+- < Text Area: AMERICA > ------------------------ < 'I' 612-885-0512 > -+
|                                                                        |
|  (A First Amendment issue (and then some).)                            |
|                                                                        |
|  Regardless of the irrationalism of the Branch Davidians, the Waco     |
|  holocaust violated MANY of the Bills of Rights, ultimately, the 1st.  |
|                                                                        |
|  Well-documented analysis of the details of the Waco execution.        |
|                                                                        |
+- < Spacebar aborts scrolling > ----------------------------------------+


                         GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA

                 Gun Owners of America Special Report:

                       Could a Search Warrant Be
                          Your Death Warrant?

                                  by
                              Larry Pratt
                          Executive Director

                     8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
                         Springfield, VA 22151
                            (703) 321-8585
                          FAX (703) 321-8408


   The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects our inalienable
right to be free 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. But the government can abuse the Fourth and Eighth
Amendments to undercut the Second.

                    Waco: A Message to Gun Owners?

   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 sheriffs office and
said, why don't you come and ask us what we've got?"' Fatta said that
Lt. Gene Barber at the sheriffs office had told the group that its
firearms were legal.(1)

   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.(2) 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.(3)

   (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. But 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.(4)  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.(5) Even the _New York Times_, a full month after the raid,
pointed out on page 1. "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 (sic) before
the raid, although some officials have said they believe its leader,
David Koresh, violated Federal firearms and explosives laws."(6)

   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 illegal converted
firearms back to semi-automatic status.(7) 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."(8)

                  An Affidavit or a Work of Fiction?

   The weapons evidence may well have been far from conclusive if the
BATF's affidavit used to get its search warrant is any indication.(9)
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.

   There are several other crucial inaccuracies in the BATF's
affidavit that have led legal experts to conclude that there was no
probable cause.

   For example, _Shotgun News_ was described by the BATF agents as a
"clandestine" publication. This publication is so clandestine that it
is readily available at newsstands all over the country and has
150,000 subscribers. If that is a clandestine publication, then so is
_The New Republic_. In fact, by this definition, most of the nation's
trade association and specialty newsletters and magazines are also
clandestine publications.

   The affidavit also claims that a neighbor heard machine gun fire.
But BATF agent Davy Aguilera, the affiant, left out information that
makes his "oversight" a case of lying by omission.  Aguilera failed to
mention that the neighbor had earlier reported the sound to the
sheriff who had already conducted a complete investigation. The
sheriff found that Koresh was using a legal trigger adapter that sped
up the operation of the trigger. This device had been approved by the
BATF itself.

   Other witnesses had told Aguilera that they had seen machine guns.
These persons were clearly ignorant of firearms, and as David Kopel
pointed out, Aguilera did not swear that these informants were
knowledgeable or reliable.(10)  In fact, one of those claiming to have
shot Koresh's guns, ex-Davidian-now-anti-Davidian, Marc Breault, is
blind. (11)

   The alleged underlying reason for the search warrant was to
ascertain if machine guns had been obtained or produced by the Branch
Davidians without paying the $200 federal tax. The possibility of
conversion of semi-automatic firearms to full auto was raised by
pointing to the purchase of various parts that supposedly could be
used for such a conversion. But the purchase of such parts is not
illegal.

   Consider how easy it would be for the government to raid any home
in the United States, if the mere possession of certain items were to
be sufficient probable cause for a search. Mel Bradford, writing in
_Liberty_ magazine, suggested the following analogy.(12)  Let us
suppose your disgruntled spouse goes to the BATF to "inform" them that
you are distilling alcohol without a proper license. The BATF checks
with your supermarket and learns that you have over the past few years
on numerous occasions purchased sugar and on a few occasions purchased
yeast, and verifies with your local utility that you have purchased
water. You have acquired all the ingredients needed to manufacture
alcohol. The BATF also checks the Treasury's records and verifies that
you have never acquired a license to make alcohol. Should the BATF
have the right to storm your house? The answer may seem obvious in
this case. That same answer should have applied in the case of David
Koresh.

   A further reading of the affidavit demonstrates that the BATF never
allowed an innocent explanation to interfere with its efforts to paint
Koresh and his associates as dangerous people. For example, the
Davidians had also purchased gunpowder and fuses. Aguilera included
that fact in the affidavit along with the claim that an explosion and
a large cloud of gray smoke had been reported coming from the Davidian
buildings. Aguilera did not mention that work had been underway to
enlarge a swimming pool.

   Aguilera's affidavit referred to aerial photographs of Mount Carmel
that showed "a buried bus near the main structure." A buried bus would
of course be invisible from the air. One reads such things and wonders
if the court bothered to do so prior to issuing the search warrant?

   Most astounding of all the BATF's statements in its affidavit
remains this demonstrated fact: _all the information in the affidavit
was at least six months old._ By law, this kind of stale information
is no grounds for a search warrant. Certainly, if six months had
passed without incident, what was the justification for sending a 100-
man military assault on the Davidians?

   The answer to the question was supposedly provided by claims of
further law violations, but laws which the BATF has no jurisdiction to
enforce--like child abuse. These lurid allegations apparently did
their job, convincing U.S. Magistrate Dennis G. Green to sign the
search warrant.

   Several spectacular claims of child abuse were included in the
affidavit. While it is true that most of the charges were made by
disaffected former members of the Davidian group, the fact remains
that the BATF has no legal authority to arrest citizens for child
abuse. But reading several sordid allegations sure does get the blood
boiling, and evidently Magistrate Green succumbed to the yellow
journalism of the BATF.

   One of the most questionable of BATF agent Aguilera's allegations
was his inclusion of a prophecy Koresh was alleged to have made about
the violence that would come in Waco; violence which would make the
riots of Los Angeles seem insignificant. But the conversation that
Aguilera's source claimed to have had with Koresh occurred about three
and one-half weeks before the Los Angeles riots occurred. This
discrepancy in dates apparently bothered neither the BATF nor the
court.

   The essential question that must be asked is, does an affidavit
such as this one even fit the legal definition of probable cause for
getting a search warrant? Is provocatively written, but stale and
irrelevant, information sufficient justification for conducting a
military assault by the government on American citizens? The 1932
Supreme Court case _Sgro v. United States_ prohibited the issuance of
search warrants based on stale information. It is not good enough that
something might have been there in the past. It has to be there now,
and none of the BATF's charges met this age-old test.

   In 1978 the Supreme Court held in _Franks v. Delaware_ that if an
agent knowingly falsifies or misleads the magistrate in the issuing of
the search warrant then the search warrant is invalid.  In Aguilera's
warrant he alleges that Koresh has a clandestine firearms publication
-- but neglects to point out that it is sold on newsstands. Aguilera
alleged machine gun fire -when he should have known that Koresh was
using a device approved by the BATF itself. Aguilera alleged child
abuse when he knew that there had been no evidence of it, nor was the
issue one for BATF jurisdiction.

   BATF headquarters spokesman in Washington, Jack Killoran, didn't
seem to have any better understanding of the agency's mission than the
BATF's other agents or the court that approved the raid. "The
information about the child abuse establishes information concerning
the level of threat to life and safety which exists within the
compound.  The warrant is for an imminent threat to the life and
safety of everybody in that compound."(13) A memo from the FBI's San
Antonio office dated just five days prior to the raid noted that "ATF
intends to execute a warrant on 3/1" at Mount Carmel, the Davidians'
name for their building and grounds. " ... to date no information has
been developed to verify the allegations.(14)

   The explosive but unproven accusations of child abuse by the BATF
seemed to show the government's concern for the little children living
among the Davidians. Yet the BATF's tactics during the February 28
assault obviously put the children in jeopardy. Apparently, concern
for the children in the rambling allegations by BATF Agent Davy
Aguilera concerning child abuse were not shared by those conducting
the raid.

   U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno told Ted Kopel on April 19, the
day of the immolation of the Davidians that she had ordered the
assault in order to protect the children from abuse. President Clinton
quoted her that same day saying:

         And she said it's because of the children -- they have
      evidence that those children are still being abused and
      that they're in increasingly unsafe conditions and that
      they don't think it will get any easier with time, with
      the passage of time.(15)

   But when Ted Koppel confronted Reno with testimony from a witness
who had been in the compound and had seen no signs of abuse (and had
reported the same to the FBI), Reno admitted that the Justice
Department had no recent evidence of abuse.(16)

   There was, however, recent evidence of another kind of child abuse-
-child abuse conducted by the FBI. It seemed a strange way for the FBI
to express concern for the children when they cut off the electrical
power and sewer, as well as access to proper food during the siege of
the Davidians. The FBI also flooded the children's bedrooms with high-
intensity light all night, played various strange sounds and songs at
200 decibels, pointed guns at the windows and drove tanks right up to
the building, turning just before impact (until the last day). Imagine
the lot of mothers trying to comfort their children during this real
life endless nightmare.

   The government cared so much for the lives of the Davidian's
children that it used them as a tool to try to end its unprovoked
siege. And when that didn't work, the government used painful CS gas
that may well have choked many of these children to death.

            Did Koresh have the Legal Right to Shoot Back?

   If the BATF warrant was invalid, then what is the legal posture of
the agents and supervisors that carried out and ordered the assault.
What is the legal posture of the FBI agents who prevented the
Davidians from leaving the premises during the siege?  Texas law also
speaks to this issue. Section 9.31 of the Penal Code states:

        The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
        justified:

           (1) If, before the actor offers any resistance, the
        peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses
        or attempts to use _greater force than necessary_ to
        make the arrest or search; and

           (2) When and to the degree the actor reasonably
         believes the force is immediately necessary to protect
         himself against the peace officer's (or other person's)
         use or attempted use of greater force than necessary
         (Emphasis added).

   The possible legal problems which face the BATF over their conduct
of this raid are compounded by this simple fact: a BATF-led
paramilitary assault conducted to serve a mere search warrant is
obviously "greater force than necessary." One need only review the
news coverage of that raid.

   According to the _Washington Post_, the BATF served the search
warrant by throwing a grenade into the building.(17) The Waco
_Tribune-Herald_ reported that the agents "leaped out of the cattle
trucks, throwing concussion grenades and screaming 'Come out!'"(18)

   By serving a search warrant amidst a hail of grenades, the BATF
crossed the line between police work and military missions. Police
work involves investigating, searching, serving summonses and placing
under arrest. Military missions aim at destroying the enemy as quickly
as possible. Sylvester Stallone's famous character, John Rambo, was a
soldier--not a cop.

   Yet BATF's Washington spokesman, Jack Killoran, sounded for all the
world like a briefer during the war with Iraq, when he told _USA
Today_ that "We needed 60 seconds of them not being prepared and we
would have neutralized the compound and gotten the children out."(19)
Curiously, the Treasury Department's investigation in this matter
seems to have concluded that the flaw in the raid was not too much
force but too little. A preliminary report faults "senior ATF
officials [who] put agents with no paramilitary training in charge of
the raid near Waco, Texas."(20) The "greater force than necessary"
legal justification for the conduct of the Davidians after the raid is
further buttressed by their demonstrated cooperation with other law
enforcement investigations. In 1987, the McLennan County (Texas)
Sheriffs Department had reason to arrest David Koresh. The Sheriff
simply called Koresh and informed him that he had a warrant for
Koresh's arrest on a charge of attempted murder. (This charge was
rather more serious than the BATF's search warrant to look for
unregistered firearms.) The Sheriff then went on the property and
served the warrants, placing Koresh under arrest. Koresh was
subsequently acquitted of the charges.(21)

   On two other occasions, searches of the premises were conducted to
investigate charges of child abuse. These complaints had been lodged
by former Davidians. In both cases, no evidence could be found.

   Henry McMahon, the former owner of Hewitt Arms, told Pete Zaralis
of the _Mobile Times_ that he had spoken to the BATF in July of 1992.
The BATF had expressed concern about Koresh buying so many guns.
Koresh told McMahon, "Tell them to come on out."(22) The BATF has
never said why they did not take Koresh up on his offer and call ahead
and go out and knock on the door in the same way that the local
authorities had.

                          A Most Useful Fire

   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
government immediately placed the blame on the Davidians. But the FBI
would have known immediately if this were the case and been able to
kill an arsonist with one of their snipers. For not only did they have
fiber optic probes in the walls which relayed both sound and pictures
back to the agents, but they had a special spy plane flown in from
London to provide additional intelligence.(23)

   The fire that ended the siege ensured that many facts regarding the
life and death of David Koresh will remain largely unknown.  And the
fire consumed a critical piece of evidence, namely who had fired
first.

   On April 2, 1993, Stephen Higgins told Congress that "I have no
information that anyone fired from the helicopters."(24) 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 to begin the raid. Further corroboration for the view
that the BATF fired first, and fired from the helicopters, comes from
listening to the unexpurgated tapes made of the call to "911" when the
attack first began. One of the Davidians is heard at one point
desperately exclaiming during the effort to work out a cease fire:
"Another chopper with more people; more guns going off. They're
firing. That's them, not us."(25)

   During the same section of the "911" tape, Davidian attorney, Wayne
Martin, responded to a request to lay his arms down for a cease fire:
"I have the right to defend myself. They started firing first."

   According to FBI and Texas Ranger sources, BATF fired first.(26)
Surviving Davidians, like 77-year-old Catherine Matteson, agreed:

        I seen (sic) those trailers drive up. I was downstairs.
        I thought it strange, but I figured they were delivering
        firewood or something. I picked up the Sunday paper and
        went upstairs to my room, and started reading. When
        next, bullets came through the roof. I could hear the
        helicopters overhead, I got under my bed.

        ... [O]ur guns were boxed for Paul Fatta and the gun
        show he was attending in Austin. Nobody could find
        anything.  Then they had the wrong bullets for the wrong
        guns and couldn't find anything.(27)

   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?"(28)

   The fiery conclusion to the siege at Waco ensured that the
investigation Zimmerman suggested will be impossible. In addition,
another report during the siege must also remain uninvestigated.

               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
        tank-like 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 F.B.I.'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.(29)

   This same attitude was expressed directly to the Davidians prior to
the final fire. During the negotiations between the FBI and the
Davidians, the FBI's loudspeakers made their standard call that all
the government wanted them to do was to come out. "We have buses for
you at the end of the road. Just come out and you won't be harmed; all
we want to do is make sure you're safe." But the negotiator
accidentally left the microphone on, and added: "I've been in the FBI
for 27 years and I've never seen anything like these people. They
think they can get away with murder: well, they'll have another think
coming as soon as they come out of there."(30)

   This kind of attitude may explain why the FBI only reluctantly let
Koresh meet with his attorney, and steadfastly refused the offers to
negotiate by third parties. And perhaps this attitude 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.(31)

  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).(32)

   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.(33)

   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.(34) 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.(35) By that time, the
fire had been roaring through the building for nearly one half hour.
Curiously, shortly before the final assault, the FBI reportedly warned
the local Waco hospital that they might expect casualties later that
day.

   In addition to the proven danger of fire, CS gas itself when used
in an enclosed room can be easily fatal because it reaches highly
concentrated levels--CS was originally designed to be used outdoors,
after all.(36) Suffocation is not uncommon when CS is used
indoors.(37) And even non-flammable 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. But
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."(38) But not only had Paul 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.(39)

   Unfortunately for the governments case, films of the entire siege
were carried on the KV band used by network televion as a raw feed for
their stories. This film, captured by the American Justice Federation,
shows government tanks shooting fire into the Davidian's building.

           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 eleven reporters were on the
scene before the raid began.(40) 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."(41)

   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."(42)

   Had the BATF sent one agent with a search warrant, it may have been
able to settle the matter peacefully. But 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.(43)

   In May, Attorney General Janet Reno quietly released a new Justice
Department policy which bars the news media from going along with
federal law enforcement officers on raids.(44)

   The BATF may in fact have had a more direct hand in the killing of
its own personnel.  _Newsweek_ in its April 5, 1993 issue reported
that "a federal source involved in the Waco situation says that 'there
is evidence that supports the theory of friendly fire.'"  Perhaps the
same highly placed federal source told _Soldier of Fortune_ "about
half of ATF casualties in the raid apparently resulted from 'friendly
fire.'" [ibid.] The flimsy construction of what BATF spokesmen kept
calling the Davidian Compound would have allowed for agents on both
sides of the house to have shot at men inside. Of course, the
helicopters, had they indeed been firing, would have added to the
chaos.

              Which Government Account Is To Be Believed?

   In the immediate aftermath of the bungled February 28 raid, BATF
spokesmen claimed that they had unknowingly lost the element of
surprise. They claimed to have been ambushed by the Davidians.  Now,
the Treasury Department itself is casting doubt on that line. Ronald
K. Noble, assistant Treasury Secretary for law enforcement, reportedly
said that some officials knowingly made misleading statements about
the raid to superiors and the media.(45)

   BATF officials have said that they would not have launched the
attack without the element of surprise. But subsequently it came to
light that BATF undercover agent, Robert Rodriguez reported to his
superiors before the raid that Koresh knew the attack was imminent:

           Treasury officials expressed concern that members of
        top-level ATF management were not fully aware of what
        field commanders were doing, were lied to by their
        managers or perhaps were less than forthright.(46)

   Regarding BATF's spokesman during the Waco siege, David Troy, the
same report stated that Troy was aware of the lies, but "continued to
make public comments that could be considered misleading because he
was following orders."

   Strict rules of engagement were blamed initially for the BATF
casualties. These rules prohibit shooting without a definite target.
Yet the evidence generally agrees that the BATF was firing
indiscriminately at anything that moved. The accounts of helicopter
fire through the roof is hardly an example of targeted fire. The video
tape compiled by the American Justice Federation clearly depicts
agents firing indiscriminately at the house, some using bursts of what
sounds like machine gun fire. This tape also shows a BATF agent
hurling a grenade and firing his gun inside the building into a room
he clearly could not see who or what was inside--even though three of
his fellow agents had entered the room moments before.

   BATF claimed at first that the raid had been planned for March 1,
1993 but had to be moved up a day because of concern for the effect
that the beginning of the Waco _Tribune-Herald's_ negative articles
would have on Koresh. The fact of the matter was revealed after the
search warrant's seal was removed. The warrant which authorized the
raid would have expired on February 28 at 10:00 p.m.

                 Koresh's Crime: Criticizing the BATF?

   Blazing machine guns, helicopters pouring forth bullets and flying
concussion grenades seems to be a strange environment for taking care
of the BATF's own agents, let alone the children inside Mount Carmel.
Was this behavior justified by some monstrous crime committed by David
Koresh and his fellow Davidians? 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. But there is no federal death penalty for unorthodox religious
beliefs. Koresh and his people owned firearms--more than one, in fact.
The government claims to have recovered a total of 200 firearms from
the ruins of Mt. Carmel. That is an average of two firearms per
Davidian. There is nothing illegal about that. In fact, the average
Texan owns four firearms. David Koresh didn't think much of the BATF.
That appears to have been a crime.

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

           On February 22, 1993, ATF Special Agent Robert
        Rodriguez told me that on February 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
        (G.O.A.). This film portrayed ATF as an agency who
        violated the rights of Gun Owners by threats and
        lies."(47)

   The BATF's legendary commitment to accuracy is demonstrated here.
There is indeed a GOA--but the initials stand for Gun Owners of
America, a group of over l00,000 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 A.T.F."(48) The agency added:

            Special Agent Robert Rodriguez . . . learned that
         Howell [Koresh] had video tapes 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 video tapes, writings, and other
         materials which evidence Howell or other cult members'
         motive for wanting to shoot and kill ATF agents.(49)

   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(50), the copy of this issue
brief you are holding could be evidence against you.

   Since these pathetic excuses for "probable cause" was probably not
the cause of the raid, other motives might explain better why an
agency of the U. S. government would conduct an act of war against a
group of peaceful Americans.

   One explanation for the BATF's assault on the Davidians in Waco
starts with the date of March 10. That was to be the date of their
appropriation hearing in Congress. But before that could happen, CBS's
_60 Minutes_ aired a devastating expose of violation of civil
liberties by BATF officials against their own agents.  During the
program, which aired January 10, BATF agent Bob Hoffman stunned
interviewer Mike Wallace by saying that "the people I put in jail have
more honor than the top administration in this organization."

   BATF agent Lou Tomasello expressed similar sentiments when he told
Wallace that,

           I took an oath. And the thing that I find totally
        abhorrent and disgusting is these higher-level people
        took that same oath and they violate the basic
        principles and tenets of the Constitution and the laws
        and simple ethics and morality.

   _60 Minutes_ reran this episode after the April 19 conflagration
that killed the Davidians still in Mount Carmel. Mike Wallace offered
his own explanation for the February 28 raid: "Almost all the agents
we talked to said that they believe the initial attack on that cult in
Waco was a publicity stunt --the main goal of which was to improve
ATF's tarnished image."(51)

   There is another explanation that may not get to the why as
profoundly as the BATF's desire for a nice spectacle to enhance their
fund raising from Congress. But it does help explain why the raid was
such a ruthless affair.

   Ted Royster is the BATF agent in charge of the Dallas regional
office. He oversees BATF activities in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.
This was only one of many such high profile raids that Royster has
directed. For example, Royster personally conducted the raid on John
Lawmaster's Tulsa home in December, 1991.(52) This raid, based on a
bad tip, resulted in the discovery of no illegal firearms in this
dealer's home. The BATF struck while Lawmaster was away from home.
They broke open his safe, and left his house in a shambles with his
guns piled up on the floor and the front door ripped off its hinges so
that anyone could have stolen the firearms. The BATF did leave a note
saying that they found nothing. They have never made whole the damage
they did to Lawmaster's home.

           Many Questions Demand Answers. Does Anvbody Care?

   On August 16, 1993 the Treasury Department announced that they
wanted to seal the results of their investigation of BATF's actions in
Waco. Why, except to protect the names of the guilty, would such a
policy be desired? If the Davidians truly were monsters, deserving to
be shot and subsequently burned to death without a trial by jury,
should not the government make its case to the public? Washington
seems to be a place of double standards. Independent investigations
are demanded for foreign scandals such as the Iran-Contra affair, but
when the death of some 100 Americans at the hand of their own
government is at issue, we are to apparently be satisfied with the
assurances of the fox who has inspected the hen house.

   A former Philadelphia police sergeant, and GOA member, points out
that municipal police officers must show a clearly visible badge
bearing numbers that could be easily read, and just above the badge a
separate name plate with the last name of the officer. One of the
reasons for the badge number and nameplate was to discourage officers
from becoming law-breakers and to enable their victims to identify
them if that should happen.

   Unlike the traditional police practice of plainly identifying each
officer by name and number, the ninja-clad BATF agents who assaulted
Mount Carmel were not only without any number and name plate, their
faces were covered up as well. They looked for all the world like PLO
terrorists. Is that when the cover up at Waco truly began?

   During the final fire the government's tanks pushed _into_ the fire
the walls of the Davidians building. These walls might have just as
easily been pulled away, to preserve them as evidence. Those walls
might have yielded clues as to who was shooting at whom, as we have
seen.

   As soon as the fire was under control, FBI agents were seen walking
through the still smoldering embers. Yet the press was kept away
because they were told that it was too dangerous to go near the still-
warm ashes. The large cache of ammunition could well explode, claimed
the government. The government agents went in anyway because they knew
that in fact ammunition goes "pop" rather than "bang" when ignited
outside the chamber of a firearm. Why, then, was the press not allowed
in? Was that part of a cover up, too?

   When the "independent" arson investigation was concluded, the
public was told that the Davidians' had committed suicide by starting
the fire themselves. As we saw earlier, the investigation was not
independent. The lead investigator has worked for the BATF and his
wife still does. Could it be that he is covering up for the
government? How else can we ever know unless there is an independent
investigation. Moreover, there is video footage of an FBI's tank
shooting fire into the building just before the fire broke out.(53)
These questions cry out for answers.

   Why was the negotiating process handled contrary to the FBI's own
procedures?  Attorney General Reno told the House Judiciary Committee
on May 17, 1993 that she made the decision to have the FBI attack on
April 19 because "I was convinced that the passage of time only
increased the likelihood of incidents and possible attendant injuries
and harm."

   An FBI-trained hostage negotiator sent colurnnist Paul Craig
Roberts some pages from the FBI's Hostage Negotiation Training Manual.
The manual states: "Time is always in our favor."(54) Former Green
Beret Col. Bo Gritz successfully negotiated the end of the stand off
between the survivors of Randy Weaver's family and the government
assault team in Naples, Idaho. Gritz offered to negotiate in the Waco
standoff, but was refused. Why?

   Did they not want to bring the Davidians out alive and put them on
trial? Would a trial have turned out as poorly for the govermnent as
the Randy Weaver trial, discussed below, did in Idaho? Would an
intact, unburned building have revealed too much about the
government's assault?

     Can the Government Kill You for Unpopular Religious Beliefs?

   Maybe there is no urgency for an independent investigation because
of attitudes like those of President Bill Clinton. President Clinton
said during his April 23, 1993 press conference that "I hope very much
that others who will be tempted to join cults and to become involved
with people like David Koresh will be deterred by the horrible scenes
they have seen."

   In the same vein, Mr. Stephen Cox of San Diego wrote to the
president, and got this calculated letter in reply:

           Thank you for your letter. I share your concern about
        the recent situation near Waco, Texas. I was deeply
        disturbed by the tragic loss of life there. It is
        especially appalling that innocent children may have
        suffered at the hands of David Koresh and other members
        of the Branch Davidian cult.

           The compound had been under surveillance for some
        time, and federal agents determined that cult members
        were illegally stockpiling weapons. The large number of
        guns and ammunition and the presence of children near
        such weapons led agents to begin seizure of the
        compound....

           After peaceful negotiations had stalled, the
        appropriate law enforcement agencies, in consultation
        with Attorney General Janet Reno, formulated a plan that
        was intended to cause the least harm to cult members
        while forcing them out of the compound. Tear gas was
        used because it causes no permanent damage, and it is
        effective in evacuating the people from a targeted
        area....

   Considered in the light of what is now known about the events in
Waco, the President's letter seems unduly one-sided. Certainly, it
reveals that he is not likely to want to find out the real reason why
so many people died in Waco.

   Like President Clinton, BATF Agent Aguilera's affidavit for the
search warrant used the word "cult" to describe Koresh and the
Davidians. This would seem to be highly questionable under the First
Amendment since the government is supposed to stay far away from
religion. And the BATF has no authority to certify religious doctrines
nor churches as "government approved."

   There is no provision in Federal law for defining a cult. Yet the
government's use of this word in the search warrant itself and in its
many public statements suggests that it was using the word cult
because Americans generally distrust cults. Because of the
government's conduct, 80-100 human beings died a slow and agonizing
death. But because the government called the Davidians a "cult," too
many Americans have been willing to look the other way while the
government conducted their execution without trial.

   Indeed, there is a strong case that the President, the Congress,
and much of the news media are willing to look the other way from the
events at Waco because the Davidians held to unpopular views.
Unpopular beliefs are a good way to put a target on your back. Ask the
surviving Davidians. Or ask Randy Weaver.

                    Randy Weaver: Warm-Up for Waco?

   What would be your normal reaction if you found a masked, ninja-
clad figure on your property who was holding a gun he had just used to
shoot your family dog? If you are human you would be afraid for your
life. Now what if you yourself had access to a firearm? Would you
shoot the unknown attacker?

   Now what would be your be thinking if you learned that your son was
also shot in the back and killed during this attack? Would you be
angry? What if the next day, you saw your wife lying on the floor in a
pool of blood, her face blasted away by a sniper's bullet, holding
your baby?

   Would it be likely that you would voluntarily surrender to these
people who had killed your loved ones, even after learning that they
were Federal governrnent agents? Or would you suspect that they might
just kill you too, even if you surrendered?

   This is precisely what happened to Randy Weaver and his family on
August 21 and 22, 1992. Weaver's wife, son and even family dog were
gunned down by agents of the federal governrnent. In response, Weaver
was accused of shooting Federal Marshal William Degan.  (Federal
Marshal Arthur Roderick, not Degan, apparently shot the Weaver's dog.)

   These events were well covered in newspapers all over America at
the time. David Koresh and his fellow Branch Davidians in Waco almost
certainly heard about this government assault on the Weavers. While
the Davidians did not share Weaver's views on racial separatism, they
did share a common fear of the Federal government. In both cases,
these people wished to get away and be left alone. It would be fair to
characterize both the Weavers and the Davidians with subscribing to a
belief that the government was conspiring against them. Events were to
prove again the old adage that even paranoids have real enemies. In
this case, the enemy was a government out of control and willing to do
anything, legal or illegal, to achieve its goals.

   Ironically, the government itself probably subscribes to an equally
strong conspiracy theory about such groups as the Davidians and the
Weaver family. The government's conspiracy theory was described by
Tony Cooper, a law enforcement consultant and professor of anti-
terrorism, negotiations and conflict resolution at the University of
Texas at Dallas:

           It's an exaggerated concern that they are facing a
        nationwide conspiracy and that somehow this will get out
        of control unless it is stamped out at a very early
        stage . . .  the formation of a curious crusading
        mentality among certain law enforcement agencies to
        stamp out what they see as a threat to government
        generally.(55)

   In weighing the connection to reality of the two conspiracy
theories, one has to balance what the government did to the Davidians
in Waco and the Weavers in Idaho, versus how ardently the victims
tried to get away from the government and live self-reliant, if
isolated, lives in remote areas.

   One wonders, too, of the government's sense of priorities. The cost
of the invasion and siege of a few people in remote Idaho and in an
isolated part of Waco, Texas will never be truly known. Most estimates
place the total cost of both efforts at $200 million or more. Randy
Weaver's eccentric beliefs caused harm to no one. What if the money
spent to arrest Weaver was spent instead doing something about the
violent gangs who make a trip to the downtown of many major cities a
death-defying act? Of course, these violent gangs have defenders in
Congress who will excuse the most brutal crimes and urge federal
funding to coddle the most brutal criminals.  No Congressman would
dare stand up to protect a lone and lonely racist from a government
assault. Perhaps the BATF picks victims the same way these vicious
criminals do--preying on the weak and defenseless, rather than those
who might fight back.

   Throughout the eight-week trial, the governrnent attempted to
depict Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris (who lived with the Weavers) as
political and religious zealots. In the case of Randy and Vicki
Weaver, the government claimed they had spent many years planning to
force a violent confrontation with the government. Characteristic of
the government's feeble case was its attempt to portray the Weaver's
decision to move from Iowa to Idaho as part of their plan. Actually,
the Weaver's preferred Idaho's laws on home schooling to Iowa's. The
government called the Weaver's humble cabin a "mountain fortress"
(just as "compound" was the word used by the government to describe
the Davidian's flimsy dwelling). Actually, the Weaver's little home
was built out of two-by-fours and plywood.

   This sort of routine stretching of the truth did not help the
government's case against Weaver. The jury found it implausible to
connect a move from Iowa to Idaho as part of a conspiracy to murder
Federal Marshal Williarn Degan.

   Weaver's defense attomey, Gerry Spence, argued that Degan was
killed in self-defense when he and the other Marshals fired the first
rounds and provoked the shootout. Federal Marshal Larry Cooper, who
had been with Degan, denied that they had fired first. His testimony
was contradicted by another Marshal, Frank Norris, who said the first
shot he heard fired in the gunfight was the distinctive snapping sound
of a .223 rifle like those carried by the government agents, not the
boom of a .30-06 like Harris carried that day. Harris and Sammy
Weaver, the 13-year-old, arrived right after Marshal Roderick killed
the Weaver dog.

   It was probably Cooper who killed Sammy with a shot in the back
from his 9mm submachine gun according to the testimony of the
governrnent's ballistic expert, Dr. Martin Fackler.

   No wonder the jury did not believe the prosecution. But there were
many more discrepancies in the government's case which, in the end,
converted a trial of the conspiracy and separatist views of Weaver and
Harris to the integrity and motives of the government.

      Many Discrepancies in the Government's Case Against Weaver

   Spence was able to require Cooper to come to court dressed as he
was on the fatal day in August: face mask; camouflage pants, shirt,
gloves and floppy jungle hat; green military backpack and a black 9mm
submachine gun with a silencer and a black flashlight attached to the
muzzle.  The man looked dressed for a commando raid against Iraq. This
was a key moment, because the jury had been told by the government
that they were on the Weaver property merely for surveillance.

   As Spence later showed, it may have been Cooper who killed Degan.
Degan, as he was shooting at the retreating Sammy Weaver (maybe six or
seven times) was moving sideways and probably crossed Cooper's field
of fire. Since Cooper's gun was silenced, Degan would not have heard
it. One of Cooper's bullets almost certainly hit Degan's backpack,
thus turning partially turning him around. At that point either
another of Cooper's bullets, or Harris' may have killed Degan.

   How the Weaver dog, Striker, was killed revealed another government
discrepancy.  During the 1992 siege, when they were not under oath,
these Federal Marshals told newspapers that the dog had attacked them.
At that time, Cooper said that he had jumped out of his foxhole and
blindly fired a three-round burst. But when they were under oath
before the grand jury, they told another story. Under oath they
admitted that they had a plan to toss rocks at the Weaver house to get
Striker to chase them, after which they shot him.(57)

   Federal Marshal Service Director Henry Hudson rationalized this
plan as an attempt "to find a way to peacefully carry out their lawful
responsibility of serving a Federal, court-ordered warrant for the
arrest of Randall Weaver." (58)

   Another discrepancy in Cooper's story was his claim that he never
heard Degan fire a shot.  Seven empty cartridges from Degan's gun were
found near his position. Degan's gun did not have a silencer. Cooper
was either deaf or Iying.(59)

                      BATF Provokes Criminal Act

   Under oath, the BATF's paid informant, Kenneth Fadeley, admitted
that he had persuaded Weaver to commit a crime by shortening the
barrels of two shotguns to just below legal length.  The informant
even specified the exact length Weaver was to cut.  Fadeley also
confessed that he would be paid extra if Weaver were convicted.

   Fadeley's handler, BATF agent Herb Byerly, disputed the claims of
extra pay. But Byerly then went on to testify that he was going to
recommend the informant for a bonus which just happened to be the
amount Fadeley said he would be paid for the conviction.(60)

   This is almost a textbook case of what is legally known as
"entrapment." Entrapment is defined as when the government persuades
someone to commit a crime he had no intention of committing
beforehand. At the trial it was shown that the government's informant
was the one who broke the law by entrapping Weaver. In other words,
the crime would not have occurred without the government.

   When Weaver was then arrested for his "crime," he was arraigned
before U.S. Magistrate Stephen Ayers. Ayers would admit later that he
"erred" when he misinformed Weaver that his home could be taken from
him if he failed to appear for his trial on the shotgun charges. He
also admitted that he "erred" when he told Weaver, inaccurately, that
Weaver would have to reimburse the government for a court-appointed
lawyer. (Weaver had no money to hire a private attorney as he made his
living cutting firewood.)

   Worse still, Weaver was given the wrong date for his trial--March
20 instead of the correct February, 1991 date.(61) Under oath, Federal
Judge Harold Ryan's clerk Everett Hofmeister, had to admit that he
mailed Weaver a notice of trial for March 20 -- but the trial was set
for February 19, 1991. Another clerk, when on the stand, gave
conflicting accounts about whether he had even mailed a notice to
Weaver.(62) For whatever reason, this was the only charge on which the
jury found Weaver guilty.

   Once Weaver failed to appear for the trial (perhaps because he had
good reason to suspect a government frame-up), the government sent
Federal Marshals up on the mountain where Weaver lived. That
surveillance led months later to the killing of Weaver's wife and son.

   Ironically, Federal Marshal Warren Mays testified that the failure
to appear charge was going to have to be dropped because the court
gave Weaver the wrong date. Mays said he knew of no effort to tell
Weaver that the charge would be dropped. Weaver, whose wife and son
lay dead because of the government's actions, was devastated by this
testimony: "Weaver leaned his head on his right hand and shook his
head after Mays' testimony."(63)

             Government Unable To Keep Its Story Straight

   The jury in the Weaver trial was probably like most juries. We
Americans generally give the government the benefit of the doubt. Even
if we sit in a jury box, let the government make a respectable case
and the defendant will go to jail. In the Weaver case, a U.S. Marshal
lay dead.  The government may have figured it didn't need to make much
of a case. A review of the prosecution's testimony suggests that not
much of a case is precisely what the government did make.

   Federal Marshal Ron Evans stuck steadfastly to two contradictory
statements he made under oath. He testified at the trial that he would
"never forget" seeing Weaver's 16-year-old daughter Sarah with a rifle
on one occasion. When defense attorney Spence confronted him with his
earlier grand jury statement that "I did not see one [rifle] with
her", Evans said: "I believe I was telling the truth in both
instances."(64) This artful phrasing would protect Evans from a
potential perjury charge.

   Another government ballistics expert, Lucien Haag, testified that
the physical evidence supported the government's version of what
happened during the gunfight on Weaver's property, namely, that the
government was fired upon first. But on cross-examination, he said
there was no physical evidence to dispute the defense's claim that
Marshall Roderick, not Harris, fired first.(65) Either the evidence,
or Haag's story, changed completely in minutes.

 Government Proven to Have Withheld and Manufactured Crucial Evidence

   Another government contradiction was revealed at the trial when the
defense discovered that the prosecution had been withholding evidence.
This evidence was essential to the outcome of the trial and to the
possibility of future criminal prosecution. On June 6, the FBI sniper,
Ron Horiuchi, who killed Vicki Weaver, testified that he shot her
accidentally. He had actually been trying for Kevin Harris, Horiuchi
testified on the stand.  Horiuchi claimed to be able to hit a quarter
at 200 yards--the distance he was from Vicki Weaver when he killed
her.

   But after Horiuchi was excused and was on an airplane back to
Quantico, Virginia to rejoin the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team, the
government finally handed over explosive evidence that Horiuchi lied
on the stand. This evidence included Horiuchi's formal report
following his killing of Vicki Weaver, with a drawing attached. The
drawing of the shooting scene clearly showed two heads in the door.

   This was not the only flaw in Horiuchi's testimony. When Horiuchi
wounded Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris, they had been on their way to
pay their last respects to Sam Weaver, whose body had been laid out in
a nearby shed. Horiuchi testified that he shot to keep them from
shooting at a helicopter overhead. But Associate Marshal Service
Director Wayne Srnith testified that the helicopter never flew over
the Weaver cabin on that day.(66)

   When brought back to the stand, Horiuchi testified that both of
these statements were the truth. Undermining his credibility still
further was the matter of the state of the door to Weaver's cabin when
Horiuchi opened fire. Horiuchi claimed that the curtains to the door
were closed and he could not see through it when he shot Vicki Weaver.
The defense brought the actual door into the courtroom to demonstrate
that Horiuchi was correct. But Horiuchi's formal report had clearly
shown two figures standing in what must have been an open door.(67)

   When the commander of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team, Dick Rogers,
was asked about the killing of Vicki Weaver and the wounding of Randy
Weaver and Kevin Harris, Rogers said he was concerned to learn that
one of his snipers apparently missed a target.(68) Rogers was
apparently unconcerned that Horiuchi's shooting of Vicki Weaver
violated the FBI's rules of engagement for the Weaver case. These
rules were in turn a major departure from the FBI's normal rules.
Normally, FBI agents are allowed to shoot only when a life is in
danger. Their rules of engagement in Idaho permitted shooting at
anyone who was armed. Vicki Weaver was holding a baby in her arms when
Horiuchi killed her.

   Grand jury transcripts made it clear that the Federal Marshals had
lied to the FBI telling them that a continuing fire fight was underway
between the Weavers in their "fortress" and the Marshals. This led to
the FBI to formulate its unusual rules of engagement. But these rules
violated Idaho law. When Rogers was asked at the trial by what
authority he allowed the rules of engagement to violate Idaho law, he
was unable to cite a single federal law justifying these actions.(69)

   The government also lost credibility in front of the jury because
they were caught inexplicably moving and then replacing a bullet
supposedly fired by Harris, and then fabricating the photo of it. When
Spence asked FBI agent Greg Rampton why he had not confessed to the
phony picture during his earlier testimony, Rampton countered: "You
never asked me about that, and I tried to stick with the questions you
asked."(70) Another FBI agent, Larry Wages, revealed that the
prosecutor had known about the trickery a week earlier.

   FBI Agent Larry Cooper admitted on the stand that he had been
rehearsed several times by his superiors and others, including the
Federal prosecutor, Ron Howen.(71)

   One of the alternate jurors, Gena Hagerman, added that she (and
presumably other jurors) had been offended by the conduct of Federal
agents at the siege. After they had killed Vicki Weaver, on following
mornings the agents would call out to the survivors in the cabin,
"Vicki, we had pancakes for breakfast, what did you have?"(72)

      Weaver Defense Charges Government with Murder; Jury Agrees

   When the prosecution finished its case, the defense stunned the
courtroom by declining to present their own on the grounds that the
government had not proved their case. Lead defense attorney Gerry
Spence later made a powerful summary of the defense's case in his
final remarks before the jury deliberated.

   Some of Spence's remarks were as follows. He told the jury that
"HRT" (Hostage Rescue Team) was "a nice euphemism for 'expert
killers.'" "These are the Waco boys," he added.

   "This is a murder case," Spence said, "but the people who committed
the murders have not been charged, and the people who committed the
murders are not in court."

   At one point, Spence walked over the BATF Agent Herb Byerly and
roared: "Mr. Byerly represents a new twist in America today, called
Big Brother. Only in America can I point a finger at this guy and his
agency and say this is the new Gestapo here in America!"

   He ridiculed the prosecution's claim that being a snitch or
entrapping somebody was somehow "honorable." Furthermore, "Something
is very horrid that's happened here...What is happening in America
when the government doesn't target criminals, (but innocent
people)?...The new low in American jurisprudence is to attack the
American family..."(73)

   Georgetown University law professor Paul Rothstein summed up the
Weaver verdict by saying, "what this shows is that (the) jury and
people in general are not willing to hand law enforcement officers a
license to do anything they want."(74)

   But the anti-gun columnist of the Baltimore Sun, Rodger Simon, is
at least one bit of evidence that some people will let the government
do anything, so long as its targets are politically correct. Simon,
who could sympathize with convicted murder Willie Horton, attacked the
government for dawdling with David Koresh: "I think its time we went
in there and got him. I think it's time our law enforcement officers
got off their butts and into their tanks."(75) Simon even criticized
the government for letting Koresh talk to his lawyers, since "he had
no legal right to do so until after he has been arrested."(76)

                  Koresh, Weaver Not the Only Victims

   It is important to realize that the bloody raid on David Koresh and
the attack on Randy Weaver were triggered by nothing more than rumors
and accusations. There are many people who are now dead or maimed
because the BATF or some other federal agency heard they were doing
something wrong.

   Ken Ballew of Silver Spring, Maryland sits in a wheel chair today
because a group of BATF agents raided his home in June of 1971. A
young burglar told local police that Ballew had handgrenades in his
home. Ballew did--but they were empty casings. The BATF soon appeared
at the Ballew family door with a battering ram, dressed in ski masks
and displaying no identification.

   In response to his wife's panic screams, Ballew drew a blackpowder
pistol on the agents, who responded with a hail of fire. Had Ballew
not fallen behind a marble table, he would be dead.  The BATF found
nothing illegal in the Ballew home and never pressed charges, but the
Ballews were not compensated.

   David Scott, a veteran of the Coast Guard, came home from classes
to his off-campus apartment in Berkeley, California, and found it
ransacked. His Glock 9mm handgun was missing.  He called the police.
It turns out the police had done the ransacking. One of his housemates
had contacted the authorities because Scott "kept a gun in his room
and seemed hot tempered and Scott, thanks to this unknown informant,
now faces a charge which could cost him a year in jail because his
off-campus apartment was university-owned. Gun Owners Foundation is
assisting in this case.

   But not everyone turned in by an unknown informant lives to tell
the tale.  Sixty-one-year-old Donald Scott, a Malibu, California,
millionaire, made the mistake of living on land surrounded on three
sides by a national park. On the moming of October 2, 1992, his home
was attacked by Los Angeles sheriffs, and representatives of the
National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Califomia Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, the
National Guard and even NASA's jet propulsion laboratory.(78)

   These people had been told that Mr. Scott was growing marijuana on
his land. As they would later learn, there was no marijuana on the
property. In fact, there was no marijuana pollen on the land (the
reason NASA was present).

   But when Scott heard the commotion, he made the mistake of running
to the living room with a .38 in hand. According to Scott's
girlfriend, Scott was gunned down even as he was complying with their
request to drop his firearm.(79)

   Why were the local sheriffs so interested in Mr. Scott? According
to the Ventura County District Attorney's office, one reason was "at
least in part the desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the
govemment."(80) The Scott ranch was worth roughly $5 million. Under
federal law, had drugs been found, the government could seize Mr.
Scott's property, earning the sheriffs department $4 million.(81)

   Los Angles deputy sheriff Gary Spencer organized the raid after
getting a tip from an informant. A search warrant was obtained despite
the inability of the police to spot any marijuana either from the
ground or high in the air, even when a party of Border patrol agents
searched the grounds using night-vision goggles.(82) A search warrant
was issued and an army was formed to deliver it. As the DA's report
puts it: "The search warrant became Donald Scott's death warrant.
What we cannot forget is that Donald Scott's death could and should
have been avoided."(83)

   (Criminals have learned from Mr. Scott's death. The same page of
the paper that announced the district attorney's findings carried
another story: a man and his wife were robbed by a gang led by a man
in a sheriffs uniform who told them he had a search warrant.(84)

                  Are You Safe From a Police Search?

   You may be surprised to see a group of BATF agents at your door
some day. This may be true even if you have no guns in your house.
Just ask Janice Hart of Oregon.

   Janice Hart came home from the grocery store one Friday night to
find BATF agents wandering in and out of her open front door.(85) Her
side door had been kicked in, dishes were scattered about her kitchen,
and the family's clothing was tossed on the floor. The BATF then
grilled her for an hour, finally asking if she was Janice Harrell. She
told them no. Janice Harrell was a prison escapee who the BATF claimed
was selling illegal guns. An informant, according to the BATF, had
identified Janice Hart as Janice Harrell. (The BATF would later deny
this.)

   The BATF had a search warrant for illegal guns and another warrant
for Janice Harrell.  The Hart home contained neither. But Janice Hart
was taken to the police station anyway for fingerprinting. It took the
Portland police less than 30 seconds to determine that Janice Hart's
fingerprints did not match Harrell's.

   A search warrant is an accusation. But it is often served as though
it were a conviction.  Your home can be destroyed just because someone
tells the police that you are doing something illegal. Or because
someone wants to mess with your life.

   All too often, the government does not even bother to verify these
accusations. The thinking seems to be that whoever the government
visits is bound to be guilty of something.

   It is for this reason that courts have been eroding the protections
of citizens against police fishing expeditions. The Connecticut
Supreme Court has ruled that if you stand in your open doorway and
talk to the police, you have sacrificed your constitution protection
against a warrantless search by the police.(86)

   While many of us are familiar with cases in which some vicious
criminal gets off on a technicality, it is important to realize that
asking the government to play by the rules was the very basis of the
Bill of Rights.

   Gun Owners Foundation has proudly assisted hundreds of law-abiding
citizens who ran afoul of the BATF. Some of those cases were won
because the BATF was caught violating the law on searches and
seizures. But in these tight financial times, we face another threat
from our government.

           How the Government Makes Money From Arresting You

   The federal government and its state affiliates have an unhealthy
interest in profiting from their law-enforcement work. Thanks to asset
forfeiture laws, as of May of this year, drug agents have seized $3
billion in property.(87)

   Some of the people this property is seized from are criminals.  But
others are found not guilty in court. Yet both types of people lose
their property. Even the current Supreme Court, certainly no coddler
of criminals, ruled in the case of _Austin v. U.S._ that the
government was violating the Eighth Amendment.

   Richard Austin was no angel. He pled guilty to possession of
cocaine with intent to distribute. But because he kept the cocaine in
his mobile home and sold two grams for $200 in his auto body shop, the
federal government went to court to seize both Austin's home and his
business. Both were sold for a $32,000 profit, which the agencies that
arrested Austin could keep.

   Fortunately, the Supreme Court recognized that an auto body shop is
not an "instrument" of the drug trade, and that courts should
determine whether this kind of punishment fit the crime. The
government had argued that the Eight Amendment did not even apply to
this case. They lost.  For now.

   There is more truth to the phrase, "fear the government that fears
your gun," than most of us would care to admit.

=========================================================================
Footnotes:
=========================================================================
 (1)  Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader, March 7, 1993, at A12.
 (2)  Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader, March 6. 1993. at A3.
 (3)  Washington Times, March 30, 1993, at A3.
 (4)  USA Today, March 5, 1993, at 3A.
 (5)  _Id._
 (6)  New York Times, March 28, 1993, at A1.
 (7)  Washington Post, April 7, 1993, at A3.
 (8)  _Id._
 (9)  The BATF's affidavit is thoroughly critiqued in Wattenberg,
      _Gunning for Koresh_, AMERICAN SPECTATOR, August, 1993.
(10)  Washington Times, June 1, 1993, at C1.
(11)  Wattenberg, _supra_,, note 9, at 34.
(12)  Bradford, _Mass-Murder, American Style_, LIBERTY, August,
      1993, at 31.
(13)  Wattenberg, _supra_, note 9, at 388.
(14)  Pate, _A Blundering Inferno_, SOLDIER OF FORTUNE, July, 1993, at
      53.
(15)  Bradford, _supra_, note 12, at 22.
(16)  _Id_.
(17)  Washington Post, April 7, 1993 at A3.
(18)  Pate, _supra_, note 14, at 52.
(19)  USA Today, April 21, 1993, at A4.
(20)  AP wire, August 30, 1993.
(21)  The jury agreed that the disgruntled former Davidian who
      had pressed the charges had fired on Koresh first. The
      comparison of this case to the events of 1993 is
      instructive.  The government's conduct prevented the
      possibility of Koresh being personally found innocent by a
      court of law and allowed to continue with his life, as he
      was in this earlier case. A dead man can still be found to
      have acted in self-defense, but the finding will mean much
      less to him.
(22)  American Justice Federation, Waco, The Big Lie, 1993 video.
(23)  Sunday Times (London, England), March 21, 1993. Section I at 23.
(24)  N.Y. Times, April 5, 1993, at A10.
(25)  Tape on file at Gun Owners of America.
(26)  Pate, _supra_, note 14, at 51.
(27)  Interview with Catherine Matteson, August 30, 1993, on
      file at Gun Owners of America.
(28)  N.Y. Times, _supra_, note 24, at A10.
(29)  Comment, _Prophet's Fulfillment_, THE NEW YORKER, May 3,
      1993, at 4, 6.
(30)  _Bad Attitude Turns Fatal_, THE BALANCE, August, 1993.
(31)  APPLEGATE, RIOT CONTROL 133-4, (1981).
(32)  Cited in _Id_. at 138.
(33)  Pate, _supra_, note 14, at 38, 41.
(34)  Time sequence taken from New York Times, April 26, 1993,
      at A1, B10.
(35)  _Id_.
(36)  APPLEGATE, _supra_, note 31, at 129.
(37)  _Id_. at 152.
(38)  See _Waco Cult Set Fire, Texas Officials Say_, L.A. Times,
      April 27, 1993 at A1, A7 (Washington, D.C. ed.).
(39)  _Id_. at A7.
(40)  _Id_. at 20.
(41)  _Id_.
(42)  P. Roberts, _Unsettling Questions in Probe of Waco_, Wash.
      Times, June 1, 1993, at E3.
(43)  _Id_.
(44)  _Reporter's Notebook_, New York Times, May 8, 1993, at 9.
(45)  Houston Chronicle, August 14, 1993, at 12A.
(46)  _Id_.
(47)  Search Warrant W93-15M, U.S. District Court (Texas),
      Feb. 28, l993, at 14-15 (Hereinafter, Search Warrant).
(48)  New York Times, April 21, 1993, at A1, A20.
(49)  Search Warrant W93-54M by Earl Dunagan, U S. District
      Court of Texas, April 13, 1993, at 4.
(50)  Search Warrant, _supra_, note 47, at 14.
(51)  Sixty Minutes, May 23, 1993.
(52)  Pate, _supra_, note 14, at 50.
(53)  In the gripping documentary produced by the American
      Justice Federation, TV film footage shows an FBI tank
      shooting plumes of flame into the holes in the building it
      had just broken open.  The tank was identified as a M67A1
      made during Vietnam by Chrysler. This weapon was known as
      "Zippo" during the Vietnam War. William P. Cheshire,
      "Looking Beyond the Waco Smoke", The Arizona Republic,
      August 22, 1993.  The AJF video is entitled "Waco, the Big
      Lie" and is available from Gun Owners Foundation.  See the
      information at the end of this report.
(54)  Roberts, _Unsettling Questions in Probe of Waco_, The
      Washington Times, June 1, 1993 at C1.
(55)  Louis Sahagun and Doug Conner, _Pair Acquitted of Murder
      in Idaho Mountain Shootout_, Washington Post, July 9, 1993.
(56)  Spokesman-Review, June 9, 1993, at A1.
(57)  Bonners Ferry Herald, May 12, 1993.
(58)  The New York Times, July 9, 1993, at Al, D18.
(59)  Spokesman-Review, April 17, 1993.
(60)  Spokesman-Review, April 21, 1993.
(61)  Phil. (PA) Inquirer, May 10, 1993, at A12.
(62)  Spokesman-Review, April 23, 1993, at B1.
(63)  Spokesman-Review, May 6, 1993.
(64)  _Id_.
(65)  Spokesman Review, June 121[sic] , 1993, at A9.
(66)  Chris Temple, _A chronology of the events..._, JUBILEE,
      July, 1993, at 3.
(67)  The Idaho Statesman, June lO, 1993, at C1.
(68)  Spokesman Review, June 13, 1993, at A16.
(69)  Temple, _supra_, note 66.
(70)  The New York Times, May 28, 1993, at A18.
(71)  Paul Hall, _Weaver Trial Update_, JUBILEE, May/June,
      1993, at 11.
(72)  Spokesman-Review, June 24, 1993, at A1.
(73)  Temple, _supra_., note 66, at 5.
(74)  USA Today, July 9, 1993, at 3A.
(75)  Simon, _Time's up for cult leader -- he's had 48 days
      too many_, Baltimore Sun, April 16, 1993, at 2A.
(76)  _Id_.
(77)  San Francisco Chronicle, July 2, 1993, at A24.
(78)  Cotts, _The Pot Plot_, The Village Voice (NY),
      June 15, 1993, at 33.
(79)  _Id_.
(80)  The Daily Breeze, March 30, 1993.
(81)  Cotts, _supra_, note 78, at 33.
(82)  _Id_. A low flyover led one expert to suspect there
      might have been 50 plants on the property.
(83)  Daily Breeze, _supra_, note 80.
(84)  _Deputy Impostor Robs 2 in House_, Daily Breeze,
      March 30, 1993, at B2.
(85)  The entire story is taken from Boule, _The Night
      They Raided the Wrong Janice_, The Sunday Oregonian,
      March 7, 1993, at C1, C5.
(86)  Hartford (CT) Courant, Feb. 9, 1993, Connecticut page.
(87)  Cotts, _supra_, note 78, at 33.
===============================================================