From: Fred Mrozek on October 19, 1999 at 17:45:24:
In Reply to: Rick Ross: raross@home.com. October 19, 1999 at 7:41:21

: Subj: Re: Waco
: Date: 10/19/1999 7:41:21 AM US Mountain Standard Time
: From: raross@home.com (Rick Ross)

:
: Fred:

: Your very long and rambling email really makes few, if any new objective
: points--that we have not discussed previously.

I have discussed points. You have labeled
them as long and rambling.

: Please understand that I worked personally with both the BATF and FBI
: and recognize from my own first hand experience--that the BATF did not
: intend to cause a tragedy and the FBI certainly sought consistently to
: end the standoff peacefully.

A person hungry for a meal, will notice signs
for Restaurants. A person whose side has won a
battle, seldom stops to consider if it was fought
fairly. A person whose "side" has just destroyed
nearly a hundred lives, will obviously eschew
any arguments, facts, persons, discussions etc. that
are suggestive that the winning team committed
gross and irreparable crimes and sins along the
way.
You may not see what I see in this data set,
because you are unable to see it. And you may be
unable to see it because you have never been
robbed, cheated, beaten up, slandered, or victimized
by a situationally superior foe who could and did
turn even your complaints of injustice into
reasons to make other people treat you to more
persecution. Once you have been treated that way,
you may find it within yourself to have sympathy
for others in that situation.

: I believe that further professional analysis of the thermal photography
: you repeatedly mention will not prove your contentions. But I am open to
: your argument and will follow the Danforth investigation as it examines
: such claims.

If it was the truth or falsehood of a scientific
theory at stake, no individual would be charged
with the task of locking himself away, thinking
it over, and pronouncing an answer. In fact, no one
(with the possible exception of Stephen Jay Gould),
would presume to have any clout, or supremacy
of judgement that would make such a task
epistimologically acceptable.
You on the other hand, seem to think, like
the historic Papacy, that a single man can become
the Vicar of truth and dispense it to us after
filtering away or distilling a particular subset
of facts that he or she wishes to present.
A smoothy like yourself could create a pleasant,
compromising blend that would seem to smack a few federal
knuckles, but on the whole ignore the real evidenciary
basis to suspect the feds of murder. The goal
of such a Vicar would be to acheive some sort of politically
acceptable compromise or plea bargain, and would
be about as satisfying to me as the Judgement dispensed
toward the Davidians by Judge Smith.*

The Government shall seek expediency, not truth
or justice. The latter are what is needed, and the
former is what we will likely get.

* Here is waht I mean by my comments about Judge
Smith. Please compare his unstructions to the Jury,
with the historic, established, and often confirmed
obligations and rights of Jurors:

JURY RIGHTS

Principle Versus Current Practice in the United States

"For more than six hundred years -- that is, since Magna Carta,
in 1215 -- there has been no clearer principle of English or American
constitutional law, than that: in criminal cases, it is not only the
right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law,
and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their
right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the
law, and to hold all laws invalid that are, in their opinion, unjust or
oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the
execution of such laws. Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it
is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty" --a
barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government-- they
are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any
injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed."

--Lysander Spooner, 1852

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in
controversy." -John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
-Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and
fact." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be
decided." -Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941

"A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order
to prevent oppression by the Government."

--Ducan vs Louisiana 391 US, 149 1968

"The JURY has an unreviewable and unreversible power . . . to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge . . ."
-U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)

"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."

-U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139. (1972)

Current Practice:

Waco Jury Instructions

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION

UNITES STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal No. W-93-CR-046

2

You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining
what actually happened--that is, in reaching your decision as to
the facts--it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I
explain them to you.

You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any
one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule
I may state to you. You must not substitute or follow your own notion
or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to
apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences.

....Thus it would violate the very linchpin of our judicial system
if you were to render a decision not based on the law as I am now
explaining it.

--Judge Walter Smith to the Jury in the trial of the Branch Davidians

and again:

"The JURY has an unreviewable and unreversible power . . . to acquit
in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge . . ."
--U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)

Judge Smith is presumably a typical Judge. But
the comparison I have offered above is not evidence
that he was after Justice, it is evidence of his contempt
for the Jury principle, for our common-law heritage,
and for the interests of Justice. He, as an employee
and servant of that State, saw that the State was in serious
trouble, and came to its assistance by pommeling
the Davidians with unjust sentences to make the justice
of the federal operation and injustice of the Davidians
the conclusion the public would hear and read about.
I do not expect Danforth to be any different
than Smith. And just as it took years of attention
to find these quotes that give the only glimpses
into the real injustice that happened at the Davidian
trial, it will probably take alot of work to deconstruct
the tactics Danforth will use to obfuscate and destroy
the truth. Only experts with access to the inner
workings of things will be able to grasp the indications
that will leak out of a good faith effort or a bad faith
effort.
Stuart Wright did that regarding the process
of crisis engineering the FBI called negotiations.
You can lead a cult expert to that paper, but if
his biases and allegiances are too strong, you cannot
make him comprehend, admit, or recant.

: Perhaps you have misunderstood my point of agreement with Stuart Wright.
: That is--rather than treat the Davidian standoff as a
: "hostage/terrorist" situation the FBI should have, from the beginning,
: tried to understand its actual premise. Specifically, that they were
: dealing with cultic devotion and its subsequent mindset, which is
: totally different than dealing with actual "hostages" or the mindset of
: typical "terrorists."

Rick, this was your second crack at this topic, and
you could not have thought about this response any more
than you did the last one. You assert that they should
have recognized that this situation was one that
involved "a cult" rather than a "terrorist." But
the facts are that they characterized Koresh and the
Davidians as Cultists from the beginning. You cannot claim
the FBI did not believe and operate on the basis
of the Davidians being a Cult. Koresh would talk
back to them as say, for instance how much he disliked
being called a cult leader...

Pardon this digression. "Cultic devotion."
That phrase has something unspoken in it that
is supposed to make us instantly judge
the Davidians as criminals or as likely criminals.
It automatically predisposes us to make mental
pictures of them as irrational beings. But no one
labeled the feds as having any similar "baggage"
until years later when Dr. Alan Stone wrote his report
and used an obtuse, Harvard-esque equivalent of
saying that "the real loons were outside the compound."

I and the jury thought the Davidians acted
reasonably to excessive force, after provocation.
If the Jury were to consider the events of April
19th, I expect they would reach the same conclusion,
especially after reading the "Babies are being beaten"
stuff... The facts I want to immerse you in, are
the ones which show ALL the provocations and initiations
of deadly violence as originating within the federal camp,
and all the muzzles and restrictions to cry out their side
of the story, installed on the Davidians.
The Davidians were crying out for the revelation
of tapes of the beginning of the raid, whilst
the feds were destroying them. The front door, that
supposedly buckled and splintered outwards from
the force and volume of fire - has vanished, as the
Davidians predicted it would. And all the losses
are the result of the criminality of the feds.
I thus resent the Davidians being smeared with
a possibly logical label of "Cultic Devotion,"
when the feds were obviously so much farther
down the pathway to intentional destruction, carnage,
and then obstruction of Justice.

: Mr. McNulty is making money from Waco--this is a simple fact.

How do you earn your living Mr. Ross? Don't you make
money off your "cottage industry" of reprogramming
with PC forms of epistimologies that are somehow
grossly deficient at recognition of dangerous, cultic
inclinations in those who swarmed about the Waco
campus in tanks, running over the possessions of those
within - mooning them and giving them the finger. Playing
rabbit slaughter noises, shining bright lights to deprive
them of sleep, and finally assaulting the group when
waiting would have done just fine?

Remove the Titanic from your eyes Mr. Ross, then
you may see clearly to help Mr. McNulty.

If it were not for Mike, we would have only the
circumstantial evidences of murder. Thanks to Mike,
we may have enough physical evidence make headway.

This is
: what I mean by the "cottage industry" that has sprung up around
: Waco--books, videos, films etc. Many people, especially on the
: conspiracy side--have marketed their products rather effectively for
: profit.

Every network TV station operates for profit, but
where is your accusation that their products must thus
be uniformly untrustworthy?
Every car company operates for profit, yet you
trust your life to your car probably every day?

I know you were trying to make some kind of
point, but amidst my recognition that you make
a living making value judgements about other
people religion, I can't seem to grasp what
that point was.

However, despite his financial interest in Waco, if Mr. McNulty
: can prove conclusively that the audio tapes were edited as you claim--I
: am certainly open to that possibility. But I frankly don't believe he
: will be able to do this.

When an audio signal is recorded on tape, the recording
device leaves a characteristic carrier frequency
that is measurable. One device, one characteristic
frequency. Two devices, two frequencies. Follow?

When a segment is recorded on top of the original
signal, there are discontinuities measurable on the
tape... Follow?

I think what you ought to fall back on, is that
McNulty will not be able to prove what was in those
spots that the feds taped over. That position
makes for safer, more secure sophistry that will
need fewer future revisions. Always seek a cover-up
position that will require the fewest future revisions...

: Your repeated insults and claims that when I disagree with you I am
: somehow "a wall", "a corpse" etc. are revealing.

You do not disagree. You ignore.

You pretend to engage me in a football game
of fact, but never come down from your hot-air balloon.

I am covered with grass stains, chalk dust
and mud, and you have not even broken a sweat.

I suspect you are a
: pretty close minded and rigid thinker Fred and frequently intolerant of
: people who disagree with your opinions.

Hah! If only you knew!

: It seems to me that you are
: probably one of those people who insists upon always being right and
: apparently becomes rather angry when people don't accept your opinions
: and question your supposed proof.

Think what you want. If anyone ever "Wacoes"
you, you may pray for such an "angry, intractable,
rigid, close-minded" thinker as I.

Besides, the most robust and worthwhile
opinion a person can reach regarding the innocence
of the feds at Waco, will emerge after that opinion
stands above my dead arguments. In science, fierce,
but honest opposition is the forge of truth.

: My comment about UFO believers and conspiracy theorists was actually a
: reference to your mindset Fred--I suspect you know that.

Can't believe you thought you had to say that!

It's obvious
: you have made Waco some kind of virtual personal faith/belief system for
: yourself. Perhaps you are a "true believer" in other dark conspiracy
: theories that somehow fill some personal need for you.

Oh Shit. I'm caught! What will I do now? Is there
a Rick Ross website where I can find out of the contents
of my spirit and orthodox and worthy of life, or
unorthodox and subject to tank-assisted suicide?

: But for me Waco was both a professional matter and personal history.
: Again, I handled years of complaints about Vernon Howell and was called
: upon professionally by both the FBI and BATF. Waco is something I
: understand from a direct first hand perspective.

And the Davidians are dead, from first hand experience
with the FBI you assure us, were acting in good faith.

: It saddens me to see how the Waco Davidian tragedy has been manipulated
: and distorted by anti-government extremists, conspiracy theory types and
: self-serving political agendas.

Dinner is waiting. Otherwise, I'd turn that
sweatshirt inside-out, and make you wear it home.

Who has a more self-serving agenda, the Dead,
or the living whose freedoms depend on continued obscuration
of truth?

: It seems since the fall of Communism and the end of the Cold War many
: former Communist conspiracy types have turned their paranoid fears
: inward. Now such people seem to see their own elected government as the
: "Evil Empire." This is a very sad development.

Evil is as evil does. 80 corpses at a church
gives my interest in the matter notthe slightest shame.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from
falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
government from falling into error"

--United States Supreme Court - American Communications
Association v. Douds

: Instead, I see both the BATF and the FBI as fallible, but essentially
: professional good people who simply did their jobs.

Work with them much Rick?

Through my work with
: them

Oh, guess that answers that.

I know first hand that they did not want to kill the Davidians

"Babies are being beaten?"

and
: hoped that the standoff would end peacefully.

Stuart Wright. Try reading it.

: They certainly made mistakes in their
: handling of the situation, which I have mentioned. But I do not believe
: the facts will prove they were guilty of the gross violations you
: allege.

Read Wright. It is not subject to debate. They volated
every rule that would normally have been implemented
to solve such crises. My 7 year-old daughter could have solved that
situation in 3 days with nothing more than innocence, common
sense, and pizza.

: As an American I support the law and law enforcement.

So did Koresh.

And
: they are responsible to our elected officials--whom we select through a
: democratic process. They are thus accountable to us through our
: representatives and subject to critical oversight and investigation.

Not nearly critical enough.

: Through this process and structure of accountability we will examine the
: facts about Waco and have meaningful resolution. I suspect that the
: overwhelming majority of Americans will understand this and find the
: process and its results acceptable.

Because the overwhelming majority are kept
thoroughly ignorant.

: I also feel the mainstream media (e.g. the Washington Post, Dallas
: Morning News and New York Times) has largely done a good job of holding
: officials accountable and exposing embarrassing details about Waco.

How many papers reported the news on March 2nd 1993, that
the McLennan County Prosecutor, Vic Feazell, predicted
that the feds (whom he normally worked for and with...
first hand like you Rick, only closer.) were preparing
to kill them all?

He made the statement. It was highly infammatory. Would
have sold newspapers. Might have shown a dimension
to the readership that they would other wise not glean.
Might have, if nothing else, illustrated a lawyer
committing career suicide. Might have been a good thing
for reporters to cite to the feds a press conferences
to seek reply from the FBI....

And then when it proved he was right? And then
when Pete Smericks memoes come out?... And when
60 minutes gets confirmation PLUS, that McNulty and Allards
assertions regarding machine-gun fire at the church
are true?

Where are your newspapers Rick?

: As you can see from my CV I have often worked with the media. Again,
: like our government, they are fallible and have made mistakes, but
: essentially I think they are good professional people and honestly
: seeking the truth, which is of course their job.

: Rick Ross
: http://www.rickross.com

When I get a speeding ticket, I have never
thought to suggest that I was merely fallible?
It has not ocurred to me that that excuse may work...

If I ever kill 80 people doing exactly what the
experts I hired told me not to do, do you think
my "fallibility" should protect me? What if I kill
80 people through my "fallibility" then glean
hundreds of millions of dollars of new funding? Will
I be encouraged to be more or less "fallible"?

What if I kill 80 people, and my superiors ask
permission to decorate me and my fellow "fallible"
assassins? Am I fallible or not?

I think I would be confused.