Posted on 03/17/2007 7:32:42 AM PDT by amchugh
This is one part of a five part series done for BBC Channel 4. It focusses on Ruby Ridge and the Weaver family, with some digression into seperatists, conspiracy theorists, etc...
Indeed. It is the boonies.
The Federal law enforcement agencies in the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations were fixated on white separatists and religious cultists as a domestic enemy, even as Muslim terror networks were being established (the first World Trade Center bombing) and drug dealing street gangs were developing additional strength in the big cities and along the Mexican border. The Feds used essentially the same techniques J. Edgar Hoover had in his COINTELPRO program against black militants and the New Left in the 1960s, but because the white separatists and religious cultists were considered right wing, the MSM did not denounce the Federal actions as they had with COINTELPRO.
The FBI and BATF covered themselves with dishonor at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Over a decade later, the criminals with badges remained unpunished, from Horiuchi to Reno.
I am LEO myself and I think that FBI dude is lower than whale snot.
Proverbs 17:28 comes to mind.
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.
[Above we see the full blown liberal view put forth; -- that people who distrust gov't -- and demand that their right to oppose its decrees shall not be infringed; -- are branded mindless haters of a sick and twisted philosophy. ]
Spence rebuts his 'friends' philosophy:
"-- 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. -- "
Spence too is a bleeding heart liberal in some respects, -- but he is one of the few that understands & defends our Constitutional rights -- as they were written.
That is true and I don't want any.
Exactly right. Clinton's government wanted the militia movement dead. And they pretty much got their wish.
Good riddance. I don't like right-wing moonbats any more than left-wing moonbats.
I still have some bricks to stack.
Later this evening, I'll REREAD your link. - Slowly -
Try to find time to examine PajamaTruthMafia's link from Weaver's lawyer.
A boy gets it from an MP5 in the back. His mother gets a .308 between the eyes. Emotions ARE going to be elevated in these discussions.
>>>And just how exactly do you know that sequence of events is phony?<<<
I admit it could be correct because the government changed its story with the wind. In fact, one government version had Weaver shooting his son in the back. Are you being paid to be a government apologist?
>>>I remember all the talk about black helicopters and UN takeovers back then. What ever happened to all that?<<<
Have you been living in a cave? The feds have used black-colored helicopters for decades. As for the U.S., the U.N. is relentless in their desire to exercise control over all nations (and if we get another Clintonista type government it may happen). Their most recent venture is for a global CO2 tax.
>>>Good riddance. I don't like right-wing moonbats any more than left-wing moonbats.<<<
But you love everything the government does, right?
Every Knee Shall Bow, was one of the books I read on the subject. There are many.
Excerpts
This investigation has found no evidence that anyone in the government, including the USAO, was aware of the error in the February 7 Richins letter until February 26, 199l (the federal probation office wrote the erroneous letter) The federal judge issued a bench warrant for Weaver on February 20 not knowing about the erroneous letter send to Weaver.
The court date was in error in the orignial notice and efforts to contact Mr. Weaver started.
After attempts to contact Weaver through snail-mail and a telephone supposely to receive messages for Weaver, on February 20 U.S. District Court Judge Harold L. Ryan, upon hearing that Weaver's lawyer had no contact either, requested that a bench warrant be issued for Weaver's arrest, that his bond be revoked, and that he be taken into custody. The federal agencies were aware of Mrs. Weaver's letters (mentioned on the thread) , also.
(I guess her letters put the federal agents on heighten alert and explains the extra cautious approach to the Weaver's cabin.)
The grand jury returned an indictment against Weaver on March 14, 1991 charging him with failure to appear.
(Apparently, some believe that the feds should have informed the court (on 20 Feb) of the erroneous letter arguing that the letter may have led to Mr. Weaver's possible confusion (if that was the problem) caused by the erroneous letter. Apparently the judge did not know of the erroneous letter but would later pretty much say it didn't matter.)
Special U.S. Marshall teams prepared for the arrest of Mr. Weaver while others made more attempts to establish contact.
(They did get a response.)
Mr. Weaver (and Mrs. Weaver) complained of being set up by the informant and expressed some (Mrs. Weaver's?) religous beliefs but said that Mr. Weaver might surrender, if the trial could be moved out of Idaho.
Immediately the Marshals Service began to formulate a surrender offer. This offer included promises that: the government would not interfere with Vicki Weaver's custody of her children; the Marshals Service would not harass Randy Weaver's family; and the Government would not move to forfeit Randy Weaver's property.
In the mean time another note was passed to the feds (in Mrs. Weaver's handwriting):
"1. Why a government informant or agent cannot be cross-examined by a defense attorney?
"2. Why did the U.S. Dist. Judge in Couer D'Alene tell [the Weavers] that if [they] lost [their] case [they] would lose the $10,000 bond to pay the attorney?
"3. Why is there a concerted effort to 'set up' for prison or murder all ex-green berets (Special Forces) . My husband is an ex-green beret. We know there are those already in prison from 'set ups.' They all went to court expecting justice from the courts of the country they loved. They didn't receive any!"
The Marshal's dropped their efforts and it was decided that such demands from Mrs. Weaver were more a matter for the courts not surrender.
(Let the fun begin, I guess. My comments.)
Mean while newspapers began to pick up the story. "Feds Have Fugitive 'Under Our Nose',"Spokesman Review (Spokane), March 1, 1992; the Chicago Tribune described Weaver as a "folk hero" holding the Marshals Service at bay. the Associated Press; the New York Times ("Marshals Know He's There But Leave Fugitive Alone," March 13, 1992) and the San Francisco Chronicle ("U.S. Slow to Nab White Supremacist," March 13, 1992); theSanFrancisco Examiner reprinted the March 8, 1992 Chicago Tribune article March 27, 1992.
(It figures that the SF Chronicle would resort to the White Supremacist B.S.)
Reconnaissance of the Weaver place continued.
The Marshals asked U.S. Attorney Ellsworth to consider dismissing the warrant against Weaver and reissuing it under seal. That way Weaver might feel safe to come off the mountain. No, said the Ellsworth. The judge would have to do that and he's not here. The arrest would have to be done and the Marshals did not want Vicki Weaver and the Weaver children injured in the process.
The case was transferred to the Enforcement Division
On April 18, the marshals started installing surveillance cameras to augment aerial photographs.
May 2, 1992 by Michael Weland, a local newspaper reporter interviewed the Weavers. Vicki said that the mountain had been given to them by "Yahweh" and that "We will not leave our mountain." Weland also quoted Vicki as saying that her family feared that Randy would "be railroaded through the court and once he was gone [the government] would have come in, kicked us off the property and torn this place apart." Randy Weaver was quoted in the same article as stating that: "Right now, the only thing they can take away from us is our life. Even if we die, we win. We'll die believing in Yahweh."
One plan had two Marshals posing as husband and wife buying adjacent property. Weaver would become accustomed to them at which time they grab him out of view of the rest of the family. The plan was dropped.
(Gotta find -- and verify the rest of the story -- a version of the government's is posted elsewhere on this thread; I want to see the Senate hearings version of the actual conflict.)
The right has some responsibility for what happened at Ruby Ridge and what happened in Oklahoma City and probably what happened at Waco and for Eric Rudolph in that some spread this sort of loony propaganda un-filtered. It's ten years after and I don't see any UN takeover. As I recall even FR had to do a little purge of the loonier elements here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.