Time: Sun Nov 30 16:24:23 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA26109
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:23:44 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA06929;
	Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:19:22 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd006883; Sun Nov 30 16:19:10 1997
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:19:12 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: FBI Bombed Murrah Building (OKC) to Ensure Funding of US
  Spy Agencies (fwd)

>The following story was printed in the Washington Times on November 24,
>1997.  I have a comment at the end.  Please read:
>Washington Times, November 24, 1997, page A16
>Did you know that 475 members of the victim families of the Oklahoma City
>bombing have filed lawsuits this year against the federal government? The
>first lawsuit, joined by 170 family members and filed in federal court
>last April, charges that the federal government "knew or should have
>known" that the Murrah Building was the target of a bomb attack. Five
>families followed in a second lawsuit. The third lawsuit, with more than
>300 family members, was filed in state court. It charges that the
>government possessed "detailed prior knowledge of the planned bombing of
>the Murrah Building yet failed to prevent the bombing from taking place."
>This lawsuit charges the government with conducting a failed "sting
>Think about this a minute. However closely you might have followed the
>trial of Timothy McVeigh or the current trial of Terry Nichols, it is not
>as closely as families who suffered deaths and injuries. Why aren't these
>family members grateful to the Justice Department for McVeigh's
>conviction and for the trial of Nichols? Have they fallen victim in mass
>to a conspiracy theory? Are they simply greedy and hoping to profit with
>monetary damages for deaths and injuries?
>Apparently not. The victim families believe they are staring a
>transparent federal cover-up in the face. The Justice Department and the
>FBI have been caught in too many lies, and too many credible witnesses
>place McVeigh at the bomb scene in the presence of other men who have
>been identified but not questioned. Then there is Alcohol, Tobacco and
>Firearms undercover agent Carol Howe, who infiltrated the extremist
>compound at Elohim City. Yes, she gave the warning. ATF was preparing to
>swoop in and make arrests but apparently was stopped by the FBI.
>Did you know that during McVeigh's trial, the prosecution did not call a
>single witness who could place McVeigh in Oklahoma City on the morning of
>the bombing? The government had numerous witnesses who could provide this
>critical information to the jury but refused to let them testify. The
>government's problem with the witnesses was that under cross-examination,
>they would establish more than the government wanted established. The
>government insisted that McVeigh acted alone, but all the witnesses saw
>him accompanied by others.
>It wasn't that the government was skimping on witnesses. The feds called
>27 telephone company employees to testify that McVeigh had used a
>pre-paid telephone card bought under an alias, hardly a significant fact
>compared to eye-witness accounts of McVeigh's presence at the crime
>Carol Howe was not permitted to testify at McVeigh's trial. The Justice
>Department insisted that the government had no prior warning of any kind.
>This made it necessary for the federal government to deep-six its own
>undercover agent, which the government tried to do by putting her on
>trial for making bombs. It didn't work. The jury saw it for what it was
>-- a retaliatory, manufactured case to silence and discredit the most
>important witness. She was acquitted on all charges last August.
>The men who witnesses place with McVeigh on the morning of the bombing
>are the men who Carol Howe was spying on in Elohim City. Evidence
>presented in Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's just released book, "The Secret
>Life of Bill Clinton," suggests that these men, whose identities and
>whereabouts are known, may have been provocateurs working for the FBI.
>The critical testimony and evidence that was suppressed by the Justice
>Department at the McVeigh trial will be heard by the jury in the lawsuit
>under Oklahoma state jurisdiction. Thus, the Justice Department might not
>be able to orchestrate the outcomes of the victims' families' lawsuits.
>But don't expect to be kept abreast of the story by the mainstream media.
>The Carol Howe story was slated to air on ABC-TV on Feb. 5 of this year.
>It was pulled at the last moment. The producer accused ABC's top brass of
>caving in to political pressure. He said his bosses argued that the story
>would bring down the country and lead to the abolition of the ATF, the
>result being machine guns on every corner. When confronted with the
>liberals' nightmare, news reporting lost.
> Commente by J. Orlin Grabbe now follow:
>COMMENT ABOUT ARTICLE:	The only thing that I take issue with is author
>Paul Craig Roberts use of the phrase FAILED STING OPERATION in his
>description of a law suit.  He wrote, "This lawsuit charges the
>government with conducting a failed sting operation."  To my knowledge,
>none of the lawsuits indicated there was a failed sting operation. 
>References to a sting operation were made, but to my knowledge, the
>phrase FAILED STING OPERATION was not used in any of the suits.  The
>phrase, failed sting operation, is either an honest error on the authors
>part or a deceptive propaganda ploy to put a positive spin on a more
>sinister story.
>A failed sting operation implies that the FBI had good intentions but
>made a mistake.  Another possibility is that the a sting operation was in
>fact conducted, but its purpose was to encourage known terrorists to blow
>up the A.P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people.  Twisted as it
>may sound, a terrorist attack of this magnitude would prove to be
>extremely beneficial to the FBI, the BATF, the CIA, and the entire US
>intelligence apparatus.
>I have in my possession a copy of one of the law suits to which Mr.
>Roberts refers.  It was filed in the United States District Court for the
>Western District of Oklahoma, on May 20, 1997, Docket # CIV-97-829A.  It
>makes reference to a sting operation -- not a failed sting operation --
>on two pages.
>On page 5, article 11, it reads,  "BATF employees who participated in
>the A.P. Murrah Federal Building bombing sting operation, Does 4 through
>50; FBI employees who participated in the A.P. Murrah Federal Building
>bombing sting operation, Does 51 through 100"
>The exact same statement is made on page 7, article 17.  It merely
>identifies the parties being sued.  These are the only references to a
>sting operation it makes.  Again, it does not say there was a FAILED
>STING OPERATION.  Those are author Paul Craig Roberts words.  Those are
>also Ambrose Evans-Prichards words in his new book, "The Secret Life of
>Bill Clinton."	The words FAILED STING OPERATION are used, in my opinion,
>to steer readers away from an obvious possibility, that the FBI
>intentionally allowed the A.P. Murrah Building to be blown up in order to
>get counter-terrorism legislation passed in Congress.  This would ensure
>that their funding would not be cut back, along with the CIAs funding,
>not to mention the funding of the entire US intelligence apparatus.
>In 1947 Congress passed The National Security Act which created the CIA
>and established the modern intelligence apparatus with the sole purpose
>of fighting the worldwide spread of Communism.	With the collapse of the
>Soviet Union, these spy agencies lacked a purpose.  In April 1995 when
>the bombing occurred, the Republicans had just taken over Congress with
>sweeping victories over incumbent Democrats in the previous November
>elections.  The Republicans had pledged to cut spending to balance the
>budget and remove the national debt.  Penny pensioning Republicans could
>no longer be counted on to keep paying 30 billion dollars a year to
>agencies without a clear purpose.  The bombing of the A.P. Murrah
>Building helped give these spy agencies a new purpose, to defend US
>national security against the threat of terrorism.
>Paul Craig Roberts has an excellent article with the exception of that
>one important factual error.  The law suits do not allege that there was
>a FAILED sting operation, only a sting operation.  If anyone can provide
>a law suit that indicates otherwise, I will humbly retract my criticism
>of Mr. Roberts article.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail