🚀 go-pugleaf

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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>