New Revelations Regarding The FBI's Role In The WACO Massacre, By An FBI Whistleblower - Another Instance Of FBI Perjury & Destruction Of Evidence
An investigation regarding the FBI's surveillance of Randy Weaver prior to the day in which the actual confrontation between the Weavers and the BATF began in Ruby Ridge, Idaho (and which the FBI would join soon afterward), found that the FBI had spent upwards of $2 million dollars in its time surveilling Weaver, even though the only crime that Weaver had ever been charged with, was being entrapped into selling two sawed off shotguns.
The outright hostility of the FBI and BATF began with the BATF's attempt to provoke the Weavers into a confrontation when entering their property, which would end with the needless shooting deaths of Vicki and Sammy Weaver, as well as a BATF agent. The entire situation had begun long before that fateful day, with the FBI attempting to coerce Randy Weaver into becoming a snitch for the FBI, which Randy refused to do. The FBI had grown impatient with Weaver's refusal to cooperate with them, which led to the BATF's attempts to provoke Weaver into a confrontation.
The FBI's impatience at WACO, compounded by the expense of the 51 day siege, no doubt created much of the hostility which ended in the Bureau's murders of dozens of Branch Davidians a few years later.
One must wonder how long the FBI had been spying on the Branch Davidians before it decided to use the BATF to provoke a confrontation with the group?
Both of these situations serve as a reminder to anyone who knows for certain that they are being targeted for an FBI sting operation, that the Bureau will exploit the targeted person's ownership of a firearm in order to serve as a means in which to access the person's home, by either intercepting a renewal permit from the U.S. Mail so that the target does not receive it in time, or making certain that the permit is never mailed in the first place.
This author is aware of a few situations in which targets of FBI stings actually sold their guns out of concern that the FBI would attempt to arrest them by exploiting the gun permit scenario.
What should be noted in both the Ruby Ridge and Waco situations was that the FBI used the BATF to provoke confrontations which would turn out to be deadly. And in the above documentary, you will see that the FBI did lie when it claimed to have not fired upon the Branch Davidians on Day 51 of the standoff, and also lied when the FBI claimed to have not started the fire in the compound. The FBI also lied when they claimed that the federal government had not violated the Posse Comitatus Act in its confrontation with the Branch Davidians; the first time in U.S. History that the U.S. Military was used against American citizens.
One aspect of the FBI's surveillance that is rarely if ever discussed in its unconstitutional sting operations, is the amount of money spent on its long-term surveillance of American citizens, as well as the constitutional violations to the inherent rights of these citizens.
If the federal government has such disregard for your inherent rights, why should you as a citizen of the United States have any regard for such a government?
Given that the FBI had spent a few million dollars in its surveillance of Randy Weaver and his family, one can conclude that the Bureau was going to be forced to justify such a significant expenditure, even if it meant being forced to exaggerate, or perhaps even falsify much of the information that it claimed to have obtained in its investigation of Weaver.
One can make the same observations in regard to the FBI's investigations of those who are being targeted for organized stalking crimes as well as non consensual human experimentation.
Moreover, in the case of Weaver, the FBI can make the claim that because guns were involved in its investigation of Weaver, this gave the federal government the jurisdiction to place him under surveillance.
However, when the FBI or another government agency is surveilling an American citizen whom the federal government has no authority to place under surveillance, yet does so anyway, the government itself becomes suspect.
And that is when the constitutional rule of law completely unravels, because the government then becomes the criminal.
Not only does the government become suspect, but any crimes that it perpetrates in the commission of such illegal surveillance, the government will no doubt attempt to conceal from the public, as well as the amount of money which has been spent in this illegal surveillance.
For example, if the FBI spends $5 million dollars in such illegal surveillance without a resolution to this investigation, the FBI must attempt to justify this expenditure.
And that is when the Bureau may be forced to make the proverbial mountain out of the molehill, in efforts to justify the time and expense that the Bureau has made. This can also involve the FBI's fabricating information, stacking the deck in its attempts to fabricate victims of the target - a common practice of the FBI in such situations - and in many instances attempting to make situations that are clearly not criminal, into crimes, in order to support the FBI's allegations.
However, such machinations become more difficult when the FBI is publicly challenged by the subjects of such illegal investigations, especially when the targets of these investigations are making counter claims in regard to the FBI's own criminality, and can cite past situations in which the FBI has attempted to get away with such crimes.
Once this occurs, the Bureau becomes more interested in establishing a smokescreen in efforts to overshadow the persons making such allegations. This becomes especially important if the FBI has used coercive tactics against people whom the Bureau is attempting to use against the target of such illegal surveillance.
Such tactics can include getting these people fired from their jobs, forcing an IRS audit, threatening to remove their children from their home, ostrocizing them within their own community, or any number of other types of intimidation tactics for which the FBI has become infamous, and which are quite effective in controlling the Bureau's victims.
Moreover there are a number of questions which can arise from such situations, including how long the FBI has been conducting such illegal surveillance, how many people have been placed under this surveillance, has the FBI destroyed evidence that will prove its complicity in crimes against these persons? Were any of the FBI's agents relatives of persons who may have known the subject of the FBI's investigation?
Furthermore, has the FBI used coercion in order to obstruct justice, by forcing those who can expose the FBI's crimes to remain silent, out of fear that the Bureau may attempt to prosecute them based on trumped up charges?
These crimes are occurring far more frequently since the passage of the Patriot Act, and the American people are becoming frustrated with the FBI's violations of their civil rights, and unwillingness to admit the crimes of its own agents.
These are only a few of the many questions which by law must be both asked and answered in regard to the FBI's illegal surveillance of any American citizen.
Moreover, if the FBI has utilized advanced surveillance technology which involves the use of signals intelligence satellites, and the remote brain scanning of the targeted subjects, which qualifies as non consensual human experimentation, one must also ask if any court that might be involved in overseeing the FBI's surveillance of this person is complicit in attempting to conceal the technology, at the expense of the targeted person's rights to due process of law.
This is a relevant question given the U.S. Federal Government's history of concealing its classified technology from the American people. Moreover, in this author's opinion, Congressmen Hale Boggs and Nick Begich Sr. as well as the two men whom they were travelling with on a plane flight over Alaska in 1972, were left to die in the Alaskan wilderness after the plane crashlanded, because the FBI refused to furnish the Coast Guard with the classified technology that was used to locate the downed plane and its survivors.
Given the Nixon Administration's distrust of Boggs several months earlier, after Boggs had publicly stated that the FBI was bugging the phones of Congressional members and operating like the gestapo, as well as stating that Richard Nixon should have forced J. Edgar Hoover to retire from the FBI, one might surmise that both the Nixon Administration as well as the FBI were more than happy to allow Boggs to die from exposure in the Alaskan wilderness.
Moreover, if the FBI's crimes are truly outrageous and involve what must be described as precedent setting violations of the Bill of Rights, then it would logically follow that the Bureau would do everything possible to make the situation as nebulous as it can.
For instance, if the FBI takes over your TV programming in order to prevent you from witnessing a public campaign that the FBI is furtively waging against you, the FBI has indicted itself in a number of different of crimes - all waged against the Bill of Rights and every citizen in the United States.
This is true, because if the FBI commits a crime against any American citizen which involves a violation of the Bill of Rights, the Bureau threatens the rights of every American citizen.
One might expect this type of behavior from another government.
However, this is the United States; not Russia.
So the Bureau's claims here would not only be unacceptable, but unconstitutional as well.
Especially if the U.S. Intelligence community is using this technology to spy on the general population in the United States, and in having done so, collected video and other personal types of information that would so enrage the American citizenry if they were to become aware of this abject violation of their privacy, that they would be forced to take action in order to ensure that the government end this spying, and make amends for having done so.
This is no longer a case of fearmongering, given that the spy technology to perpetrate such crimes does exist, and the federal government in America is clearly operating more like a dictatorship than a democracy, with its politicians operating as though it was business as usual, even though they have been inundated with complaints from citizens describing the government's violations of their civil rights.
Moreover, this domestic spying along with the requisite directed energy attacks can take place for years, and amount to millions of dollars that the Bureau's agents must account for.
As such, much of what the FBI does next becomes a simple case of economics, since the more money the FBI spends on one person, the more the Bureau must demonize the target.
This is clearly the case with many targets of organized stalking, who are being denied their rights to due process, simply because the FBI would have to answer questions in regard to the conduct of its own agents, that would implicate them in crimes against the target.
This is especially true if the FBI has resorted to the use of classified electronic warfare technology, in order to torture the target, when the target has carefully documented these attacks.
Moreover, if the FBI has contacted any person in efforts to demonize the target outside of a judicial setting, and done so with the approval of the judiciary, it is then the Bureau that is in the commission of criminal activity.
And the court(s) involved in this situation also becomes complicit in the FBI's violations of the 6Th Amendment.
From the accounts being made by a myriad of men, women and children in regard to their own experiences with these crimes, their testimony serves as further evidence that a complete breakdown in the constitutional rule of law in the United States has taken place since the Patriot Act was passed in 2001, and the basic constitutional framework on which the United States was founded is no longer being observed; in spite of this goverment's attempts to keep the concept of the constitution around a while longer, as the new world order's agenda to create a global dictatorship becomes fully implemented.
Moreover, if the FBI is using brain scanning technology in regard to the person in question, the situation becomes far more complex, since U.S. Courts are not equipped to deal with cases that involve the use of remote forms of brain scanning technology, that are used without the subject's consent.
And this situation becomes even more complex given that the general population in the United States knows nothing about this technology, and if the courts begin to openly question it, this will only serve to attract the public's curiosity.
Common sense would indicate that this was one of the main reasons that NSA whistle blower John St. Clair Akwei's lawsuit against the agency was intentionally derailed in 1992.
Especially when evidence has already been presented to the U.S. Judiciary which documents patents for this technology, as well as testimony from American citizens who have alleged to be targets of covert government programs, who serve as non consensual subjects for the military intelligence complex.
This problem is far more common than one might think, since this stealth technology can be deployed against any citizen in America without that person's knowledge, and theoretically can simultaneously be used on every person in the United States.
For those skeptics who claim that those of us targeted for these crimes don't have the grounds for a lawsuit against the federal government, that is wishful thinking on their part. Most of us have more than enough proof that we have been denied our inherent rights as American citizens, inspite of what these people claim.
For those citizens who have also brought cases against the government which involve the government's use of remote forms of wireless brain scanning technology (See John St. Clair Akwei VS The National Security Agency), the allegations of these citizens also serve as a basis for further lawsuits to be brought against the U.S. Federal Government in regard to its illegal use of this technology.
What is the government's answer to this?
To create a parallel system of justice where the target is denied their right to ask questions in regard to the government's conduct, simply because the government cannot answer these questions without implicating its own agents in crimes that would be exposed in a court of law.
And until the government ends this extrajudicial protocol for avoiding these questions, through its implementation of psychological warfare operations, including the vigilante hate crime of organized stalking, its agents will find themselves answering to an increasing number of citizens who find themselves targeted for such extrajudicial punishment.
Clearly, this parallel system of injustice has been designed to furtively torture and ultimately murder its victims.
And if the federal government will openly admit that it can use a satellite spy network to remotely enter the mind of any American citizen, how long do you think such a government would last having made such an admission?
Is it any wonder why this government wants those of who have first hand knowledge of this technology dead? And there are thousands of us within the United States alone who have documented being targeted by such technology, and thousands of citizens from other nations who are making the same claims in regard to the Orwellian behavior of their own governments.
And there are perhaps millions of others citizens who are also targeted for what can only be described as satellite predation, who have yet to realize it. Moreover, what the government in its shortsightedness appears to have not forseen, is what it would do when those whom it has spent years attempting to murder in such furtive ways, remain alive, and challenging the government's Orwellian actions based on its own violations of the rule of law.
When you are being targeted by people who are perpetrating these crimes against you, while denying that they are happening, in an effort to drive you insane, it is the sanity of these people which must questioned.
This is especially true when the targets of these crimes have alleged that specific federal agents have been using their positions within the government to wage their own personal vigilantism. Something that this author has maintained in regard to the FBI for years.
As long as those of us targeted for these extrajudicial crimes remain alive, these reasonable questions will continue to be raised, in spite of the murderous nature of agents who continue to perpetrate these crimes against us, while making mountains out of molehills in their attempt to justify their crimes, as well as the expense incurred in perpetrating them.
We aren't the ones who are avoiding answering questions here. And we're not the ones who are attempting to cover up a national brain fingerprinting network, which has been used to destroy the American people's inherent rights to privacy and due process of law under the 4Th and 6Th Amendments.
The federal government is.