is the BATFE really like that?

[Tommygunn]

Unintended Consequences is full of half truths and outright lies.

For example go back and read what John Ross wrote about Kenyon Ballew.

Ross falsely claims one of the local officers who shot Ballew did not know what the warrant was for on the night they went to Ballew’s apartment, and had no clue Ballew was suspected of committing federal firearms violations. However, that is a blatant lie, as the affidavit for the warrant shows a large portion of the information used to get the warrant came from that same local officer, who tipped off the feds to Ballew’s illegal activity in the first place.

Ballew tried to sue the officers who shot him, and here is what the judge said about Ballew’s shooting:

"Federal agents acted reasonably and in exercise of due care in procuring the search warrant, in planning the search, and in actually carrying it out . . . Plaintiff, who heard law enforcement officers at the door, and rather than admitting them and submitting to search of his premises, attempted to barricade the door and prevent entry and pointed a loaded revolver at the agents as they entered was contributorlily negligent. Judgment for the government."
- Kenyon F. Ballew v. US, Civ. No. 72-283-H, District of Maryland

Just one of the most blatant examples of the lies told in that book.

From Wikipedia:

The judge ruled that if Ballew had been shot by federal agent Seals, that would be an assault and battery, a criminal act not a negligent act, and the tort act was not the appropriate statute to pursue redress. Since Ballew was actually shot by County Officer Ciamillo, the shooting was not an act of a federal officer so the federal government could not be held negligent

.


There are several other problems with the Ballew raid; claims that he had grenades were made, but ....

While one grenade was explicitly marked "inert," all were unloaded dummy or inert grenades of the type sold at Army-Navy surplus stores as curios or relics. Such grenades were classified by then (1971) and current (2009) ATF regulations as non-weapon curios and may be owned as military souvenirs without federal registry[2] Of the five grenades, two were bookends for a collection of military books and three had been rigged to pop caps: Ballew had used them as handheld noisemakers on Fourth of July on his balcony (the ATF affidavit stated "that Ken had been observed in the recent past playing with several hand grenades in the rear of 1014 Quebec Terrace.") The three grenades with fuse assemblies did not contain igniter cap, fuse or detonating cap; they had been demilitarized to not retain an explosive charge.

What a particular agent "claimed" or did not claim in a warrant does not really seem to be very much of an issue.
In addition to the above, the LEOs attempted to break into the apartment using a door that was unused by Ballew and thus effectively blocked by furniture, while ignoring a much more accessible door for fear of being "identified," yet by law LEO MUST identify themselves upon entyr unless it's a "no-knock" warrant -- and this one wasn't.

Effectively it seems Ballew lost his case because he pursued the wrong venue for compensation, not because the Feds were angels.

 

[Shung]

they also tried to prosecute the NRA museum for having an "illegal machinegun".

You see what i mean ? If it's true, this is plain stupid.. What good can this make ? it would only put someone in big trouble, even if this person had obviously no criminal or even bad intent.

 

[Zoogster]

(BTW, none of the ATF bashers have the guts to do what these guys did for 3years including:
http://origin.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct27/0,4670,BikerGangBusts,00.html

I think linking a story where they mention the ATF agents being extensively trained to lie and pass polygraph tests while doing it is probably not helpful in this thread.


Highlighting agents trained in lying so well they are able to do so under pressure far greater than in any court room while in the process of taking a polygraph is not going to add credibility that they are an honest upstanding agency.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/25/soldiers.charged/

That is just the type of story I would not highlight.
Sure if you believe the story at face value, but let us dig a little deeper.
The thing they were charged for was "conspiracy" to possess something they never possessed, illegal drugs. While having legal firearms during that conspiracy to possess something they never possessed.
Talk about a twisted set of charges.
I am sure they figured it was the best thing with the longest sentence requiring the least evidence to convict.

So the thing they put individuals into prison for 15+ years over was planning to possess something illegal.
With conspiracy charges requiring little more than the word of the agent, and a little circumstantial evidence to back it up.
Not planning a predatory attack, not planning to commit various violent crimes, but conspiracy to possess a controlled substance and possession of a firearm while conspiring.

They also intentionally went looking to attract people to do the crime. The agent posing as a guard was trying to get someone to take the bait. Going around suggesting criminal actions until according to him someone finally agreed.

It is such stories that caused me to stop carrying some cold weather gear. I am in California and go from warm beaches, to cold mountains and deserts, and used to keep a couple items of spare cold weather clothing just in case of a flat or vehicle trouble in bad weather. Including some spare cold weather gloves, long underwear and a ski mask. Taking up no space at all with a few other emergency items.
No longer, now I realize that would just be "proof" of an accusation. Especially in sunny California, after all who but a criminal would have such items in warm weather.
It would be one more news story of someone with a gun and a ski mask, already guilty in public opinion with nothing but an accusation. The other cold weather items would of course be left out of any story.


Where they guilty in the linked story? Perhaps. But they were charged with with conspiracy to possess a controlled substance. Which made their legal possession of firearms illegal as well.
A charge which requires the lowest burden of proof imaginable. Little more than the sworn statements of the agent and some circumstantial evidence (like people whose lives revolve around using firearms also legally possessing some civilian firearms and a ski mask.)
If they had some solid evidence I certainly doubt the charges would have been what they were.
Conspiracy charges are how they get around a lack of proof and convict people when they have a poor case. Conspiracy to commit a violent crime would at least be more reasonable, and slightly harder to "prove".

Conspiracy to possess an illegal drug they never possessed?! I mean come on.
You could probably convict everyone on this board with charges like that and the false statement of an agent.

 

[DMF]

They actually prosecuted an ***LEO*** (a PA state trooper?) who contacted THEM to ask what to do when his AR15 started "doubling".

However, feel free to post a citation for the Federal District Court where this alleged prosecution took place.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that case number.

 

[DMF]

Tommygun, I provided a citation from the actual federal court case, and you give us wikipedia. Meaning I provide a credible source, and you provided a corrupt source where anyone can post any biased crap they wish. What YOU posted about the court ruling is a pack of lies. I gave you a direct quote from the judge, with a citation of the case number if you care to research the actual ruling, which shows that crap in wikipedia is a lie.

Try again, and when you do try to stick to the truth.

 

[DMF]

So you ATF bashers want undercover agents to tell the crooks they are cops?

Get real. None of you cowards could stand up to that task, and you all know that working as an undercover agent is an investigative technique accepted by the courts.

 

[DMF]

The thing they were charged for was "conspiracy" to possess something they never possessed, illegal drugs.

It's no different than conspiring to commit a murder, or rob a bank. Just because the crooks are caught in the act of conspiring to commit a crime, and prevented from finishing their crime does not absolve them of their crime.

Those cases are not entrapment. The government can create an opportunity for someone to commit a crime, as long as they don't coerce an otherwise innocent person to commit the crime.

Further, if you think there was no evidence beyond the statements of one agent you have no clue what is required to sustain a conviction in a federal district court. The government was required to show that the defendants were not entrapped and that they actually conspired to commit the crime, including committing an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

 

[General Geoff]

ATF bashers

The very purpose and existence of the ATF is to curtail liberty by enforcing laws which punish victimless crimes. I'd say that as freedom loving individuals, we're all quite justified in bashing it.

It's no different than conspiring to commit a murder, or rob a bank.

Except that possessing drugs doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

The very purpose and existence of the ATF is to curtail liberty by enforcing laws which punish victimless crimes.

Lol WUT?

Don't you know they do all the federal arson stuff?
Or explosives investigations?
Unless you want to debate it too they also handle taxes on alcohol (course people have been complaining about that since 1794 and even George Washington supported them)

 

[General Geoff]

I'll give you a pass on arson, since I was under the impression that the FBI handled that. As for "explosives investigations," you'll have to be more specific, as explosives don't go blowing people up on their own accord.

 

[Zoogster]

It's no different than conspiring to commit a murder, or rob a bank. Just because the crooks are caught in the act of conspiring to commit a crime, and prevented from finishing their crime does not absolve them of their crime.

My point is not whether the crime is right or wrong, but rather what crime they chose to charge them with. If the story leaked to the press is factual, then there would have been many more appropriate charges. Instead the one charge they feel confident in prosecuting (and hence which also creates the additional weapons charges from legal firearms) is planning to possess drugs they never did.

No different than if they were alleged to have merely desired to purchase some. Why based on such a story would they choose such charges?
It does not add up. Unless of course proving the alleged story would have been impractical. In which case how much can be assume is correct at face value?

want undercover agents to tell the crooks they are cops?

No they needed to lie as they did in the story for that work. However linking that story in a thread questioning their credibility and integrity seems counterproductive.
It just proves how good of a liar they can be trained to be. Good enough to pass any polygraph even under great stress beyond that of any court room.

 

[Tommygunn]

Tommygun, I provided a citation from the actual federal court case, and you give us wikipedia. Meaning I provide a credible source, and you provided a corrupt source where anyone can post any biased crap they wish. What YOU posted about the court ruling is a pack of lies. I gave you a direct quote from the judge, with a citation of the case number if you care to research the actual ruling, which shows that crap in wikipedia is a lie.

Try again, and when you do try to stick to the truth

I stuck to the truth as I have heard it there, and elsewhere.

Let me put it this way: you call Ross a liar.
The fact that what you say happened in the Ballew case is different than what I have read at wiki and elsewhere indicates that there is atleast a controversy with regards to the case. In that light it's awful tough to state with diametric certainty that Ross is a liar.

The big question in the Ballew case had nothing to do with an ATF agent claiming anything; it had to do with the nature of the devices Ballew had nad whether or not they were illegal, or not.

I am glad you provided a citation to the "actual court case" .... I guess if I wish to find out about O.J. Simpson I can read that court case.

 

[DMF]

So two of the three examples have been attacked with spurious claims, regardless even though those are excellent examples to the question provided if you don't like those two, like I said I have more examples:

http://www.atf.gov/press/2009press/...en-arrested-in-fed-state-local-initiative.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/press/2009press/field/032709chi_gangmembers-convicted.htm

http://www.atf.gov/press/2009press/field/011509chi_gangleader-sentenced.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/press/2008press/field/121908chi_fiverockfordmen-sentenced.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/press/2008press/field/120808chi_lastdefendant-sentenced.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/press/2008press/field/073108chi_twomen-charged.pdf

 

[Vicious-Peanut]

Nevermind.

 

[DMF]

I stuck to the truth as I have heard it there, and elsewhere.

Let me put it this way: you call Ross a liar.
The fact that what you say happened in the Ballew case is different than what I have read at wiki and elsewhere indicates that there is atleast a controversy with regards to the case. In that light it's awful tough to state with diametric certainty that Ross is a liar.

The big question in the Ballew case had nothing to do with an ATF agent claiming anything; it had to do with the nature of the devices Ballew had nad whether or not they were illegal, or not.

The case I cited shows that Ross' description of the Ballew case, and the crap you quoted from wikipedia are blatant lies.

Here is a link to the complete text of the ruling in the case which shows what you (in quoting wikipedia) and Ross have claimed about the Ballew case are lies:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/ballew_v_us.txt

Further, as to whether or not Ballew actually had any illegal devices here is what the court said on that subject:
"Plaintiff argues that Agent Davis should have undertaken a
more extensive and careful investigation before seeking a search
warrant from the Magistrate. The simple answer to this contention
is that Davis' belief stated in the affidavit that there were
unregistered hand grenades in Ballew's apartment proved to be
entirely accurate. This Court finds that several of the grenades
seized by the federal agents on June 7, 1971 in Ballew's apartment,
in combination with components likewise seized, were firearms as
defined in the National Firearms Act and had not been registered as
required by law.

Plaintiff contends that the items seized were harmless when
found, were neither designed nor intended to be used as firearms
and therefore were not in violation of federal law. The evidence
in this case does not support such contention."

Regardless, even if they hadn't found any devices, they had in fact established the probable cause necessary for the search warrant.

 

[General Geoff]

DMF, from your quoted description, it sounds like the ATF and the judge railroaded the guy for, again, a victimless crime with no malice. And that's assuming none of the evidence was fabricated.

 

[DMF]

No different than if they were alleged to have merely desired to purchase some

Again, you fail to grasp that merely saying you want to possess cocaine, or even steal cocaine is not enough to support a conspiracy charge. The defendants must actually commit an over act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

There is a great deal of violence involved in the drug trade, and often that violence ends up hurting innocent parties. The people who are willing to hurt and kill to steal drugs in cases like this are some of the most violent criminals out there. Even if you don't agree with the drug laws, it should be noted these crooks will not stop their violent robberies if drugs were not illegal, they will just pick other targets.

Regardless, that case directly addresses the question posed about "any big operation of the BATFE (or ATF) making usefull arrests". (sic)

 

[Shung]

Conspiracy to possess an illegal drug they never possessed

Sounds like pre-crime units.. you know.. Minority Report -

If there is no proof (such as an audio or video registration) of that conspiracy, and if you only rely on the agents reports, it can be very dangerous..

 

[Tommygunn]

The case I cited shows that Ross' description of the Ballew case, and the crap you quoted from wikipedia are blatant lies.

Here is a link to the complete text of the ruling in the case which shows what you (in quoting wikipedia) and Ross have claimed about the Ballew case are lies:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bard...allew_v_us.txt

Further, as to whether or not Ballew actually had any illegal devices here is what the court said on that subject:
"Plaintiff argues that Agent Davis should have undertaken a
more extensive and careful investigation before seeking a search
warrant from the Magistrate. The simple answer to this contention
is that Davis' belief stated in the affidavit that there were
unregistered hand grenades in Ballew's apartment proved to be
entirely accurate. This Court finds that several of the grenades
seized by the federal agents on June 7, 1971 in Ballew's apartment,
in combination with components likewise seized, were firearms as
defined in the National Firearms Act and had not been registered as
required by law.

Plaintiff contends that the items seized were harmless when
found, were neither designed nor intended to be used as firearms
and therefore were not in violation of federal law. The evidence
in this case does not support such contention."

Regardless, even if they hadn't found any devices, they had in fact established the probable cause necessary for the search warrant.

Ease off on the afterburners there chum.
First, I did NOT LIE.
I used the Wiki source because it was the only one available; notwithstanding the fact that in all the other reading I've done on the Ballew case, every one stated the same basic facts as stated in the Wiki article.
I have no doubt that John Ross in researching his book no doubt came across some of the same material as I did.
This doesn't make either Ross or I liars. If true then it makes Ross and I misinformed.
I mean .... assuming that a court case actually DID get the facts of the matter straight.
Your problem isn't with me. It isn't with John Ross. It's with a great body of work out there.
But do you know why it's easy to be cynical of ATF cases?
Because there's enough out there they have mucked up enough to make it very easy to believe the stuff that's been twisted ( and trust me fella, Wikipedia is NOT the only place that got the Ballew facts wrong. -- maybe the court case you linked to got them right, which would be ironic since it's about the ONLY place that did.).
Federal LEO have "scre##d the pooch" enough times in the past two decades to write books on .... and to produce video documentaries on.
Want a really twisted version of Waco for example? It's out there on video for all to see before the World Wide Worry became so widely used -- and produced by a militia self-appointed-colonel deliberatly fabricating outright lies about what happened with an armored vehicle "supposedly" using a flame thrower on the compound. If you watch the unaltered footage of the event the truth reveals the grotesque lie the video presents ... but hardly ameliorates the horrible decisions made by the feds.

Ease off a bit on the accusations of lies. Ross is not the first nor will he be the last to be taken in by "false info" on the Ballew case.
If one took decisons based solely on the preponderance of evidence out there (oooohhhhh, a fancy courtroom term is that!!!) then Ballew would be viewed to be as innocent as a newborn babe.

 

[DRZinn]

Without taking a position on the actual argument in progress, I wonder why DMF feels the need to defend the BATFE so vociferously, even rudely?

 

[taliv]

if i felt the batfe were innocent in a particular matter, i would defend them too. i occasionally defend the aclu, and Democrats, and i even agreed with obama once.

 

[divemedic]

Even taking DMF's cases at face value and accepting his claims as true, the fact that ATF does SOME good does not excuse "n_gger hunting licenses," kitten stomping, and framing people (for example: a shoestring is a machine gun)

 

[DRZinn]

if i felt the batfe were innocent in a particular matter, i would defend them too.

As would I, and hope anyone. However, he's not just defending a particular matter, but the BATFE in general.

And what I wonder at is not his defense, but the venom of it.

 

[Eaglecreekbrewer]

To sum it up as easily as I can. And this goes for any gov't agency.

Their interpretation of "shall not be infringed", is vastly different from mine.

 

[Deanimator]

Get real. None of you cowards could stand up to that task

You don't know me and I never saw YOU in the DMZ.

The above is the quality of the character of the typical defender of the BATFE. Can it be long before the White supremacist rhetoric starts up?

So, were the Black agents who sued LYING? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.