From: jamesd@echeque.com
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 17:00:25 +0800
To: Rich Burroughs <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Nazis on the Net
Message-ID: <199604240516.WAA10983@dns1.noc.best.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:20 PM 4/23/96 -0700, Rich Burroughs wrote:
>I'm sure it has been. That doesn't mean his report is untrue.  Is the
>standard of proof the same for both of these issues?  We need proof to
>establish that Weaver is a racist, but not to establish that the FBI
>informant is lying?

I have read that we already have proof that the FBI informant lied on
numerous matters.   I am not familiar with this proof, but it is 
consistent with the other facts surrounding this incident.

Let us put this in its proper context:  The FBI murdered Weaver's dog, his
wife, and his son, and did their damndest to murder Weaver.  They shot
his wife while she was holding a fully loaded assault baby in her arms.

They lied about this extensively on oath.  The judge and the jury rejected
their story during the prosecution of Randy Weaver.  Later, 
when inconvenient facts came out, they pleaded the fifth amendment.

Give a dog a bad name and hang him.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com