🚀 go-pugleaf

Most people sign their name, you do not. Based on this evidence, 
you have NO Balls, B*tch..

My posts are signed "Just My Opinion" because that what they are..
you on the other hand write as if all your Bullsh*t was fact..

You really are a pathetic insignificant piece of doda..

Just My Opinion  <G>

Bob


On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 22:53:56 -0700, "An Entity" <anonymity@ucla.edu>
wrote:

>You sign your posts "just my opinion."  That is the only truth your posts
>contain, for they are utterly devoid of facts, reason, and the significant
>relationship the two play in an argument.
>
>There are many reasons why certain people will always be in a minority:
>they are smart, they are stupid, or they are insane.  Suffice it say that
>you are not smart.
>
><rhawk@megabits.net> wrote in message
>news:3b4917df.588485@news.megabits.net...
>>
>> I think of the Davidians that died in the compound at the instruction
>> of COWARDLY Beaurocrats, Then I look at the picture of the federal
>> building with the front blown off and I think, Paybacks are a bitch..
>>
>> Just my opinion..
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 16:15:43 -0700, "An Entity" <anonymity@ucla.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In fact, it's too bad you weren't in the Branch Davidian compound.
>> ><rhawk@megabits.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3b4591d9.2066699@news.megabits.net...
>> >>
>> >> All McVeigh did was send a message to Janet Reno to reminde her
>> >> of the SLAUGHTER she perpetuated at Waco and the killing ay Ruby
>> >> Ridge..  She, is "that piece of shit"...
>> >>
>> >> Just MY Opinion..
>> >>
>> >> Bob
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 02:07:31 -0700, "An Entity" <anonymity@ucla.edu>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >That piece of shit got what he deserved.  He confessed to the crime,
>and
>> >the
>> >> >revelation of a conspiracy would have had no effect on his fate.  The
>FBI
>> >> >probably had several hundred thousand documents on McVeigh, of which
>3000
>> >> >constitutes less than 1%.
>> >> >
>> >> >99% of the documents and McVeigh's own confession prove that he was a
>> >piece
>> >> >of shit.  I don't see how 1% of the documents could possibly change
>the
>> >> >scenario.  And, the judges agreed with me.
>> >> >
>> >> >" Fabrikant" <hollyric@colba.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:9i1ph9$bi4$1@news.colba.net...
>> >> >> It was reported that FBI "forgot" to disclose certain documents on
>> >> >McVeigh;
>> >> >> some say, 3000 plus documents, some say, 3000 plus pages.  McVeigh's
>> >> >lawyer
>> >> >> was shown with several boxes of paper.  Each such box contains at
>least
>> >> >> 10,000 pages, so clearly, we are talking about 3000 documents.  An
>FBI
>> >> >> representative said that FBI had 1 BILLION documents on McVeigh, so
>> >3000
>> >> >> documents constitute only 3 in a million, which is an excellent
>> >> >performance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do they really have 1 BILLION documents on McVeigh?  Let us do some
>> >> >> arithmetics.  A book of 500 pages is about 4 cm thick, so elementary
>> >> >> computations show that I BILLION pages will be 80 km thick!  If you
>> >> >presume,
>> >> >> that you can read 1 page per second, it will take you 32 years (24
>> >hours
>> >> >per
>> >> >> day, 365 days per year) to read them.  In reality, you need at least
>1
>> >> >> minute to read a page, so you will have to spend more than 1800
>years!
>> >> >> These FBI guys take public for dumbheads.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Second question: did FBI really forgot to disclose documents?  The
>> >media
>> >> >> reported that FBI computer system is "antiquated".  I do not buy it
>for
>> >a
>> >> >> second: FBI never had any problem with money, and I am sure they
>have
>> >> >newest
>> >> >> and fastest computers.  There was a show recently about the Security
>> >> >> Intelligence Agency, and the Agency representative proudly said that
>> >they
>> >> >> had more computer power on a square yard than any other place on
>earth.
>> >> >> There is no reason to believe that FBI would be far behind.  Even
>> >> >presuming
>> >> >> that FBI computers are slow, it has nothing to do with their ability
>to
>> >> >> retrieve documents: slow computers just require more time to do the
>> >same
>> >> >> thing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yellow media reported one FBI analyst saying that she did not want
>to
>> >> >> introduce her documents into a computer database, because she was
>> >afraid
>> >> >> that she would not be able later to retrieve them.  I have a
>surprise
>> >for
>> >> >> her: introduction of a document into a computer means making a copy
>of
>> >the
>> >> >> document into a magnetic media, she still has the document on paper,
>so
>> >> >she
>> >> >> has nothing to loose.  On the other hand, if she does NOT introduce
>her
>> >> >> document into a database, she would certainly not be able to
>retrieve
>> >it.
>> >> >> Did the yellow reporter know this?  Of course!  So, why is he doing
>> >this?
>> >> >> Because majority of the public do not know computers and can be
>duped.
>> >> >Were
>> >> >> you duped?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> One should note, that nobody mentions, how many documents WERE
>> >disclosed.
>> >> >> In my case, there were not even 100 documents disclosed.  Presume,
>that
>> >in
>> >> >> McVeigh case there were 10 times more documents and this will come
>to
>> >1000
>> >> >> documents, which is a lot.  Now, 3000 documents undisclosed is 3
>times
>> >> >> bigger than what was disclosed.  One can not just "forget" major
>part
>> >of
>> >> >> documents.  It is my understanding that the undisclosed documents
>are
>> >> >> dealing with existence of John Doe #2.  Several people claim to have
>> >seen
>> >> >> him.  If FBI admits his existence, this would mean that FBI did not
>do
>> >its
>> >> >> job.  It is much more convenient to claim that the matter is closed
>> >> >> successfully.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Some people say, that since McVeigh admitted planting of the bomb,
>no
>> >> >> document could change anything.  History knows quite a number of
>false
>> >> >> confessions.  McVeigh could have confessed to something he did not
>do
>> >in
>> >> >> order to protect someone, who is dear to him.  Majority of people,
>who
>> >> >knew
>> >> >> him, say that they hate what he has done, but that they still love
>him.
>> >> >The
>> >> >> same thing A.Rooney said about Senator Kerrey: he did not like what
>> >Kerrey
>> >> >> did, but he liked the man.  There is though one difference: McVeigh
>is
>> >> >> waiting to be executed, while Kerrey is hailed as American hero.
>> >Should
>> >> >not
>> >> >> Kerrey be sitting in the next cell?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So, government knew all alone that 3000 plus documents were not
>> >disclosed
>> >> >to
>> >> >> McVeigh.  Why have they decided to disclose them now?  This is what
>my
>> >> >> paranoidal mind tells me.  US government does not like the situation
>> >where
>> >> >> McVeigh effectively spits in their faces, since he decided to get
>out
>> >> >"with
>> >> >> a bang".  They know that McVeigh's execution will make him in the
>eyes
>> >of
>> >> >> many a martyr.  US government wants McVeigh to beg them for his
>life,
>> >this
>> >> >> is why they are throwing at him this bait - new evidence, and his
>> >lawyers,
>> >> >> paid by government, are trying to convince McVeigh to continue his
>> >> >appeals,
>> >> >> though they know full well, that nothing will come from these
>appeals.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The main legal question here is: did McVeigh have a fair trial?  Let
>us
>> >> >> recount facts.  His lawyer Jones got $10 MILLION - a very good pay
>to
>> >sell
>> >> >> his client, and sell he did.  First, he simulated break-in into his
>> >> >> computer, when he revealed to the media the contents of his private
>> >> >> conversations with McVeigh.  I do not believe Jones was so dumb to
>keep
>> >> >> sensitive documents unscrambled.  After all the newspapers in the
>> >country
>> >> >> published that McVeigh admitted to Jones that he planted the bomb,
>> >there
>> >> >was
>> >> >> no point to go to trial - the guilty verdict was guaranteed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The next question is: did his lawyer do his best on the sentencing
>> >stage
>> >> >to
>> >> >> protect the life of his client?  I quote just one sentence from
>Jones'
>> >> >> speech: he told the jury that though his client has killed more
>> >innocent
>> >> >> people than Bundy, Dahlmer and other famous mass murderers combined,
>he
>> >> >> should not be sentenced to die.  With such a lawyer, who needs a
>> >> >prosecutor?
>> >> >> He effectively equated his client with people, who killed for
>pleasure.
>> >> >Is
>> >> >> Jones really that stupid?  No, he was very well paid to sell his
>> >client,
>> >> >and
>> >> >> he did.  McVeigh has finally understood Jones' treachery and fired
>him,
>> >> >but
>> >> >> it was too late.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now, what would an honest lawyer do in McVeigh case?  He should have
>> >> >called
>> >> >> to testify Kelly (butcher of Vietnamese village My Lai), Senator
>Kerrey
>> >> >and
>> >> >> other well known war criminals, and asked them to describe in
>detail,
>> >how
>> >> >> they cut throats, raped, mutilated innocent unarmed civilians, and
>how
>> >> >they
>> >> >> got away with their crimes.  The jury saw the pictures of victims of
>> >> >> Oklahoma bombing, an honest lawyer should show them pictures of
>people
>> >> >> killed at My Lai, pictures of people burnt alive at Waco, picture of
>> >the
>> >> >> wife and little child of Randy Weaver, killed by government with
>> >impunity
>> >> >> (nobody was prosecuted for these murders).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In his argument, an honest lawyer should ask the jury whether there
>is
>> >> >much
>> >> >> difference between what Senator Kerrey did, and what his client did,
>> >and
>> >> >if
>> >> >> there is not much difference, then he should ask the jury, why
>should
>> >his
>> >> >> client be treated differently from the way Senator Kerrey is being
>> >> >treated.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The logic of McVeigh's defense should have been as follows.  He was
>> >> >pursued
>> >> >> by US government for multiple premeditated murders, and the honest
>> >lawyer
>> >> >> should have shown to the jury that US government itself is guilty of
>> >> >> multiple premeditated murders of its own citizens, as well as
>citizens
>> >of
>> >> >> other countries, so it has no right to pursue anyone, including his
>> >> >client,
>> >> >> for murder.  This would be a bomb!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> McVeigh was a bonanza to some architectural firms: they are now
>making
>> >a
>> >> >lot
>> >> >> of money designing buildings for US government, which are capable to
>> >> >> withstand explosions.  Nobody is telling US government, that there
>is a
>> >> >much
>> >> >> cheaper way to make its buildings safe: to stop its criminal
>behavior,
>> >and
>> >> >> nobody would want to blow up US government buildings in the first
>> >place.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I wish to make it clear: I do NOT condone McVeigh in any shape or
>form,
>> >I
>> >> >> would not be able to live with myself, had I harmed even one
>innocent
>> >> >> person.  All I am saying is: justice should be not just for McVeigh,
>> >but
>> >> >for
>> >> >> all.  If McVeigh is waiting execution, Senator Kerrey, Janet Reno
>and
>> >many
>> >> >> other murderers should be his neighbors.  By the way, had Janet Reno
>> >and
>> >> >> others been prosecuted in due time, there would be no bombing in
>> >Oklahoma.
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is regretful that I was right in my previous posting: I suggested
>> >there
>> >> >> that all this story of FBI forgetting to forward certain documents
>was
>> >> >> nothing but a spectacle.  Government was very upset that McVeigh
>> >decided
>> >> >to
>> >> >> go on his terms and with a bang.  They were desperate to make him
>ask
>> >to
>> >> >> spare his life and to deny him his request.  Regretfully, he fell
>for
>> >it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Let us get to the detail.  At the first news that FBI did not
>forward
>> >> >> certain documents, US Attorney General cancelled execution, and send
>> >> >> treacherous lawyers to convince McVeigh to file a motion for a stay
>of
>> >> >> execution.  It is obvious that McVeigh resisted for quite a while.
>So,
>> >> >> government introduced a heavy artillery - media.  They presented to
>the
>> >> >show
>> >> >> "60 Minutes" several recently fired FBI agents, who were telling
>that
>> >FBI
>> >> >> deliberately withheld documents, and one of agents even mentioned
>that
>> >he
>> >> >> personally has produced several exculpatory documents, which were
>never
>> >> >> presented to the court.  When this agent was asked about contents of
>> >this
>> >> >> document he said that he could not answer because of a gag order.
>> >Excuse
>> >> >> me, what kind of a gag order could exist for a man fired from FBI?
>> >> >> Obviously, it was a spectacle designed for McVeigh personal
>> >consumption,
>> >> >and
>> >> >> he fell for it: two days after the show, it was reported that he
>> >decided
>> >> >to
>> >> >> file the motion for a stay of execution.  US government got what it
>> >> >wanted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The next step was to arrange with the lawyers such a motion that
>could
>> >be
>> >> >> denied.  The situation was such that a proper motion could not
>possibly
>> >be
>> >> >> denied.  Indeed, it was Attorney General, who decided to order delay
>to
>> >> >give
>> >> >> lawyers time to study the documents.  Clearly, one month time is an
>> >> >> arbitrary quantity, and should the lawyers filed an Habeas Corpus
>> >motion,
>> >> >> arguing only that one month time was arbitrary and not sufficient,
>> >> >Attorney
>> >> >> General could say nothing, because it was his initiative, and there
>was
>> >no
>> >> >> way anyone can prove that one month is enough to study 4000
>documents.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Instead of doing what I described above, treacherous lawyers
>presented
>> >a
>> >> >> motion not based on Habeas Corpus, but on a civil statute, claiming
>> >that
>> >> >> government has perpetrated a fraud upon the court.  When you make
>such
>> >a
>> >> >> statement, you should be prepared to prove it, which lawyers did not
>> >> >bother
>> >> >> to do.  In view of this kind of motion, it was easy for the judge to
>> >say
>> >> >> that there was no evidence of fraud presented, and therefore the
>motion
>> >> >was
>> >> >> denied.  In exactly the same way, as his first lawyer Jones betrayed
>> >him
>> >> >> during his trial, his new lawyers betrayed him with this motion.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Had the lawyers really wanted to claim the fraud, they should have
>> >called
>> >> >to
>> >> >> testify each and every FBI agent, who handled these 4000 documents
>and
>> >> >> examine them under oath as to how it happened that the documents
>were
>> >not
>> >> >> forwarded to the defence during the trial.  They should have also
>> >called
>> >> >> these fired FBI agents, who participated in "60 Minutes".  A good
>> >lawyer
>> >> >> would have no difficulty to prove that it was a fraud indeed, but
>these
>> >> >> lawyers were very well paid by the government and they did what
>> >government
>> >> >> asked them to do: betrayed their client.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> McVeigh finally understood that he has been had.  Too bad.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fabrikant
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>