Ruby Ridge Report

Anthony Stapleton ASTAPLE at AOL.COM
Thu Jul 6 17:42:16 MDT 1995


Sam-
 
This is not a defense of the various actions at and surrounding Ruby Ridge.
 I just have a couple of questions and comments
 
 
>>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.
 
Do they ever state what the "questionable actions" were?
 
 
>> In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to a BATF informant.
>>                                <a shotgun that was 1/16 inch too short>
 
>><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.>
 
Seven months is not an extraordinary long time.  "Technical", maybe, but at
what point is it not technical?  Is it 1/16 inch, 1/8 inch, 1/4 inch, 3/8
inch, 1/2 inch?  Again, giving someone a chance to enter into plea agreement
of some kind before indictment is not unusual.
 
>>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
 SNIPPAGE
>>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.
 
Any specifics??
 
 
>>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.>
 
  Yep!  I'm sure that the internal report was done by DOJ attorneys.  U.S.
Attorneys are attorneys.  Attorneys probably don't like accusing fellow
attorneys of being flexible with the truth.  Particularly when the DOJ
attorneys doing the report are career employees and the attorney being
accused of bearing false witness is a Presidential appointment.
 
Tony



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list