and injuring a lung.
Randy closed up the cabin and has remained barricaded with his three daughters
and Kevin ever since.  NO return fire was given from the cabin, or at all, save
for the initial confrontation on Friday, August 21st, in the forest.
   After Marshal Degan died, another U.S. Marshal called in the Idaho State
Police, the city of Spokane, Washington Police and the Idaho National Guard.
Moreover, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and FBI agents came to the
scene.  An assortment of other bureaucrats eventually showed up, including
personnel from the U.S. Attorney's office.  Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus next
declared MARTIAL LAW, allegedly after the initial shooting incident.  Beginning
Sunday, August 23rd, up to 500 armed officers and SWAT teams became involved in
the siege.  Armored personnel carriers, various helicopters including at least
one large Huey helicopter, and numerous armed vehicles arrived around the base
of the mountain, with Randy's cabin on top.  The Idaho National Guard supplied
generators, a bulldozer, front-hoe tractor, bridge planking, truck loads of
other equipment, tents, cots, 50-caliber machine guns, and assorted military
equipment; plus other high-tech electronics.  The local inhabitants of the area
were removed from their homes on Friday after the first shots were fired.
   Next, a four-seat FBI helicopter and hundreds of troops arrived in the 
staging area.  At least 30 agents positioned themselves to surround the first
perimeter of the cabin, which perimeter extended 200-meters from the cabin.  
However, Idaho National Guardsmen now became UNARMED upon demand by the FBI, 
apparently only to add to the appearance of mutual cooperation, as federal
authorities became seemingly concerned about Guardsmen sympathy turning into
mutiny.
   Also on Sunday, August 23rd, a satchel charge of explosives was planted by
SWAT team near the cabin.  A satchel charge is an explosive device that can be
readied and set off by timer or remote control.  An hour later, a 20-gallon 
blue plastic drum was filled from a diesel truck with the same fuel used by the
generators, and then placed aboard the FBI helicopter.  The FBI helicopter then
took-off and flew towards the cabin when a news reporter and local separatist
scout stepped out from beneath the trees and made sure the pilot saw that he
was being photographed.  The pilot then circled two times and landed.  The film
evidence of this event survived a hasty journey down the hill, and is in safe
hands. The diesel fuel was to have been poured on the cabin and the satchel
charge set-off to make a fire bomb that would easily consume the cabin and all
its occupants, including the two young girls and a 10-month old infant        
barricaded inside.  The news reporter who photographed the attempted 
firebombing has been arrested for "obstruction of justice".  But the film was
successfully developed and safely secured.  Some "official" reports are being
challenged by local inhabitants of the area.  The official report is that 
Marshal Degan was NOT wearing body armor at the time of his death.  Marshal   
Degan was allegedly NOT shot by another U.S. Marshal, in what is known as
"friendly fire".  However, in order to lessen the evidence of the wrongful
death of 13-year-old son Sam Weaver, and because the Federal weapons being
used at the scene fire in 3-shot bursts, some observers believe that Degan's
vest was REMOVED after his death to conceal two other "friendly fire" hits.
Some conflict also exists regarding the sniper-fired "stray" bullet that killed
Vickie Weaver on Saturday, August 22.
   FBI informants are at the site.  One FBI informant was unsuccessful in     
offering to lead Lighter and Salter up a back road, up the mountain, alleged to
be unguarded.  "Bo" Gritz arrived at the Ruby Creek assault site.  Col. Gritz 
was at the Ruby Creek bridge, under constant surveillance by various armed
agents when an ATF agent sighted a weapon on Col. Gritz, and an immediate
protest was lodged.  The assassination attempt of a U.S. Presidential Candidate
was unwise.  On Friday, August 28th, while Col. Gritz was reading the text of 
the citizen's arrest warrants, Col. Gritz had his back to the barrier rope
when another ATF agent, identified as Agent Ahern, stood pointing his loaded
H & K MP-5 submachine gun, which hung by a sling from his neck, at Col. Gritz's
back.  One of Col. Gritz's supporters, Don Stewart of Portland, Oregon, jumped
between the gun and Col. Gritz, and then told the agent in rather strong terms
that he had better take his finger off the trigger and point it elsewhere.
After briefly turning the weapon away, ATF Agent Ahern again pointed the loaded
machine gun at Col. Gritz.  Col. Gritz walked away, safely, after delivering
the arrests, and continued in his ordeal to ensure the safety of Randy Weaver,
his three girls and Kevin Harris.
   The intense stand-off had become defused enough to allow Col. Gritz to escort
friends of the Weaver family up to, but not within, the cabin.  Col. Gritz's
call to action to end the tyranny of the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.   
continues to expand.  Col. Gritz supports this report and wants the bureaucrats
responsible for this ASSAULT AT RUBY CREEK to be held accountable for their
orders and actions, including the investigation of the intire episode of
events by Federal Grand Juries.

				BULLETIN

			8/31/92  1430 HRS PDT

   Moments ago, independent Presidential Candidate, Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz   
walked off Ruby Ridge with 44-year old Randy Weaver and his three daughters.
Col. Gritz negotiated his departure from the cabin which included Weaver being
able to walk, unhandcuffed and with his full dignity, with his daughters, down 
the mountain to awaiting U.S. Marshals.  Weaver will be taken to Boise, Idaho
for arraignment.  Col. Gritz and retired Phoenix, Arizona Police Officer Jack
McLamb will also be enroute to Boise.  According to an agreement signed by 
federal officials, Weaver's three daughters will apparently be allowed to 
remain with relatives.  Further details of the end of this 11-day ordeal will
be made as they become available.

---------------------------- END OF ARTICLE ---------------------------------


Another article in this same edition (September 1, 1992) of The Phoenix      
Liberator outlines how Randy Weaver was set-up by the FBI and others with a 
sawed-off shot gun that was 1/4 OF AN INCH SHORTER THAN FEDERAL REGULATIONS
ALLOW!!!  They then supposedly had a case against him to search his house.
Also, WEAVER WAS ACCUSED BY PRESS AND MEDIA OF BEING "ARYAN" (NAZI), ANTI-
SEMITE AND RACIST.
   Actually, a "friend" of Weaver tried unceasingly to get him to attend a 
church group calling themselves "ARYANS" (CHRIST CHRISTIANS).  Weaver finally
went to a total of TWO MEETINGS	AND DECIDED HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THEIR 
PRACTICES AND BELIEFS.  Nevertheless, all that was released by the major media
disinformation was that Weaver is an Aryan.  A group of "skin-heads" showed up
at the site, supposedly in support of Weaver.  HOWEVER, THEY SAID THAT THEY 
WERE SENT THERE !! They said that they had another appointment that they
needed to attend, and that they would leave if the situation was not resolved
before they needed to leave for the other engagement.


IF YOU PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON, GET SOME INFORMATION 
FROM DIRECT SOURCES!!  WE STAND TO LOSE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT 
COMPLETELY, AND IT IS TIME THAT YOU PEOPLE GET INVOLVED [IN SPREADING
THE INFORMATION AND GETTING CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYERS TO CHARGE THE
GOVERNMENT WITH CRIMES AS A DETERRENT TO THEIR SAVAGRY. 
ANY ONE OF US COULD BE THEIR NEXT VICTIM.]

Again, the number for The Phoenix Liberator is 1-800-800-5565.
The number for the Bo Gritz campaign is 1-800-633-7692.


I do not get on the net very often, so please send correspondence to me by
snail-mail if you want to get a hold of me in a timely manner.  My address is:

Mark Hoza
PO Box 600
Eagle, CO  81631-0600

(303)328-6638(Home)
(303)753-2519(Voice Mail)

TRUTH = FREEDOM !!!
     


Article 34584 of alt.activism:
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,soc.rights.human
From: [email protected] (John DiNardo)
Subject: U.S. Government Ambushes and Slaughters an Idaho Family
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 289


*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Article 15778 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: cbnewsl!att-out!rutgers!ub!csn!boulder!ucsu!hoza
From: [email protected] (HOZA MARK R)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Truth about Bo Gritz in Idaho
Summary: Truth about Bo Gritz in Idaho
Keywords: Bo Gritz Randy Weaver Idaho
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 00:23:13 GMT-0:08
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 265


Here is part of what was printed in The Phoenix Liberator on September 1, 1992.
If you want a copy of the whole article, along with some other related articles,
call 1-800-800-5565.  There are a lot of rumors going around here about Gritz,
but anyone can call the Bo Gritz National Campaign Headquarters at          
1-800-633-7692.  He is the only candidate willing to save our Constitution.
Find out how it is possible to ELIMINATE the NATIONAL DEBT with one pot metal
coin!!!  ALL of our income taxes go directly to pay off the Federal Reserve
debt!  The Federal Reserve IS NOT a branch of the Federal Government.  It is
a conglomeration of PRIVATE banks.     

Call the Gritz headquarters for more details    1-800-633-7692

Now, here is the article from The Phoenix Liberator, Sept. 1, 1992, p. 43-45:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Latest Update From Idaho

(Editor's note:  The following is absolutely "hot off the FAX" at 5:19PM today-
8/31/92 - from John Prukop, the Washington State Press Secretary for the Bo
Gritz National Presidential Campaign Committee.  John has been on top of the 
Randy Weaver issue since it began.  This is the latest of a number of bulletins
which John has put together from data supplied by supporters of the 
Weaver family, plus some input by Bo himself.  
John can be contacted at (206) 927-0805.

                            AMERICAN TRAGEDY:

			ASSAULT AT RUBY CREEK

(Editor's Note: We apologize for the length of this report/update on the siege
in northern Idaho; however, there has been much disinformation and labeling
of Randy Weaver, his family, and Kevin Harris.  When the truth in this report
finally reaches the American People, despite cover-up of the facts, together,
we will all realize that this entire Assault at Ruby Creek has been deliberately
stage-managed, with malice of forethought and premeditation on the part of the
United States DE FACTO Government.  From the following facts, it is incontro-
vertible that officials within the Washington, D.C. power circle, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Marshal Service, and the Justice Department have
condoned, encouraged and spawned FELONIOUS ABUSE AND COVER-UP OF ABUSE OF:
discretion of office; power of office; firearms and directing of lethal force;  military and/or paramilitary forces; and, MORE as charged in the six-page
Federal Order for Citizen's Warrant for Citizen's Arrest.) 

   (Naples, Idaho)...A group of supporters of independent U.S. Presidential
candidate, Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz have established their own "Command Post"
to assist in the organization of the "peaceful demonstration" and the release
of accurate information.  Their concern is that the "near blackout" of the 
press, plus disinformation and rumors, have created a state of confusion.  The
story from Ruby Creek, located in northern Idaho, is now an international news
story.  Some of the important points are capsulated herewith: 
   On the afternoon of Friday, August 28, 1992, Col. Gritz was finally    
permitted to begin to negotiate an immediate solution.  His offers to negotiate
were shunned by federal authorities until Col. Gritz and a former, meritorious
Phoenix, Arizona police officer, Jack McLamb, white-collar criminal investi-
gators Eric Lighter of Honolulu, Hawaii and retired Lt. Col. John Salter of 
Missoula, Montana, invoked federal warrants for citizen's arrests.  These  
arrests were served on (1) FBI Director William Sessions, (2) apparent FBI  
on-site oversight Chief Gene Glenn, (3) Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus, and (4)
Washington, D.C. Director of the U.S. Marshal's Service, Henry Hudson.  After
their releases on their own recognizance, delivery of the arrests are being
made to federal grand juries in Idaho, and at least a dozen other states.  When
the U.S. Marshals lost control of the military "hit" on the inhabited cabin of
Randy Weaver, of Ruby Creek, Idaho, the FBI Assistant Director for Criminal
Investigation Division handed control of the "assault at Ruby Creek" over to
Director William Sessions in Washington, D.C.
   For about one week, the Weaver family and friend Kevin Harris have been    
holding out in their mountain-top cabin, relating to an ALLEGED firearms   
violation.  The incident has resulted in the death of Randy Weaver's wife, and
his 13-year old son from separate, purposeful gunfire incidents involving
U.S. marshals and FBI agents.  A U.S. Marshal was also killed, William A. 
Degan.  Wounded, but still alive, are Randy Weaver, 44, and Kevin Harris, 24.
Kevin Harris was airlifted by helicopter to Spokane, Washington's Sacred Heart
Hospital Sunday, August 30th, accompanied by Jack McLamb.  His condition was
reported as stable.  Randy Weaver and his three daughters, ages 16 and 8, and
10 months, at last report, were still inside the cabin.  Weaver is a popular
neighbor, who was narrowly defeated in his bid for Sheriff of Boundary County
in 1988.  Col. Gritz recently arrived to attempt mediation with former Green
Beret Weaver, who requested Col. Gritz's assistance in the face of up to 500 
armed agents and national guard sodiers.  Col. James "Bo" Gritz was the most
highly decorated Green Beret Commander in Vietnam, but was denied access to 
Weaver, until he invoked the arrests.
   A three-page affidavit from February 28, 1985, filed in public record, 
predicted that the FBI would murder Randy Weaver and his family, as a result of
a smear-campaign due to disagreement with Weaver's politics and religion by
certain parties within the Washington, D.C. "power circle".  Initial inquiry
indicates that Weaver's military activities may be of more concern to these
entities in Washington, D.C.  The death of 13-year old Sam Weaver violated,
among other laws, the Geneva Convention Protocol.  The rest of the Weaver  
family and friend Harris have similarly immense damage claims and U.S. 
Constitutional violations.  The arrests and attached massive exhibits were
prepared by Lighter and Salter, and then faxed to Col. Gritz from Hawaii.  
Lighter and Salter then arrived in person late Friday (August 28, 1992) at the
Idaho site, where they met with Gritz, Jack McLamb, and many in the growing
crowd of supporters.  The paramount issue now is the safety of the Weaver 
children.  The remaining cabin occupants are, essentially, hostages of the FBI.
Lighter and Salter have offered themselves to become hostages in place of the
children. The conditions are: If Sessions or President Bush come to the site
personally, Lighter and Salter will allow the "hostage swap" to proceed, plus
they will cease prosecutions of Sessions and Bush on the $50 billion dollar 
tax-bribe made to them by the White House.  Also, they will cease suit against
the Iran-Contra special grand jury for prosecutions that kept the Iran-Contra 
case open past May 15, 1992.  The actions of Lighter and Salter aided in    
certain other prosecutions in that scandal, partially noted in the May 31, 1991
Federal Register, pages 24836-24843.  Importantly, within those legal actions
there is evidence that the federal grand juries in Washington, D.C. have
been tampered with by federal officials.  Lighter and Salter have said they 
want to prevent other sniper bullets from potentially being aimed at other
innocent victims, especially supporters of Col. Gritz.  However, Lighter and
Salter insist that once the crisis has passed and all parties are safe, all
federal authorities must leave the Ruby Creek assault site.
   Lighter and Salter also demand that Randy Weaver be provided a provably  
honest, impartial and FULLY INFORMED JURY.  The cabin must be photographed  
immediately, together with all pertinent physical evidence at the Ruby Creek
assault site.
================================================================================
Note 288.1                Excessive Force by Government                  1 of 11
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."       1163 lines  26-MAY-1993 08:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 26702 of alt.conspiracy:
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Randy weaver trial    1/7
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 153

 Section [1]: What Really Happened with Randy Weaver in Naples,Idaho
              By: (Anonymous by Request)

           What Really Happened with Randy Weaver in Naples,Idaho

 From my conversation (8/31/92) with: CHUCK SANDELIN-(Preacher), Who,
with Bo Gritz, went into the house and talked with Randy Weaver. Randy
Weaver used to be in Special Forces with Bo Gritz. Randy and Chuck
both apparently know a lot of the people that are Bo Gritz's
supporters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Well, here it is- as close to the horse's mouth as any of us will
probably ever get:

 The scenario:

 Army Tanks and APC's surround the house, 300 troops from the National
Guard, and US Army. 100 FBI,BATF,and local law enforcement,

 The House is high in the mountains on a rock ridge.

 "I said Randy isn't going to kill anybody. And I went in there and so
did Bo and we talked to him."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Diary of Randy Weaver Given to Chuck Sandelin by Randy Weaver and
read to me today by telephone:


 RANDY WEAVER: (PARENTHETICALS ARE MY REMARKS - LT)

     11:30 August 21, 1992, the dogs starting barking.  Randy
(Weaver), Kevin (Harris) and Sam (Weaver, Randy's son, age 13) ran out
to see what the dogs were barking about.  Randy was carrying a 12 .ga
shotgun, Kevin (Harris) was carrying a 30.06 bolt action, Sam was
carrying a .223 mini 14.

  Old yeller, and Striker,(My dogs) were at the pump house, barking
into the woods.

  Kevin,Sam and I went down to investigate. They Heard something
running west, so Sam and Kevin followed Striker, I dropped down onto
the logging road heading west.  "I didn't have any idea what we were
chasing and we were hoping it was a deer.  When I reached the first
fork in the logging road, a very well camouflaged person yelled,
"Freeze, Randy."  I yelled, "Fuck you" and immediately retreated the
80 to 100 feet towards my home.  I realized immediately that we had
run smack in into a ZOG/NWO (Zionist Occupational Government/New World
Order) ambush."

  I stopped to see if I was being followed.  About that time I heard a
gunshot and Striker yelped.  Then I heard two more shots and Striker
stopped yelping.

  I started yelling for Sam and Kevin to return home and that the Feds
had shot striker.  I also fired my shotgun once into the air to draw
attention to myself and praying that would help.  I replaced the empty
shell with a new one, shoving it past the extractor, jamming my
shotgun.  I drew my 9 mm handgun and fired 3 or 4 rounds up into the
air and I was yelling again for Sam to return home.  Sam said, "I'm
coming, Dad."  I then walked backwards up the hill toward home,
yelling to Sam and Kevin to come home.

 All the while I heard many shots ringing out from the direction of
the ambush.  By the time I reached home, I still hadn't seen Sam or
Kevin coming home and they didn't respond anymore when I called to
them.  A few minutes later, Kevin came walking home.  We asked him if
he had seen Sam and Kevin said, "Yes, Sam's dead."


 KEVIN HARRIS:

  "Me and Sam followed Striker through the woods until we came out
onto the road that forks off the one that Randy was on, and runs
north.  We (Kevin and Sam) headed South towards the same road that
Randy was on.  Striker reached the corner first, then Sam, and then
me.  A camouflaged person was in the road and he shot striker.  Sam
yelled, "You shot striker, you Son of a Bitch"

  There was more than one then and they pointed guns at Sam and shots
went off.  Sam opened fire and I took cover behind a stump as Sam
headed up the road towards home.  It appeared Sam had been wounded in
the right arm.  Also Sam yelled, "Oh shit, Kevin come on" and headed
home.  The men were still shooting at Sam, so I shot one of the SOB's.
After they killed Sam, one of the Feds jumped out of the woods, and
for the first time, declared he was a federal Marshall.  The Feds then
grabbed their wounded and left.  I then headed home up the road and
spotted Sam's body lying in the road, without a doubt, shot in the
back.  I checked for a pulse and didn't find one and I went home.

 RANDY WEAVER:

  "When Kevin got home and told us Sam was dead, Kevin and I, and
Vickie, walked back down the road to get Sam's body.  We brought him
home and laid him in the guest shed.  We cleaned his body and wrapped
him in a sheet.  We also brought Sam's rifle home and that is the
weapon I am using now.  We left No weapon with Sam's body as was
reported on the local news.  From that point on, we have never left
the knoll and we have prepared to defend ourselves here.

  On Aug. 22, 1992, Saturday, the next day, sometime late afternoon,
we heard our two remaining dogs start barking.  Kevin, Sarah (my
oldest daughter) and I left the house to check the north perimeter.
We didn't see anything, so I was going into the guest house where Sam
was, to see him one last time. As I reached up to unlatch the door, I
was shot from the rear and hit in the upper right arm.  The bullet
exited through my armpit.  Yahweh/Yashua (God) has almost totally
healed it on the day of this writing.  When everyone heard the shot,
Kevin and Sarah came around behind me and we headed for the house, in
this order, Randy, Sarah, Kevin.  Vickie came outside the door and
yelled, "What happened?"  I yelled, "I'm hit."  Vickie was holding the
door open for us to get in the house, Elisheva (the 10 months old
baby) in her arms.  A shot rang out and Vickie fell to the floor.  She
had been shot in the head and she died instantly.  She fell in such a
way that

  Elisheva wasn't harmed, praise Yahweh.  At the same time, Kevin fell
through the door into the kitchen.  As near as we can tell, Kevin was
struck with the same bullet that hit Vickie, leaving a very large
wound on his left upper arm and penetrating his chest.  There are also
several small fragment wounds on his arm.  Needless to say, we
understand snipers are everywhere.

 (They killed Sam, wounded Randy, killed Vickie, and wounded Kevin)

  The feds totally covered up the murder of Gordon Kahl and Robert
Mathews (torched to death on Whidbey Island), they are especially
against right white racialists (like Pastor Butler in Idaho) and/or
Tax protestors

  If they think we are going to trust them (we didn't trust them
before they shot us), they're crazy. Yahweh is starting to heal Kevin,
we constantly pray that he'll be okay. Since Vickie, Kevin and I have
been shot, we haven't left the house and do not plan to unless we are
starved out, then we will most certainly take the offensive.  It
appears as though the feds are attempting to draw fire from the house
as an excuse to finish us all off.

 (Sarah is 15, Rachel 12, and Elisheva is 10 months).
>>> Continued to next message

 * !!! >>> * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 26703 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!olivea!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Randy weaver trial    2/7
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 09 May 93 01:22:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 158

>>> Continued from previous message
  If they even so much as crack a windowpane on this house with thier
phone robot, gas grenades, etc., etc., it's all over with.  Our
heartfelt thanks goes out to all our sympathizers. Our faith is in our
creater

  Yahweh/Joshua/The Messiah.  We do not fear the one world beast
government. They can only take our lives.  Only Yahweh can destroy our
souls.

 Samual Hanson Weaver and Vickie Jean Weaver are martyrs for Yahshua
and the white race.  Even if the rest of us die, we win.  Hallelujah,
keep the faith to all our families and brethren, we love you,
hallelujah

                                        Randy Weaver
                                        Kevin Harris
                                        Sarah Weaver
                                        Rachel and written in, Elisheva


Per Chuck Sandlin and Jackie Brown - friend who was inside the house
to remove  Vickie's body.

Chuck Sandlin:

 Re:   Telephone Robot:  Paul Harvey said on the radio yesterday
"There's a telephone right outside, Randy, reach out and get it and we
will communicate with you."  When Bo got in the house, Randy said
"Come here a minute.  See that robot with that telephone in its hand?
It's set up so that as soon as you take the receiver, there is a
shotgun wired to it."  Up the other arm of the robot, there is a short
trigger around the elbow.  Those that have seen it, Jackie Brown, Bo
Gritz, and Randy, say it is a shotgun.  It's used for terrorists.

  One of the BATF agents keeping the public back had a sub-50 machine
gun and was flicking the trigger, pointing it at Bo Gritz and a guy
jumped between Bo and the man and told him he was breaking the law,
and the agent just laughed.

  The crowd was supporting randy and these agents laughing and smiling
about it. Word through the crowd is that a professional riot arouser
will be coming to the camp, brought in by the feds.  It's as if they
wanted an excuse to start a fire-fight with the house.

  They always burn the evidence.  The feds took up a 20 gal drum of
gas and a satchel pak to detonate it in a helicopter.  Two channel 2
news guys stopped this by identifying that they were watching.
Needless to say they were arrested.

  It seems they were planning to blow up the house with everyone in
it, just like Whidbey Island.

 On August 25, 1992, 10:36, Idaho Bureau of Disaster services:

 The Governor declared "Emergency Situation and Disaster" in Boundary
County and Bonner Counties and martial law is in effect. Cecil D.
Andrus, Governor.

  Declaration of martial law cites to Idaho laws and says:

 46-601, authorization of National Guard and Organized Militia in
service of the state.

 46-1008, activate the disaster response and recovery of the state,
local, and intergovernment disaster emergency plans thats acceptable
to the affected areas;

 (b) authorize the deployment and use of any forces to which the plan
or plans apply;

 (c) authorize the use or the distribution of any supplies, equipment,
and materials and facilities assembled, stockpiled, or arranged to be
made available for use during disaster emergencies.  The state of
extreme emergency and disaster emergency hereby proclaimed and
declared shall continue for a period of 30 days unless sooner
terminated or extend in 30 day increments.

 Chuck related a lot of other details.

  The US Marshall's service by phone to me yesterday and press
releases they faxed said that Randy had been arrested in January 1991
on charges of selling a sawed off shotgun to an undercover agent.
Chuck Sandelin said that this was a set up, that it was related to
Randy's refusal to be a an informant on the Aryan Brotherhood and also
due to some hard feelings that went back to his Special Forces days
when he turned in a superior for keeping 1/2 the drugs from drug busts
they were making. Another source said that Randy was a well known
militant, anti-establishment type that had probably done a lot of
things and just never been caught -- like Al Capone, who was finally
caught by the IRS, but never really caught murdering anyone.

  Anyway, he was arrested in January 1991 and didn't even have to post
bond. He went home and didn't show up for his arraignment.  He may or
may not have publicly claimed he would never come out until the false
charges were dropped.

  Regardless, for a bench warrant on a charge that wasn't even enough
for him to have to post bond on, the US Marshall service sent a team
of six special operations officers from Boston to Idaho to do
"surveillance" on Randy for 18 months.

 Chuck says they were practicing military maneuvers in a two mile
perimeter around Randy's house.

 Chuck's phone was very obviously tapped.  So is ours.  This isn't
funny.

Bill, I figured this was the right place to forward this to you (as
opposed to RTKBA).

                            LETHAL FORCE

             FBI Changed Policies During Weaver Standoff

               (The Idaho Falls Post Register, 01/22/93)

Associated Press:

     BOISE - Rules governing use of lethal force were eased for FBI
snipers during the standoff at fugitive Randy Weaver's cabin a
newspaper reported.

     Vicki Weaver was fataly shot August 22, the second day of an 11
day federal siege of the cabin that began when a deputy U.S. marshal
patrolling the area was killed in a shootout with Weaver, his 14-year
old son, Samuel, and family friend Kevin Harris. Weaver's son also was
killed.

     Weaver, 44, and Harris, 25, are being held in the Ada County Jail
pending their March trial on murder and other charges.

     The death of Deputy U.S. Marshal William F. Degan was cited in
easing the rules for the use of deadly force. The Spokesman-Review
newspaper of Spokane, Washington, reported Thursday, citing grand-jury
transcripts recently placed in open court files.

     The transcripts also indicate the FBI was concerned Vicki Weaver
might kill herself and her children if she was threatened with arrest.
The testimony came from Richard Rodgers, the sniper-team commander,
and FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi whose bullet struck and killed Mrs.
Weaver. Horiuchi testified her death was an accident, that he had been
aiming at Harris.

     In his September testimony, Rodgers explained the eased deadly-
force policy, under which Mrs. Weaver could be shot if she offered
resistance after being asked to surrender.
>>> Continued to next message

 * !!! >>> * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 26704 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!olivea!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Randy weaver trial    3/7
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 09 May 93 01:22:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 155

>>> Continued from previous message
     "A psychologist had provided them with an assessment of Vicki
which indicated to them that...she was so determined not to have this
family unit broken up that she might even kill the children and commit
suicide herself if she anticipated she was going to be arrested,"
Rodgers said.

     Authorities at the scene subsequently learned, however, that no
arrest warrant was to be issued for Vicki Weaver, he said, which made
his descision moot.

     Rodgers said he also recommended unusally harsh application of
deadly force for any armed adults at the cabin because Degan's death
indicated they were willing to kill law-enforcement agents.

     "I proposed that when we deploy our people up there to that
location, that any adult that's carrying a weapon to be the subject of
deadly force, if one of our people has a shot at them," Rodgers told
the Grand Jury.

     Under normal FBI rules of engagement, Horiuchi said, deadly force
can be used only if there is a threat to the life of an agent,
hostage, or bystander.

     "In this case, I'm assuming they gave us the specific rules of
engagement because a marshal had been killed and the subjects,
specifically Weaver and Harris, were known to just shoot
indiscrimately at the marshals and pretty much carried weapons with
them, so the danger was increased," Horiuchi testified.

     The FBI planned to tell the cabin's occupants they were
surrounded and that Weaver and Harris were subjects of arrest
warrants.

    But on August 22, before an armored personnel carrier could be
driven to the cabin to demand the occupant's surrender, a goverment
helicopter flew over the site.

     Harris appeared to be taking aim at the helicopter, Horiuchi's
testified, and he was forced to fire.

     Rodgers said Horiuchi's decision to shoot was justified.

     "Had we not ever changed those rules to make them more liberal,
he would have still taken the shots he took, because those individuals
were taking aggressive posture twoard that helicopter," Rodgers
testified.

     Horiuchi testified he was aiming at Harris, who was running to
the cabin door, when he fired the shot that struck Mrs. Weaver in the
jaw and severed her carotid artery.

     The cabin had been under surveillance for months by authorities
seeking to arrest Weaver, who had failed to appear for trial on a
federal weapons charge.

     The Weaver's three daughters - Sara, 16; Rachel, 10; and
Elishaba, 10 months - survived the standoff.

                             (END ARTICLE)

[My comments follow - Paul Pratt] Commentary:

Horiuchi says that he shot at Harris and hit Vicki Weaver (who was
carrying her 10 month old infant daughter) because Harris appeared to
be taking aim at the helicopter...but he also states that Harris was
running at the same time.  So Horiuchi is lying or he can't tell a
running man from a man aiming a weapon.

Rodgers says Horiuchi could have fired under the "normal" FBI rules,
but according to Horiuchi "[u]nder normal FBI rules of engagement,
deadly force can be used only if there is a threat to the life of an
agent, hostage, or bystander" and there was no such threat, unless a
running man is considered a threat to a helicopter.  So we have
Rodgers trying to cover his ass and cover for Horiuchi, lest someone
question his shoot-first order "...that any adult that's carrying a
weapon to be the subject of deadly force, if one of our people has a
shot at them."

Rodgers says he recommended this harsh application of deadly force
because Marshal Degan's death indicated a willingness to kill
law-enforcement agents, but there is NO indication that these five
camoflaged, machinegun-toting marshals gave ANY indication as to who
or what they were.  By all accounts, the first shot was fired by
Degan, killing the Weaver family dog.  In the ensuing firefight, Degan
was killed, whether it was by Samuel (shot in the back by the marshals
while trying to run back to the cabin) or Harris or by the other
marshals is unclear.  There have been many conflicting stories on this
crucial point.  I have tried to follow this case, and, to the best of
my knowledge, the coroner's report on Degan has yet to be made public.

And the "federal weapons charge" that Weaver is accused of?  Selling a
shotgun that had a barrel 1/4 inch shorter than the federal minimum
length of 18 inches.  Weaver claimed in his preliminary hearing that
when he sold the shotgun it was unaltered and that the man he sold the
shotgun to is the one who shortened the barrel.

Why would anyone sell a short barrelled shotgun?  This makes no sense.
All it takes is a hacksaw and 3 minutes and you can make your own. In
this respect, Weaver's story rings true.  The guy who got caught with
the shotgun may have fingered Weaver rather than take the rap himself.

When originally charged with this violation, Weaver had been asked to
become an undercover agent (a.k.a. "snitch") and infiltrate the Aryan
Nations.  In exchange for this, he was told the weapons charges would
be dropped.  After going to a couple of meetings, Weaver couldn't
stomach the preachings of the group and quit.  The feds then
reinstituted the charges against him.  Also not mentioned is the fact
that Weaver had just finished running (unsuccessfully) for County
Sheriff and that in that election Weaver had produced evidence of
corruption in the Sheriff's department.  This did not make him very
well liked by the local cops.

            RANDY WEAVER TRIAL UPDATE - 4/13
         a* received from th* Idaho Survivalist

Yesterday marked the seating of the jury.  Apparently no other legal
activities occurred.  The jury was selected and things start today.

More interesting is what happenned outside.  About a dozen Weaver
supporters showed up to stage a protest outside the courthouse.  One
woman carried a sign that read, "Who stands trial for the murder of
Vicki and (son's name - I forget) Weaver?"  On the evening news she
said, "I am here protesting because I believe in freedom of speech and
freedom of religion. I thought we all did."  Nice sound bite (grin)!

The news reporter also interviewed some guy named "Tim" who refused to
give his last name.  Not to prejudge the guy, but he looked like a
neo-nazi.  He also said he expected many neo-nazis to show up
throughout the trial. "Tim" had been handing out leaflets in support
of Weaver and Harris and the news had footage of a Boise cop telling
him to move along or he'd arrest.  I don't know the finer points of
this one.  Perhaps there's a law against political activity within X
feet of a courthouse or something (what happenned to the First
Amendment?!?).

Most ominous of all was that the local reporter filmed an agent of the
Gestapo...err...ATF with a minicam FILMING THE PROTESTORS!  Welcome to
the world of Big Brother.

Anyhow, Gerry Spence came out and asked the protestors to leave
because he didn't think it would help Weaver's case any.  He said he
was confident that, once the evidence came out, that Weaver would be
aquitted.
>>> Continued to next message

 * !!! >>> * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 26705 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Randy weaver trial    4/7
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 09 May 93 01:22:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 156

>>> Continued from previous message
            RANDY WEAVER TRIAL UPDATE - 4/14(a)
          as received from the Idaho Survivalist

Wednesday marked day 2, the beginning of the trial.  Opening
statements were given by both the prosecution and the defense, each
side presenting its version of what happenned last August.

The prosecution argued that Weaver and his family moved to Idaho in
1983 anticipating a battle with the "evil" federal government.  The
prosecution alleges that Weaver sold federal agents "sawed off"
shotguns and later failed to appear for trial: Despite repeated "good
faith" efforts to get Weaver to surrender peacefully, Weaver refused.
The shootout erupted when Weaver discovered agents on a surveillance
mission and began firing.  According to the prosecution, three people
were taking an "offensive action" against an FBI helicopter when an
FBI sniper killed Vicki Weaver.

The defense argued that Weaver and his family moved to northern Idaho
in 1983 to practice their religion in peace.  They wanted simply to be
left alone.  Weaver was induced by federal agents to sell the
short-barrelled shotgun (and did not, as the prosecution alleged, want
to become a "regular supplier").  The defense also argued that the
federal government sought to arrest Weaver when he wouldn't become an
informant [it is not specified explicitly, but I assume that this is a
reference to the white separatist angle of the story.  We'll know more
as things develop].  The failure to appear in court happenned because
Weaver was given an incorrect court date and then indicted before that
date. The shootout occurred when federal agent Arthur Roderick killed
Weaver's dog that was in proximity to Weaver's son, Samuel.  Weaver
then fired in self-defense.  In the ensuing battle, federal agent
William Degan was killed (when his gun was later found, there were 7
.223 cases nearby and the gun was on semi-automatic: However, agents
were near the body for an extended period of time and could have
played with the select-fire - this will have to be more fully
explained).  Finally, the defense claims that Vicki Weaver was only
going to "look at the body" [not recover?] of her son when she was
cut-down by an FBI sniper.

Prosecution quote: "Weaver wanted that confrontation, and he made that
confrontation." -- Asst. U.S. Attorney Kim Lindquist

            RANDY WEAVER TRIAL UPDATE - 4/14(b)
          as received from the Idaho Survivalist

Defense quote: "The evidence in this case is going to show that this
is a case where Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris are charged with crimes
they didn't commit in order to cover crimes that the government did
commit."  -- Gerry Spence  [nice soundbite!]

Notes: The _Idaho Statesman_ claims that Weaver supporters heeded a
call from Spence not to repeat yesterday's protests outside the
courthouse.  However, the local NBC affiliate again had footage on the
10:00 news with 5 supporters including "Tim" again.  "Tim" claimed he
was a skinhead, who were "ordinary, working class people."  He also
claimed he was for "white pride, not white power."

Outside the courthouse the television crew had an impromptu interview
with Bo Gritz, who charged that the neo-nazi protestors are exactly
what the government wants to smear Randy Weaver.

In an affiliated article carried in the _Idaho Statesman_, about a
dozen lawyers were among the 70 or so people packed into the
courthouse.  These lawyers were present to watch Gerry Spence in
action, and to perhaps learn something from him.  Some tidbits: Spence
flatly told the jurors that he and his son Kent were volunteering
their time to represent Weaver because they believed in him.  Spence,
during his 90-minute opening statement, repeatedly walked behind
Weaver and placed his hands on the defendants shoulders (Weaver broke
down and cried during the recounting of his wife's death), and Spence
compared the "sawed off" shotgun to driving 56 mph when the limit was
55 (another good one!).

Tomorrow (Thursday, April 15th) the prosecution was scheduled to begin
presenting evidence.

            RANDY WEAVER TRIAL UPDATE - 4/15(a)
           as received from the Idaho Survivalist

Thursday, April 15 marked Day 3 of the trial.

This day marked the first testimony of the trial.  Deputy U.S. Marshal
Larry Cooper took the stand for the prosecution.

The short version is that his testimony was consistent with the
opening statements for the prosecution.

Cooper testified that he had arrived in Spokane (Washington) on August
17, 1992 to participate in a surveillance operation with five other
deputies near the Weaver cabin.  The team was using night vision
equipment for surveillance, and split up into two teams of three
people.  The six later met at an observation point above the cabin.
After this, deputies Cooper, William Degan, and Arthur Roderick began
a descent to scout further possible surveillance sites.

Cooper told the court that Roderick threw two large rocks into a gully
to see, "whether the [Weaver family] dogs would respond." Striker, the
Weaver's yellow lab, started toward them barking loudly.  Roderick led
the three in a run from the area.

They ran through some dense woods into an open area [called the "fern
field"] with the dog in pursuit.  By this time, Kevin Harris and
Samuel Weaver had joined the chase.  The surveillance team had reached
a Y in the road: Cooper decided that they should take cover in the
woods because otherwise they would be an easy target and might be
"shot in the back."

As Degan reached the Y, he spotted Randy Weaver coming down the road
from the cabin ahead.  Weaver was startled but did not fire.

            RANDY WEAVER TRIAL UPDATE - 4/15(b)
           as received from the Idaho Survivalist

At this moment, Striker reached Degan, and Cooper had to "fend him off
with his gun."  [It is unclear whether this means he clubbed the dog
or shot the dog].  Both Cooper and Degan then took cover in the woods.
According to Cooper, Kevin Harris and Samuel Weaver continued walking
down the road, apparently not noticing the two.  After they had passed
by on the road, Degan got up on one knee, raised his gun, and shouted,
"Stop!  U.S. Marshal!"  Harris then "...brought the weapon around at
hip level and fired.  He didn't bring the weapon up to eye level.  I
saw Bill's arm going back, and I knew he had been hit."  Cooper fired
at Harris, and Harris went down.  Cooper then brought his weapon to
bear on Samuel, but did not fire.  At this point, Cooper then heard
two shots to his right.  Samuel Weaver looked in the direction of the
shots, yelled, "You son of a bitch!" and ran toward them.  Cooper then
realized that shots were coming at him from directly ahead, so he
fired a three-round burst at the cabin.  At this point he then saw
Samuel Weaver running toward the cabin.  When Cooper reached Degan, he
placed his first two fingers on Degan carotid artery, counted two or
three beats, and then his heart stopped.  Shortly thereafter, Roderick
and the other three marshals joined him.  They then all heard a large
burst of gunfire from the area around the cabin.

On cross-examination, David Nevin questioned the point of throwing
rocks into the gulley, asking, "You wanted to lure that dog out so you
could shoot that dog, didn't you?"  Nevin also pointed out that in
last September's testimony, Cooper had claimed that he spotted Weaver
after the dog had left him. Cooper claimed that he had gone over the
events in his head and decided that Thursday's account was correct.
Nevin continued the cross-examination by asking what Cooper would have
done had an armed man dressed in full camouflage jumped out of the
woods at him [no answer was available].

Friday, April 16 marks continued cross-examination of Cooper.
>>> Continued to next message

 * !!! >>> * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 26706 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!olivea!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Randy weaver trial    5/7
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 09 May 93 01:22:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 152

>>> Continued from previous message
Notes: There was no coverage of protestors.

            RANDY WEAVER TRIAL UPDATE - 4/16(a)
           as received from the Idaho Survivalist

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 4.

Friday, April 16, 1993 was the fourth day of the trial.

Synopsis: Defense attorney Gerry Spence cross-examined agent Cooper
under repeated objections from prosecutor Ronald Howen.  Spence moved
for a mistrial but was denied.

The day was marked by a caustic cross-examination of Deputy Marshal
Larry Cooper by defense attorney Gerry Spence.  Although Spence has
not explicitly stated so, one angle of his stategy must involve
destroying the credibility of agent Cooper.  Cooper is the
government's only eyewitness to the death of agent Degan. Spence
attacked Cooper's credibility by pointing out discrepancies between
Cooper's statements last September and those made in court. Cooper
conceded that, "You have all these things compressed into a few
seconds...It's difficult to remember what went on first."

Cooper acknowledged that he carried a "9mm Colt Commando submachine
gun with a silenced barrel." (I thought a Colt Commando was a
revolver!) Cooper continued by stating that the federal agents had no
specific plans to use the weapon when they started to kill Weaver's
dog.

When Spence asked how seven cartridges could be fired by Degan's M-16
rifle when Degan was apparently dead, Cooper could not say for sure
that Degan did not return fire before going down.

Spence continued by asking with how many agents (and to what extent)
had Cooper discussed last August's events, Cooper responded, "If
you're implying that we got our story together, you're wrong,
counselor."  Spence continued to advance the defense's version of the
events: Namely, that a marshal had started the shooting by killing the
Weaver's dog.  Cooper disagreed.

            RANDY WEAVER TRIAL UPDATE - 4/16(b)
           as received from the Idaho Survivalist

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Howen repeatedly objected to Spence's
virulent cross-examination of agent Cooper, arguing that the questions
were repetitive and Spence was wasting time.  Howen also complained
that Spence was improperly using a cross-examination to advance the
defense's version of the events.  U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge
sustained many of the objections. However, both lawyers persisted
until Judge Lodge had the jury leave the room and proceded to admonish
both attorneys.  "I'm not going to play games with either counsel.
This has been a personality problem from day 1, so start acting like
professionals."

Spence told the judge that, "When all the evidence is in, we'll see
that ... his (agent Larry Cooper) testimony is not credible, that he
was panicked and cannot remember the sequence of events." Spence
continued, "We're going to find...that there is a very unlikely
similarity - almost as if it had come out of a cookie cutter - between
the testimony of Mr. Cooper and the other witnesses."

Spence then moved for a mistrial on the grounds that Howen's repeated
objections would prevent a fair trial, "We can't have a fair trial if
the jury believes I'm some sort of charlatan, if the jury believes I'm
bending the rules or engaging in some delaying tactic or that I'm
violating court orders."

Judge Lodge called the notion that his repeated sustainings of Howen's
objections had somehow prejudiced the jury was "preposterous" and
denied the motion for a mistrial.  Lodge did tell Howen to restrict
his comments when objecting.

The trial resumed with the prosecution calling FBI Special Agent Greg
Rampton.  The prosecution's purpose was simply to introduce five
weapons found in the cabin as evidence: However, the defense seized on
the opportunity to further address Cooper's credibility.

Defense attorney Ellison Matthews (Harris' other attorney) questioned
Rampton about the dog.  Rampton stated that there were no specific
plans to kill the Weaver's dog without being detected.  Matthews then
had Rampton read a September 15, 1992 transcript in which Rampton had
said that Cooper had said that the purpose of the silenced weapon was
to kill the dog without being detected, if the dog chased them.
Rampton then acknowledged that he believed that Cooper had said that,
but he could not remember when.  He then stated that, "I did not
conduct the primary interview with Deputy Cooper, but I have had
conversations with him since the interview was conducted."

Monday, April 19, 1993 will begin the fifth day of the trial.
Scheduled is the continued cross-examination of FBI agent Greg
Rampton.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the _Idaho
Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television station, KTVB
Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 5.

Monday, April 19, 1993 was the fifth day of the trial.

Synopsis: Government informant Kenneth Fadeley testified that Randy
Weaver sold him two shotguns in violation of the National Firearms Act
of 1934.  U.S. District Court Judge Edward Lodge asks jurors not to
hear accounts of the Waco fire because of possible influences on the
Weaver/Harris case.

The testimony of FBI Special Agent Greg Rampton apparently ended
without further incident, as it was mentioned neither by KTVB nor the
_Idaho Statesman_.

The day was highlighted by the testimony of Kenneth Fadeley, who had
been posing as an outlaw biker and illegal guns person named Gus
Magiosono.  Fadeley testified that he was acting as an informant for
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in his dealings with
Randy Weaver.

Fadeley began by stating that he had met Weaver in 1987 at an Aryan
Nations summer conference in Hayden Lake, Idaho.  The two then met
again October 11, 1989 (note the huge separation in time) at a
restaurant in Sandpoint, Idaho, to begin a weapons transaction.  He
stated that Weaver had said, "He felt like he (Weaver) was being
prepared to do something dangerous for the White cause."

The two later met October 24, 1989 behind the restaurant and later
went to a city park to make the sale.  During this second meeting,
Fadeley was wearing a small recording device to tape the conversation.
Weaver allegedly showed him an H&R 12- gauge shotgun with a 13-inch
barrel and an overall length of 19.25 inches.  He additionally showed
a Remington 12-gauge shotgun with a 12.75-inch barrel and an overall
length of 24.5 inches (NFA requires minimums of 18 inches for barrel
length and an overall length of 26 inches).  On tape, Weaver is
reported to have said that he could perform better work once his
machine shop is set up.  The two then discuss the possibility of
future sales.  Fadeley then counts out three hundred dollars for the
two guns and promises the balance of one-hundred fifty dollars when
they next meet.  (Note that the ATF could have simply arrested him
here.  Why did they wait until January 1991 - over a year later - to
arrest him?  This is not explained).
>>> Continued to next message

 * !!! >>> * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 26707 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!olivea!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Randy weaver trial    6/7
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 09 May 93 01:22:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 161

>>> Continued from previous message
The next meeting took place on Nov 30, 1989.  Fadeley stated that his
"source" had only come up with one hundred dollars instead of the
one-hundred fifty he'd promised.  At this point, Weaver suspected he
was dealing with an informant, "I had a guy in Spokane tell me you
were bad."  Fadeley managed to convince Weaver otherwise.

The _Idaho Statesman_ states explicitly that three tapes were made of
conversations with Randy Weaver.  Thus, each of these meetings must
have been recorded.  However, the _Statesman_ also reported that a
tape of a telephone conversation involving Vicki Weaver (Randy
Weaver's wife) was played to the court.  There must have also been
phone taps.

These tapes were played to the court via both headphones and
loudspeakers under the objections of Gerry Spence, Weaver's attorney.
Spence said to a KTVB reporter that he wanted to make sure that the
government proved its case, "...if it has a case at all..." according
to the rules.

Randy Weaver tore off his headphones and wept when he heard his wife's
voice on the tape.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Lodge asked jurors not to hear
accounts of the Waco fire because of possible influences on the
Weaver/Harris case.  Exactly how such information could affect this
trial is not explained.

Other notes: Sunday evening there was a report on KTVB concerning
Kevin Harris.  Unnamed agents within the FBI admit that they are
surprised that Kevin Harris is still alive.  First, they were
surprised that he survived the initial gunshot wound(s) sustained in
the initial firefight at the Y-junction.  Later, when Randy Weaver was
struck by sniper fire the sniper had reported that Harris had been
struck (not Weaver).  Finally, there was a report that the FBI agent
who killed Vicki Weaver believed he was aiming at Kevin Harris
instead.  (This is what was reported).  Critics are charging that the
FBI was blatantly trying to eliminate the only non-government witness
to the deaths of Samuel Weaver and Deputy Marshal William Degan.  Some
local people believe that Harris's survival is simply due to divine
intervention.

Tuesday, April 20, 1993 will be the sixth day of the trial. Kenneth
Fadeley's testimony is scheduled to continue.

           ***Warrant Invalid, say Weaver's Lawyers***
           ***Suspect given wrong date, says clerk***
            [from the Seattle Times, April 23, 1993]
                       Firearms - Politics
Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho - The defense in the murder-conspiracy trial of Randy
Weaver and Kevin Harris continues to hammer away at the criminal
charges that led to a bloody shootout and an 11-day siege at Weaver's
Idaho cabin.

The Aug. 21 shootout started when federal officers were trying to
arrest Weaver on a weapons charge and charge that he failed to appear
in court.  One federal marshal died in that shootout.

In the eight day of trial yesterday in U.S.  District Court here,
defense attorneys continued to question the validity of the
failure-to- appear count.

Weaver and Harris are accused of murdering Deputy Marshal William
Degan, Quincy, Mass., in the initial shootout.  Weaver's son, Samuel,
14, also died in that firefight, and Vicki Weaver, 42, was killed by a
sniper the next day.

A court clerk testified he advised U.S. District Judge Harold Ryan
that Weaver was given the wrong court date, before Ryan issued a
warrant for Weaver's failure to appear.  But under further questioning
by Prosecutor Ronald Howen, clerk Ronald Haberman was less definite.
"I'm saying I communicated that to judge Ryan," Haberman told Howen.
"But I'm not sure when or how."  Ryan signed the warrant that set in
motion events leading to the violent confrontation.

Earlier, federal probation officer Karl Richins admitted that while
court officials advised him the Weaver should appear for trial on Feb.
20, 1991, he mistakenly told Weaver the date was March 20, 1991.  The
government obtained a Feb. 20, 1991, fugitive warrant for Weaver.

But late in the day, prosecutors used the testimony of U.S. Attorney
Maurice Ellsworth to support their claim that the Weavers had long
conspired to force an armed confrontation with federal agents.

Ellsworth quoted a letter sent to him just before the trial was
scheduled and signed by Weaver's wife saying, "Whether we live or
whether we die, we will not bow to your evil commandments."  He turned
the letter over to federal investigators.  But the investigating
marshal, William Mays, said he told Ellsworth he did not find the
letter threatening.

Spence said Weaver's wife was merely complaining about the unfair
treatment of her husband.  And he objected tao the prosecution's
attempt to link a letter from Vicki Weaver to her husband.

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the _Idaho
Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television station, KTVB
Channel * b* th* Idaho_Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 6. Tuesday, April 20, 1993
was the sixth day of the trial.

Synopsis: Government informant Kenneth Fadeley continued his testimony
that Randy Weaver sold him two illegal shotguns in 1989.  Fadeley
denied defense arguments that Weaver was entrapped.  Weaver's defense
attorney Gerry Spence moved twice for mistrials and was denied both
times.  Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler has now been subpoenaed to
testify at the trial.

Defense attorney Charles Peterson continued the cross-examination of
Kenneth Fadeley today, arguing that Fadeley had entrapped Randy
Weaver.  Fadeley had been posing as an illegal arms merchant named Gus
Magisono.  Fadeley flatly denied the entrapment, "I didn't entice
Randy Weaver, sir."  Fadeley again stated that he had met Weaver at a
series of Aryan Nations conferences held in July 1986, July 1987, and
July, 1989.

A point of contention arose around the decision to not tape the
October 11, 1989 meeting between Fadeley and Weaver at Connie's
Restaurant in Sandpoint, Idaho.  Fadeley simply said that BATF agent
Herb Byerly, who had been supervising Fadeley's undercover work, had
declined to tape the meeting.  The defense saw things differently,
"The reason that you didn't tape any of those meetings is you didn't
want a permanent record of the offers you made to my client, right?"
Fadeley responded, "No, that's not correct."

At this point, defense attorney Gerry Spence moved to have Fadeley's
testimony stricken from the record after Fadeley had admitted that he
thought he would receive payment for his undercover work only if
Weaver was convicted.  District Judge Edward Lodge denied the motion.

BATF agent Herb Byerly then took the stand.  He stated that any money
Fadeley would receive would have nothing to do with the outcome of the
trial.  Byerly also denied entrapping Weaver. Byerly did acknowledge
that he and another [unnamed as yet] ATF agent had met with Weaver
about the case and asked him on June 12, 1990 about becoming an
informer against certain unnamed parties within the Aryan Nations.

The cross-examination of BATF agent Herb Byerly is scheduled to resume
Wednesday, April 21, 1993.

Related stories:  Defense attorney Gerry Spence moved twice for a
mistrial.  His first motion was based on the argument that the jury
had been prejudiced by repeated references to racist groups and the
federal Witness Protection Program.  Spence argued that a federal
informant's repeated reference to a racist group to which Randy Weaver
did not belong made it impossible for him to have a fair trial, "My
sad observation is that this case ought not to become a with hunt."
>>> Continued to next message

 * !!! >>> * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 26708 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Randy weaver trial    7/7
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 09 May 93 01:22:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 141

>>> Continued from previous message
In response to this, Asst. U.S. Attorney Kim Linquist argued that
Weaver's and Harris's beliefs were entirely relevant because they
showed a motivation for confrontation with the federal government.
Lodge denied the motion for a mistrial.

Spence moved again for a mistrial later in the day.  This time he
argued that a question from Asst. U.S. Attorney Ronald Howen to a
federal informant about possibly entering the Witness Protection
Program unfairly characterized Weaver as dangerous.  Lodge denied this
second motion for a mistrial as well.

In another related story, Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler was
formally subpoenaed in Hayden Lake, Idaho, to testify in the trial of
Randy Weaver.  Prosecutors allege that Weaver attended several Aryan
Nations conferences and associated with several members of the group.
The defense countered by arguing that Weaver is a white separatist,
not a white supremacist, and was not a member of the Aryan Nation's
violent faction, known as The Order.

Upon receiving his subpoena, Butler stated that Weaver is being
unfairly persecuted because of his white separatist views and that,
"He wanted to be left alone.  Any sane jury is going to see that this
is a government-paid prosecution [sic - he probably meant persecution.
The text is from the Statesman] of an individual white man."

At a news conference kicking off the Aryan Youth Assembly, leaders of
the Aryan Nations-Church of Jesus Christ Christian denied that they
were stockpiling arms at the northern Idaho compound.  They then
showed off a special pile of paper mache human arms, complete with a
sign reading, "Arms Stockpile." Aryan Nations Chief of Staff Carl
Franklin did state that members are encouraged to exercise their
rights to keep and bear arms, and many members collect and carry
weapons.  He also stated that two members arrested on concealed carry
charges were no threat to anyone; they had simply forgotten to remove
their holsters before leaving the compound.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the _Idaho
Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television station, KTVB
Channel 7 by the Idaho_Survivalist

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 7. Wednesday, April 21,
1993 was the seventh day of the trial.

Synopsis: Tapes were played today focusing on Weaver's agreement to
dispose of his firearms as condition of his 1991 release from custody.
Defense Attorney Charles Peterson moved for a mistrial on the grounds
that references to white supremacist's foiled 1990 plot to bomb a gay
nightclub had prejudiced the jury.  U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge
denied the motion.

The trial was highlighted by a description of Randy Weaver's January
17, 1991 arrest near his home in northern Idaho by a team of BATF
agents.  BATF Special Agent Lance Hart and BATF Special Agent Barbara
Anderson posed as a couple with a broken down pickup truck.  The truck
was strategically located so as to block the one-lane bridge near the
Weaver's home.  When Randy Weaver and his wife, Vicki Weaver, stopped
to help, they were swarmed by agents Hart, Anderson, as well as 3
additional ATF agents and Boundary County Sheriff Bruce Whittaker.
The latter four were hiding in the back of the pickup truck inside a
camper shell.

An unnamed agent testified that Weaver lunged for the agent's
pistol during the arrest, and also went for his own gun during an
ensuing struggle.  ATF agents were able to subdue him without a
shot being fired and proceded to inform him that he was under
arrest for federal weapons charges: Specifically, the sale of two
sawed-off shotguns.  They then confiscated [at least they're being
honest for once - if Randy Weaver is later found innocent his guns
will most likely remain "confiscated"] a .22-caliber Beretta from
Randy Weaver and a .38 revolver from Vicki.  She was not arrested and
the agents returned her firearm.

As conditions of pretrial release, then-Magistrate Stephen Myers told
Randy Weaver to stay in northern Idaho, not drink excessively, use
drugs, or possess firearms.  A tape was then played in which Weaver
agreed to these terms, "I'll get rid of them [the guns]," Weaver said.
The prosecution then noted that immediately after the standoff they
confiscated [see above for refreshing honesty] at least 14 rifles,
shotguns, and pistols from the cabin.  The prosecution's strategy is
obviously to depict Weaver as someone who flagrantly violates both his
own promises as well as federal law.

Sparks flew as defense attorney Charles Peterson moved for a mistrial,
essentially on the same grounds that Gerry Spence had used the
previous day.  Peterson argued that references to a white supremacist
group 1990 intentions to bomb a gay nightclub in Seattle had
prejudiced the jury against Weaver.  This marked the fourth(!) motion
for a mistrial in the seven days of the trial.  U.S. District Court
Judge Edward Lodge remarked, "I don't need any more argument because
it's absolutely absurd.  The motion for a mistrial is denied."

Prosecution testimony is slated to continue as the eighth day of the
trial begins on Thursday, April 22, 1993.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the _Idaho
Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television station, KTVB
Channel * b* th* Idaho_Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 6. Tuesday, April 20, 1993
was the sixth day of the trial.

Synopsis: Government informant Kenneth Fadeley continued his testimony
that Randy Weaver sold him two illegal shotguns in 1989.  Fadeley
denied defense arguments that Weaver was entrapped.  Weaver's defense
attorney Gerry Spence moved twice for mistrials and was denied both
times.  Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler has now been subpoenaed to
testify at the trial.

Defense attorney Charles Peterson continued the cross-examination of
Kenneth Fadeley today, arguing that Fadeley had entrapped Randy
Weaver.  Fadeley had been posing as an illegal arms merchant named Gus
Magisono.  Fadeley flatly denied the entrapment, "I didn't entice
Randy Weaver, sir."  Fadeley again stated that he had met Weaver at a
series of Aryan Nations conferences held in July 1986, July 1987, and
July, 1989.

A point of contention arose around the decision to not tape the
October 11, 1989 meeting between Fadeley and Weaver at Connie's
Restaurant in Sandpoint, Idaho.  Fadeley simply said that BATF agent
Herb Byerly, who had been supervising Fadeley's undercover work, had
declined to tape the meeting.  The defense saw things differently,
"The reason that you didn't tape any of those meetings is you didn't
want a permanent record of the offers you made to my client, right?"
Fadeley responded, "No, that's not correct."

At this point, defense attorney Gerry Spence moved to have Fadeley's

 * !!! >>> * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



================================================================================
Note 288.2                Excessive Force by Government                  2 of 11
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        192 lines  26-MAY-1993 08:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 27141 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!wupost!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial 4/22 1of2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 93 01:28:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 86

 *************  Original From: PAUL PRATT
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/14/93 - 0108341
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 * Originally By: Gary Steinweg
 * Originally To: All
 * Originally Re: Weaver Trial 4/22 1Of2
 * Original Area: Debate
 * Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.12

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 8.

Thursday, April 22, 1993 was the eighth day of the trial.

Synopsis: A U.S. Probation officer testified that he told Randy
Weaver that Weaver's federal weapons trial was March 20, 1991
when in fact it was February 20, 1991.  The prosecution countered
by arguing that Weaver didn't show up on March 20, 1991, either,
and had no intention of showing up at all.

Weaver was arrested January 17, 1991 on federal weapons charges
of selling an illegally short shotgun.  Then-U.S. Magistrate
Stephen Ayers released him the next day, set his trial date
tentatively for February 19, 1991, and instructed Weaver to call
his probation officer January 22, 1991.

Weaver did in fact call, as instructed, on January 22, 1991.  His
probation officer, Karl Richins, then told him that his paperwork
had not yet been processed.  Weaver, according to Richins's
testimony, never again contacted the probation office.  Richins,
however, then testified that on February 7, 1991 he sent Randy
Weaver a letter stating that Weaver's federal weapons trial was
scheduled for March 20, 1991.  The trial date was actually
February 20, 1991, conclusively demonstrating that Weaver was
given an incorrect trial date.  "I've rehashed that [the error]
more times than I can think.  A typographical error is the best
reason I can come up with."

On February 20, 1991, Weaver did not appear in court.  His court-
appointed attorney did, however, leading U.S. District Judge
Harold Ryan to issue a bench warrant for his arrest.  Ryan's
clerk had been the individual who had initially rescheduled the
trial from February 19, 1991 to February 20, 1991.  There was
some discussion as to when the clerk informed Judge Ryan about
the erroneous letter.  The clerk's testimony was conflicting
about the timing of when he told the judge.

U.S. Attorney Maurice Ellsworth then took the stand.  He
testified that on February 7, 1991 he received a letter from
Vicki Weaver addressed to him as a "Servant of the Queen of
Babylon."  The letter was dated February 3, 1991 and reads as
follows:

          Sir:

          Please pass this attached letter up the line of your
     chain of command.  Yah-Yahshua the Messiah of Saxon Israel
     is our Advocate and our Judge.
          The stink of your lawless government has reached
     heaven, the abode of Yahweh our Yahshua.  Whether we live or
     whether we die, we will not bow to your evil commandments.

          [signed] Mrs. Vicki Weaver
-!-
 ! Origin: The Fanatic / 619-549-0447 / San Diego (1:202/203)
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12



cc: ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 7 * Waco lesson One.  Kill them before they burn you alive.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 27142 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!decwrl!decwrl!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial 4/22 2of2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 93 01:28:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 80

 *************  Original From: PAUL PRATT
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/14/93 - 0108342
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 * Originally By: Gary Steinweg
 * Originally To: All
 * Originally Re: Weaver Trial 4/22 2Of2
 * Original Area: Debate
 * Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.12

                    - day 8 continued -

A second letter was contained in the envelope.  It was dated
January 22, 1991 and reads as follows:

          To: The queen of Babylon

          Yahweh lives!

          A man cannot have two masters.  Yahweh Yahshua Messiah
     the annoited One of Saxon Israel is our law giver and our
     King.  We will obey him and no others.
          "The deities that have not made the heavens and the
     earth, they shall perish from the earth and from under these
     heavens" - Jeremyah
          Halleluyah!  Yah Yahshua will be magnified and honored.
          "...a long forgotten wind is starting to blow.  Do you
     hear the approaching thunder?  It is that of awakened Saxon.

     War is upon the land.  The tyrants blood will flow." -
     Matthews

          [signed] Mrs. Vicki Weaver

U.S. Attorney Ellsworth testified that at the time he received
the letters he was unaware of the Weaver case.  Nonetheless, he
stated, "I decided it was a veiled threat, at least, and should
be referred to the U.S. Marshal's Service for investigation."

Deputy Marshal Warren Mays did the threat evaluation and declared
the letters no threat, although he did say that they represented
some risk of failure to appear.

Weaver's attorney Gerry Spence suggested in court that Vicki
Weaver's letters were written to complain about the unfair
treatment her husband was receiving.  After both Spence and U.S.
District Attorney Kim Lindquist read passages from the Bible
including segments of Jeremiah and Revelations, Spence then asked
Ellsworth, "Do you, after hearing about the Queen of Babylon,
feel that we should have a risk assessment of the Bible?"

U.S. Attorney Maurice Ellsworth completed his testimony by
stating that, in full knowledge of Richins's erroneous letter,
nonetheless sought and obtained a Grand Jury indictment against
Weaver for failure to appear on March 14, 1991.  Ellsworth
testified that he realized that the failure to appear charge
might later be dismissed were Weaver to show up on March 20,
1991.

Friday, April 23 will mark the ninth day of the trial.  Scheduled
is the cross-examination of Deputy Warren Mays.
-!-
 ! Origin: The Fanatic / 619-549-0447 / San Diego (1:202/203)
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12



cc: ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 7 * Waco lesson One.  Kill them before they burn you alive.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



================================================================================
Note 288.3                Excessive Force by Government                  3 of 11
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        152 lines  26-MAY-1993 08:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 27127 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial 4/23 1of2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 93 01:28:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 64

 *************  Original From: PAUL PRATT
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/14/93 - 0108343
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 * Originally By: Gary Steinweg
 * Originally To: All
 * Originally Re: Weaver Trial 4/23 1Of2
 * Original Area: Debate
 * Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.12

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 9.

Friday, April 23, 1993 was the ninth day of the trial.

Synopsis: U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge angrily lectured both
the prosecution and the defense about unprofessional conduct.
Defense attorney Gerry Spence cross-examined U.S. Marshal Warren
Mays, alleging that Mays was insensitive to Randy Weaver's
feelings that Weaver was being persecuted.  In a related story, a
Boundary Country fire district is preparing to the sue the FBI to
recover costs incurred during the standoff.

The day began with the cross-examination of Deputy U.S. Marshal
Warren Mays, who served as the primary investigator of Weaver's
case starting from February, 1991.  Defense attorney Gerry Spence
had been asking Mays about documents, technically not yet
admitted as evidence, from Mays's file on Weaver.  U.S. District
Attorney Kim Lindquist repeatedly objected, arguing that the
documents had not yet been admitted as evidence.  At one point,
Spence asked U.S. District Attorney Kim Lindquist to help Mays
locate a memo in the file, and Linquist responded, "You help
him."

Judge Lodge glared furiously at Lindquist and Spence as he had
the jury ushered out.  He then proceeded to blast them, "You're
not conducting yourselves professionally.  You're making a
mockery out of the judicial system."  He then addressed Linquist
directly, "These little nitpicking objections have got to stop.
This evidence is going to get in one way or another.  I can see
why this case is going to take 15 months, but it's not; it's
going to take two.
-!-
 ! Origin: The Fanatic / 619-549-0447 / San Diego (1:202/203)
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12



cc: ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 7 * Waco lesson One.  Kill them before they burn you alive.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 27128 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!wupost!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial 4/23 2of2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 93 01:28:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 62

 *************  Original From: PAUL PRATT
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/14/93 - 0108344
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 * Originally By: Gary Steinweg
 * Originally To: All
 * Originally Re: Weaver Trial 4/23 2Of2
 * Original Area: Debate
 * Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.12

                - day 9 continued -

The jury was then brought back into the courtroom.  Spence
continued to hammer away at Mays, alleging that Mays was
insensitive to Randy Weaver's feelings of persecution, "The truth
of the matter was that you were building a case that would give
you grounds to claim that this was a threatening situation, isn't
it?"  Mays, who had done the threat assessment of Vicki Weaver's
letters, denied the defense's interpretation.

Later in the day, prosecutors introduced the trial transcript of
February 20, 1991 when Randy Weaver failed to appear in court.
The defense objected to this evidence but was overruled.  In the
transcript, Weaver's court-appointed attorney Everett Hofmeister
stated that he had sent Randy Weaver four letters and tried to
reach him by telephone to notify him of the trial date.
Hofmeister stated that he was unable to reach Weaver at all.

The trial is in recess until Monday, May 3rd, 1993, at 8:30am.

In a related story, a rural Boundary County fire district is
preparing to sue the FBI for failure to reimburse expenses after
providing fire protection services for nine days in the standoff.
North Bench Volunteer Fire District Chief Gary Gage claims that
his organization spent $28,800 providing fire protection services
during the standoff, including one incident in which two tents
occupied by FBI agents had caught fire due to an improper fuel
mixture in diesel-gasoline heating units.  Gage remarked, "We
really didn't want to go in to begin with.  The hardest part of
the whole thing was having people call us baby killers and
traitors as we crossed through the barricade."  FBI Spokesman
Nestor Michnyak said the request for reimbursement was currently
being "re-reviewed" by the agency.
-!-
 ! Origin: The Fanatic / 619-549-0447 / San Diego (1:202/203)
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12



cc: ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 7 * Waco lesson One.  Kill them before they burn you alive.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



================================================================================
Note 288.4                Excessive Force by Government                  4 of 11
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        388 lines  26-MAY-1993 08:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 26942 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!wupost!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f203.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial day 10
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 93 00:48:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:202/203 - The Fanatic, San Diego CA
Lines: 74

 *************  Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/10/93 - 0106801
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.
Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: May 3, 1993, Day 10

Synopsis: Deputy U.S. Marshal Dave Hunt testified that the
government took all reasonable measures to apprehend Randy Weaver
without conflict, including trying to find times Weaver might
leave his cabin.  In a related story, Randy Weaver's father and
sister have now joined the courtroom spectators.

The U.S. Marshal's Service was charged with bringing in Randy
Weaver after he failed to appear for a February 20, 1991 court
date.  In charge of the investigation was U.S. Deputy Marshal
Dave Hunt.  Hunt testified that all government efforts to
apprehend Randy Weaver were designed to do so without incident,
particularly armed conflict.  Hunt was apparently very concerned
about the possibility of armed confrontation, at one point
offering a friend of Randy Weaver named Bill Grider $5000 if he
could provide a way of arresting Weaver without incident.

Hunt continued by stating that a large portion of time was spent
trying to ascertain when Weaver might leave his cabin, thus
providing a chance to arrest him with a lower chance of gunfire
erupting.  Some of Weaver's friends gave Hunt a letter on March
6, 1991, indicating that Weaver would not surrender.  Hunt
testified, "I told them specifically that if Randy Weaver didn't
care about his children, that I did, that I was not going to have
a confrontation with innocent parties - children - in the
middle."  [A cynic would note that a child was the first to die].

Hunt continued his testimony by stating that a friend of Randy
Weaver's, Allen Jeppson, served as a quasi-mediator for a
possible surrender.  Jeppson pursued surrender terms that would
include location of the trial, and possibly having Jeppson stay
with Weaver in jail before any trial began.  Hunt decided that
those conditions were unworkable but did say he was encouraged
that Weaver was willing to talk.

Jeppson continued, counter-offering a proposal that the
government promise to not interfere with Vicki Weaver's custody
of the four children.  Ominously, the U.S. Attorney's office
refused that condition "for various reasons."  This is an
interesting revelation in and of itself.  Apparently the
government had every intention of stripping the Weavers of their
children, regardless of the outcome of the standoff.

In a related story, Randy Weaver's father (Clarence Weaver of
Jefferson, Iowa) and Randy Weaver's sister (Coleen Labertew of
Indianola, Iowa) joined the courtroom as spectators.  KTVB
carried a mini-interview in which Clarence Weaver declared that
his son was being treated unfairly and he wondered why the agents
that killed Vicki Weaver were not on trial.  This marks the first
time that either Clarence Weaver or Coleen Labertew has attended
the trial.  KTVB also reported that on Monday, May 3, 1993 Randy
Weaver said that, "All government workers are workers of satan,"
and that, "It was God's will they [the Weaver family] stay in the
cabin."  It was not reported whether these statements were made
on the stand or to reporters between trial session(s).

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 2 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.

--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!202!203!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 26943 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f203.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial day 11
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 93 00:48:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:202/203 - The Fanatic, San Diego CA
Lines: 73

 *************  Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/10/93 - 0106799
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 11.
Tuesday, May 4, 1993 was the eleventh day of the trial.

Synopsis: Deputy U.S. Marshal Dave Hunt continued his testimony
today, focusing on efforts to get Randy Weaver to surrender.  A
high-level official revealed that part of the government's
strategy was to push Weaver to the edge of confrontation.

Deputy U.S. Marshal Dave Hunt testified that his plan was to keep
Weaver alive despite the standoff.  However, some documents
entered into evidence today would seem to suggest otherwise:
Entered into evidence were 1991 notes authored by Chief Deputy
Marshal Ron Evans.  Evans, apparently in conversation with Tony
Perez, Chief of the Marshals Service Enforcement Division, both
supported pursuing a policy to arrest Weaver that included
pushing Weaver, "to the edge of confrontation."  The notes
continued by stating, "If Weaver fires on the officers, retreat
and evaluate.  If Weaver follows through on the assault, we have
a new game and a new set of rules to evaluate."  [A cynic would
note that they think it's all a game].

Upon cross-examination, Hunt qualified the "edge of
confrontation" remark by saying that it only referred to a face-
to-face conversation he wanted to have with Weaver.  [Yeah,
right].  Evidence presented did show that on October 15, 1991
Hunt had drafted a letter offering that the government, among
other things, would not try and interfere with Vicki Weaver's
custody of the family children, and would not prosecute other
family members.  As reported earlier, this offer was
countermanded by U.S. Attorney Ronald Howen on October 17, 1991,
proving that the government had every intention of seizing
custody of the children.  Howen, in conjunction with Deputy
Marshal Warren Mays instead drafted a letter to Weaver addressing
concerns Vicki Weaver had raised in previous letters.
When the Howen/Mays letter was brought to mediator Allen Jeppesen
[note the reported spelling of Jeppesen has changed from earlier
reports in the Statesman], there was already a letter from Vicki
Weaver cutting off negotiations.  A segment of that letter reads
as follows:

     My husband was set up for a fall because of his religious
     and political beliefs.  There is nothing to discuss.  He
     doesn't have to prove his innocence, nor refute your
     slander.

Spence remarked on the content of Vicki Weaver's letters, saying
that not only was she concerned about losing her children, but
that the letters were largely complaints about the government's
treatment of Randy Weaver.

Finally, court observers noted today that the introduction of
trial evidence is taking a lot longer than originally
anticipated.  Some feel that the trial may drag on into July or
even August.

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 2 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.

--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!202!203!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 26944 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f203.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial day 12
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 93 00:48:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:202/203 - The Fanatic, San Diego CA
Lines: 73

 *************  Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/10/93 - 0106800
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 12.
Wednesday, May 5, 1993 was the twelfth day of the trial.

Synopsis: Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal Ron Evans claimed today that
Randy Weaver had a sign at the end of his driveway proclaiming,
"White Power is Supreme."  Defense Attorney Gerry Spence pointed
out inconsistencies between Evans's trial testimony and the
testimony he gave at Randy Weaver's indictment hearing last year.

The testimony of U.S. Deputy Marshal Dave Hunt must have finished
without further incident, as neither the Statesman nor KTVB
carried any additional coverage.  The trial coverage picks up
with Chief Deputy for the U.S. Marshals (Idaho) Ron Evans.  The
government's now obvious strategy is to depict Randy Weaver as a
white supremacist, thus playing upon a jury's emotions about such
beliefs, presumably to increase the likelihood of obtaining a
conviction.  Evans claimed that he and Deputy Marshal Jack Cluff
drove up to the Weaver family cabin on March 4, 1991 to scout
out possible locations for a hidden camera to ascertain who might
be bringing the Weavers supplies.  Evans claims that the two did
not have any intention of confronting Weaver that day.

Evans continued by saying that at the edge of the Weaver's
driveway there was a sign that read, "White Power if Supreme.
Bow Down to Yahweh."  Weaver's friends, throughout the trial,
have denied the governments's allegations that Randy Weaver was
a white supremacist, stating emphatically that he was instead a
white separatist who felt that the races should not mix.  In
later testimony, Dick Staples, a government contracted surveyor
who had surveyed the site for the government, said he thought he
had seen a sign that said, "Yahweh Messiah" near the driveway's
edge.

When Evans and Cluff were spotted by the Weavers, they were asked
to leave the property and did so without incident.  Evans stated
in court that Weaver and two teenagers had spotted the Marshals,
and that Weaver and the two teenagers were all armed with long
guns.  Evans assumed that the two teenagers were Samuel Weaver
and Sara Weaver.  With respect to seeing Sara Weaver armed, Evans
is reported to have said, "I will remember that forever."
Defense attorney Gerry Spence proceeded to attack Evans's
credibility, by pointing out gross inconsistencies between his
courtroom testimony and the testimony he gave at the indictment
hearing last September, asking directly, "When were you not
telling the truth, before the grand jury or before the ladies and
gentlemen here?"  Spence homed in on two of the biggest
inconsistencies, one involving Sara Weaver being armed and the
other involving the family dog.  At the indictment hearing, Evans
had testified that he could not see whether Sara Weaver was
armed.  Secondly, last September Evans had said that when the
family dog had approached the jeep Evans and Cluff were riding
in, he had lost sight of the dog's head.  Wednesday's testimony
changed to say that the dog was nipping at the tires of the
vehicle.

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 2 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.

--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!202!203!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 26940 of alt.conspiracy:
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d13-1/2
Organization: FidoNet node 1:202/203 - The Fanatic, San Diego CA
Lines: 58

 *************  Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/11/93 - 0106804
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Thur, May 6, Day 13.

Synopsis: Testimony from George Torrence revealed that Randy
Weaver vowed, in 1991, to fight to the death if government agents
tried to arrest him.  Boundary County District bailiff Ron
Sukenik testified that Randy Weaver pointed a gun at him in 1990
when he served an eviction notice on a friend of Weaver's named
Bill Grider.  Grider, in a KTVB interview outside the courthouse,
denied Weaver ever pointed a gun at Sukenik.

George Torrence testified today that he went with his family to
meet Randy Weaver on September 26, 1991.  Torrence was acting as
a proxy for his father-in-law to discuss a nearby property
boundary with Randy Weaver.  Torrence reported that as he and his
family approached Weaver's driveway, he noticed a cable strung up
across the drive.  At that point, Kevin Harris appeared from
behind a rock outcropping, armed with a hunting rifle.  Harris
then called to Weaver, who came down the driveway carrying a
shotgun.  Weaver then invited the Torrence family up to the
cabin.  Torrence testified that neither Weaver nor Harris pointed
their weapons at the Torrence family.

Once inside the cabin, Weaver discussed his religious views and
his position regarding the federal government.  According to
Torrence's testimony, Weaver described how Anglo-Saxons are the
true Israelites of the Bible, and that the Jews of today are
"impostors."  Weaver continued by describing admiration for parts
of Nazism, although he expressed discomfort at the idea of mass
extermination.

Weaver also told Torrence that the federal government was
persecuting him because of his religious views, and that the
weapons charges against him were "trumped up."  Randy Weaver also
stated that he would rather die fighting at his cabin than
surrender to face federal weapons charges.  Torrence testified,
"If they came to take him [Randy Weaver], he said he was going to
die fighting, and if he did, the feds would be doing him a favor
because they would be sending him to heaven.  But in the
meantime, he would take as many of them out as he could."

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 2 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.

--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!202!203!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 26941 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f203.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d13-2/2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 93 00:48:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:202/203 - The Fanatic, San Diego CA
Lines: 49

 *************  Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/11/93 - 0106805
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Thur, May 6, Day 13.

                      - continued -

Also testifying Thursday was Boundary Country District bailiff
Ron Sukenik.  Sukenik testified that in 1990 he was serving an
eviction notice on a friend of Randy Weaver's named Bill Grider.
Sukenik described how he and two Boundary County Sheriff's
Deputies approached the house in which Bill Grider was living.
The Sheriff's deputies remained behind as Sukenik approached the
house.  As he neared the house, Randy Weaver appeared with a gun
pointed at him and declared, "That's far enough."  Randy Weaver's
wife, Vicki Weaver, also appeared and was armed, but did not
point her weapon at Sukenik.  Sukenik then told Weaver that he
was there to see Grider.  At this point, Sukenik then described
how, "Weaver started to preach to me - I guess that's the word -
about the IRS being an illegal entity and the federal government
and specifically the Jews' involvement."  Sukenik then said that
Weaver brought down his rifle and began talking to the Sheriff's
deputies while Vicki Weaver and Bill Grider came to look at the
papers.  Sukenik then left the papers and quickly left the scene.

KTVB carried a mini-interview will Bill Grider outside the
courtroom today.  Grider emphatically denied that Weaver had ever
pointed a gun at Sukenik, and Grider stated that you have to
wonder why the government didn't arrest Weaver at various points
before the standoff erupted.  Sukenik's allegations about
Weaver's pointing a gun must also be weighed against the fact
that the deputies didn't arrest Weaver on the spot for
brandishing a firearm, a misdemeanor offense in Idaho.

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 2 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.

--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!202!203!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



================================================================================
Note 288.5                Excessive Force by Government                  5 of 11
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        514 lines  26-MAY-1993 08:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 27021 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d14-1/3
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 93 14:40:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 69

 ********** Original       To: ALL
 * CARBON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  COPY  *   posted:      On: PETEXCH
 **********              Conf: 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 *************  Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/12/93 - 0107192
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 14.
Friday, May 7, 1993 was the fourteenth day of the trial.

                      Part 1 of 3

Synopsis: The day was marked by the testimony of two of Randy
Weaver's friends, Rod Willey and Bill Grider.  Willey gave
testimony that the Weaver family was a tight-knit, loving group.
Grider essentially echoed Willey's testimony.  KTVB reported that
U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge again admonished the prosecution
and defense for "unprofessional conduct."  A related story in the
_Statesman_ describes the Identity Christian movement and some of
their beliefs.

This day featured testimony by two of Randy Weaver's friends.
The first to take the stand was Rod Willey.  Willey and another
friend, Bill Grider, each brought supplies to the Weaver cabin
during their stay in their Ruby Ridge cabin.  Willey described
the Weaver marriage: "It was a love story.  Every time I saw them
together they were holding hands.  They often embraced each
other, and they never argued or fought.  They did everything by
consensus."  Willey went to the cabin July 9, 1991 after talking
with deputies.  He had hoped to talk Weaver into surrendering.
Instead, he and the family talked and prayed about the situation.

During the conversation, Randy Weaver told Willey his version of
what happened regarding the illegal shotguns that precipitated
the ensuing standoff.  Willey reported that, "He [Randy Weaver]
told me that he was handed a shotgun and asked some questions
about it, whether it would be good, and handed it back."  These
statements conflict with the testimony given by a government
informant, Kenneth Fadeley, earlier in the trial.  Randy Weaver
concluded the account by telling Willey that the federal weapons
charges were "trumped up" and that he was innocent.  Weaver also
told Willey that he was sure he would not get a fair trial, and
the family was concerned that they would lose their home and
would get forcibly broken up.  [Their concerns were obviously
justified given the government's stated intention of seizing
custody of the children].


cc: ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0546 on PETEXCH

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 4 * Bill Clinton is to Roger Rabbit as Hil Clinton is to ...


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 27022 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d14-2/3
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 93 14:40:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 76

 ********** Original       To: ALL
 * CARBON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  COPY  *   posted:      On: PETEXCH
 **********              Conf: 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 *************  Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/12/93 - 0107193
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 14.
Friday, May 7, 1993 was the fourteenth day of the trial.

                      Part 2 of 3

The conversation then drifted to Weaver's religious beliefs,
including a discussion about a long-standing "Babylonian"
conspiracy, spearheaded by several prominent Jewish organizations
attempting to wrestle control of governments throughout the world
and establish a single government under their rule.  Defense
attorney Gerry Spence complained bitterly about this line of
questioning, objecting frequently and declaring that this case
was, "on the verge of becoming a witch hunt" because of Randy
Weaver's political beliefs.  Spence then argued that the jury was
becoming prejudiced because of Weaver's religious beliefs.  U.S.
District Judge Edward Lodge denied Spence's objections and
allowed Willey's  testimony to continue.

Willey continued by noting that after a 12-hour vigil, the Weaver
family decided that, as Rod Willey put it, "Yahweh wanted them to
stand on the mountain and be separate.  They didn't feel that
there was any recourse but to make a stand."  But Willey did say
that Vicki Weaver was apprehensive about the family's long-term
prospects, "She wanted to live up with the family up there on the
mountain as long as they could before the whole thing came
crashing down."

Next on the stand was Bill Grider, another friend of Randy
Weaver's who had also brought supplies up to the cabin.  Quite
simply, Grider corroborated everything Willey had said, and then
proceeded to refute prosecution witness Ron Sukenik.  Sukenik had
earlier testified that Randy Weaver had pointed a gun at him when
Sukenik was serving eviction papers on Bill Grider.  Grider said
that Weaver had not pointed a gun at Sukenik at all, and that
allegation was totally false.  U.S.  District Attorney Ronald
Howen's interaction with Grider was quite heated, according to
the _Statesman_.  Judge Lodge admonished both the prosecution and
defense for "unprofessional conduct" during the day - Spence for
his repeated objections and Howen for his virulent cross-
examination of Bill Grider.

Howen continued to advance the notion that Randy Weaver conspired
with his wife for a confrontation by questioning Grider about
possible violent intentions.  The strategy backfired somewhat:
Grider testified that Weaver had told him that he [Weaver] would
only fight federal marshals, "Only if he had to defend his life
and his family's life."

The trial is scheduled to resume Monday, May 10, 1993 with
further prosecution evidence being presented.


cc: ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0546 on PETEXCH

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 4 * Bill Clinton is to Roger Rabbit as Hil Clinton is to ...


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 27023 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!wupost!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d14-3/3
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 93 14:40:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 72

 ********** Original       To: ALL
 * CARBON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  COPY  *   posted:      On: PETEXCH
 **********              Conf: 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 *************  Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/12/93 - 0107194
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 14.
Friday, May 7, 1993 was the fourteenth day of the trial.

                      Part 3 of 3

In a related story carried in the _Idaho Statesman_ on May 9,
1993, Weaver's religious views were described in greater detail.
According to the _Statesman_ report, Weaver subscribed to a
particular version of range of faiths known as Christian
Identity.  Christian Identity describes a range of faiths that
all adhere to the notion that white Europeans are the true
Israelites of the Old Testament.  In fact, Randy Weaver told
George Torrence about his beliefs in 1991, when the two had a
religious discussion.  Weaver said that he considered himself to
be a Jew, a true Israelite, and that he had descended from Shem,
the son of Noah.  Weaver also said that they were under attack by
a conspiracy of Jewish "impostors," who were out to rule the
world under one government.

In fact, Identity Christians believe that there are two races of
people, ones descended from Adam and others, including Jews,
descended from Lucifer.  The races are essentially in
competition, with Lucifer's descendants working furiously to gain
dominion over the world.  Common to many Identity Christian
beliefs is that we are nearing the end of the world and that the
forces of God and Satan are amassing for the conflict.
Consistent with this notion, Aryan Nations founder Richard Butler
has called for white Europeans to move to the Pacific Northwest
as a gathering of God's forces.  Some Identity Christians believe
that the tumultuous upheavals described in the Revelations have
already begun.

The Identity Christian movement traces its roots to the 1840 text
_Our Israelite Origin_, published in Scotland by John Wilson.
Wilson taught that the Israelites spread into Europe after
crossing the Caucasus Mountains, and descended to the various
Anglo-Saxons of today.  The Identity Christian movement reached
its apex immediately after World War II, and a leading figure at
the time, Wesley Swift, declared America the "appointed place"
spoken of by Jeremiah and Isaiah.  Swift had formed the Church of
Jesus Christ Christian in Hollywood, California.

Richard Butler was a follower of Wesley Swift, and became pastor
of Swift's church when Swift died in 1970.  Butler moved to
northern Idaho in 1974 and then formed the Aryan Nations in
Hayden Lake, Idaho.


cc: ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0546 on PETEXCH

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 4 * Bill Clinton is to Roger Rabbit as Hil Clinton is to ...


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 27024 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!wupost!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d15-1/2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 93 14:40:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 71

 ********** Original       To: ALL
 * CARBON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  COPY  *   posted:      On: PETEXCH
 **********              Conf: 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 *************  Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/12/93 - 0107195
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 15.
Monday, May 10, 1993 was the fifteenth day of the trial.

                     Part 1 of 2

Synopsis: Conflict erupted over surveillance videotapes of the
Weaver cabin.  At issue is whether editing 160 hours of video to
2 hours will misrepresent the Weaver's lifestyle.  Also today,
U.S. Marshals Service Inspector Arthur Roderick testified about
the government's high-tech surveillance.  KTVB showed some
surveillance photographs entered into evidence and documentation
that the government had called the Weaver affair, "Operation
Northern Exposure."

The day began with testimony by U.S. Marshals Service Inspector
Arthur Roderick, one of the men present during the initial shoot
out that left Kevin Harris wounded and both Samuel Weaver and
Deputy U.S.  Marshal William Degan dead.  Testimony today was
restricted to describing the surveillance technology used by the
government in gathering information about the Weaver family.
Several items related to the surveillance operation were
released, and KTVB carried some interesting footage.

First of all, there were several aerial photographs of the cabin
and surrounding area.  The quality of these photographs was good,
but they looked like they'd been shot by a low-flying aircraft
rather than anything particularly sophisticated.  At least two
separate photographs had clear markings indicating points of
interest to the government: It was difficult to tell exactly what
everything was, but footpaths and potential/actual surveillance
camera sites were apparent.

The surveillance cameras themselves were interesting items.  They
were solar-powered remote-control devices, encased in what
appeared to be a rubberized housing (like military binoculars).
The units were technically not painted in camouflage, but they
blended in quite well with the surroundings.  The _Statesman_
reported that the Marshals used two cameras, one situated 3/4 of
a mile away, and the second 2/3 of a mile away.  The cameras were
capable of such resolution as to identify particular persons and
any objects such persons might be carrying.


cc: ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0546 on PETEXCH

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 4 * Bill Clinton is to Roger Rabbit as Hil Clinton is to ...


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 27025 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d15-2/2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 93 14:40:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 66

 ********** Original       To: ALL
 * CARBON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  COPY  *   posted:      On: PETEXCH
 **********              Conf: 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 *************  Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/12/93 - 0107196
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 15.
Monday, May 10, 1993 was the fifteenth day of the trial.

                     Part 2 of 2

The Marshals logged some 160 hours of footage of the Weaver
family, and they proceeded to edit this voluminous amount first
down to 20 hours, then down to eight hours, and finally down to
two hours.  The video purportedly shows the Weavers responding to
the sounds of passing cars by bringing rifles with them.  U.S.
District Attorney Kim Lindquist proposed showing the two hours of
video along with Arthur Roderick's testimony.  The defense
objected, however, arguing that without seeing the footage they
had no idea whether it was representative of the Weavers.  U.S.
District Judge Edward Lodge agreed with the defense, and ruled
that the videotape evidence will not be admitted until Monday,
May 17, 1993 at the earliest, so as to give both sides time to
work something out.  He was not pleased about this, however, and
disgustedly told both lawyers, "Both sides have presented an
impossible problem, something that should have been taken care of
before the trial."

KTVB also showed some government documentation of the
surveillance operation, introduced as evidence.  The
documentation showed that the Randy Weaver case was formally
called, "Operation Northern Exposure."  [Note: I am NOT making
this up!].  The documentation also showed that the government
referred to the Weaver cabin at Ruby Ridge as "the compound," and
generally regarded the operation in paramilitary terms.  One
final thing displayed were accounting sheets indicating that the
surveillance operation alone cost a shade under thirty thousand
dollars a month to maintain.

As if to counter the prosecution's photographs, the defense today
also released several photographs of life around the Weaver
cabin, as well as photos of Randy and Vicki Weaver's wedding.  It
was not clear whether these photos were entered as evidence.

The trial is scheduled to resume Tuesday, May 11, 1993 with the
continued testimony of Arthur Roderick.


cc: ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0546 on PETEXCH

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 4 * Bill Clinton is to Roger Rabbit as Hil Clinton is to ...


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 27026 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d16
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 93 14:40:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 82

 ********** Original       To: ALL
 * CARBON *      was       By: MATT GIWER
 *  COPY  *   posted:      On: PETEXCH
 **********              Conf: 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 *************  Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED *             To: ALL
 *  MESSAGE  *    Date/Number: 05/12/93 - 0107197
 *************             On: PETEXCH - 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 16.
Tuesday, May 11, 1993 was the sixteenth day of the trial.

Synopsis: Strategic and financial details of "Operation Northern
Exposure" were revealed today as an Inspector for the U.S.
Marshal's Service, Arthur Roderick, continued testimony.  One
surveillance camera came up missing during the operation, and was
possibly discovered by the Weaver family.

U.S. Marshal's Service Inspector Arthur Roderick's second full
day of testimony described both strategic and financial details
of the Randy Weaver arrest plan called "Operation Northern
Exposure."  The strategy involved three phases.  First, federal
agents scouted out possible surveillance sites for clandestine
video equipment to spy on the Weaver cabin.  Second, two solar-
powered remote cameras were installed on ridges overlooking the
family cabin.  The cameras were located 3/4 of a mile away and
1/2 mile away.  [Note earlier reports said the second camera was
2/3 of a mile away].  The third and final stage of the plan
involved the government buying property adjacent to the Weaver
cabin, and then sending in an agent to pose as a "white
supremacist" to befriend Weaver.  [Note the carefully chosen
wording].  The idea was to use the friendship to lure Weaver away
from his family for the arrest.  Five 2-man teams were going to
be stationed nearby to aid in the arrest.

The plans encountered difficulty in execution.  Roderick
testified that on May 2, 1992 or early May 3, 1992, Kevin Harris
and Samuel Weaver apparently heard agents installing solar panels
to power one of the surveillance cameras.  [Is it a coincidence
that the only ones who supposedly heard the agents are both now
dead?].  The next day the camera was not sending a signal, so
agents went to check it out: The camera was missing.

Roderick continued his testimony by stating that he, William
Degan, and four others were scouting out possible locations for
the five 2-man backup teams when they were discovered and the gun
battle began.

The financial details were enlightening.  The government released
figures indicating that the first month of the plan was projected
to cost $29,656 with each additional two weeks expected to cost
$26,928.  Incredibly, there was no set arrest date, suggesting
that the government was going to be spending over $13,000 a week
indefinitely.  In the words of Roderick, "Basically, it was up to
the relationship that our undercover agent would be able to
affect with Mr. Weaver."  Despite releasing the projected
figures, the U.S. Marshal's Service has not released actual cost
information as yet.

The trial is scheduled to resume Wednesday, May 12, 1993 with the
cross-examination of Arthur Roderick.


cc: ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0546 on PETEXCH

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 4 * Bill Clinton is to Roger Rabbit as Hil Clinton is to ...


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



================================================================================
Note 288.6                Excessive Force by Government                  6 of 11
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        325 lines  22-JUN-1993 09:51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 28052 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!sybus.sybus.com!myrddin!palan!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d30-1/2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 93 03:40:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 77

 OOOOOOOOOO Original       To: ALL ALL
 |PHOSPHOR|      was       By: MATT GIWER
 |  COPY  |   posted:      On: PETEXCH
 OOOOOOOOOO              Conf: 0011 - Z-Main_Flame
ALL
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 /***********\ R     E Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED * E M O L            To: ALL
 *  MISSILE  * A E R S   Date/Number: 06/03/93/0113192
 \***********/ D     E            On: PETEXCH / 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: June 1, Day 30.

Synopsis:  Prosecution witness and Weaver family neighbor, Ruth
Rau, again testified today.  Rau, under cross-examination by
defense attorneys, admitted that she and her husband had
conflicts with the Weavers in the past.  Also testifying today
was Deputy U.S. Marshal Dave Hunt, who recalled the moments
immediately after the gun battle erupted.  KTVB reported that
Rau's testimony may actually wind up helping the defense.

"I don't respect him.  I felt he [Randy Weaver] was a threat to
society, as well as our family," testified Ruth Rau, a Weaver
family neighbor.  Rau repeated her assertion that Randy Weaver
was a man intent on having a confrontation with the federal
government.  When the defense suggested that what Randy Weaver
really meant was the second coming of Christ, not a shoot-out
with federal agents, she responded, "No, he was talking about a
shoot-out, specifically."  Rau reportedly said that she could
think of nothing good to say about Randy Weaver.

Cross-examination was rigorous.  Under defense attorney's
questioning, Rau did say that she thought Vicki Weaver was a good
mother, and that Vicki Weaver took good care of her children.
Defense attorney Gerry Spence played up the fact that the Raus
and the Weavers had had disagreements in the past [KTVB reported
that these disagreements included water use, and showed a picture
of Ruth Rau coiling an irrigation hose].  Rau said that her
husband had shot a "neighbor's nanny goat..." because the goat
was a "continual nuisance." [It was unspecified who the
"neighbor" was, although presumably it was the Weavers].  Spence
then asked, "Neighborly disputes seem to be as common as
dandelions in the pasture, isn't that true?"  Rau said no.  Rau
was then asked about apparent contradictions in her earlier
statements to the FBI regarding the appearance of Deputy U.S.
Marshal Dave Hunt, who ran to the Rau residence immediately after
the gun battle in which federal agent William Degan and Samuel
Weaver were killed.  At issue was who fired the first shot.  It
is implied in the _Statesman_ that Rau had earlier told the FBI
that a federal agent fired the first shot.  [Presumably Dave Hunt
had told her?].  KTVB reported that Rau's testimony probably
wound up helping the defense, because it suggests that either she
couldn't get her story straight from before, or that there
may be systematic inconsistencies from initial FBI notes and
later FBI versions.


cc: ALL in 0546 on PETEXCH
    ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0231 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0073 on #1COMPU

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 21 * Clinton's popularity keeps falling and falling and falling a


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 28053 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sybus.sybus.com!myrddin!palan!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d30-2/2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 93 03:40:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 59

 OOOOOOOOOO Original       To: ALL ALL
 |PHOSPHOR|      was       By: MATT GIWER
 |  COPY  |   posted:      On: PETEXCH
 OOOOOOOOOO              Conf: 0011 - Z-Main_Flame
ALL
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 /***********\ R     E Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED * E M O L            To: ALL
 *  MISSILE  * A E R S   Date/Number: 06/03/93/0113193
 \***********/ D     E            On: PETEXCH / 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: June 1, Day 30.

                     - continued -

Also testifying today was Deputy U.S. Marshal Dave Hunt, who
recalled the minutes immediately following the gun battle.  Hunt
said that he was near the fight, and that after shots were fired
he ran to the Rau's house because he thought agents were pinned
down by gunfire.  Hunt said, "It was a pretty stressful
situation.  I had run three-fourths of a mile, been shot at, seen
a dead friend, and I was still taking fire."

Addendum: A photograph, carried several days ago in the
_Statesman_, showed a picture of the deceased Weaver family dog
Striker.  The picture contained visible tire tracks on the
animal.  I've since had a conversation with a friend who said
that he heard, on a local radio station in Lewiston, Idaho, that
federal agents did not seal the crime scene until ten days after
the standoff ended.  During this period, agents apparently ran
over the dog: Whether this was intentional is not known.  I can
say with certainty that the dog was run over.  However, the rest
of this information should be treated as hearsay because I have
been unable to verify it.  For example, I called the
_Statesman's_ City Editor, Bill Walker, who knew nothing about a
failure to seal the crime scene (he did, however, acknowledge
that the dog had been run over).  I will try to contact the
_Statesman's_ reporter for the Weaver trial, Colleen LaMay, to
see if she can shed any light on this.

The trial is scheduled to resume Wednesday, June 2, 1993.


cc: ALL in 0546 on PETEXCH
    ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0231 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0073 on #1COMPU

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 21 * Clinton's popularity keeps falling and falling and falling a


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 28054 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!sybus.sybus.com!myrddin!palan!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d31-1/2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 93 03:40:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 77

 OOOOOOOOOO Original       To: ALL ALL
 |PHOSPHOR|      was       By: MATT GIWER
 |  COPY  |   posted:      On: PETEXCH
 OOOOOOOOOO              Conf: 0011 - Z-Main_Flame
ALL
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 /***********\ R     E Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED * E M O L            To: ALL
 *  MISSILE  * A E R S   Date/Number: 06/03/93/0113194
 \***********/ D     E            On: PETEXCH / 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: June 2, Day 31.

Synopsis:  The courtroom was brought to tears today as
photographs of Samuel Weaver, killed in the initial gun battle,
were entered as evidence.  The actual notes relaxing the rules of
lethal force were also released.  Testifying today was Dick
Rogers, commander of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team.

Jurors today were reduced to tears, one sobbing loudly enough for
even spectators to hear, as photographs of Samuel Weaver were
entered into evidence.  Samuel had been cleaned up by the family
after the shooting, but a gunshot wound in the back was clearly
visible.  One photo depicts the body of Samuel Weaver lying in a
shed near the Weaver cabin, precisely where the FBI found his
remains after the 11-day standoff with federal agents ended.
Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris refused to look at the photos of
Samuel as they were displayed on courtroom monitors.

Testifying for over five hours today was the Chief of the FBI
Hostage Rescue Team, Dick Rogers.  "When we found Samuel's body,
it was not only a surprise, it was complete shock,"  Rogers said.
He went on to say that the FBI had no idea that the boy had been
hurt in the shoot-out.  Rogers spent the day discussing details of
lethal force rules and communication strategy.

The lethal force rules were handwritten on a pad of paper,
although it was unclear who actually penned the notes shown on
KTVB [perhaps G. Wayne "Duke" Smith, Associate Director of
Operations, U.S. Marshal's Service, or Dick Rogers?].  The text
of the notes reads as follows:

     "If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon
     after the surrender announcement is made deadly force can
     and should be employed to neutralize the individual.

     "If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the
     announcement deadly force can and should be employed if the
     shot can be taken without endangering the children.

     "If compromised by any dog the dog can be taken out."

     "Any subjects other than R(andy Weaver), V(icki Weaver) &
     K(evin Harris) presenting threat of death or grievous bodily
     harm FBI rules of Deadly Force apply."


cc: ALL in 0546 on PETEXCH
    ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0231 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0073 on #1COMPU

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 21 * Clinton's popularity keeps falling and falling and falling a


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 28055 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!sybus.sybus.com!myrddin!palan!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d31-2/2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 93 03:40:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 60

 OOOOOOOOOO Original       To: ALL ALL
 |PHOSPHOR|      was       By: MATT GIWER
 |  COPY  |   posted:      On: PETEXCH
 OOOOOOOOOO              Conf: 0011 - Z-Main_Flame
ALL
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 /***********\ R     E Original From: GARY STEINWEG
 * FORWARDED * E M O L            To: ALL
 *  MISSILE  * A E R S   Date/Number: 06/03/93/0113195
 \***********/ D     E            On: PETEXCH / 0325 - f-Politics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: June 2, Day 31.

                     - continued -

Rogers went on say that "sniper-observers" [as he called them]
always use their best judgment, and in the last 3.5 years snipers
have only fired once in 10 separate confrontations.  Snipers had
only been positioned for a few hours when one sniper fired two
shots at Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris.  The sniper was uncertain
he'd hit anything.  Rogers said that the sniper had reported
that, "He [the sniper] saw one of the individuals flinch.  He may
or may not have wounded one."  In actuality, Randy Weaver was
wounded slightly, Kevin Harris was wounded seriously, and Vicki
Weaver was killed.  Defense attorney Gerry Spence cross-examined
Rogers, "You later found out he did pretty good.  He got three
people with two shots, isn't that right?" asked Spence.  Rogers
answered, "Anytime you take a life, it's not 'doing pretty
good.'"  The FBI later learned that Vicki Weaver was killed when
Populist presidential candidate Bo Gritz intervened in
negotiations.

Rogers also testified on the use of bullhorns and telephones to
try and communicate with Weaver and Harris.  The federal agents
directed at least some of their communication to Vicki Weaver,
ignorant of the fact that she was already dead.  Defense
attorneys argued that the bullhorn talk directed at Vicki Weaver
angered Randy Weaver because he thought that the agents were
"making a mockery" of her death.

The trial is scheduled to resume Thursday, June 3, 1993 with the
continued cross-examination of FBI agent Dick Rogers.


cc: ALL in 0546 on PETEXCH
    ALL in 0034 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0231 on PC-HELP
    ALL in 0073 on #1COMPU

 * RM 1.0  * Eval Day 21 * Clinton's popularity keeps falling and falling and falling a


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



================================================================================
Note 288.7                Excessive Force by Government                  7 of 11
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        295 lines  22-JUN-1993 09:51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 28317 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver d33            1/2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 93 14:07:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 156

Subj: WEAVER TRIAL D32               Conf: (325) f-Politics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the _Idaho
Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television station, KTVB
Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist. Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial
update: June 3, Day 32.

Synopsis:  FBI agent Dick Rogers was angered by defense attorney
references to the Waco debacle.  FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi testified
today that he did not mean to kill Vicki Weaver. Horiuchi said he was
aiming at Kevin Harris when he fired two rounds the day after the gun
battle that left federal agent William Degan and Randy Weaver's son,
Samuel, dead.

The day began with the cross-examination of FBI Special Agent Dick
Rogers.  Defense attorney Gerry Spence reestablished that FBI lethal
force rules were significantly relaxed during the standoff between the
Weavers and federal agents.  Spence then sought to connect the lethal
force rules in the Weaver affair with the lethal force rules used in
the Waco debacle.  Spence asked Rogers specifically about the lethal
force rules the FBI used in "shooting Branch Davidians," which angered
Rogers. "Judge, I resent the implication that man is making about
Waco," Rogers loudly said while pointing at finger at Spence.  Rogers
continued, "Is he [Spence] aware that no shot was fired [by Roger's
FBI sniper teams] at Waco?"  U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge told
Spence to drop the line of questioning and to never bring it up again.
The line of questioning may, despite the judge's decision to exclude
it, have merit because Rogers was involved in both the Waco incident
and the Weaver incident. Rogers ordered FBI snipers into position on
August 22, 1992, one day into the standoff.  That very day FBI sniper
Lon Horiuchi killed Vicki Weaver while she was cradling an infant in
her arms.

Horiuchi, a four year veteran of the crack FBI sniper team, was next
to testify.  Horiuchi, a former member of the U.S. military, addressed
both prosecution and defense attorneys as "sir."  In simplest terms,
Horiuchi said that he did not mean to kill Vicki Weaver and that her
death was an accident.  Horiuchi had taken up a position about 200
feet from the cabin [this is the Statesman's number - the video on
KTVB showed the distance to be much greater than this, perhaps more
like 200 yards].  Horiuchi went on to say that he believed that Kevin
Harris was threatening a helicopter carrying federal agents when he
decided to fire.  Just as he fired, Horiuchi said that, "it looked
like he [Kevin Harris] was trying to jump through the doorway...I saw
him react like he got punched in the side.  He fell into the door."
Immediately after the shot, Horiuchi heard a woman screaming, a scream
that did not subside for about 20 seconds, after which it abruptly
stopped.  Only later did he find that he had killed Vicki Weaver.
Horiuchi testified that via his rifle scope he could see the open door
of the cabin, but he could not see through the window on the door
because of the curtain.

KTVB carried some footage of a few photographs taken at the scene.  It
is true that the cabin door had a curtain.  However, the curtains were
pulled back and covered, at the time the photo was taken, perhaps only
half of the window area.  Furthermore, the curtains were sheer, and it
seems difficult to believe that a sniper could not have seen someone
behind the doorway.  Finally, and perhaps most remarkably, the bullet
passed through an area of the window that was not covered by curtains
at all.

Subj: WEAVER TRIAL D33               Conf: (325) f-Politics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the _Idaho
Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television station, KTVB
Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: June 4, Day 33.

Synopsis:  FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi continued testimony today, focusing
on his shooting at Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris. Incredibly,
immediately after Horiuchi finished testimony evidence that may have
proven useful in cross-examination was finally delivered to the
defense.  U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge declared he was probably
going to sanction the government for yet another delay in providing
the defense evidence.

FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi continued his testimony today, discussing at
length his shooting of the Weavers and Kevin Harris.  Randy Weaver sat
with his eyes closed as Horiuchi described his aiming at the base of
Randy's neck.  Horiuchi reiterated that he believed Randy Weaver was
going to fire on a government helicopter containing federal agents.
Horiuchi thought he'd missed Randy Weaver entirely, but in reality
he'd hit Randy in the flesh where his back meets his arm.  Defense
attorney Gerry Spence cross-examined Horiuchi, "Did you hear Mr.
Weaver yell, 'Mama, I've been hit' as he began to run toward the
house?" Horiuchi said, "No, sir, I did not."

Both the prosecution and defense used the cabin door, actually present
in the courtroom, to argue that the sniper could (or could not) have
seen Vicki Weaver standing in the doorway.  Also entered into evidence
today were photographs and autopsies of the three people killed in the
Weaver incident.  Federal agent William Degan died of a gunshot would
to the chest, and Kevin Harris is charged with Degan's murder.
Degan's camouflage t- shirt, stained with dried blood, was also
entered as evidence. The prosecution then entered photographs and
autopsy reports for Vicki Weaver and Samuel Weaver.  Neither Randy
Weaver nor Kevin Harris would watch at this point: They covered their
eyes and were crying.  Samuel Weaver died of a gunshot would to the
back. The bullet traveled directly through his heart and out his
chest. Vicki Weaver was killed when the bullet, fired by Horiuchi,
went in her right cheek, severed her carotid artery, and shattered her
left jaw.  The bullet was then deflected into Kevin Harris, where it
hit him in the arm and chest, seriously wounding him.

Documents concerning Horiuchi's testimony were discovered immediately
after Horiuchi had left the stand.  The documents had been requested
by the defense over a month ago but were sent, via fourth-class mail,
only two weeks ago.  U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge excused the jury
from the room and then tempers flared.  Defense attorney Gerry Spence
complained that it was the fault of the U.S. attorney's office.  "The
FBI sits at their table every day.  The FBI provides the exhibits,"
said Spence. Judge Lodge didn't agree with Spence.  Assistant U.S.
Attorney Ronald Howen apologized immediately for the delay, "I have
asked for an inquiry in my office about what happened.  I can give the
court no explanation for why these materials were not sent in a more
timely fashion."  [It was not specified from where the evidence was
sent].

Subj: WEAVER TRIAL D34               Conf: (325) f-Politics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the _Idaho
Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television station, KTVB
Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: June 7, Day 34.

Regarding yesterday's additional evidence suppression and tampering by
the prosecution/FBI, Judge Lodge was unimpressed. Referring to the
postage choice, he said, "It seems to me totally inexcusable and
extremely poor judgment."  Acknowledging prior problems with
government evidence, Lodge continued, "The court is very upset about
these things happening.  It does appear it is somewhat a pattern."
Lodge then announced that, over the weekend, he will be considering
sanctions against the government. He said an outright dismissal was
unlikely, but other sanctions, including forcing the federal
government to pay defense attorney fees, was possible.
Synopsis:  U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge did not announce sanctions
against the government today, declaring that today he would probably
decide what sanctions were appropriate.  Judge Lodge is contemplating
sanctions because of the prosecution's repeated mishandling of
evidence in the trial.  The trial was cut short today because of a
family emergency.
Last Friday saw U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge promise sanctions
against the government for systematically failing to provide the
>>> Continued to next message

 * !!"  >>>> * The right to buy guns is the right to be free.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 28318 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!pdn!mechanic!f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver d33            2/2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 93 14:07:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/326 - SPPE, St Petersburg FL
Lines: 113

>>> Continued from previous message
defense with evidence throughout the trial.  However, Judge Lodge did
not announce sanctions today but rather said he would decide today.
Judge Lodge will probably announce sanctions tomorrow, although this
was not stated specifically.

The trial was cut short today as a prosecution witness tended to a
family emergency.  Because of the short session, no witnesses
testified.  To save time during the trial, the prosecution and defense
spent an hour and a half Monday morning combing over evidence to
present to the jury.  Some of that evidence was presented to the jury
today.  Included were the following: (a) armor piercing bullets were
found in two guns seized [at least they're using the right word here]
at the Weaver cabin, (b) federal agent William Degan was not killed by
an armor-piercing bullet, and (c) ballistic tests conclusively linked
the bullet that killed Degan to the rifle Harris used in the shootout.
After the evidence was presented, the trial recessed.

Courtroom observers believe that the prosecution is about to rest its
case, and may do so as early as tomorrow.  KTVB carried a segment in
which defense attorney Gerry Spence was asked how long would the
defense take in presenting its side.  He responded, "It depends on how
the prosecution's case ends up."  Suggesting that the government's
case may not be doing so well, a KTVB reporter noted that U.S.
Attorney Ronald Howen has not been smiling much lately.

The trial is scheduled to resume Tuesday, June 8, 1993.

Subj: WEAVER TRIAL D35-1/2           Conf: (325) f-Politics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the _Idaho
Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television station, KTVB
Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: June 8, Day 35.

Synopsis:  U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge today sanctioned the
government with a fine of $3,240 for repeatedly providing the defense
with evidence in an untimely fashion.  Judge Lodge also agreed with
defense requests that FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi be placed back on the
stand.  The prosecution called expert witness Dr. Martin Fackler to
the stand today.

U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge today sanctioned the U.S. Attorneys
to pay a day's worth of defense attorney fees for the government's
repeated failure to present the defense evidence in a timely manner.
The fine amount was $60 an hour, times six attorneys working nine
hours each, for a total of $3,240.  Judge Lodge cited the latest delay
as "inexcusable."  Evidence requested by the defense months ago [the
_Statesman_ says "months ago," although earlier they said a "month"]
arrived only last Friday because it spent two weeks crossing the
country via 4th- class mail.

The evidence requested was a dossier about 1.5 inches thick, including
notes and a diagram of the cabin door made by the FBI sniper [Lon
Horiuchi] who killed Vicki Weaver and wounded both Randy Weaver and
Kevin Harris.  The defense argued that the diagram raises new
questions about whether Lon Horiuchi could have seen Vicki Weaver when
he fired the shot that killed her. Defense attorney Charles Peterson
argued before Judge Lodge, "I believe the jury needs to see his
demeanor, hear his tone of voice on the witness stand [when shown the
diagram]."  Judge Lodge sided with the defense, rejecting the notion
of further Horiuchi testimony over the telephone.

Testifying for over five hours today, on behalf of the prosecution,
was Dr. Martin Fackler, president of the International Wound
Ballistics Association.  Fackler was brought in as an expert witness
to try and explain how federal agent William Degan could have fired
seven rounds after taking a rifle slug in the chest [KTVB reported
that this was a slug from a .30- 06].  Fackler stated that Degan was
probably capable of shooting his attackers, "There is no reason that I
could see that he [Degan] would be immediately incapacitated.  Even if
his blood supply had been cut off, he would have been able to empty a
full magazine."  Fackler went on to say that Degan could have been
capable of "purposeful action" for up to three minutes.  The bullet
wound from Kevin Harris's gun would have temporarily opened up a wound
channel the size of a volleyball, breaking four ribs, and rendered
Degan's left arm useless, according to Fackler.  But Fackler, a former
U.S. Marine, theatrically got up, picked up Degan's weapon, and
demonstrated to the jury how Degan might have continued fighting by
using only his right arm.

The defense began cross-examining Fackler by arguing that the empty
cartridges found near Degan's body could be more easily accounted for
if Degan fired the rounds before he was himself hit.  Fackler
responded by saying he didn't think that was accurate, because Degan
probably would have hit Samuel Weaver in the back, who was only 30
feet away at the time.  Fackler went on to speculate that Samuel
Weaver was probably killed by federal agent Larry Cooper, as the wound
in Samuel Weaver's back more closely corresponds to the type bullet
fired by Cooper. Throughout Fackler's testimony and cross-examination
the defense repeatedly raised the concern that wound ballistics is an
inexact science at best, and Fackler may not have enough medical
certainty to make his testimony worth the jury's time.

The trial is scheduled to resume Wednesday, June 9, 1993, with the
continued cross-examination of Dr. Martin Fackler.

Addendum: The _Statesman_ today reported Tuesday as the 34th day of
the trial.  This must be a misprint, as they printed last Friday as
Day 33.  I phoned the City Desk and mentioned the error and they said
they'd look into it.


 * !!"  >>>> * The right to buy guns is the right to be free.


--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



================================================================================
Note 288.8                Excessive Force by Government                  8 of 11
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."         37 lines  22-JUN-1993 09:51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 7200 of clari.news.issues.civil_rights:
From: [email protected] (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.news.law.crime.trial,clari.news.religion,clari.news.issues.civil_rights,clari.news.gov.usa
Subject: Randy Weaver trial goes to jury
Lines: 29

	BOISE, Idaho (UPI) -- A jury Wednesday began pondering two opposing
theories of who was murdered and who were the murderers in last summer's
seige in north Idaho of the mountaintop cabin of white separtist Randy
Weaver.
	A federal marshal and Weaver's son were killed Aug. 21 in a gunfight
sparked when Weaver's dogs discovered agents prowling the property.
Weaver's wife was killed the next day by a sniper shot fired through the
family's front door.
	Weaver, who had been wanted for weapons violations, and his friend,
Kevin Harris, gave themselves up 11 days later. Both are on trial in
Boise federal court for first-degree murder, conspiracy and weapons
charges.
	The prosecution contends that U.S. Deputy Marshall William Degan was
killed by Harris, aided and abetted by Weaver, as part of a conspiracy
to force an Armageddon-like confrontation with ``satanic'' federal
authorities.
	But Weaver's attorney, noted trial lawyer Gerry Spence of Wyoming,
said in closing arguments earlier this week that ``the people who
committed the murder have not been charged.''
	Spence said the trial itself was part of a cynical government effort
to cover up a botched assault on the property and the needless killings
of Vicki Weaver, 43, and Sammy Weaver, 14.
	The defense also questioned whether Degan was shot by Harris, as the
prosecution contends, or by another agent and contended Harris was
firing in self defense after Sammy Weaver was killed.
	Last week, U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge threw out two of the
original 10 counts against Weaver and Harris. Earlier, when the jury
wasn't present, he commented that two thirds of the government's
witneses were more helpful to the defense.


================================================================================
Note 288.9                Excessive Force by Government                  9 of 11
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        282 lines  23-JUN-1993 09:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 28476 of alt.conspiracy:
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d35-1/2
Organization: FidoNet node 1:202/203 - The Fanatic, San Diego CA
Lines: 67

This message was from GARY STEINWEG to ALL,
originally in conference f-CONTROV
and was forwarded to you by MATT GIWER.
                    -------------------------
Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: June 8, Day 35.

Synopsis:  U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge today sanctioned the
government with a fine of $3,240 for repeatedly providing the
defense with evidence in an untimely fashion.  Judge Lodge also
agreed with defense requests that FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi be
placed back on the stand.  The prosecution called expert witness
Dr. Martin Fackler to the stand today.

U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge today sanctioned the U.S.
Attorneys to pay a day's worth of defense attorney fees for the
government's repeated failure to present the defense evidence in
a timely manner.  The fine amount was $60 an hour, times six
attorneys working nine hours each, for a total of $3,240.  Judge
Lodge cited the latest delay as "inexcusable."  Evidence
requested by the defense months ago [the _Statesman_ says "months
ago," although earlier they said a "month"] arrived only last
Friday because it spent two weeks crossing the country via 4th-
class mail.

The evidence requested was a dossier about 1.5 inches thick,
including notes and a diagram of the cabin door made by the FBI
sniper [Lon Horiuchi] who killed Vicki Weaver and wounded both
Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris.  The defense argued that the
diagram raises new questions about whether Lon Horiuchi could
have seen Vicki Weaver when he fired the shot that killed her.
Defense attorney Charles Peterson argued before Judge Lodge, "I
believe the jury needs to see his demeanor, hear his tone of
voice on the witness stand [when shown the diagram]."  Judge
Lodge sided with the defense, rejecting the notion of further
Horiuchi testimony over the telephone.

Testifying for over five hours today, on behalf of the
prosecution, was Dr. Martin Fackler, president of the
International Wound Ballistics Association.  Fackler was brought
in as an expert witness to try and explain how federal agent
William Degan could have fired seven rounds after taking a rifle
slug in the chest [KTVB reported that this was a slug from a .30-
06].  Fackler stated that Degan was probably capable of shooting
his attackers, "There is no reason that I could see that he
[Degan] would be immediately incapacitated.  Even if his blood
supply had been cut off, he would have been able to empty a full
magazine."  Fackler went on to say that Degan could have been
capable of "purposeful action" for up to three minutes.  The
bullet wound from Kevin Harris's gun would have temporarily
opened up a wound channel the size of a volleyball, breaking four
ribs, and rendered Degan's left arm useless, according to
Fackler.  But Fackler, a former U.S. Marine, theatrically got up,
picked up Degan's weapon, and demonstrated to the jury how Degan
might have continued fighting by using only his right arm.

 * !!"  >>>> * "Waco II:  The Wrath of Reno" produced by Bill Clinton

--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!202!203!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 28477 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!jac.nuo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!sybus.sybus.com!palan!pdn!mechanic!f203.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d35-2/2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 02:03:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:202/203 - The Fanatic, San Diego CA
Lines: 38

This message was from GARY STEINWEG to ALL,
originally in conference f-CONTROV
and was forwarded to you by MATT GIWER.
                    -------------------------
Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: June 8, Day 35.

                     - continued -

The defense began cross-examining Fackler by arguing that the
empty cartridges found near Degan's body could be more easily
accounted for if Degan fired the rounds before he was himself
hit.  Fackler responded by saying he didn't think that was
accurate, because Degan probably would have hit Samuel Weaver in
the back, who was only 30 feet away at the time.  Fackler went on
to speculate that Samuel Weaver was probably killed by federal
agent Larry Cooper, as the wound in Samuel Weaver's back more
closely corresponds to the type bullet fired by Cooper.
Throughout Fackler's testimony and cross-examination the defense
repeatedly raised the concern that wound ballistics is an inexact
science at best, and Fackler may not have enough medical
certainty to make his testimony worth the jury's time.

The trial is scheduled to resume Wednesday, June 9, 1993, with
the continued cross-examination of Dr. Martin Fackler.

Addendum: The _Statesman_ today reported Tuesday as the 34th day
of the trial.  This must be a misprint, as they printed last
Friday as Day 33.  I phoned the City Desk and mentioned the error
and they said they'd look into it.

 * !!"  >>>> * "Waco II:  The Wrath of Reno" produced by Bill Clinton

--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!202!203!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 28475 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!jac.nuo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!olivea!uunet!sybus.sybus.com!palan!pdn!mechanic!f203.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trail d36
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 02:03:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:202/203 - The Fanatic, San Diego CA
Lines: 57

This message was from GARY STEINWEG to ALL,
originally in conference f-CONTROV
and was forwarded to you by MATT GIWER.
                    -------------------------
Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: June 9, Day 36.

Synopsis:  Recalled to the witness stand was FBI sniper Lon
Horiuchi.  Horiuchi was confronted with his own sketch diagram of
the cabin door, a diagram that contained two individuals behind
the door's window.  Horiuchi maintained that he did not intend to
kill Vicki Weaver when he fired the shot that took her life.

FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, as part of the settlement for the
government's repeated failure to provide the defense evidence in
a timely fashion, was recalled to the stand today.  This unusual
step was taken because some evidence requested by the defense
weeks ago was finally provided only minutes after Horiuchi
initially left the stand.  Part of the evidence requested
included a sketch diagram of the cabin door.  Included in the
sketch diagram were two people behind the door's window.

Horiuchi stated that the people in the window were Randy Weaver
and his 16-year-old daughter Sara.  The other individual in the
sketch was the intended target, Kevin Harris, approaching the
cabin door.  [KTVB showed the sketch.  Even allowing some
artistic license, these were stick people in the drawing!
There's no way of telling who Horiuchi was really sketching].
Horiuchi last week testified that when he fired the two rounds,
the curtains were pulled and he could not see anyone behind them.
[Then who pulled the curtains back later?].  Horiuchi basically
stuck to his story.

He testified that there is no contradiction, because he was only
sketching where he "pictured" Randy and Sara Weaver, not where he
"saw" them.  [Which suggests that he was shooting at Harris when
he suspected Randy and Sara Weaver might be in the line of fire,
but uncertain of whether Randy and/or Sara met the criteria for
lethal force?  KTVB reported that Horiuchi said he'd only placed
those people in the drawing based on information from superiors].
U.S. Attorney Kim Lindquist asked, "Could you see anyone or
anything through that door?"  Horiuchi replied, "No, sir, I could
not."

The trial is scheduled to resume Thursday, June 10, 1993.

 * !!"  >>>> * "Waco II:  The Wrath of Reno" produced by Bill Clinton

--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!202!203!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



Article 28478 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!jac.nuo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!olivea!uunet!sybus.sybus.com!palan!pdn!mechanic!f203.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Matt.Giwer
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Sender: [email protected] (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Weaver trial d37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 02:03:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:202/203 - The Fanatic, San Diego CA
Lines: 72

This message was from GARY STEINWEG to ALL,
originally in conference f-CONTROV
and was forwarded to you by MATT GIWER.
                    -------------------------
Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho Survivalist.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: June 10, Day 37.

Synopsis:  The government called weapons expert Lucien Haag as
the prosecution's last witness.  After Haag's testimony, the
government rested.  In a remarkable move, defense attorneys also
rested without calling a single witness.

Weapons expert Lucien Haag was called to testify on behalf of the
prosecution.  Haag's testimony was designed to bolster the
government's version of what happenned during the fateful
shootout last August in which federal agent William Degan and
Samuel Weaver were killed.  Haag used evidence such as the
positions of bullets and casings to reconstruct what ocurred
during the shootout.  The defense argumentatively cross-examined
Haag, pointing out contradictions in the marshal's stories and
Haag's own testimony regarding evidence at the scene.  In the
end, Haag was forced to admit he could not say with certainty who
fired the first shot.  [KTVB went so far as to say that some
prosecution testimony regarding angular relationships among the
bullet and casing evidence was also compatible with defense
versions of what happenned].

Eight weeks and literally dozens of witnesses since the trial's
start, the prosecution then rested.  The defense followed suit
within a few minutes and without calling a single witness.  Said
Harris's defense attorney David Nevin, "When they don't prove
their case, you don't have to do anything.  I've felt for a long
time the case was a failure."  Gerry Spence, Weaver's defense
attorney, has never lost a criminal trial in three decades of
practicing criminal law.  Spence's comment on the decision to not
call witnesses for the defense, "The burden is on the state to
prove its case beyond a reasonsable doubt.  It failed to do so."
Spence continued, saying that presenting a defense under such
circumstances, "would be an unreasonable use of the jury's time."
Spence was also interviewed on KTVB, live at the federal
courthouse, yesterday evening.  He said, "What happens [in a
criminal trial] is governed by the Constitution.  The prosecution
must prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt...[perfectly timed
pause]...That's the government's obligation."  Spence has
declined to call witnesses before, and did so in his successful
defense of Imelda Marcos.

Scheduled to testify today was Vicki Weaver's best friend, Jackie
Brown.  She was relieved when the defense decided not to call
witnesses.  She said, "Everything I would have testified would
have been very painful to the family."

The trial is thus over.  Scheduled for Friday, June 11, 1993 are
closing motions.  Defense attorneys, recognizing that the
government's case has been laden with evidence problems, plan to
ask U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge to outright dismiss some of
the ten charges against Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris.  Final
arguments are expected on Monday, June 14, 1993 and the case will
probably go to the jury late Monday or early Tuesday, June 15,
1993.

 * !!"  >>>> * "Waco II:  The Wrath of Reno" produced by Bill Clinton

--  
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!mechanic!202!203!Matt.Giwer
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between FIdonet<>USENET
      for the TAMPA BAY,FL. metropolitan area.



================================================================================
Note 288.10               Excessive Force by Government                 10 of 11
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."         38 lines  20-JUL-1993 11:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 68725 of misc.legal:
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: [email protected] (David Slack)
Subject: Weaver & Harris, NOT GUILTY!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
Lines: 29


I seen on the news today that Weaver and Harris have been found not guilty.
GOOD!  By the news report, Weaver was found guilty on two lesser counts, 
one for not appearing in court and I don't recall the other.  A couple of
things that stood out in the reports were how the media compared the Weaver
incident with Waco and how they kept referring to Randy Weaver as a "fanatic"
and "White supremeist".  I found the *name-calling* by the media very  
unprofessional, well, actually, I gues it fits with the medias self-proclaimed
role of deciding who's a "fanatic" and who's not.

From the comments made by Spence, I get the feeling they may go after the
government.  I'd love to see those jack-a---s from the FBI and BATF have 
their butts thrashed on.  I didn't care for the comment that one of the
jurers (sp) made either, "we should just go home and forget all about this".
What? Does this guy work for the government?  Hell yes big brother would like
all the rest of us to "forget all about it".  Gee with this kind of attitude
how long do you think it will be before we see this crap happen again?

Slack
--
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   |_/_/_/  _/       _/      _/_/  _/  _/ | David H. Slack                  |
   |_/      _/      _/_/    _/     _/ _/  | Boise Surface Mount Center      |
   |_/_/_/  _/     _/  _/   _/     _/_/   | email: [email protected] |
   |    _/  _/    _/_/_/_/  _/     _/ _/  | telnet: 396 4019                |
   |_/_/_/  _/_/ _/      _/  _/_/  _/  _/ | phone: (208) 396 4019           |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   | Hewlett-Packard, 11213 Chinden Blvd., Boise Idaho 83714-1023, M/S #625 |
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


================================================================================
Note 288.11               Excessive Force by Government                 11 of 11
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        413 lines   4-NOV-1993 13:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:	ABYSS::werme "Eric Werme USG" 25-OCT-1993 12:22:41.75
To:	abyss::edp
CC:	
Subj:	Randy Weaver account


Moral:  Don't make those gun barrels too short!

------- Forwarded Message

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 11:40:16 -0400
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Errors-To: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Originator: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
From: [email protected] (Craig Peterson)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Randy Weaver Story
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Personal interest list

Date: Sun, 24 Oct 93 08:37:48 EST
From: [email protected]
Subject: TAR/TAH feature on Randy Weaver story. - 383 Lines
To: [email protected]

THE SIEGE AT RUBY RIDGE

BATF's entrapment of Randy Weaver, an outrageous precursor to the
Waco inferno, led to the violent deaths of three people. Says his
defense attorney, Gerry Spence: "What happened to Randy Weaver can
happen to anybody in this country."

BY JIM OLIVER

Seeing his dog, Striker, shot to death by masked intruders clad in
camouflage, Sammy Weaver, 14, fired back in fear for his life. The 4
ft. 11" tall youngster was hit in the arm, then shot in the back as
he turned to run for home. He died instantly, killed by an agent of
the federal government.

Cradling her 10-month-old daughter in her arms, Vicki Weaver stood in
the doorway of her home, mourning her slain son, unaware that she
herself had only seconds to live. In an instant a bullet tore into
Vicki Weaver's face, blew through her jaw and severed her carotid
artery. The bullet was fired from 200 yds. away by an agent of the
federal government.

What had the Weaver family done to bring FBI snipers and
submachine-toting U.S. Marshals to the woods around their cabin on
Ruby Ridge in northern Idaho? Why did the government act as though
the Weavers had forfeited the protections guaranteed all Americans
by the United States Constitution? Who made the decisions that led to
their unjustified deaths and also to the death of deputy U.S. Marshal
William Degan?

For the six men working near Weaver's plywood cabin on Ruby Ridge,
Aug. 21, 1992, was another day on a job that had been going on for 16
months. Their employer, the U.S. government, was spending $26,000 a
week, and there had been no end in sight to the  work.

The cabin--really a shack--was home to 44-year-old former Green Beret
Randy Weaver and his family--wife, Vicki; son, Sammy; and daughters,
Sara, Rachel and Elisheba. It was also home to their young friend,
Kevin Harris. They were subsistence hunters, and tended a garden,
putting up vegetables. A generator produced occasional electricity.
They had no TV, no radio.

This day there were some new men on the job site not far from the
cabin--one, 42-year-old William Degan, had been brought to northern
Idaho on special orders. He was to help plan a successful conclusion
to the job.

The men in the woods were dressed in their work clothes--camouflage
commando outfits complete with masks. They carried the tools of their
trade--two-way radios rigged for quiet operation, night vision
equipment, semi-automatic handguns, fully-automatic  military rifles
and at least one silenced HK submachine gun. One of the men was a
medic, prepared to care for any casualties.

The Weaver family had dogs. Somebody threw a rock to test their
reaction. A golden retriever barked near the cabin and came running
their way. A mission somebody in the Marshal Service had dubbed
"Operation Northern Exposure" was about to end.

The "op" had included use of jet reconnaissance overflights with
aerial photographic analysis by the Defense Mapping Agency, and
placement of high resolution video equipment recording activity by
the Weaver family from sites 1-1/2 miles away--160 hours  worth of
tape used.

For nearly a year and a half, federal agents had roamed the area,
picking locations for surveillance and for snipers. Degan belonged to
the Special Operations Group, the Marshal's national swat team. The
six on-site this day were deputy U.S. Marshals.

The target of all of this--and of a Federal law enforcement and
prosecution effort that would eventually total $2.3 million was Randy
Weaver. What kind of criminal was he to demand this kind of
attention? Was he a major drug dealer? Serial killer? Was he a
terrorist bomber?

No. On Oct. 24, 1989, Weaver sold two shotguns whose barrels arguably
measured 1/4" less than the 18" length determined arbitrarily by
Congress to be illegal. The H&R single-barrel 12-ga., and Remington
pump were sold to a good friend who instructed Weaver to shorten the
barrels. The "good friend" was an undercover informant for the Bureau
of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), who later told reporters he
was in it "mainly for the excitement."

Eight months after he sold the shotguns guns, Weaver was approached
by two BATF agents with an offer--spy on the Aryan Nations, a white
supremacist hate group headquartered in northern Idaho, or go to
jail. Weaver refused to become a government informer, and--six
months later--he was indicted on the shotgun charge.

On Jan. 17, 1991, as Weaver and his wife were driving to town for
supplies, they encountered a pickup truck-camper with its hood up, a
man and woman seeming to be in trouble. The Weavers stopped to offer
their help. A horde of federal agents piled out of the camper. A
pistol was pressed against Weaver's neck. Vicki Weaver was thrown to
the slushy ground.

Weaver was arraigned before a federal magistrate, who later admitted
he cited the wrong law. Out on bond, Weaver went back to his cabin.
According to friends who testified in court, he and his wife vowed
not to have any more dealings with the courts of the federal
government. They would just stay on their mountain.

A hearing was set on the shotgun matter for Federal Court in Moscow,
Idaho. The government notified Weaver by letter that he was to appear
March 20, 1991. The actual hearing was held February 20--one month
earlier. The error in dates was enough to give  rise to a memo within
the Marshal Service saying the case would be a washout. (Weaver did
not show for the wrong date, either.) U.S. Attorney Ron Howen still
went to the grand jury anyway, and Weaver was indicted for failure to
appear.

But why had the BATF picked Randy Weaver to set up as an informer? He
was a man devoted to his family, a man with no criminal record, a
veteran who served his country with honor. It was Weaver's beliefs
that made him an ideal target. His unorthodox religious and
political views were far outside mainstream America. He was a white
separatist. Also, Randy Weaver was little, a nobody.

Over the course of the next 16 months, the feds painted Weaver as
racist, as anti-semitic and as a criminal. But they had to entrap him
into his only crime, altering two guns. The media was unquestioning.
In print and on TV and radio, Weaver's home--the plywood shack he
built himself--became a "mountain fortress," and then "a bunker,"
and "a stronghold protected by a cache of 15 weapons and ammunition
capable of piercing armored personnel carriers."

The common shotguns Weaver sold became the chosen "weapon of drug
dealers and terrorists" or "gangster weapons" that "have no sporting
use." The media always added the universal out . . .  "agents said."
But there were no gangsters. There were no terrorists or drug
dealers, just Weaver, the gun buyer and the government.

It was all a lie. Hate-hype. People believed it, maybe even the
agents who planted the hate-hype began to believe. It all ceased to
matter on August 21, when Striker barked and sniffed out the agents
spying on the cabin--lives changed, lives ended.

Nobody, except the people who were there, knows exactly what happened
next. There were several versions of the story. But some facts jibe.
Randy Weaver's little boy, Sammy--a kid whose voice hadn't yet
changed--and Kevin Harris followed Striker. Harris  and Weaver later
said they thought the dog was chasing a deer. Harris carried a
bolt-action hunting rifle. The boy also had a gun.

Without warning a federal agent fired a burst into Striker, killing
him. (It came out in court later that there had been a plan to take
the dog "out of the equation.") The boy, frightened, shot back, and
when one of the agents fired another burst, Sammy lay dead.

Kevin Harris shot deputy William Degan in the chest. He died a few
moments later. The shooting ended relatively quickly. The agents
would claim Harris fired first. Harris claimed he fired after the boy
was shot. Agents told the media their men had been  pinned down for
eight hours. It was a lie.

The dog was dead. The boy was dead. Deputy Degan was dead. Two
American families had tragically lost a loved-one. During the night
hours, Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris brought the little boy's body to
a shed near the cabin and washed it.

Deputy Degan's shooting brought in the FBI. Soon, the Weaver's
property was ringed by a huge force of FBI, BATF, U.S. Marshals,
Idaho state police and local law enforcement and Idaho National
Guard.

Among the federal law enforcement commanders was Richard Rogers, the
head of the FBI's hostage rescue team, which includes its snipers. On
the flight out, he took an extraordinary step--he decided to alter
radically the prescribed rules of engagement of FBI sharpshooters.

Normally, agents can only shoot when they are facing death or
grievous harm. But the 11 snipers that were positioned around the
Weaver cabin were given new orders:

"If <I>any adult<D> in the compound is observed with a weapon after
the surrender announcement is made, deadly force can and <I>should be
employed<D> to neutralize the individual." This meant Randy Weaver's
wife would be fair game. It went on:

"If any <I>adult male<D> is observed with a weapon <I>prior to the
announcement<D>, deadly force can and should be employed if the shot
can be taken without endangering the children." (Emphasis added.)

In words reminiscent of hollow justifications used in Waco, Texas,
federal spokesmen kept telling the media of their concern for the
children. In fact, Gene Glenn, the agent in charge of the siege, told
the <I>New York Times<D> he considered the kids to be hostages. Yet
they'd already killed one child.

The negotiators were not in place, and no effort had been made to
contact the Weavers, when Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris--armed--and
16-year-old Sara Weaver left the cabin and moved to the shed where
Sam's body lay.

As the three reached the shed, an FBI sniper some 200 yds. away aimed
at Weaver. He told the court he was aiming for the spine, just below
the neck. He missed; shot Weaver in the back of the arm, the bullet
exiting through the armpit.

Sara later told <I>Spokesman Review<D> staff writer, Jess Walter, in
a copyrighted story:

"I ran up to my dad and tried to shield him and pushed him toward the
house. If they were going to shoot someone, I was going to make them
shoot a kid."

At the cabin, Vicki Weaver was waiting at the door, holding her
infant daughter, Elisheba. The sniper fired again. His bullet hit
Vicki Weaver. She was dead before the baby hit the floor,
miraculously unhurt. Harris was hit by bullet fragments and bone
from Vicki's skull. He was bleeding badly. Randy Weaver, daughters
Sara, and 10-year-old Rachel all saw the violent death.

Later, sniper Lon Horiuchi stated in court that killing Vicki Weaver
had been a mistake; that he was aiming for Kevin Harris. Defense
attorney Spence asked him, "You wanted to kill him didn't you?" He
answered, "Yes, sir."

Sara Weaver recounted the night following her mother's death. Again
from reporter Jess Walter's story:

"Elisheba cried during the night. She was saying, `Mama, mama,
mama.'. . . "Dad was crying and saying, `I know baby. I know baby.
Your Mama's gone. . . .'"

She told Walter that on Sunday, they tried to yell at federal agents
and get their attention, to tell them that her mother was dead. She
said they got no response. Instead they would hear FBI negotiators.

"They'd come on real late at night and say, `Come out and talk to us,
Mrs. Weaver. How's the baby, Mrs. Weaver,' in a real smart-alecky
voice. `Or they'd say, Good morning, Randall. How'd you sleep. We're
having pancakes. What are you having?'"

The FBI later claimed it had no idea that its sniper had shot Vicki
Weaver. Yet, a <I>New York Times<D> stringer quoted FBI sources as
saying they were "using a listening device that allow(ed) them to
hear conversations, and even the baby's cries in the cabin." Another
lie?

On Thursday, August 27, radio newsman Paul Harvey used his noon
broadcast to reach the Weavers, who he'd learned were regular
listeners. Urging Randy Weaver to surrender, Harvey said,
prophetically, "Randy, you'll have a much better chance with a jury o
f understanding homefolks than you could ever have with any kind of
shoot-out with 200 frustrated lawmen."

As part of their efforts to make contact with the Weavers, the FBI
sent a robot with a telephone to the cabin. But the robot also had a
shotgun pointed at the door, so the Weavers feared that reaching for
the phone could result in death or injury.

Somewhere in all of this, the FBI discovered the body of Sammy. They
told the news media they didn't know he'd been killed.

The siege began to unravel six days after Vicki Weaver had been
killed. Her body remained in the kitchen of the cabin all that time.
Sara crawled around her to get food and water for her family. It was
during this time that Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris dictated their
version of their story to Sara. In this letter, Weaver accused his
government of murdering his wife.

The news media, based on information from the feds, repeatedly
reported that Vicki had been killed in "an exchange of fire" or in a
"gun battle." More spin control.

The only shots were two--from the government's sniper.

Kevin Harris was the first person to come out. Sunday, August 30,
badly wounded, he was rushed to a Spokane hospital were he was
treated and charged with murder. A magistrate told him he was facing
the death penalty.

The rest of the family came out on the next day. The surrender was
negotiated--not by the FBI--but by Bo Gritz, former Green Beret hero.

All the lies and federal spin control over the story were about to
end. The case was going to go to court.

The 36-day trial took place in the U.S. District Court in Boise, with
Judge Edward Lodge presiding. The jury heard the government put on 56
witnesses. The defense rested without calling a single witness,
confident that the government had destroyed its own case. They were
right.

The jury deliberated for nearly three weeks, and found Harris not
guilty of murder or any other charges leveled against him. They found
Weaver not guilty of eight federal felony counts. The judge had
earlier thrown out two other counts.

Weaver was found guilty of two counts: failing to appear in court and
violating his bail conditions. He was declared not guilty of the gun
charge--the seed of all of this misery.

It was a bizarre trial, full of contradictions, with government
witnesses countering each other's stories as to the events of August
21, and countering the events leading up to Vicki Weaver's death the
next day.

The question of who fired first--Harris or the Marshals--was key to
the jury deciding on the murder charge against Harris. In the end
they believed Kevin Harris acted in self-defense. Earlier, the death
penalty had been ruled out. The law the prosecution cited had been
struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court two decades before.

The government spent days going over the Weavers' religious views,
trying to establish they were racist and demonstrated a long-lived
conspiracy to violently confront the government. The  jury didn't
believe it.

Marshal Service witnesses told about a series of pre-siege scenarios
to root Weaver out of his cabin. But when pressed by the defense,
they said they never considered simply knocking on the door and
arresting him.

During the trial, the government admitted that the FBI had tampered
with the evidence; that the crime scene photos given the defense were
phony reenactments. Physical evidence had been removed and replaced.
The prosecutor knew this and had failed to tel l the defense.

The prosecution also withheld documents that might have helped the
defense. When ordered by the judge to produce them immediately, the
FBI sent the material from Washington, D.C., via <I>Fourth class
mail<D>, which took two weeks to cross the country. For
prosecutorial misconduct, the judge ordered the government to pay
part of the defense attorneys' fees, an action almost unheard of in a
criminal case. Prosecutor Howen also was forced to apologize in open
court. At the end of the trial, he collapsed in the middle of a
statement, telling the judge, "I can't go on."

Gerry Spence told the jury, "This is a murder case, but the people
who committed the murder have not been charged. The people who
committed the murder are not here in court."

After the trial, Spence told <I>The New York Times<D>, "A jury today
has said that you can't kill somebody just because you wear badges,
then cover up those homicides by prosecuting the innocent.

"What are we going to do now about the deaths of Vicki Weaver, a
mother who was killed with a baby in her arms, and Sammy Weaver, a
boy who was shot in the back?"

Spence has asked the Boundary County, Idaho, prosecutor to bring
charges against various federal agents. Should that happen lingering
questions about the Weaver case finally may be answered. Should that
happen another jury undoubtedly will serve notice
to those who have forgotten that the United States government is
supposed to serve its citizens, not entrap them, not defame them, not
falsify evidence against them and absolutely not kill their children.

GERRY SPENCE QUOTES FOR CALL-OUTS

"Here you had federal agents come into a little county in northern
Idaho, suspend state law and then say they had the right to eliminate
anyone with a gun."
**********************
"The crime he committed was not sawing off a shotgun. The crime he
committed was refusing to go undercover for the (B)ATF."
***********************
"A jury today has said that you can't kill somebody just because you
wear badges, then cover up those homicides by prosecuting the
innocent."
***********************
"This is a murder case, but the people who committed the murder have
not been charged. The people who committed the murder are not here in
court."
***********************
"The theme is to change Randy Weaver and demonize him and make him
into an evil, spiteful, hateful person so that you can cover up the
murder of a little boy shot in the back and the murder of a woman
shot in the head."
**********************
"The whole process is to make us hate and fear the victim . . . then
it's all right to do whatever we want to them. .  . . We can kill
him. We can destroy his rights. We can demonize him."

                Downloaded from GUN-TALK (703-719-6406)
                A service of the
                National Rifle Association
                Institute for Legislative Action
                Washington, DC 20036

------- End of Forwarded Message

    
    Oh, cut the crap already and *YOU* define "harboring" and then we'll get
    to the task of outlining how Mrs. Vicki Weaver arranged for "friends"
    to deliver provisions and supplies, how none of the Weavers left the
    property from the time *SHE* declared they were fugitives from the law,
    and how she fed, clothed, sheltered, cared for Mr. Randy Weaver.
    
    								-mr. bill

    No, I'm afraid since you are claiming that Mrs. Weaver was "harboring"
    Randy Weaver, YOU must define it.  Put up or shut up!
    
    Dan

    From my wife's "Black's Law Dictionary" -abridged sixth edition:
    
    Harboring a criminal.  See Harbor
    
    Harbor, v.  To afford lodging to, to shelter, or to give a refuge to. 
    To clandestinely shelter, succor, and protect improperly admitted
    aliens,  To receive clandestinely and without lawful authority a person
    for the purpose of so concealing him that another having a right to the
    lawful custody of such person shall be deprived of the same.  Or, in a
    less technical sense, it is the reception of persons improperly.  It
    may be aptly used to describe the furnishing of shelter, lodging, or
    food clandestinely or with concealment, and under certain
    circumstances, may be equally applicable to those acts divested of any
    accompanying secrecy.  Harboring a criminal is a crime under both
    federal and state statutes, and a person who harbors a criminal is an
    accessory after the fact.  See e.g., 18 U.S.C.A. sections 2, 1071, 1072; 
    Model Penal Code, section 242.3.  See also Accessory (Accessory after
    the fact; Aid and abet. 
       

|   No, I'm afraid since you are claiming that Mrs. Weaver was "harboring"
|   Randy Weaver, YOU must define it.  Put up or shut up!
    
    Ah, I see elsewhere that you are particularly obtuse.
    
    Fine, here's the definition.
    
    								-mr. bill
    
================================================================================
Note 362.470                     Waco compounded                      470 of 470
ODIXIE::BOYNTON_CA "Seize the Carp!"                 19 lines   7-JUN-1995 13:25
                           -< Harboring a criminal >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From my wife's "Black's Law Dictionary" -abridged sixth edition:
    
    Harboring a criminal.  See Harbor
    
    Harbor, v.  To afford lodging to, to shelter, or to give a refuge to. 
    To clandestinely shelter, succor, and protect improperly admitted
    aliens,  To receive clandestinely and without lawful authority a person
    for the purpose of so concealing him that another having a right to the
    lawful custody of such person shall be deprived of the same.  Or, in a
    less technical sense, it is the reception of persons improperly.  It
    may be aptly used to describe the furnishing of shelter, lodging, or
    food clandestinely or with concealment, and under certain
    circumstances, may be equally applicable to those acts divested of any
    accompanying secrecy.  Harboring a criminal is a crime under both
    federal and state statutes, and a person who harbors a criminal is an
    accessory after the fact.  See e.g., 18 U.S.C.A. sections 2, 1071, 1072; 
    Model Penal Code, section 242.3.  See also Accessory (Accessory after
    the fact; Aid and abet. 
       
    

    >>It
    >>may be aptly used to describe the furnishing of shelter, lodging, or
    >>food clandestinely or with concealment, and under certain
    >>circumstances, may be equally applicable to those acts divested of any
    >>accompanying secrecy.

	Bill, are you claiming that this is one of those circumstances
	where divestiture is applicable?

    
    mr bill, 
    
    You still have not answered the base question to wit:

    "How can it be HARBORING if the location is that person own home ?"

    You are claiming that my wife would be HARBORING me in MY HOUSE.

    That is patently asinine !

    :-/
    Dan

    Bill's claim is that by continuing to act like a wife, she was offering
    him "aid and comfort" and as he was wanted this translates into
    harboring a criminal. Very creative, but unlikely to sway a jury. As
    the subject is deceased, William may strut about and assume macho poses
    relative to the charge, as he will never have the opportunity to see
    the charges dismissed by a judge or repudiated by a jury. I believe he
    is using the Meese doctrine relative to the charges and purported
    guilt.

  .474  with any luck, that reply won't keep Bill from speaking for
	himself.

    re: .472 
    
    Yes.  We established that long ago.  Kevin Harris was indeed charged
    with harboring a fugitive even though the government stipulated there
    was no secrecy involved in the location of Randy Weaver.
    
    re: .473, .474
    
    Under Federal Law, there is no exemption for family members.
    (Under Mass Law, there is.  You may research your own state laws if you
    wish.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    mr bill,
    Your claim holds no water.  I could just as easily claim that she was a
    hostage, and that the FBI shot a hostage.
    
    Face it bill, you have no case.
    
    Dan

	Of course, at the time no indictment had been issued, no charges
	had been filed, she was unarmed. And she was killed.

	I'm still waiting to hear why charges of negligent homocide
	against the agent are not justified.

Jim

    >with any luck, that reply won't keep Bill from speaking
    
     There's only one thing that keep Bill from speaking, and that's not
    it.

re: .477
    
|   Your claim holds no water.  I could just as easily claim that she was a
|   hostage, and that the FBI shot a hostage.
    
    You could claim that.  It would be a lie, just another among many,
    but you could claim that.

    You also claim that is not possible for a bullet to hit more than one
    person.  Gee, you *did* claim that.  It would also be a lie, just
    another among many, but you *did* claim that.
    
    								-mr. bill

re: .478
    
|	Of course, at the time no indictment had been issued, no charges
|	had been filed, she was unarmed. And she was killed.

    None of which has any bearing on her being a principal in the indident,
    rather than your claim of innocent bystander, let alone the absurd
    she was a hostage.

|	I'm still waiting to hear why charges of negligent homocide
|	against the agent are not justified.

    Can you show me any indictment at all where an officer of the law:

    	* Aimed at and fired a single shot at an armed participant of a crime.
    	* Indeed hit that armed participant.
    	* Unfortunately also hit and killed an unarmed participant of a crime
    	  with that shot.

    Then we can talk about why the charges of negligent homocide are
    justified.

    I'll even cut you some slack.  Name me an indictment against an officer
    where a single shot hit an armed participant in a crime but
    unfortunately hit and killed an *INNOCENT* *HOSTAGE*!

    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 362.481 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    None of which has any bearing on her being a principal in the indident,
>    rather than your claim of innocent bystander, let alone the absurd
>    she was a hostage.

	With no charges pending, she WAS an innocent bystander. 

>    Can you show me any indictment at all where an officer of the law:

>    	* Aimed at and fired a single shot at an armed participant of a crime.
>    	* Indeed hit that armed participant.
>    	* Unfortunately also hit and killed an unarmed participant of a crime
>    	  with that shot.
	
	Note that I do not accept your assertion that Vicki Weaver was
	a participant in the crime. She did not shoot at Federal Officers,
	she did not threaten Federal Officers, she did not in any way
	hinder Federal Officers from arresting her husband, she was not 
	armed.

	I know personally of at least one case where actual charges were
	filed against an officer that fired on a suspect and killed a
	bystander. It happened in Akron, Ohio about 25 years ago. The case
	was part of the curricula we studied at the Academy.

	I know of several cases where such an incident has led to the
	dismissal of the officer involved. Still others have involved
	large cash settlements to the survivors (wounded) of such 
	negligence or their families if the negligence resulted in death.


Jim

        > You also claim that is not possible for a bullet to hit more than one
    > person.  Gee, you *did* claim that.  It would also be a lie, just
    > another among many, but you *did* claim that.

    bill, you have the B*lls to call ME a LIAR !

    I NEVER said that a bullet COULD not hit more than one person, that is
    patently false.  What I said was COMPLETELY different.  I was assessing
    what the FBI agent claimed, and comparing it to reality.  My conclusion
    was the only logical one, that someone was lying.  What was reported
    did not gel with reality.
                            
    Please take a reading comprehension course, God knows you NEED IT!

    Dan

    
    	Why don't you people just meet in the parking lot at 5:30 and
    	settle your differences there?
    
    	I have a life*, so I don't care how it turns out.  8^)
    
    
    	* - actually I don't, but saying I do sounds better.
    

    
    
    	paintball guns at 20 paces!!!
    
    
    

>    	I have a life*, so I don't care how it turns out.  8^)
>    
>    
>    	* - actually I don't, but saying I do sounds better.

How sad.

    
    	let's face it, if we all had any kind of life, what would we be
    doing in here? ;*)
    
    
    jim

    Who are going to be the participants?
    Is this going to be somekind of group duel ? ! ? !
    
    Hey, like in "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
    
    :-))))   Cool !
    
    Dan

    >I NEVER said that a bullet COULD not hit more than one person, that is
    >patently false.
    
     You said it was "impossible."

3...
2...
1...
Flame on

What is it with this person anyway. These are such vitriolic attacks against
anything that sounds like suspicion of the "official" report of events,
anything that contradicts this rosy idea that we are safe as long these NRA
nutballs don't get their way. Where does this abiding faith in the benevolence
of government come from? Why this assumption that federal police cannot be
corrupt, and are strictly in the business of protecting the people and the
freedom of the people?

Do you belive that the phrase "power corrupts" to be "a lie" perpetrated by
the NRA? Part of a conspiracy to engender mistrust in our government?

Who do you think these people are? Do you believe that all of the people who
choose law enforcement as a career would otherwise want to be bridge
designers, or economic theorists, or toy makers, but become police out of
some altruistic sense of duty? No offense to any former police in here, many
of them do just that, and I have known more good cops than bad. But I have
seen enough of them to know that some of them choose it because they are
bullies, and they want a job where they can be armed, and kick the #@&%$! out
of helpless people with impunity.

In a Nazi or other type of totalitarian society, many of these same people
would be in the same job, but would probably like it better. "Police work
is a great job, if only we didn't have this damn constitution and have to 
answer to these damn civilians". You have children? You know how they are
always testing you, always pushing the limits. You have to be vigilant and
firm, or they will end up running your life. If something bad happens, do you
believe everything they tell you? 

When has any entity in power voted itself less power? Do you think they will
not manipulate to expand their influence and if they get caught, lie (and/or
murder) to cover their arses? 

I for one think a good dose of suspision is healthy. I CAN happen here.

But no, we have conspiracy theories to ridicule.

You raise many interesting points about what happened on Ruby Ridge. I must
admit, there seem to be two sides to this story. But I don't want to cling
to one side and ignore other evidence in order to reinforce my belief system.
There are enough documented episodes of corruption in history to justify
skepticism of the motives and methods of authority, TYVM.

Think about what you are saying. You seem to think government knows best, it
acts in your best interest, always tells the truth, and will not abuse its
power in dealing with you. Is this only true when people YOU APPROVE OF are
in power? Will you still trust government when people you don't approve of
come to power? Maybe we should pass a law that only nice liberals can be
elected, and NRA members need not apply.

    re: .491

    No, I said it was impossible for THAT bullet to hit THOSE TWO people.
    Much different than saying "a bullet could not hit more than one
    person".  This is a generality that is patently false.  I would not say
    something like that.  Please read what I wrote before you criticize it.

    Dan

>              <<< Note 362.491 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Mr Blister" >>>

    >I NEVER said that a bullet COULD not hit more than one person, that is
    >patently false.
    
>     You said it was "impossible."

	He did not say that it was impossible for a bullet to hit more
	than one person.

	sorry - didn't see your note.

    
    
    RE: .492  Well said.
    
    
    Mike

    Methinks Mr. Bill is constipated.  Might I suggest a laxative?

|	With no charges pending, she WAS an innocent bystander. 
    
    Then with no charges pending, the three scum shot in Harvard Square by
    the security guard WERE innocent bystanders as well.
    
    
    Try again.
    

    								-mr. bill

    
    	Oh brother.
    

    
    re: .499
    
    
    
     I would have to agree with Mr. Bill...
    
    
    
    
      BTW... How old were the infants these three were packin????
    

    re: 362.492 by DECWET::LOWE
    
    [standard gummint blah blah NAZI blah blah guns blah blah cold dead
    fingers blah blah blah vitriolic rambling deleted]
    
    Sorry, did you say anything meaningful?
    
    
    I'll give you a little homework assignment.  Real simple.
    
    Next time you see something on misc.activism.militia that says the
    shoot-out on Ruby Ridge took place between February 20, 1991 and
    March 20, 1991, you might want to just pause for a moment and
    consider if August 21, 1992 falls between those two dates.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Am I mistaken or is all this emotional pissing and moaning from Mr.
    Bill because the U.S. Marshall what got shot and killed a relation of
    some sort???
    

    mr bill,
    The three scum in Harvard Square were armed I believe.  If they were
    armed and in the commission of a felony, they were NOT innocent
    bystanders.
    Try again!

    Dan

   <<< Note 362.499 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Try again.
 
	Good advice. You would do well to take it.

	Trying to correlate a "hot pursuit" with this situation is ludicrous.
	Federal Prosecutors, if they had a case, could have filed the charges
	anytime during the 18 months. They did not.

Jim

|   	Trying to correlate a "hot pursuit" with this situation is ludicrous.
    
    No, I'm not trying to correlate "hot pursuit" with this situation.  I
    am countering that ludicrous "With no charges pending, she WAS an
    innocent bystander."  That's clearly ludicrous.  It was ludicrous
    in Harvard Square.  It was ludicrous on Ruby Ridge.
    
|	Federal Prosecutors, if they had a case, could have filed the charges
|	anytime during the 18 months. They did not.
    
    Federal Prosecutors did not file harboring charges against Kevin Harris
    during those 18 months either.  But they filed them after the shootout.
    
    This is evidence that prosecutors:
    
    	1 - Had no case
    	2 - Just wanted Randy Weaver to show up peacefully for trial
    
    
    And in closing, obviously, Feds have had 34 months to file charges
    against Lon Horiuchi.  They did not.
    
    This is evidence that prosecutors:
    
    	1 - Have no case
    	2 - Are part of a massive government conspiracy which includes black
    	    helicopters, informers who lie about attacks on guard tanks,
    	    and conspirators who would blow up a Federal building so that
     	    they could put taggants in your smokeless powder.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   Am I mistaken or is all this emotional pissing and moaning from Mr.
|   Bill because the U.S. Marshall what got shot and killed a relation of
|   some sort???
    
    You are pathetic.
    
    No, William Degan was not a relation.  He was a human.
    As human as Vicki Weaver.
    
    
    JUST STOP THE LIES ALREADY.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    You certainly are cranially-rectaally inverted these days billy-boy!!
    
     I asked the question "Am I mistaken..."
    
     If so, say so!! Don't go telling people they're pathetic simply to
    assuage your obvious emotional roller-coaster ride through life!
    
    
      and your ridiculous statement on my "humanity" as if, through your
    inference, I was some kind of Hitler type...
    
      Do you study these acting lines at home in hopes of using them here
    in the box???
    
    
     Seek help billy... or at the least... get a life...
    

   <<< Note 362.507 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    And in closing, obviously, Feds have had 34 months to file charges
>    against Lon Horiuchi.  They did not.
    
>    This is evidence that prosecutors:
    
>    	1 - Have no case
>    	2 - Are part of a massive government conspiracy which includes black
>    	    helicopters, informers who lie about attacks on guard tanks,
>    	    and conspirators who would blow up a Federal building so that
>     	    they could put taggants in your smokeless powder.
 
	Bill. wipe the drool from your chin.

	It is evidence that the government is protecting itself. Filing
	charges against Lon Horiuchi would be a grave tactical mistake
	given the pending wrongful death lawsuit.

	Decisions like this are made all the time.

	By way of example, notice that LA Assitant Coroner Dr.Goldmen is
	still employed. A fact that will change VERY quickly as soon as
	the OJ trial is over.

	Speaking of OJ........

	Let's try something those guys are fond of, a hypothetical question.

	Assume for a moment that the bullet after exiting Harris, struck and
	killed the 10 month old before it struck and killed Vicki Weaver.

	Would your defense of Agent Horiuchi still be so eloquent?


Jim

    Re .508:
    
    > You are pathetic.
    . . . .
    > JUST STOP THE LIES ALREADY.
    
    What are you trying to accomplish here?  Do you think writing notes
    like that will convince anybody?  Do you realize how repulsive your
    style is:  Over and over again, you allude to information, but you
    rarely present it.  E.g., you repeatedly claimed the trial transcript
    proved certain things, but you didn't quote from it to prove them. 
    When you allude to information, you ask people to trust you.  But then
    you insult them and present your own prejudged views, both of which
    scream "Don't trust me."  So they don't.
    
    Keep on this way, and nobody will believe you.  And with good reason.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    <-----------
    
    > Keep on this way, and nobody will believe you.
    
    
    I think this was taken care of a loooooooooooong time ago... 
    
    No worries mate!!!
    
    

    Let's recap, this is just the stuff before .257:
    
    re: .246 by MPGS::MARKEY
    
|   Supposedly, the margin between the legal length and the
|   length he cut it was 1/4", and was more than accounted
|   for by how one might measure the barrel (where does the
    barrel length start).           
    
    Untrue.
    				barrel		overall
    				(length, in inches)
    H&R 12 gauge		13		19.25
    Remington 12 gauge		12.75		24.5
    NFA minimum			18		26
    
    You do the math.
    
    
|   They did not arrest Weaver when he cut the barrel.  No, the came
|   back with an army to do that...
    
    Half true.
    
    They did not arrest Weaver when he delivered the sawed off shot guns.
    
    They did arrest Weaver in January 17, 1991.  He did not show up for
    court (on either Feb 20, 1991 or March 20, 1991), he violated
    conditions for his release, and a warrant was issued for is arrest.
    He was a fugitive for the next 18 months.  The "army" came on August
    22 1992, ONLY after they had shot at Federal Marshals and killed one
    on August 21, 1992.
    
    
|   I do belive if you reserch deeply that Weaver couldn't show up on the
|   right date as the Feds had the court date changed and failed to tell
|   weaver about the change...
    
    Untrue.
    
    There was an error on the court date presented to Weaver.  He showed
    up on neither the correct date (Feb 20, 1991 *OR* March 20, 1991).
    On Feb 3, 1991, the day his wife declared him a fugitive from
    the law in a letter to the US Attorney.  Much was made of the fact
    that the arrest warrant was issued before March 20, 1991.  They
    had clear evidence that he did not intend to show, and they also
    would have recinded the warrant had he shown on March 20, 1991.
    
    re: .250 by CLYDE::KOWALEWICZ_M
    
|   So binder, does this mean when the police fail to notify you of a court
|   date to show up to answer a summons, its okay for government agents to
|   sneak up on your house and shoot your family without warning???
    
    So many untruths, so little time.  I don't think this was meant as a
    hypothetical question.  It bears zero resemblance to what happend
    on Ruby Ridge.
    
    re: .252 by SUBPAC::SADIN
    
|    	Agents didn't say anything. They shot his dog and his son without
|    so much as a verbal response. 
    
    Untrue.  Untrue according to testimony presented at trial.  Untrue
    according to *RANDY* *WEAVER'S* *DIARY*.  ACCORDING TO RANDY WEAVER,
    THE MARSHALS PRESENTED A VERBAL ORDER "FREEZE RANDY!" BEFORE EVEN
    THE DOG WAS SHOT!
    
    re: .253 by RUSURE::EDP
    
|   Weaver was acquitted.
    
    Untrue.
    
    Weaver was convicted of two charges.  Failure to appear and violating
    conditions of release.
    
|   Sure, he could have appeared when summoned if the court had bothered to
|   send him a notice of the changed trial date.  They did not.
    
    Untrue.  He appeared on neither the correct date (Feb 20, 1991) nor
    the incorrect date (Mar 20, 1991), and his wife had notified the
    US Attorney that he would not appear as early as Feb 3, 1991.
    
|   You have the facts wrong.
    
    Untrue. *YOU HAVE THE FACTS WRONG!*
    
|   Weaver didn't 'walk in" guns blazing; he was at home, not walking
|   anywhere.
    
    Untrue!  Weaver was walking, with his gun, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN DIARY!
    He was out because he figured some deer had spooked his dog.  He was
    hoping to bag one.  You may choose to believe him.  I do not.
    
|   The FBI went in, guns blazing.
    
    UNTRUE!
    
    US Marshals were there on August 21.  The FBI did not arrive until
    August 22.
    
    According to RANDY WEAVER'S DIARY, A Marshal (I'm sorry, a
    "ZOG/NWO agent" ordered him to freeze, and he responsonded with
    an expletive.  Then the dog has shot.  THEN, ACCORDING TO RANDY
    WEAVER, RANDY WEAVER FIRED INTO THE AIR.
    
|   The FBI shot first.
    
    Half true!
    
    A US Marshal shot first.  A dog.
    
|   The FBI killed first.
    
    Half true (I'm being generous)
    
    Yes, the US Marshal killed a dog first.  But you can not state that
    they killed a human first.  That honor most likely belongs to Kevin
    Harris when he killed William Degan.
    
|   The FBI killed a dog a friend of Weaver, and an unarmed woman holding
|   a baby.
    
    False.
    
    A US marshal killed a dog.  A friend of Weaver's, Kevin Harris, killed
    a US Marshal.  A US Marshal killed Samuel Weaver.  An FBI sharpshooter
    killed Vicky Weaver.
    
|   Weaver did none of those.
    
    True.
    
    Hey, one fact true.  Of course, you got the facts so wrong, that nobody
    else did any of them either.
    
    re: .255 by BRITE::FYFE
    
|   What possessed them to sneak up, shoot a dog and a kid all before
|   announcing who they were is beyond me.
    
    Untrue.
    
    According to RANDY WEAVER, they announced themselves before the
    dog was shot.  The dog was shot because it was attacking an agent.
    Then William Degan was killed by Kevin Harris.  Then Samuel Weaver
    was caught in the crossfire between Randy Weaver (of course, he
    says he was shooting in the air) and Larry Cooper.
    
|   I can only think that the commander had a rambo complex.
    
    I can think of other things.  Such as you've bought into the Ruby Ridge
    *MYTH*.
    
    re: .256 by CSOA1::LEECH
    
|   I guess according to the ATF, failure to appear in court is punishable
|   by firing squad.  
    
    WRONG AGAIN.
    
    ATF had nothing to do with the subsequent events.  *NOTHING*. 
    Criticize them for entrapment if you will, but they had *NOTHING*
    to do with August 1992.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: .262 by SUBPAC::SADIN
    
|    	Failure to appear in court gets your wife and kid killed (along
|   with the family dog)? Seems a bit harsh, wouldn't you say?
    
    Untrue.
    
    Failure to appear in court resulted in none of those things.
    
    Discharging a firearm after federal marshals order "FREEZE!"
    however....
    
    re: .265 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL
    
|   The Defense believed that the Fed's case was so weak, they chose not to
|   present any testimony. They rested without calling a single witness.
    
    True.

    re: .266 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL
    
|   I'd would very much like to hear your defense of the fact that they
|   opened fire, killing Weaver's dog, without announcing their presence or
|   the fact that they were Federal Agents.
    
    False.
    
    According to Randy Weaver, the did indeed announce themselves before
    the first shot rang out.
    
    Accoding to the Marshals, they shot the dog only because it was
    attacking.  According to Marshals, they announced themselves and
    the response was shooting from the other side.
    
    re: .309
    
|	According to the court testimony presented BY THE PROSECUTION,
|	that person was a US Marshall.
    
    False.
    
    According to the court testimony presented BY THE PROSECUTION,
    that person was Kevin Harris and Randy Weaver.
    
|   	[gratuitous personal insult deleted]....responding to an agressor
|    	with equal  force, but most normal humans will react poorly to
|    	being shot at by an unknown assailant. 
    
    Half true.
    
    The "assailants" were not unknown to Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris.
    Let's be absolutely clear here.  They knew damn well that "ZOG/NWO
    agents" were on the ridge.
    
    But you are right.  People will react poorly to being shot at.
    By an unknown assailant.  By a known assailant.  By a known DANGEROUS
    FUGITIVE.
    
|	I know that I would react to an unknown person shooting one of
|	my dogs, or firing shots at me or my home.
    
    If a human shot an attacking dog, I don't think I'd shoot the human.
    But that's just me, your mileage may vary.
    
|	REMEMBER, the Marshall did not announce who he was OR why he
|	was there. He simply opened fire. That fire was returned.
 
    UNTRUE.  The Marshal did announce.  According to court testimony.
    According to Weaver's diary.
    
|	He then shot a 14 year old boy IN THE BACK. And the boy's
|	father, STILL not knowing who was doing the shooting, shot
|	and killed him.

    Untrue.
    
    Kevin Harris fired shots.
    Randy Weaver fired shots.
    
    AFTER being told to freeze.  According to court testimony.  According
    to the diary.
    
    Kevin Harris and Randy Weaver knew *EXACTLY* who was on the Ridge.
    And they shot and killed them anyway.  In self defense of the dog, of
    course.
    
|	Then it got really ugly. 400 Federal agents. At this point, it
|	certainly would have been better for Weaver to have surrendered.
 
    True.  [Multimedia bells and whistles and flashing lights for the
    rare truth presented by the other side inserted here.]
    
|	It took the death of his unarmed wife, shot by a member of the
|	FBI's HRT who testified UNDER OATH that he could shoot the center
|	out of a quarter at 100 yards but claimed that the headshot that
|	killed Mrs. Weaver was an accident, to convince Weaver that he
|	should give himself up.
    
    Untrue.  Randy Weaver did not surrender for nine more days.
    And it wasn't a claimed accident.  IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.
    
|	You so desperately want to believe that you know who is responsible,
|	but it's quite obvious that you don't have a clue.
    
    Untrue.  Just keep score so far.
    
|	Please note that ALL of the above sequence of events comes 
|	DIRECTLY from the court testimony of PROSECUTION witnesses.
    
    UNTRUE!
    
|     	The defense did not even have to present a case in order
|	to win an aqcuittal on all but two misdemeanor counts.
    
    Half true.  The defense rested without calling a witness, but they
    definately presented an agressive case.  Such as keeping Weaver's
    diary out of court.  And the misdemeanor counts - felonies.
    
|    	You don't judge the actions of police officers or Federal agents
|	based on who the suspect is. You judge their actions seperately.
 
    True!  [insert more bells and whistles]
    
    re: .330 by BRITE::FYFE
    
|  I had read that the boy shot the officer after the officer shot the dog,
|  and that the boy was then shot by a second officer while running back to 
|  the house.  Which version is accurate?
    
    NEITHER.  Kevin Harris shot William Degan.  Samuel Weaver was caught
    in the crossfire between Larry Cooper and Randy Weaver.
              
    re: .334 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL
    
|	The Marshall shot the dog, the boy fired in the direction of
|	the shots to no effect. Weaver called to his son to return to the
|	house, the Marshall shot the boy, Weaver shot the Marshall.
    
    Untrue.
    
    Kevin Harris shot William Degan.  Samuel Weaver was caught in the
    crossfire between Larry Cooper and Randy Weaver.
    
    
               
     								-mr. bill

    re: .351 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL
    
|	Actually the guy was a Deputy US Marshall.
    
    Hey.  Bonus points for Jim.  Another true fact.
    
    (But you lose gigapoints on joking about the death of William Degan.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    RECAP 4:  Through .373
    
    Just see .370 and .373 again.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Ok mr bill,
    What is YOUR VERSION of what happened ? ?
    
    (Welcome to fantasy land folks ....)
    
    :-)
    Dan

|   Ok mr bill,
|   What is YOUR VERSION of what happened ? ?
    
    I've presented it over and over and over again. It's called the truth.
    
|   (Welcome to fantasy land folks ....)
    
    Have at it.  I've shown where many folks have been error.  You try
    the same.
    
    								-mr. bill

    mr bill,
    We have, but you refuse to face reality.
    
    Dan

    
    	Question for Mr. Bill:
    
    
    	Do you have the actual court transcripts on hand and if so, how
    much did they cost? I know court transcripts are usually big bucks...
    
    
    jim

    
    
    
    Bill, this about doing what the nice officer tells you is all well and
    good........except for the guy we've had around here lately posing as a
    cop and committing crimes.
    
    
    

    Re .513:
    
    > 				barrel		overall
    > 				(length, in inches)
    > H&R 12 gauge		13		19.25
    > Remington 12 gauge	12.75		24.5
    > NFA minimum		18		26

    Source?
    
    > On Feb 3, 1991, the day his wife declared him a fugitive from
    > the law in a letter to the US Attorney.
    
    A declaration by Randy Weaver's wife makes Randy Weaver guilty of
    violating what law?
    
    > Untrue according to testimony presented at trial.
    
    What witness?  What words?  What question?  What did the
    cross-examination reveal?
    
    > Untrue according to *RANDY* *WEAVER'S* *DIARY*.
    
    What words?  What source for the diary quotations?
    
    > ACCORDING TO RANDY WEAVER, THE MARSHALS PRESENTED A VERBAL ORDER
    > "FREEZE RANDY!"
    
    What words?  When?
    
    >> re: .253 by RUSURE::EDP
    >
    >> Weaver was acquitted.
    >
    > Untrue.

    True.  The context was discussion of the specific charges regarding
    barrel length, not all charges ever filed against Weaver for anything
    anywhere.
    
    >> They did not [notify Weaver of the changed trial date].
    >
    > Untrue.
    
    Source?
    
    >> Weaver didn't 'walk in" guns blazing; he was at home, not walking
    >> anywhere.
    > 
    > Untrue!  Weaver was walking, with his gun, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN DIARY!

    Here's a good example of why nobody will believe you or trust you.  You
    twist statements around.  At issue was whether Weaver knowingly walked
    into a dangerous situation.  Instead of demonstrating facts that would
    show that, you play word games, manipulating the English word "walk" to
    state that Weaver was "walking".  So what?  Maybe he was out walking,
    but that's not the issue.  If you can make the claim that Weaver
    deliberately entered a dangerous situation, versus moving to a mountain
    retreat and desiring to be left alone, then prove it with supportable
    facts.
    
    >> The FBI went in, guns blazing.
    >
    > UNTRUE!
    > 
    > US Marshals were there on August 21.  The FBI did not arrive until
    > August 22.

    Again you demonstrate why nobody will believe you.  There's an amazing
    lack of connection between your responses and the things you respond
    to.  In response to the statement that the FBI went in, you respond
    with an assertion that the FBI did not arrive until August 22, after
    the Marshals.  Let's grant this assertion is completely factual.  But
    what does it prove?  It proves the FBI wasn't first.  But does the
    statement you are responding to say the FBI was first?  No, it does
    not.  It says the FBI went in ("guns blazing", another person's
    rhetoric, the issue being that they knowingly entered a volatile
    situation).  And in fact your assertion confirms this; the FBI entered
    the situation on August 22, so they already knew from the events of
    August 21 that things were volatile.  Your assertion CONFIRMS my
    statement, yet you scream "UNTRUE!", showing the world your biased
    perception and refusal to apply reason.
    
    Instead of screaming at other people and calling them liars, just
    present YOUR version of events, depicted simply with references to the
    data that supports that version.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re: .521
    
|   Bill, this about doing what the nice officer tells you is all well and
|   good........except for the guy we've had around here lately posing as a
|   cop and committing crimes.
    
    Let's see.  You have been pulled over for a speeding violation by
    an unmarked car.  The officer, in the correct full uniform for the
    state where you are driving, tells you were going 87 MPH in a 55
    MPH zone and asks for your drivers license.
    
    If you were going 60 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, you might have valid cause
    for concern that this is a poser.
    
    If you were going 85 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, you probably don't.
    
    
    Randy Weaver was going 105 MPH in a 25 MPH zone.  By a marked police
    car.  With his middle finger out the window.
    
    I think it was safe of Randy Weaver to assume someone shouting "freeze"
    in a protective vest was *NOT* a poser.  Furthermore, Randy Weaver
    correctly assumed that he was confronted with an officer of the
    federal government.
    
    								-mr. bill

	We should also note that "Freeze Randy" is not the same as 
	identifying yourself as a US Marshall

	So under the assumption that Bill's version of events is
	100% accurate, I stand by my statement that the Marhsall's
	did not identify themselves before the shooting started.

Jim

    Example of Licea-Kane style:
    
    	.514> And it wasn't a claimed accident.
    
    	FALSE!
    
    	The shooter did claim it was an accident.
    
    In the above, I use Licea-Kane style to scream that Licea-Kane wrote
    something wrong in .514.  In some technical sense, my assertion is
    true; the shooter did claim it was an accident; Licea-Kane is wrong to
    say it was not a claimed accident.  But is that really the point that
    the other person was trying to make?  No.  Is it relevant?  No.  Is it
    playing with words?  Yes.  Is it the sort of thing Licea-Kane has done
    repeatedly?  Yes.  Will anybody give any credence to his notes anymore? 
    No.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
       

    re: .520 by SUBPAC::SADIN 
    
|   	Do you have the actual court transcripts on hand and if so, how
|   much did they cost? I know court transcripts are usually big bucks...
    
    
    I have a life, an old house, an old car, a a young son.  But you think
    I'm a hell of lot more likely to spend "big bucks" on a court
    transcript.  (Pssst.  The magic words to ask were "docket number"
    remember?????)  If I won't even spend money on "The Bell Curve,"
    you think I'm going to shell out hard earned money arguing with folks
    who couldn't see a fact if it hit them between the eyes?
    
    
    
    I've been basing my facts on the very same "court transcripts" (note
    the quotes, always) as the "report based on court transcripts" posted
    by Jim Percival.  Postings to usenet during the trial by an admitedly
    biased source - a patriots group - a source biased *FOR* Randy Weaver
    and *AGAINST* the goverment.
    
    
    So, how many of you have the actual court transcripts?  edp?????
    What are *you* basing *your* notes on?  Make up a fact day?  That's
    tomorrow, remember.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .526:
    
    > ... you think I'm going to shell out hard earned money arguing with
    > folks who couldn't see a fact if it hit them between the eyes?

    a) Licea-Kane won't get the facts in a transcript.
    b) Licea-Kane complains about other people who can't see facts.
    
    Very amusing.
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    
    	re: .526
    
    	I try to take most of my "facts" from news reports etc....I just
    wondered if you had the court transcripts.
    
    
    jim (who has an old car, no house, young son and daughter, and a very
    active life outside of work)

|    Re .513:
|    
|    > 				barrel		overall
|    > 				(length, in inches)
|    > H&R 12 gauge		13		19.25
|    > Remington 12 gauge	12.75		24.5
|    > NFA minimum		18		26
|
|    Source?
    
        Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in
        the _Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate
        television station, KTVB Channel 7 by the Idaho
        Survivalist.
    
    Look familiar edp?  It should.  But here's the full quote of
    relevant passage.
        
        The two later met October 24, 1989 behind the restaurant
        and later went to a city park to make the sale.  During
        this second meeting, Fadeley was wearing a small
        recording device to tape the conversation.  Weaver
        allegedly showed him an H&R 12- gauge shotgun with a
        13-inch barrel and an overall length of 19.25 inches. 
        He additionally showed a Remington 12-gauge shotgun with
        a 12.75-inch barrel and an overall length of 24.5 inches
        (NFA requires minimums of 18 inches for barrel length
        and an overall length of 26 inches).  On tape, Weaver is
        reported to have said that he could perform better work
        once his machine shop is set up.  The two then discuss
        the possibility of future sales.  Fadeley then counts
        out three hundred dollars for the two guns and promises
        the balance of one-hundred fifty dollars when they next
        meet.  (Note that the ATF could have simply arrested him
        here.  Why did they wait until January 1991 - over a
        year later - to arrest him?  This is not explained).
    
|   > On Feb 3, 1991, the day his wife declared him a fugitive from
|   > the law in a letter to the US Attorney.
|    
|   A declaration by Randy Weaver's wife makes Randy Weaver guilty of
|   violating what law?
    
    No, a declaration by Randy Weaver's wife is a declaration by
    Randy Weaver's wife.  He was indicted on March 14, 1991 for
    failure to appear.  (For those who note that March 14, 1991
    is before March 20, 1991, I will say that you are better at
    figuring these things out that some others.  The indictment
    would have been set aside on March 20, 1991 if Randy Weaver
    contacted the court or appeared in court.  He did not.)
    
    Not showing up on February 20, 1991 and March 20, 1991 makes
    Randy Weaver guilty of violating the law.  The letters from
    Vicki Weaver show they knowingly and willfully ignored the
    law.
    
|    > Untrue according to *RANDY* *WEAVER'S* *DIARY*.
|    
|    What words?  What source for the diary quotations?

        Diary of Randy Weaver Given to Chuck Sandelin by Randy
        Weaver and read to me today by telephone:
        
    Look familiar edp?  It should.  But here's the full quote of
    relevant passage.
        
|    > ACCORDING TO RANDY WEAVER, THE MARSHALS PRESENTED A VERBAL ORDER
|    > "FREEZE RANDY!"
        
        Old yeller, and Striker,(My dogs) were at the pump
        house, barking into the woods.

        Kevin,Sam and I went down to investigate. They Heard
        something running west, so Sam and Kevin followed
        Striker, I dropped down onto the logging road heading
        west.  "I didn't have any idea what we were chasing and
        we were hoping it was a deer.  When I reached the first
        fork in the logging road, a very well camouflaged person
        yelled, "Freeze, Randy."  I yelled, "Fuck you" and
        immediately retreated the 80 to 100 feet towards my
        home.  I realized immediately that we had run smack in
        into a ZOG/NWO (Zionist Occupational Government/New
        World Order) ambush."

        I stopped to see if I was being followed.  About that
        time I heard a gunshot and Striker yelped.  Then I heard
        two more shots and Striker stopped yelping.

        I started yelling for Sam and Kevin to return home and
        that the Feds had shot striker.  I also fired my shotgun
        once into the air to draw attention to myself and
        praying that would help.  I replaced the empty shell
        with a new one, shoving it past the extractor, jamming
        my shotgun.  I drew my 9 mm handgun and fired 3 or 4
        rounds up into the air and I was yelling again for Sam
        to return home.  Sam said, "I'm coming, Dad."  I then
        walked backwards up the hill toward home, yelling to Sam
        and Kevin to come home.

        All the while I heard many shots ringing out from the
        direction of the ambush.  By the time I reached home, I
        still hadn't seen Sam or Kevin coming home and they
        didn't respond anymore when I called to them.  A few
        minutes later, Kevin came walking home.  We asked him if
        he had seen Sam and Kevin said, "Yes, Sam's dead."
        
|   > Untrue according to testimony presented at trial.
|    
|   What witness?  What words?  What question?  What did the
|   cross-examination reveal?
        
    I'm sorry, but I lost context on this one, and I'm not wasting my
    time to go back and check it out.
    
|   >> re: .253 by RUSURE::EDP
|   >
|   >> Weaver was acquitted.
|   >
|   > Untrue.
|
|   True.  The context was discussion of the specific charges regarding
|   barrel length, not all charges ever filed against Weaver for anything
|   anywhere.
    
    Untrue.  The context included failure to appear.
    
    Here's the source for that claim, from .245 by SMURF::BINDER
    
        Weaver's situation was like my brother's.  He could
        simply have said no.  And he could have repeated it as
        often as he was asked.  He didn't. When he chose to
        violate the law, the consequences - up to and including
        the deaths of his wife and son - fell on his hands and
        his hands alone.  Even after he cut off the guns, he
        could have appeared when summoned and spared his family
        all the death and destruction.  He didn't.  Then, when
        they showed up to besiege his cabin, he could have
        thrown out his guns and walked out, hands behind his
        head.  He didn't. The law says that the person last able
        to avoid an automobile accident is responsible for that
        accident.  Weaver had the chance to avoid the "accident"
        in Idaho; but he didn't step aside, he walked into it
        with guns blazing.  With his first shot he bought the
        bullets and the blood, all of it.
        
|    >> Weaver didn't 'walk in" guns blazing; he was at home, not walking
|    >> anywhere.
|    > 
|    > Untrue!  Weaver was walking, with his gun, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN DIARY!
|
|    Here's a good example of why nobody will believe you or trust you.  You
|    twist statements around.  At issue was whether Weaver knowingly walked
|    into a dangerous situation.  Instead of demonstrating facts that would
|    show that, you play word games, manipulating the English word "walk" to
|    state that Weaver was "walking".
    
    "he was at home, not walking anywhere."
    
    That's what you said.
    
    HE WAS NOT AT HOME.  HE WAS WALKING, ARMED, THROUGH THE WOODS TO
    INVESTIGATE THE DOGS BARKING.
    
    I did not twist the word "walk" into "walking".
    
|   So what?  Maybe he was out walking, but that's not the issue.
    
    HE WAS OUT WALKING, NOT MAYBE, HE WAS OUT WALKING.  ACCORDING
    TO THE PROSECUTION.  ACCORDING THE THE WITNESSES THERE.  ACCORDING
    TO WEAVER.  ACCORDING TO HARRIS.  ACCORDING TO JERRY SPENCE.
    
    HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED BEFORE YOU ACCEPT A FACT AS FACT.
    
    HE WAS OUT WALKING!
    
    CAN YOU HERE ME NOW?
    
    HE WAS OUT WALKING!
    
|   If you can make the claim that Weaver deliberately entered a dangerous
|   situation, versus moving to a mountain retreat and desiring to be
|   left alone, then prove it with supportable facts.
    
    I made no such claim.  I don't believe Dick Binder made such a
    claim.
    
    But he was told to freeze, his response was an explicitive.  When his
    dog was shot, *HE* opened fire.  At least in the gospel according
    to Weaver.  See above.  No, in the discussion, in context, this is
    one of the issues.  You are free to argue that opening fire
    on people you know to be federal agents is a perfectly valid
    response to a federal agent shooting an attacking dog.
    
|   It says the FBI went in ("guns blazing", another person's rhetoric,
|   the issue being that they knowingly entered a volatile situation).
    
    Another person's rhertoric?
    
    Excuse me, *EDP's* rhetoric.  Those are *YOUR* words there, not
    somebody elses.
    
    Fact, the FBI did *NOT* go in "guns blazing" the next day.  The FBI
    shot two, count them, two bullets.  After Randy Weaver and Kevin
    Harris went outside, with guns, while a helicopter was overhead.
    Now you can argue that Loriuchi overreacted to this volitile
    situation.  You can claim that Weaver and Harris did not threaten
    the helicopter.  You can argue that Loriuchi did not properly
    verify the backdrop of his target.  But you can not call *two*
    *shots* by a trained sniper "guns blazing."
    
    PERIOD.
    
    								-mr. bill

 Mr. Bill has done a a very good job of providing consistent answers and 
 information (whether correct or not). 

 EDP's latest pokes at Mr. Bill are unreasonable, non-constructive, and 
 ill-advised.

 I think the emotion of what happened, combined with an approach to apprehending
 weaver that the feds should not have allowed, have made it difficult for many 
 in this string to stop the knee-jerk replies, take a deep breath, and actually 
 digest the format and content of the information Mr. Bill has so consistently 
 provided.

 Many would hold Mr Bill's contributions to this string to a higher standard
 than they would themselves because they believe they are absolutely correct
 and Mr. bill is misinformed.

 With that said, this string has provided a great deal of information and
 ammusement for which I would like to thank you all  :-)

 Some of you have real staying power ...

 Doug.
 

Can anyone answer the question as to why the feds (US marshals, BATF, 
FBI or whomever) allowed negotiations to go on for 18 months? Any justification
at all would do.

Doug.

    > Mr. Bill has done a a very good job of providing consistent answers and 
    > information (whether correct or not). 
    
    Maybe, but (with the exception of the most recent note) he has not 
    supported them with documentation.  The best he has done, in most
    cases, is paraphrased.  Generalization, paraphrasing, and shouting does
    not prove a case.
    
    Dan

    Re .529:
    
    Congratulations, you've managed to enter actual, significant facts for
    the first time in months, at least.  You're coming along.  Now try
    doing it without insulting everybody in sight.
    
    > The letters from Vicki Weaver show they knowingly and willfully
    > ignored the law.
    
    Again, letters from Vicki Weaver don't prove anything about Randy
    Weaver's intent or knowledge.  Drop it; nobody's going to believe you.
    
    > I'm sorry, but I lost context on this one, and I'm not wasting my
    > time to go back and check it out.

    If anybody else refused to go back, you'd accuse them of damning the
    facts, they've got propaganda to spread.  What makes your agenda
    different?
    
    >> The context included failure to appear.
    >
    > Here's the source for that claim,
    
    The passage you quoted includes more than the part I responded to.
    
    >>  At issue was whether Weaver knowingly walked into a dangerous
    >> situation.  Instead of demonstrating facts that would show that, you
    >> play word games, manipulating the English word "walk" to state that
    >> Weaver was "walking".
    
    > "he was at home, not walking anywhere."
    > 
    > That's what you said.     
    
    Again your answer is not responsive.  The substantive issue is whether
    Weaver knowingly entered a volatile situation, not whether he was
    physically walking.
    
    >> "guns blazing", another person's rhetoric
    
    > Excuse me, *EDP's* rhetoric.  Those are *YOUR* words there, not
    > somebody elses.
    
    362.245.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

|   Congratulations, you've managed to enter actual, significant facts for
|   the first time in months, at least.  You're coming along.  Now try
|   doing it without insulting everybody in sight.
    
    Excuse me.  I'm just trying to understand here where you are coming
    from.
    
    
    I enter the factual dimensions of the short-barrelled shotguns to
    show that they were *SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than NFA rules, not
    1/4" shorter that has been repeatedly claimed here and elsewhere.
    (The source for the latter claims now accepted as fact by the
    I-believe-the-liars-crowd are white SUPREMICIST groups (their
    description, not mine), not white SEPARATIST groups.)
    
    But the factual dimensions of the short-barrelled shotguns are
    not a fact.
    
    According to edp.
    
    
    But the people claiming that the short-barrelled shotguns were only
    1/4" too short don't have to post any dimensions.  No no no.  They
    have entered a fact.
    
    According to edp.
    
    
    In order to make my fact a fact, I have to post it again.  The
    very same dimensions.  That makes it a fact.
    
    But the entire time the very same dimensions were posted during
    the trial on usenet newsgroups, which edp crossposted in
    ursure::unreasonable, and which he recently crossposted here.
    
    
    I have to ask.
    Do you bother read any of what you post?
    
    								-mr. bill

|    >> The context included failure to appear.
|    >
|    > Here's the source for that claim,
|    
|    The passage you quoted includes more than the part I responded to.

    Back again, one more time.
    
|   The context was discussion of the specific charges regarding
|   barrel length, not all charges ever filed against Weaver for anything
|   anywhere.
    
    The context was discussion about the specific charges regarding
    barrel length.  *AND* discussion about failure to appear in court.
    *AND* discussion about failure to surrender for 18 months.  *AND*
    discussion about failure to surrender when confronted with federal
    marshals.  *AND* discussion about failure to surrender after the
    initial shootout.
    
    I think that about covers it.
    
    
    I point out you made an error.  A VERY SERIOUS ERROR.  A SIGNIFICANT
    ERROR.
    
    And you answer with a non-reposive "The passage you quoted includes
    more than the part I responded to."
    
    SO WHAT.  The passage is the context of the discussion.  That
    context includes the very things you were said were *NOT* part
    of the context of the discussion.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   Again your answer is not responsive.  The substantive issue is whether
|   Weaver knowingly entered a volatile situation, not whether he was
|   physically walking.
    
    Where did you come up with what is substantive and what is not.
    
    The substantive issue is that your first post to this conference
    on this subject contained so many errors.   (BTW, all of those
    errors were never supported by you by any quotes of sources,
    excerpts, or anything else for that matter.)
    
    I point out your errors.  EVERYONE OF THEM.
    
    And you complain that I'm not responsive?
    
    WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM?
    
    								-mr. bill

|   >> "guns blazing", another person's rhetoric
|    
|   > Excuse me, *EDP's* rhetoric.  Those are *YOUR* words there, not
|   > somebody elses.
|    
|   362.245.
    
    Nowhere in 362.245 can I find the string "The FBI went in, guns
    blazing."
    
    Those words are yours, not Dave Binders.  Error number 1.
    
    The words are in error, you wrote those words.  Error number 2.
    
    I pointed out the error, you did not correct the error.  Error
    number 3.
    
    
    "Error, error, error.  Must sterilize, must sterilize.  Must
    ster-i-lize."
    
    								-mr. bill

    Yikes, what's up Mr. Bilge?

    I guess I was responsible for you "going off" when I entered
    the stuff about the barrel length being only 1/4" too short.
    Well 'scuse me, but I read that in several sources that I
    tend to find credible (And no, I don't consider internet
    postings "credible". Nor do I subscribe to any of the John
    Birch society pubs or anything else you like to go on about.)

    If, as a result of repeating what I read, I caused your current
    psychotic episode, I'm sorry... well, maybe I'm not. But either
    way, I can get over learning that it really wasn't 1/4" too
    short; and I can even do it without behaving like someone
    who's soiled his Depends undergarments and can't find anyone
    to change them... something you might want to take note of.

    -b

 .540  LIES!! LIES!!  JUST STOP THE LIES!!  STOP -


	oh my, sorry.  carry on. ;>

Why did the feds wait 18 months to serve a warrant for failure to appear?  Why
did they need to stake out Weavers home, and keep it under constant
surveillance?  Why were they in hiding?  What purpose does an attack helicopter
serve in serving an arrest warrant for a misdemeanor?  Weaver is probably a
despicable person. That does not deserve the incredible amount of firepower
brought to bear on him to serve a warrant!  Something else went on, and I am
sure we will be a long time if ever finding out what the feds true objective was
up on Ruby Ridge.

Mikey

      <<< Note 362.542 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "It's the Republicans' fault" >>>

Why did the feds ......

	Randy Weaver was a racist, according to our beloved Mr. Bill
	this is just cause to shoot his son in the back, shoot his wife
	in the face, probably shoot the 10 month old baby, Napalm the
	entire compound, sow the fields with salt, wellll, you know the
	drill.

	 He was a bad person, the FBI was only doing their job. All of his
	associates and kin were probably bas person as well. 

	The Government knows what is best for you. Government agents are
	only here to help you. Help you understand the true path. The 
	Government can do no wrong. 

	Well you know the drill.


Jim

    <<< Note 362.530 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "M1A - The choice of champions !" >>>
                     -< You're getting warmer, ... Not ! >-

    > | >> Weaver didn't 'walk in" guns blazing; he was at home, not walking
    > | >> anywhere.
    > | > 
    > | > Untrue!  Weaver was walking, with his gun, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN DIARY!
    > .          .           .              .             . 
    > .          .           .              .             . 
    > .          .           .              .             . 
    > .          .           .              .             . 
    > CAN YOU HERE ME NOW?
    > 
    > HE WAS OUT WALKING!
    
    mr bill, you are still playing childish semantic games here.  For your
    own benefit, knock it off.  It makes you look like an idiot.
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    >> I also fired my shotgun
    >> once into the air to draw attention to myself and
    .          .           .              .             . 
    .          .           .              .             . 
    > When his
    > dog was shot, *HE* opened fire.  At least in the gospel according
    
    This is a very interesting definition of "opened fire".  God knows,
    Weaver could have hit a spotted owl !
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    So far you have proven:
    A) Weaver cut the barrels too short.  
    B) He didn't show up in court.
    
    No one has argued these two points, try proving some of the things
    you've claimed, that we disagree with you on.
    
    Note: Weaver was aquited on A) I believe due to entrapment.
    
    Dan

    

	It's not unusual for those who would seek to justify nonjustifiable
actions to rant and rave about how the recipient(victim?) of those actions most
likely deserved it.  In both the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents it interesting to
note how some defenders of the guvmint, extoll the 'crimes' of the ones who had
to bear the brunt of guvmint firepower.  Are we trying to say they deserved it. 
I think not especially.  (Although right wing white males are the only group
left that it is ok to pick on, and make fun of.)  The motivation appears to be
to use the actions of the victim as a red herring to draw the opponent's
attention away from the main point.  Putting someone on the defensive makes it
easier to avoid having to defend the undefendable(sp).  

Mikey

I find it difficult to understand why the feds would carry silenced firearms,
how they could be such poor shots has to hit Sam twice (arm and back, is that 
correct?) while shooting at Randy Weaver, or hitting Mrs Weaver while shooting
at Harris, why they were shooting at harris in the first place (was he 
shooting at them at that point?), let alone negotiate/actively survielance the
ridge for 18 months.

While I appreciate Mr. Bills contributions in clarifying what happened at ruby 
ridge I still can't understand his position on what he feels the feds did 
correctly and what they did incorrectly (and why).



Doug.

    
    The last several replies have made it absolutely clear that there is
    absolutely nothing to discuss.
    
    [insert that which can not be inserted]
    
    						       		-mr. bill

    
    	  |
    	  |
    	  |
    	|||||
    	|||||
    	|||||
    

    
      Can the Napoleon wannabes recognize that string ?
    
      bb

    >>	  	|
    >>	  	|
    >>	  	|
    >>	      |||||
    >>	      |||||
    >>	      |||||
    
    
    The Empire State Building??
    
    Chris

    
    Some things were *made* to be inserted.
    

    >>	  	|
    >>	  	|
    >>	       /|\
    >>	      / | \
    >>	      |||||
    >>	      |||||
    >>	      |||||
    
    
    The Chrysler Building??

    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||
    
    The World Trade Center??

Oh come on Bill you can't take the ball and go home!!  We just started getting
down to the nitty gritty.  You have not offered any viable defense of the feds. 
You have gone on a vitriolic string calling everyone who tries to offer their
point of view liars without offering any evidence (VOLUME OF REPLIES EXCEPTED)
to support what I see is you view of the total innocence of the horde of FBI,
BATF, ATF, (insert add'l acronyms here).  I never knew Randy Weaver had so much
firepower, and supporting defensive personnel, that it required a company sized
law enforcement army to root him out cause he did not come to court!  BTW I
missed court once.  They called me and rescheduled my date!  I probably would
have been there if I had known they were going to mount a blitzkrieg against my
home.

Mikey

    
    <------
    
    You gotta learn that this is the way billy plays in here...
    
    NBD...
    

    > BTW I missed court once.  They called me and rescheduled my date! 

    They called you, cool!  They went and issued a warrant on me, but that
    was all just a BIG misunderstanding ! :-))

    Dan

RE: 362.554 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "It's the Republicans' fault"

> any viable defense 

THERE IS NO DEFENSE ...


against the Spanish Inquisition!


Phil

    
    
    BRING OUT THE FLUFFY PILLOWS!!!!!!!
    

re: Mr. Delblasto

    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||||
    >>	      |||||      |||
    			   
    The World Trade Center?? ^
			     |
After the bombing of course. |

    
    It is unfortunate that Mr. Bill so often uses his intellect to
    belittle and denigrate others, when it is clear that he has the
    capacity to be one of the most informative and thought-provoking
    noters in this forum.  It is also unfortunate that he has such a
    propensity for calling those who disagree with his beliefs "liars,"
    which is a deliberate misuse of the term.
    
    None of us know the principals in this case, and none of us were there
    when the lead was flying on Ruby Ridge.  Therefore, we must all accept
    or refuse to accept the "facts" in this case with a certain amount
    of faith, and hopefully a large grain of salt.  If a source in which
    we placed faith turns out to have intentionally or unintentionally
    misrepresented the "facts," that does not make us liars for having
    trusted the source.
    
    Everyone, whether critical or supportive of the government's actions
    on Ruby Ridge, is taking certain snippets of information as articles
    of faith, and dismissing contradictory information when it does not
    correlate with their opinion.  It is neither productive nor honest
    to label the contradictory information as lies, when we can really
    never know for sure that what we have been told is the truth, and
    what others have been told are a pack of lies.
    
    That being said, I really wish that Mr. Bill would continue to try
    to shed some light on this subject, instead of giving up and labeling
    everyone as hopeless.  I also wish that the opposing side would not
    immediately label his notes as government propaganda, and would make
    an honest effort to evaluate the information that he has provided.
    
    FWIW, IMVHO, HTH, etc.
    
    
    
    
    Rob
    

    
    
>    .....I also wish that the opposing side would not
>    immediately label his notes as government propaganda, and would make
>    an honest effort to evaluate the information that he has provided.
    
    	I wouldn't label Mr. Bill's notes as govt propaganda. Abusive,
    rude, and reactionary, but certainly not govt propaganda. ;*)
    
    
    jim

But of course, Mad_Mike.

	I guess with the current regime in Washington, many who are "coming from
the left", are not concerned with the government taking over or taking away
freedoms.  Obviously the only ones who need worry are those who have right wing
leanings.  Billary and company would never do anything to silence their foot
soldiers on the left.  Consequently, no leftist has to justify their guvmint's
actions cause it's all for the common good. RIGHT!  I am sorry, but I take
little on face value, and am more than willing to listen  to reasonable
arguments counter to my point of view.  "LIAR", does not fall in that category. 
It's kinda like kids on a playground arguing "are not, are too".

	Sticking one's head in the sand is also not a good idea.  It could
happen here.  Just 3 months ago we could not believe someone from the USA would
commit a terrorist act against US citizens.  What would their motivation be? 
Yet now we have 168 dead, and a federal building destroyed. 
 	
	If a govt agency is involved, denying it will not change a thing.  This
is the same govt whose CIA was allegedly smuggling drugs into the US.  If one
agency is capable fo such actions who's to say another (ie: BATF) is not capable
of a terrorist bombing.  I sure more have died from cocaine usage than died in
the bombing.  Those "coming from the left" would have you believe in the CIA
actions, and at the same time disbelive the BATF has an agenda against certain
elements of society.  The CIA drug smuggling took place under Reagan, so it's ok
to condemn that.  Don't you dare speak against Comrade Billary's storm troopers.
 

Mikey

    Re .536:
    
    > In order to make my fact a fact, I have to post it again.  The
    > very same dimensions.  That makes it a fact.

    I didn't say the reposting of the dimensions was a fact or that the
    reposting made it a fact.  What prompted my comment that you had
    entered actual, significant facts was your presentation of SOURCES for
    your data in note .529.
    
    > The context was discussion about the specific charges regarding
    > barrel length.  *AND* discussion about failure to appear in court.

    Regardless of YOUR interpretation of MY words, *I* was in fact speaking
    about the moment when Randy Weaver sold the guns, and not about later
    events, in particular addressing the moment "when Randy Weaver chose to
    violate the law".
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .538:
    
    > The substantive issue is that your first post to this conference
    > on this subject contained so many errors.
    
    Do you mean 362.215, or is there some earlier note you are thinking of?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .539:
    
    >>>> "guns blazing", another person's rhetoric
    >>
    >>> Excuse me, *EDP's* rhetoric.  Those are *YOUR* words there, not
    >>> somebody elses.
    >>    
    >> 362.245.
    > 
    > Nowhere in 362.245 can I find the string "The FBI went in, guns
    > blazing."
    
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!  I'm rolling on the floor!  You are
    absolutely fantastic!

    Tell me, when the string "guns blazing", in quotes just like that, is
    in question, why do you respond with an assertion about the quote "The
    FBI went in, guns blazing"?  Pull .245 into a buffer and search for
    exactly the string "guns blazing".  You should find the following
    section from .245, exactly reproduced below with cut and paste:

    .245> is responsible for that accident.  Weaver had the chance to avoid the
    .245> "accident" in Idaho; but he didn't step aside, he walked into it with
    .245> guns blazing.  With his first shot he bought the bullets and the blood,

    > Those words are yours, not Dave Binders.  Error number 1.
    >
    > The words are in error, you wrote those words.  Error number 2.
    > 
    > I pointed out the error, you did not correct the error.  Error
    > number 3.
    
    Oh, how sweet it is.  You've really dug yourself in really deep with
    this one.  You falsely attributed the quote to me, denying my
    disclaimer, and now, when the original quote is pointed out to you, you
    STILL deny it.  That's a really big one.  And you had to go and make a
    big production of it, too.  Terrific!

    People are going to think I forged your note, because I could hardly
    have asked for a grander demonstration of how Bill Licea-Kane can screw
    up and therefore shouldn't be believed unless he provides clear sources
    for his assertions.  Now do you see why your arguments by allusion
    aren't accepted?  Has it been clearly demonstrated to you that you've
    got to supply sources because people have to check your statements?


    				-- edp


Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re .563
    
    On the contrary, many of those of us who are "on the left" are still up
    in arms about the possibility of losing more freedoms.  We have been
    there and understand that when one person's rights are suspended all
    persons' rights are endangered.  Like broad-spectrum insecticides, the
    target groups aren't the only things impacted, the entire system is
    endangered.  
    
    As a left-leaning citizen, I can say that IMO, BC is not a hero of our
    causes, we have been known to refer to him as "Bush-lite"
    
    meg

    Re .539, .566:
    
    Ho, ho, ho, I'm still laughing at this one!
    
    Bill Licea-Kane, I tried to help you out by calling a few drilling
    companies, but they all said there was no way they could make the hole
    you've dug for yourself any deeper.  However, the Department of
    Transportation wants to talk to you about some trans-oceanic tunnels,
    and Guiness wants to talk to you about your new record.
                                               
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.