Flight 800: Breakthrough!

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 13, 2003 | Jack Cashill

[GEC]

You'll have to do better than saying, "Take my word for it."

Do you have a better theory as to why the plane blew up?

[GEC]

There were over 700 witnesses.

I don't know what all 700 saw.

Neither does the FBI or the NTSB because they didn't bother to ask them.

[Non-Sequitur]

You'll have to do better than saying, "Take my word for it."

But of course we should take yours? An explosive laden private plane? That's a new one on me. Imagine this theory showing up after 9/11. What's the chance of a coincidence like that, huh?

Do you have a better theory as to why the plane blew up?

I haven't a clue. All I know is that I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that sopports that it was a Navy missile. What is your background in matters like this, just our of curiosity? No military experience obviously, what is it that you offer in the way of expertise?

[Houmatt]

So, I guess all those witnesses who saw an object come from below and hit the plane were actually seeing falling debris, right?

Elmer, is that you? Again?

[lawyamike]

That's not correct. The complete and accurate answer is as follows:

"When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule [nb: by affidavit and other proof], an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party."

It's the last sentence here that is probably most relevant in this case. It sounds like the Government [the adverse party] did not respond, and so if appropriate, then it will have summary judgment entered against it.

When would summary judgment be "appropriate"? If the Government had failed to create a genuine factual dispute (through the submission of an affidavit, etc.) on an issue of material relevance to the case, then it would be appropriate. Summary judgment works like this: the judge determines whether, on the facts as submitted and undisputed, the law requires judgment for one party or not.

I'll put it in concrete terms: if WND-Guy alleged that Flight 800 was blown to pieces by a missile, but whether the flight was blown to pieces was not the question at issue, then the Government was right not to respond, and it will not lose the case as a result. For example, if the legal issue is whether a government agency possesses any of the materials sought, then it doesn't matter whether Flight 800 was attacked by terrorists.

Keep in mind throughout that not responding to an allegation in a motion for summary judgment does not -- emphasis: *does not* -- concede a point as a moral or metaphysical matter.

For example, if I were to sue Mr. Opinion8r on the legal theory that I deserve a judicial declaration that I am Freerepublic's most brilliant lawyer, I might submit the relevant facts in support of my case: I would claim that I attended a better law school, won more cases after trial or on appeal, earned more money from clients, garnered more professional accolades, etc. Were he to fail to respond to any of those factual assertions, and the judge decided that the assertions were relevant to the question whether I was the more brilliant attorney, then Rule 56(e) would kick in, and I would be entitled to summary judgment.

On the other hand, had I alleged that I am more handsome than Mr. Opinion8r -- a matter that is not relevant to the question of legal brilliance -- then Mr. Opinion8r could decline to respond (to my scurrilous and likely meritless claim to being better-looking) and it would not matter to the merits of his legal claim. Of course, it also would not be the equivalent of Mr. Opinion8r's conceding that I am, in fact, more handsome than him. It's this last sentence that I think WND-guy is misinterpreting Rule 56(e) -- of which Rule 56.1 is probably a local variant -- to demonstrate or to imply.

[timestax]

bump to the top

[GEC]

Not to be mean, but anyone can come on here and claim gobs of expertise. At no time have I ever claimed any expertise in these discussions. At no time have I asked anyone here to "Take my word for it."

I am simply reporting on the evidence that was in a previous video and the recently published book. This includes the following:

A national guard pilot is on record saying that he saw military ordinance explode near TWA800.

They have a source, who so far refuses to go on record, claiming it was a Navy missile.

Until someone presents a plausible theory backed up by evidence, I can't dismiss this theory.

If you would like a copy of either the video or the book, I would be happy to send either or both to you free of charge so that you can decide for yourself.

I have made this offer at least 3 times on FR so far, and no one has ever responded.

Civil court proceedings take a long time, but I would submit that 6 years is a long time for a case of mechanical failure due to faulty wiring to be made against Boeing. If it really was due to a fuel tank explosion, Boeing will lose this case and pay big bucks to the insurance companies. I doubt that this will ever happen.

[Swordmaker]

Sometimes for the good of Bush's own reputation I wish he would take the gloves off.

Perhaps Bush's Justice Department's decision to NOT contest the Summary Motion for Judgement IS "taking the gloves off!" Consider that they could have obfuscated this issue for even more years with flurries of counter motions, discovery demands, postponements, etc. Instead, they are allowing a judge to enter a judgement AGAINST the United States Government and some of its minions. It is the civil equivalent of a "no contest" plea...

On the other hand, the Justice Department may have elected to not fight the case lest the powers of the court FORCE them to bring evidence and testimony under oath that would force them to further incriminate those presenting and testifying.

In either case, the summary judgement WILL be on record.

[Houmatt]

These are the crooks you are supporting.

Crooks, huh? And what crime did they commit, exactly?

Oh yes, they got an airline pilot to secure a couple pieces of seating from the plane to be tested for missile residue.

The Sanderses were neither charged nor convicted of tampering with evidence, just of having it.

[Non-Sequitur]

They have a source, who so far refuses to go on record, claiming it was a Navy missile.

A source which refused to go on record, so we're supposed to 'take their word for it'?

When it comes right down to it I don't give a damn what you believe. You claim 700 eyewitnesses, have you read their claims? They saw yellow missiles, red missile, orange missiles. They saw missiles launched from sea, missiles launched from shore. Missiles headed north, south, east and west. So which one of those eyewitnesses were right and which were wrong?

Until someone presents a plausible theory backed up by evidence, I can't dismiss this theory.

No matter how inplausible it is?

If you would like a copy of either the video or the book, I would be happy to send either or both to you free of charge so that you can decide for yourself.

Post the information and I'll look them up on my own. I don't need your charity.

[Houmatt]

Civil court proceedings take a long time, but I would submit that 6 years is a long time for a case of mechanical failure due to faulty wiring to be made against Boeing. If it really was due to a fuel tank explosion, Boeing will lose this case and pay big bucks to the insurance companies. I doubt that this will ever happen.

And with good reason: The NTSB has never issued an official cause for TWA800. They have only offered a theory, backed by the rather unique assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency.

A good civil lawyer (like the incomparable Gerry Spence) would certainly exploit this and Boeing would come out vindicated.

[1L]

I am a lawyer. The legal effect of NOT responding to a Motion for Summary Judgement is to Admit to the allegations contained in the underlying complaint.

Not exactly, counselor. IF the movant has satisfied their initial burden on summary judgment of essentially showing by whatever means there is no genuine issue of material fact, it is then up to the non-movant to show discovered facts outside of the pleadings that prove there are sufficient material facts in question. While this is the federal standard (where this case is), state standards vary. In Texas, for example, there is no requirement on the part of the non-movant to even respond. The motion for summary judgment stands or falls on it's own.

Either way, it has nothing to do with "admitting" anything, only acknowledging whether there are or are not sufficient material fact issues. Summary judgment is a huge part of my practice, and I win the majority of mine. I would almost never recommend a non-movant not respond, but getting sloppy when it comes to burdens on either party can prove fatal -- either at that time or on appeal.

[GEC]

You don't have to take his word for it. You can simply not believe it.

700 people say they saw a missile streak at sunset so that it looks yellow or red or orange and you dismiss them all without having seen the sketches or even the photographs presented in the video.

You call a theory implausible without even suggesting why you think it implausible.

I offered to send the video and the book because MindBenderXX claimed that Cashill and Sanders are simply trying to scam people.

Here is the video link.
http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1084

Here is the book link.
http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=161&RELATED_ITEM_ID=1084

[AnAmericanMother]

Man, this thread is just becoming infested with attorneys . . . . paging the exterminator! ;-)

We already thrashed this issue out in posts 79 and 118. 56.1 is an EDNY Local Rule, not FRCP at all. So it wasn't the motion in its entirety, just the SMF that the government allegedly didn't respond to. That would go to the establishment of facts - not the granting of the motion - but only if certain other events did not occur. Since this is an interested party and not an independent reporter, and nobody has disclosed the pleadings or the government's response, the story really doesn't tell us what (if anything) the consequences will be.

Just like Texas, the Georgia Fed Districts (and the state courts, too) do not grant a MSJ simply because the opposing party does not respond. The movant still has to demonstrate that no disputed question of material fact exists and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with all inferences construed against him. Not always an easy task. And a plaintiff's MSJ is significantly more difficult to win than a defendant's MSJ.

In the deathless words of Topsy, "Somebody ain't tellin' all they knows."

[AnAmericanMother]

Summary judgment is a huge part of my practice, and I win the majority of mine.

When I was in private practice, my rule was never to file a MSJ if I wasn't pretty darned sure I could win it. I would settle the losers rather than file a useless motion, unless the plaintiffs weren't amenable to a reasonable settlement, in which case we took it to trial and either settled it on the courthouse steps or fought it out in front of the jury. (Surprising how many lawyers don't REALLY want to try a case, isn't it? :-D )

One unexpected side benefit of this practice was that after a few years the judges knew that I didn't file junk. They seemed to appreciate that. Did it tip a close case my way? Don't know. But making judges' lives easier is a good rule to live by!

[Swordmaker]

Explosives, other than liquid based (fuel) do not create large fireballs. In addition, such "fireballs" have a life on the order or 1/2 second. POL fires last 3/20 seconds, as this one did.

You are just erecting a strawman to knock down.

No one with knowledge of the sequence of events is maintaining that the "massive fireball" was the explosion of the CWT. The Massive Fireball was the explosion of the fuel from the almost full wing tanks that had ruptured by the time the aircraft had descended from 13,800 feet (where the initiating event occured whether it be missile or CWT exposion) to under 8,000 where the Large Fireball was witnessed.

[lawyamike]

Man, this thread is just becoming infested with attorneys . . . . paging the exterminator! ;-)

Exterminators! Keep Lincoln's old adage in mind: the best thing for the business of a small country lawyer in a small town is the appearance of another lawyer.

Our coming out of the woodwork on Freerepublic.com may not help our business (and I am in government in any event), but maybe some day we can get our TWP posts back.

[Swordmaker]

If EVERY professional pilot believes as you do, I'm taking AMTRAK.

I suspect I have read much more of the evidence and qualifications than have you. Enjoy your train trip.

[Swordmaker]

Read any good aerodynamics book on shifting the center og gravity aft of the center of lift and kinetic energy conversion.

I have... and posted the math here on FR. The math, based on radar returns and triangulation, shows that TWA-800 climbed a maximum of 200 feet (more likely less than 100) before beginning a ballistic fall that terminated in the Atlantic Ocean exactly where the math said it would in the time the math said it would.

The CIA scenario (~3000 foot climb in ~8 seconds) and the NTSB scenario (~1700 foot climb in ~8 seconds) REQUIRE an additional 8 seconds of FALL TIME from the peak altitude merely to return to the altitude of the initiating event... which adds SIXTEEN SECONDS to the time to fall from ~13,800 feet (the altitude of the initiating event)... time which cannot be accounted for in the radar returns! At least FOUR MORE radar returns would have been shown had either scenario occurred.

[Swordmaker]

Read any good aerodynamics book on shifting the center og gravity aft of the center of lift and kinetic energy conversion.

In addition, your argument about kinetic energy conservation holds no water. If TWA-800 had given up forward momentum for vertical climb, the parabola of the ballistic fall would have been much steeper (larger vertical radii, shorter horizontal radii). In other words, had there been any significant climb at all, the splahsdown location would have been MUCH closer to the position of the initiating event than it was. Since the radar returns and the splashdown location coincide almost exactly with a theoretical ballistic fall from the initiating event at ~13,800 feet, there was no climb.

Show me math from your "good aerodynamics book" that will allow a 747 to climb and fall 3000 feet adding an additional SIXTEEN SECONDS and still splash down when and where it actually did. You can't. And neither can the CIA or the NTSB.

[Non-Sequitur]

700 people say they saw a missile streak at sunset so that it looks yellow or red or orange and you dismiss them all without having seen the sketches or even the photographs presented in the video.

OK, here are some of your eyewitness accounts. All describe something different. So which are right and which are BS?

EYEWITNESS Michael Wire, described by the CIA as a key eyewitness, saw what he at first thought was a "cheap firework" ascending from behind a house near the beach, arching over, speeding out to sea, and culminating in an explosion so powerful that it shook a 70-ton bridge on which he was standing.

EYEWITNESS Dwight Brumley, an excellent witness according to the CIA, was in a plane going north when he noticed a fast-moving light at a lower altitude also going north. Its flight ended with two explosions a short distance ahead. He said another passenger told him he had seen the cabin lights of eastbound TWA 800 before the explosions.

EYEWITNESS Richard Goss was on the porch of the Westhampton Yacht Club gazing over the ocean. He saw what he thought was a firework going straight up. It was very bright, almost pink. It arched over and went south out to sea, but it then made a sharp left turn. Two explosions followed, the second more to the east and larger, like something broke off and caught fire.

EYEWITNESS Paul Angelides, an engineer, from the deck of his beach house saw a red glowing object quite high in the sky. At first it moved slowly, leaving a short white smoke trail, but it picked up speed, streaking out to sea. He lost sight of it when it was about 10 degrees above the horizon. He then saw a series of flashes followed by a fireball falling into the ocean. He heard a prolonged boom like thunder followed by three loud bursts of sound, the last so strong that it shook the house.

EYEWITNESS Maj. Frederick Meyer was in an Air National Guard helicopter when he saw a streak of light 10 or 15 miles away for 3 to 5 seconds. He lost it for about a second, and then further to the left he saw two bright white explosions, which he identified as ordnance, followed by a fuel explosion that was bright orange.

EYEWITNESS William Gallagher was on his boat facing east 10 to 12 miles west of TWA 800 when he saw what looked like a red flare heading into the sky from the horizon from his right to his left, meaning that it was going toward the shore. He said it became a "big white ball of light, from which two orange streaks emerged. One went down and the other arched up a little before coming down," he said.

EYEWITNESS #649 was in Westhampton when he noticed an object from behind the trees in front of him. It was bright white with a reddish pink aura, rising vertically at moderate speed. It then veered southwest, out to sea, appearing to slow and "wiggle." It then speeded up. He noticed it was going toward what appeared to be stationary glittering object higher in the sky. It looked like it would miss that object, but in less than a second he saw a white flash followed by another farther east, and two objects arching upward, trailing smoke that turned into large balls of fire

All different, half say the missile came from shore, and not a single one resembles any of the missile firings that I've ever seen, and I personally witnessed over a dozen, both day and night. I've seen Standard missiles fired, Tarter missiles fired, I even saw them shoot off one of the old Talos missiles once, and they are all alike. The launch is marked by a brilliant flash of fire. The missile gives off a plume of smoke and flame that trails behind it for a hundreds of feet. None of these accounts sound anything like that. None of the accounts that I've seen from anyone sounds like that.

So I don't know what caused the plane to explode. I just know what it can't be, based on your 'evidence'. It wasn't a Navy missile.

[GEC]

You say that they all describe something different.

Eyewitnesses always have a somewhat different take just like in a game of telephone. What did he say?

To me they all sound very similar, just viewed from different points and starting at different times.

They weren't all standing in the same spot, watching together, they were at different angles, with the last remnants of the sunset showing the smoke and possibly even the flash at different angles. They also possibly saw not just two missiles exploding, but possibly two different planes.

Your observations from a Navy deck are going to be different from those who see a launch from a distance. I don't understand why you would take WRITTEN descriptions by a handful of people and just dismiss their observations as looking NOTHING like what you have seen when you haven't seen a depiction of what they describe.

I'm not accusing the Navy of purposefully killing 200+ people on a civilian jetliner. But bleep happens in war when you are trying to defend your country, and an Aegis-class cruiser has done this before.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm not accusing the Navy of purposefully killing 200+ people on a civilian jetliner. But bleep happens in war when you are trying to defend your country, and an Aegis-class cruiser has done this before.

Under different circumstances, and you have to admit that they did a bang up job of hushing that one up, too. </sarcasm>

But hey, far be it from me to piss all over your Post Toasties. You believe whatever you want to believe.

[airborne]

Your post # 44 jumped all over the place. It's like there are two or three paragraphs missing between each of yours.
What happened on Chapter 3?(don't ask me to read the book)
What was the charge against them?(adding this would help the flow)
I would think, as a journalist, your post wouldn't be so disconnected.(JMO)

[AmericanVictory]

Please explain, if you will, how the grant of summary judgment against the government will be a "minor point."

In some 30 years of litigation experience I have never seen the government fail to contest a summary judgment motion. Not only is this minor, it is an extremely significant breakthrough.

Please explain also how such a failure to contest by the government is something other than a fact?

The only question here is whether the assertion of the fact is true, which is a matter of public record.

[meatloaf]

That's an interesting point. I met an individual off a fishing boat which had been used to recover flight 800 material from the bottom of the ocean. The FBI was aboard to collect anything they recovered. Is that standard procedure?

I still remember a very early radio news item that mentioned the FBI questioned the owner of a boat rental operation. Never heard or read that again in the news.

[airborne]

Post # 119 provided more info.Thanks.

[aruanan]

As typical in a criminal trial, the prosecution got the last word. "A conspiratorial government going after these people?" David Pitofsky scoffed. "And, to what end? What is the government's motive? Ask yourself that. What is the government's motive to falsely implicate these people?"

For people in the government to use the machinary of government to prevent their own illegal actions from being revealed? Reminds one of Reno and Company at Waco.

[aruanan]

#4 The Carinivore program doesn't exist.

The Carinivore program doesn't exist.

[AmericanVictory]

should be "not minor", of course.

[Bryan24]

Don't tell me your gonna defend the zoom-climb? That is the most laughable aeronautical farce ever attempted.

[AmericanVictory]

Nice of you to both admit and display your ignorance.

That the government admits the facts alleged by the plaintiffs, albeit by default, is precisely what it means.

The report does not say that the government does not contest the motion, but rather precisely that the government does not contest the facts alleged in support of plaintiffs' summary judgment motion. Therefore, by rule, the facts alleged by plaintiffs are conceded, though, if ambiguous, they will interpreted against the moving parties, for purposes of the motion ruling only, subject to being proven at trial, should there be one.

It thus seems that you are the wearer of the tinfoil hat.

In truth the government, up until now, has never actually brought out the truth in any such high profile investigation. Would you, for example, contend that the Warren Commission got to the truth of the matter, or the Waco investigation?

There are only two reasons for the government to fail to contest the facts: either (1) someone made a decision to allow the truth out (which would be a novel concept in our government) or (2) the government wanted to cut its losses and minimize damage because the truth coming out fully at trial, after full discovery, would be even more damaging than these allegations standing uncontested.

[1L]

When I was in private practice, my rule was never to file a MSJ if I wasn't pretty darned sure I could win it. I would settle the losers rather than file a useless motion, unless the plaintiffs weren't amenable to a reasonable settlement, in which case we took it to trial and either settled it on the courthouse steps or fought it out in front of the jury. (Surprising how many lawyers don't REALLY want to try a case, isn't it? :-D )

I take a different approach. Unless a MSJ would sound incredibly stupid, I file one -- for several reasons. First, it helps educate the judge of the facts and legal issues during the hearing. This can come in handly later during trial on legal matters, directed verdict arguments, JNOV arguments, and jury charge arguments. Second, most plaintiff attorneys are notoriously BAD at research and writing. For example, I know pretty much every common law and statutory duty in Texas (e.g. negligence law) and I make the plaintiff prove that any duty they are claiming is in fact legally based.

I've won several MSJs that I probably had no business winning. A judge WILL grant them if he is confident you can support him on appeal. I make sure he knows I will support him. But if he doesn't, I've lost no more than 8-10 hours or so and I've educated the judge and brough the plaintiff's thinking on damages down, because they now know trial is going to be a very tough fight.

[Drammach]

Go to the Worlnetdaily.com website, and check out the Jack Cashill columns.
The site has a full archive on his articles, and the TWA 800 investigation.
Jack's articles are very readable, and will give You an extensive history of the incident, investigation, and the cover-up.

[FBD]

"The Carnivore program doesn't exist."

OK, then I guess the links to the FBI and oversite hearings etc., are bogus...

[aruanan]

"The Carnivore program doesn't exist."

I didn't say this.

[Mudboy Slim]

"FReepin' fer what I KNOW is RIGHT!! LORD, Yeah!!"

FReegards...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

"...do you conspiracy freaks know how weird you are?"

Are you denying the possibility that conspiracy could--IN FAVT--exist?! My my, you ARE a naive one...MUD

[FBD]

Inform yourself, before calling people crazy, etc.

You SHOULD care about what federal law enforcement engages in. To cover up mistakes is a conspiracy.

And shooting an unarmed women holding a baby is not something I want my federal law enforcement doing.

Ruby Ridge fiasco details below: (excerpt is from this site.)

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/rrprosec.htm

...Unfortunately, the decisions of both the federal and state prosecutors mean that several of the criminals at Ruby Ridge will never be charged with anything.

Consider Larry Potts, the Washington FBI headquarters man in charge of Ruby Ridge.

The prosecutors investigated Larry Potts for approving the dramatic change in the "rules of engagement" for the FBI’s siege of the Weaver family’s remote Idaho cabin in August, 1992. According to the official FBI guidelines, deadly force is allowed only when necessary to protect someone against immediate danger. The rules of engagement are not based on the whims of FBI officials, or even on the acts of Congress. Instead, the limits on deadly force are implicit in the Constitution, and therefore decreed by the Supreme Court.

At Ruby Ridge, Idaho, the normal, constitutional rules of engagement were changed; the new rules were orders to kill any armed adult male seen on the Weavers’ property. The non-prosecution of Larry Potts is based on a disputed fact: it cannot be proven that Potts approved the order saying FBI agents "can and should" shoot.

But there is no real dispute that Potts approved an earlier change in the rules of engagement, saying the FBI "could" shoot any armed adult male. (Randy Weaver and his friend Kevin Harris often carried guns on their own property, as is completely legal under Idaho law.) Even if Potts didn’t approve the "order to kill" rules of engagement, he clearly did approve a "license to kill" rule, which is illegal and unconstitutional. But he’s getting away with it.

FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi-- who shot Vicki Weaver in the head while she was standing in the cabin doorway, holding her baby in her arms--is being charged with voluntary manslaughter by the local Idaho prosecutor. The federal government, though, is leaping to Horiuchi’s defense, because he was obeying an order. But the Nuremberg and My Lai prosecutions have established that "I vas just following orders" is no excuse for killing innocent people. The license-to-kill orders were so outrageous that other FBI snipers at the scene -- for example, the SWAT team from Denver -- agreed among themselves that the license-to-kill order should not be obeyed. The Denver agents chose to disobey the unconstitutional order, and instead to stick with the traditional rules of engagement.

Besides choosing to obey an illegal assassination order, Horiuchi lied under oath at Randy Weaver’s trial. Horiuchi claimed that he opened fire on Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris because the two men were threatening to shoot an FBI helicopter. But the trial judge found this testimony so blatantly false that he ordered the charges related to the testimony to be dismissed. (The helicopter was nowhere near where Weaver or Harris could have shot at it.)

Moreover, sniper Horiuchi violated even the illegal rules of engagement. True, he did obey the illegal orders when he shot at Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris, who were outside their cabin carrying guns.

But Horiuchi’s second shot violated even the license to kill rules; the second shot was the one that killed Vicki Weaver, as she was standing in the doorway of her cabin, holding her baby.

The rules prohibited firing a shot if it would endanger any children.

Horiuchi claims that he never saw Vicki Weaver standing in the doorway, and his shot that killed her was really intended to kill Kevin Harris, who was running back into the cabin. Let’s assume that Horiuchi was telling the truth about what he saw. (Let’s also ignore the substantial evidence that the FBI had plans to kill Vicki Weaver--who was not accused of any crime--because she was the "dominant" member of the family.)

Even Horiuchi’s version of the facts shows that he violated the rules. After the shooting, Horiuchi drew a diagram of the target he had aimed at. His drawing shows that he was aiming at a part of the door approximately ten inches above where he thought 16-year-old Sara Weaver was crouching. She wasn’t there, to be sure; but that’s where Lon Horiuchi was aiming -- just above the head of someone the rules of engagement prohibited him from endangering.

And when he fired, in violation of the rules of engagement, he killed Vicki Weaver and injured Kevin Harris.

This is the basis for the manslaughter charge against Horiuchi: his second shot was so reckless that he is culpable for the death that resulted.

True enough, but what about Horiuchi’s first shot: his intentional, illegal attempt to kill Randy Weaver? Why no charge for this crime? And why no charge for all the FBI officials--from field commanders all the way up to Larry Potts, who authorized the FBI snipers to shoot people illegally?

The FBI came on the scene a few hours after a shoot-out between a squad of U.S. Marshals and the Weaver family. Why are no charges being filed against the United States Marshal who shot fourteen-year-old Sammy Weaver in the back, as the unarmed Sammy was running home, away from the confrontation?

Amazingly, the only person being charged by the Idaho prosecutor for the initial shoot-out is the Weavers’ friend Kevin Harris. During that shoot-out, Harris killed a United States Marshal, and said he was acting in self-defense. The federal government prosecuted him for the killing in 1993, and he was acquitted.

The Constitution outlaws prosecuting a person twice for the same crime. But the Supreme Court has gutted this rule, by allowing separate prosecutions by the state and federal governments.

Given the strange decisions of the federal and Idaho prosecutors, Congress and the state legislatures should promptly take two steps: First, enact legislation barring double state/federal prosecution for the same alleged crime. Second, pass resolutions calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the federal officials responsible for the deaths at Ruby Ridge.



Paul Blackman and David Kopel are the authors of "No More Wacos: What’s Wrong with Federal Law Enforcement and How to Fix It" (Prometheus Books, 1997). Information about the book is available at http://i2i.org/Waco.htm.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org

[Mudboy Slim]

"I don't care about Waco."

So MassMurder of 78 INNOCENT American Citizens is just fine and dandy with you, is it?! It's just fine that not one Federal employee was chastened fer ANYTHING regarding that raid by the KorruptKlintonKlan, a TankRaid that resulted in the needless deaths of two dozen children?! What a SICK person you claim to be!!

"It wasn't handled well, but that's what happens when law enforcement meeets crazy people. Bad stuff happens. And it's usually the crazy peoples' fault. As here."

Crazy people, eh?! You are one sick woman, the quintessential KlintonDupe...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

"#3 The FBI Director and Janet Reno never obstructed any investigation."

"Which investigation do you assert they obstructed?"

SHEEEEESH!!! Ma'am, are you really this much of a MORON or do you simply pretend fer FReepers' amusement?! Which investigation DIDN'T the KorruptKlintonKlan Obstruct?! The whole Department of Justice was run by an inadequate MORON city bureaucRAT from Miami fer almost 8 years just so Klintoon could break laws at will and use his Attorney General as his Defense Attorney!! Are you too young or too STOOOOPID to realize this?! Seriously, you appear to be extremely Reality-challenged...seek help!!

MUD

[mlo]

Please explain, if you will, how the grant of summary judgment against the government will be a "minor point."

I didn't say granting it was. It hasn't been granted.

The "minor point" may have been the one(s) in the motion. Failing to respond to the motion only concedes the factual assertions in the motion and does not require the judge to grant summary judgement if the judge still believes there are outstanding issues.

This is why the actual contents of the motion are highly relevent to the story and why it was inexcusable to omit them.

You've also taken my comment out of context. It was only one hypothetical example of a reason not to respond to the motion.

[AmericanVictory]

Understood. However, it is extremely unusual, and certainly I have never encountered it, for DOJ lawyers to concede the kind of factual allegations described. Such a concession, in a case alleging cover-up consisting of false allegations as part of a conspiracy certainly reduces the governments chances of not suffering summary judgment inasmuch as it would seem to leave little room for interpretation against the movants.

My own feeling is that there are two possibilities as mentioned in another post. The one I would hope for is that the Bush administration is opening a door in a manner that cannot be successfully used against them to illustrate to President Clinton, now that he has opened up on them, how they can expose his corruption to the general public in an irrefutable manner which undermines his credibility as a critic of the war on terror completely. It still will not expose the truth about his sellout to China, but it's a start.

[Scholastic]

Bump!

[Scholastic]

Bump again!!!

[GEC]

Well, when you have no diplomatic relations with the host country, what are you going to do?

[sultan88]

Bookmarking. Add to our "airplane" files, f and G.

[sultan88]

"The French Club students who perished, along with their teachers and chaperones, were from the next town over from me here in PA."

Palladin, I grew up near that town also!!

FBD, thanks for the initial ping!

[acehai]

Ray Lahr has probably read more good aerodynamics books than any of us. You might want to click on ZOOM CLIMB, then come back and tell us why people who defend the CIA/FBI/NTSB idiocy are sane.

[MindBender26]

From Mr. Lahr: An aircraft that loses all of the weight forward of the wing is completely out of balance. When that happens, an aircraft will immediately pitch up and stall.

Should read: An aircraft that loses all of the weight forward of the wing is completely out of balance. When that happens, an aircraft will immediately pitch up and stall when it goes into a climb and eventually has consumed enough energy in the climb so that the angle of attack of the wing causes the aforementioned stall.

E-mail him and ask of he agrees with that statement.

Finally, up from the surface questions: Most simple. From where most of the witnesses were standing, the A/C was at or below the horizon. Why? Curvature of the earth. Many times have stood where those witnesses were and watched Europe-bound A/C that look like they are 500 feet AGL, until you realize they out over the Atlantic and are actually 15,000 feet AGL +/-.

Also, some witnesses are obviousaly BSing. One woman seen on TV many times said "I heard the loud roar of the missile launching, and turned around to see the missile streaking up to the plane." She forgot about speed of light/speed of sound!