Ruby Ridge Report

Sam Teel sam.teel at SFWMD.GOV
Wed Jul 5 08:28:37 MDT 1995

To All:
Thanks to Ed Jones for providing the text to me.
The following was cut and pasted from a report entitled,
A. Overview
<I will place my comments in brackets, Sam Teel>
We found that many of the allegations of misconduct were not supported by
the evidence. However, we did find merit in some of the more serious
charges.   As a result, we have asked that the appropriate component of the
Department examine for prosecutive merit the conduct of the FBI
sniper/observer who fired the shots on August 22, 1992. In addition,
<I believe this guy was Ron Horichini, perhaps he'll be prosecuted !!?>
because our investigation indicated that Assistant U.S. Attorney  Ronald
Howen took certain questionable actions during the  investigation and
prosecution of the Weaver case, we have  recommended that the Executive
Office for United States Attorneys  examine our analysis of his conduct and
take whatever  administrative action it deems appropriate.
 In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to a BATF informant.
                                    <a shotgun that was 1/16 inch too short>
When BATF agents later attempted to enlist Weaver as an informant in their
investigation of the Aryan Nations, Weaver refused to cooperate. Seven
months later, the government indicted Weaver for the illegal weapons sales.
<Seven Months!  They get what amounts to a technicial violation, threaten to
arrest the guy, try to turn him into a informant, and when he refuses, they
wait seven months and then indite him!  Some great treatment by the US gov.>
  Our review found numerous problems with the conduct of the FBI at Ruby
Ridge. Although we concluded that the decision to deploy the HRT to Ruby
Ridge was appropriate and consistent with Department policy, we do not
believe that the FBI's initial attempts at intelligence gathering at the
scene were sufficiently thorough. We also found serious problems with the
terms of the Rules of Engagement in force at Ruby Ridge.  Certain portions
of these Rules not only departed from the FBI's standard deadly force policy
but also contravened the Constitution of the United States. In addition, we
<CONTRAVENED THE CONSTITUTION, in their own words they explain why 50% of
citizens fear their own government, and why the term "Jack booted thugs" is
a correct description of certain agents">
found these Rules to be imprecise and believe that they may have created an
atmosphere that encouraged the use of deadly force thereby having the effect
of contributing to an unintentional death.
 Shortly after their arrest, separate preliminary hearings were held for
Weaver and Harris. While arguing the government's motion requesting a
continuance of the Harris preliminary hearing, U.S. Attorney Ellsworth made
statements indicating that the government would allow Harris to have a
complete preliminary hearing in return or consenting to the continuance.
Thereafter, Harris consented to the continuance with the understanding that
he would have a full preliminary hearing. An indictment was returned against
Harris while his preliminary hearing was in progress. We have found that the
U.S. Attorney did not intentionally misrepresent the government's position
but that he failed to appreciate the impact of his statements and that he
neglected to pay sufficient attention to the information that the received
concerning the probably length of the preliminary hearing.
<Does anyone here know what the hell they are talking about here?  It looks
to me like the US attorney LIED and then was excused out of it.>
 After the first indictments were returned against Weaver and Harris, the
Assistant U.S. Attorney continued to present evidence to the grand jury
which led to the return of two superseding indictments, each containing a
conspiracy count. We found these conspiracy counts to be overly broad and to
contain some overt acts for which there was insufficient evidence.
 the FBI was not alone in failing to make timely disclosure of
critical information to the defense. The USAO was also responsible for not
promptly revealing certain important information to the defense. Although in
some instances we found these tardy disclosures to be unjustified or
negligent, we do not believe that they were improperly motivated or taken
intentionally to obstruct the Weaver trial.
<I guess no results can imply motive.  The fact that I killed someone with a
hatchet cannot be used to suggest that I INTENDED to kill someone.  Yeah,
sure, and I'll bet these same aguments made in the defendants case would be
considered BS>
<The bottom line is that they admitt to many mistakes and I wonder about what
they don't admitt to.  That they violated the both the letter and intent of
of US law is obvious and admitted.  WHO IS GOING TO INDITE AND PROSECUTE THESE
Sam Teel

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list