Why don't you know that a mirror will come in a mirror of regards to a standard life when keeping it confused andachts's life . You're listening to the Hour of the Time. I'm William Cooper. Ladies and gentlemen, today we have a tape that was made at a Texas Best Seminars in June of this year. That's just last month. It is an incredible tape. Texas Best Seminars is conducted all over the state of Texas. It's usually a conservative audience that attends for these gatherings. And the audiences are large. They're good, decent people. At this Texas Best Seminar, which took place in Austin, Texas, they invited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to send a representative to talk to them and then answer questions that the audience had. Well, the portion of the BATF agent's talk is omitted from this tape because we want you to hear the questions and the answers. You're going to hear that these are folks just like you. You will not hear the end of this tape today, so we will continue it tomorrow and possibly the day after until it's finished. But pay attention to the questions and pay attention to the answers. Also notice that the BATF sent someone who is not well educated, did not have a good command of the English language. And you'll find some of his comments and answers to the questions absolutely astounding. You're also going to hear some of the audience ask some questions that, in my estimation, are pretty dumb. But I'm sure that the people who asked them thought that they were important. You're also going to hear some very intelligent, very to-the-point questions. And I think you're going to find this hour and tomorrow's episode of the Hour of the Time extremely interesting at the very least. And informative, educating, and eye-opening at the very best. So, take notes if you want, but listen carefully. Thank you. The answer to this audience, yes or no? I have two questions. Are you funded by and do you answer to the comments of the United Nations? Number two, why is it every time a bond does go off in a building, federal or whatever, the NCF is right there on the spot and no access is allowed from anybody else? And then you all put out, well, it may have been a militia group or anti-government group. Why is that? The answer to your first question is no. We're not funded by a communist country. The answer to your second question about why we were able to respond so quickly to bombing. And everybody else's first question. Okay. I have, I was part, for, since 1978, I was part of a team that investigated bombing. And then the last five years I ran the team that would go out and investigate bombing, where we had specialized people, where we bring in our, exposed people, we bring in our chemists, we bring our agents in. I never excluded any local authorities. They always worked with us. So I don't know where that chemists came from, but the local authorities do work with us hand in hand, whether it be an auto investigation or bombing. Yes, sir. Would you be able to speak on behalf of the ACF? We hear people who make claims that possession of automatic weapons is a viable argument to protect themselves against the clinical government. Do you think that's a viable argument? Well, if you lost bullets, like I said, there's no, there's no question that you can have those weapons as long as you have, you can pay the tax and you can have them. There's nothing that prohibits you from that. So, and I don't know if I can really answer your question other than say, if you're not in any prohibited categories, such as being a convicted felon, under diaper for felonies, a citizen of renouncing his citizenship, a narcotics addict, a person committed to a mental institution by court, disowned or discharged from armed forces, or an alien illegally in the country, as long as you're not in those aliens, and don't have a misdemeanor charge for family violence type stuff. But as long as you're not in any of those categories, you can have those type of weapons as long as you pay the $200. And today, paying a $200 tax is no problem for anybody. Before I ask my questions, I have two questions. I wasn't clear on an answer. You just pushed the gentleman here. He asked you whether or not the ACF was funded by the Communist United Nations. Your answer was we are not funded by a foreign country. They're not a country. I didn't remember. We're not funded by the United Nations. Okay. That's what I wanted to hear. First thing I'd like to do is to congratulate your agency on being the second largest revenue generator in the federal government. And I will tell you what the access is, just to be honest, okay, in my own research, my own study, I have come to hold very serious judgments at the behavior and attitude of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire. I'm going to tell you about the aspect that I am not an unbiased party here. But I'm willing, I am willing, you know, I really, I mean this, folks. I'm genuinely willing to be wrong about my preconceptions. I have two questions for you based on something that you said. You said that Americans are the type that they do what you tell them they cannot do. You said that earlier on in your speech. I'd like to know where you come off, where the ACF comes off telling Americans who are not harming anybody, who are endowed by their unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what they can and cannot do. That's my first question, if you could ask. The first question was I was not referring to ACF as being the person who can tell the people in the United States what they can and cannot do. What I was telling you was that when people, when laws are passed saying they can't do anything, people decide to do it. I see. Okay, that leads me to my second question. Now, you did indicate that Congress passed the law and we get stuck with it. I'm certain that you're familiar with the Nuremberg trials after World War II in which it was clearly established that I'm only doing my job, I'm only doing what I have been told, is not a justification for a violation of the rights of the people under any circumstances, including a time of war. My question is this. My question is this. If Congress passed a law making murder legal, would you then advocate committing murder? If Congress told you that owning a cat is illegal, would you consider that to give you lead to harass and otherwise arrest and bother American citizens who are doing nothing wrong except owning a cat? In other words, is whatever Congress says automatically going to be enforced by the ATF or do you have people who will think clearly and say, this does not follow the constitutional protection guaranteeing the rights of the people and we will not obey this for that reason? The answer to your question is we have people who realize what the Constitution is and we will and try to have less of our ability to do what the Constitution tells us to. If you had an instruction from Congress to violate what you understood with the Constitution, would you accept the instruction? Thank you. I will say this. Let me back up here just one second. I know that everybody has brought some attention, some of the language that I use. I was born and raised in the country. I'm supposed to talk like I'm in the country. I'm supposed to talk like I'm in the country. And when I say certain things, I see we're getting very specific on what I say. I am trying to be general in what I'm saying. So please, for all you very intelligent people out there, you will be able to hang me up on language. So bear with me here. And I'll probably explain my way out of it. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Sir, I apologize. This is going to be many questions in regard to the Oklahoma City bombing. As far as Carol Howe, the ATF informant at Elohim City, who warned you guys at least three weeks in advance that a racist named Henry Mahon and a German national named Andre Strathmeyer had already caved the Oklahoma Federal building three times and were planning to blow it up. The fact that the seismographs show at least two blasts ten seconds apart. The fact that many witnesses saw the local police bomb squad there early in the morning securing the area and checking people to come inside. The fact that all the ATF agents and some were even quoted by the local newspapers as saying they were tipped on their pagers not to go to work that day. As far as General Ben K. Parton, former head of Air Force Weapons Development, who can prove that there had to have been at least four demolition charges on the third floor inside to destroy their support columns. Excuse me, the harassment of Hoppy Heidelberg, one of the original grand jurors, who tried to subpoena witnesses. She saw John Doe No. 2, whose life was indirectly threatened and who was dismissed from the grand jury for asking unpopular questions and being refused, he was refused to subpoena witnesses, including the seismograph expert at the U.S. Theological Survey and at the University of Oklahoma. Ravich explained to us there how a 4,800-pound fertilizer bomb can destroy eight support columns. Thank you. Thank you. You are the head of the bomb investigation unit, right? You said for the past five years. So you were at Oklahoma City University. I said I was not. I was not at Oklahoma. Oh, you were not at Oklahoma. Well, with your expertise and explorers, could you explain how a 4,800-pound fertilizer bomb could destroy eight support columns? Because General Ben K. Parton, former head of Air Force Weapons Development, says there's not a chance in hell. I'm not going to argue with him. What about Carol Howe, the ATF informant at Air Force? I don't think about her. You've never heard of Andre Straussmeyer, sir? No. I know there's an alleged informant in Tulsa, and I've gotten that from just reading a newspaper, and I know they know more about that than you do. So you guys don't talk about your informants among yourselves at ATF, sir? Not between here and Tulsa, no. Thank you very much, sir. I'm going to be here. Thank you. That's a different division. In other words, your office wouldn't handle it. I'm sorry. I'm going to be on the market. No, just to be clear on that. I mean, would your office handle anything in Oklahoma City or anyone in your office? No. Okay, no. That's fine. I have a lot of people there. In answer to the one about the question about the – I'm trying to go back over – about the column about not coming to the office? Yeah. Okay. That occurred after – I think it didn't occur at all. I'm going to say it occurred afterwards, because we had six people in our office building or in our offices at that time. I'm not sure what the cover story said. I'm telling you, we had six people in that building at the time it went off. One was in an elevator with a Secret Service agent. The other lady – Let him answer the text, sir. There was another lady in the office and another agent and two regular door people were there in the office. The elevator was turning in. Scott, you've got to be on the mic, sir. Afternoon, sir. Hi. I've had the pleasure in the last couple of years to get to know some of these Branch Davidians back here, Catherine Madison and Clyde and Sheila and Grandma Edna. I think that I have never met any nicer people in my life. What did they tell y'all on the initial raid about these people? Did they tell you these people were wicked devils in here, that you needed to murder these people? What did they tell you to go in there with the kind of force y'all did with helicopters and guns and everything to blast? That's my question to you. Okay. First off, they tell us to go in blasting, period. The search warrant was for a compound. The search warrant was for weapons. And we knew that there were a lot of people in the place. For the most part, we figured most of the people were innocent people, but were there at the location. And our job was to try to serve the search warrant and have no loss of life at the time. This is it. I'd like to ask you this. Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States? Yes, sir. Okay. First off, what gives Congress the authority to go against that Constitution without going to the American people to give y'all authority to do anything? Because under the Constitution, we are allowed to bear harm without any asset at all. But yet, they've got a house full of idiots up there that takes it up on themselves to make laws without going through the American people, which should be done. Because it's supposed to be for the American people, right? To protect them. Well, I don't know my own self, but I ain't given authority to do a damn thing up there. So what makes them have a legal right to speak for us without asking us? The only right reason I can see they have a legal right to speak for us is these people are voted in by the American people. They stand up there. Not if voted in by the system. I mean, the player is anyway. Now, you say yourself that you enforce laws, right? Right. Okay, let me ask you this. If you enforce laws, do you enforce somebody that betrays America and American people also and that has arms? So do what now? Do y'all enforce laws? Say a traitor is betraying everything that America stands for. Traitor? The drugs and everything. Okay. Do y'all enforce laws like that also? Those are beyond the sufficient laws, and those are being forced by the FBI. So we don't have blanket authority like that. You're ours are specifically to certain things. Okay, then. But still, yeah. What is y'all the authority to come in on American people? They can't do this. They can't do that. They can't buy this. And they can't buy that because they were in jail or they used to buy them to make a mistake, spend some time. That's bull crap, man. You can't do that. Again, we're back to the Malam prohibitive law. We have just as many people that have the opposite view of what you have right there that everybody thinks you'll be done to protect them, and what we're doing is what we're supposed to be doing. But I'm going by the Constitution. That was set in by everybody. If you go against that, you will break your own law, man. Thank you. Thank you. Where are you, man again? Dale Littleton. Mr. Littleton, I want to thank you for coming out. I think it took a lot of courage for you to show up here. You know, Clinton and Reno, I never heard any kind of apology out of them over Waco. Regardless of who shot first, don't you feel some grief or some sort of an apology for what happened to those people? From Ms. Reno and the president? No, you, as a representative of the ATF, can you give us at this time some kind of an apology? Maybe not an admission of guilt as to who was right and who was wrong, but can you at least say that you're sorry for what happened to those people? I can be sorry. I'm sorry for it, but they caused it themselves. Oh! Have you seen Waco Rules of Engagement? No, I have not. You need to see it. Go ahead and give it a look. Okay. But still... That's the one that won the Academy Award? Yeah, you've been nominated. Let me ask you this. Again, thanks for coming out. I know how organizations work. You can't say I apologize because that's taking a step back, and when you take a step back, they're assuming liability. But the one thing that gets me about that is I understand that y'all ran out of ammo, and the branch of the Vigilance ceased fire and let you walk away with your wounded, and then they end up getting burned out. That did not happen. We still had ammo. Still had ammo. We still had ammo, and everybody had wounded people, and as far as I didn't participate in the peacemaking part of it, but I do know it happened twice. There was a C-fire at one time, and then somebody on their side did not get burned, and it started up again for about 15 minutes, and finally it got around everybody, and it stopped, and at that point, we were able to remove our wounded, and they could have done the same thing. Well, maybe it wouldn't hurt for y'all to have a film to come out to counteract some of this, because I don't want to believe that any government agent, ATF or whoever, is as evil as y'all were portrayed in that deal. Now, I'm not blaming your organization, but that was the worst day in American history when that building went out. And the sooner, and the sooner, somebody just said, we're at least sorry for what had happened. I mean, if you don't want to say the bullets came from in or out of the door, whatever, but... Okay, now, another subject while I got to here. You said you're on investigate arsons? Yes, sir. Have you heard of a scheme where they launder money off of arsons via liability claims? Not exactly. I don't know exactly what it's called. It's called lost streaming. Instead of income streaming through a traditional building or business, they'll load up a site with liability coverage, and they'll generate the arson of the murders, and they launder the claim. Now, would you be willing to take a look at this to see if you think that it might be happening and if you think it's going to work to stop it? If it's arson, yes, they're the violation. Because... They've all got the schemes out there that we probably haven't heard of. Well, this is one of the works. They're called lost streaming. I'd like to get some information to you to see if you can stop it. For sure. Thanks. There's two things. You had mentioned something about putting out a videotape of your own. You might... This might be a good time to mention the report you talked to me about. And also, too, could you differentiate because my very limited understanding of what happened at Waco was that there was an initial raid that involved ATF and then the secondary deal was FBI because you discussed the differences between... The book he's talking about is through the U.S. Planning Office. And it's called The Investigation of... I may not be exactly correct on it. The Investigation of Vernon Howe, a.k.a. David Koresh in Waco, Texas. I think it's available for $30 or $35. That booklet is a accumulation of all the information obtained from the people who were at the scene. They interviewed all the agents that were on the scene. They interviewed supervisors. They took the plan. They took the... Everything was... The... The... Appadachian search warrant. The search warrant. Everything is in the book. They also go to five or six different experts in different fields. Whether it be SWAT training, exposures, intelligence, anything of this nature. They go over and they make their... They write out what they think of what we did. In this report, they were very critical of certain areas where we had failings. They were very... They praised in certain areas where we did good. The report... The interesting thing about the report was the report was not generated from outside influences. the report and the investigation was generated by the people, the agents that were at the scene requesting that an investigation be done. First time that I know of that this had happened. And it was done... And if you want... Read it. Read that book. And look at it. And if you've seen the movie, you can make your determination. I have not seen the movie. I know... I read through the book. I know the book. So that's... I was there. So that's it. Would you agree that the Waco siege was probably... This is not really a question. This is really a statement. Was one of the most tragic incidents in American history. And that as a result of that, that the people in the United States are doing more than just an administrative explanation as to what is going on. Now, I'm coming from... The position I'm coming from is a friend of mine, Byron Sage. I'm sure you know Byron. Byron Sage was there and in one-on-one conversation with Byron, he was able to convince me that there... that he had done everything humanly possible to end it without a fire. Now, it's my belief that the only way the truth can ever be known is if there is a hearing, some type of court hearing that's open to the public that people can attend, that they can see, and that charges are placed against agents that participated in the event by people that feel like they have been harmed. Now, it's my understanding that the way the law is written now, it conflicts with what our founding fathers wanted. Our founding fathers wanted no man to be above the law, not a judge, not an agent, no one was to be above the law. Would you... Would you... Would you agree that some type of hearing should be allowed that agents, as well as the people that occupies the building, should possibly be charged, and that the people in the United States are entitled to the full truth about what happened at Waco? That's my question. Okay. Contrary to proper belief, the truth that's out there, it has come out, people just don't want to believe it. Well, the question I asked was about what our nation was set on with law. We were set up under a nation of laws, and what we've got now is we have people in the ATF and the FBI and in the legislature that are claiming to be immune. That's why we have these. Okay. I don't think I'm qualified to answer about the legislative people and all this stuff, though. No. Okay. But as far as the book goes, get the book and then see if that corresponds with the same stuff that's in his, your five conversations with him. The founding fathers didn't put in there that there would be a book written to explain what the government does. What I would like to see is I would like to see the Constitution of how you say that you follow the Constitution, and I think that in your heart you believe you do. And what I would like to see is some movement in the direction of doing what the Constitution says, and I understand that it's not your decision. I understand that. It's a lot higher than I think in the federal government. Yes, sir. Sorry to ask another one here. I'll make this in short. First thing, I think the reason that people keep recommending that you see the rules of engagement is because included is the unedited infrared footage from the FBI plane that was flying overhead on the 19th as the fire was started where you can plainly see little air-conditioned black dots get out of the back of the tanks and fire three automatic weapons into the back of the house. That's why people want you to see the rules of engagement. The rest of it is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The FBI is on infrared footage. But actually, my question to you is your speculation. What would have happened if Jim Cavanaugh and Jack Harrell, the local sheriff, had gone politely with their guns in their holsters and knocked on the front door and said, David, please step outside. We have a search warrant for the premises. Yeah. Thanks. I have no idea. I have no idea. The way, I have no idea. And if I could answer that question, I mean, I still speculate. I have no idea. Were any ACF agents in contact with the local authorities before this went down? Oh, yes. Okay. Yeah. Well, the sheriff's department had actually called us about this stuff. They knew, they said they wanted some assistance and so we ended up working there. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to know if you have thought about or considered the hazards, the present hazards and future hazards of the private prison on blowing the corporation. The private, yeah, that's where I was going. Yeah. Private prison prisons? And how these are now, these private prison corporations are now on the stock exchange and this means more money to build more prisons, which means more money to lobby congressmen in the past more strict laws to fill these prisons for corporations to have more people to work for 23 cents an hour or two. Just like slave labor in China. Have you thought about this? No, I have nothing. I have nothing to do with prisons, period, other than... Yeah, but you are part of this. In a way, you are part. You are part of it in a way if you are helping to put people in these prisons. Most of the private advised prisons are from the state, state custody, not federal. You know, these are private prisons and corporations. I know, but what I'm saying is we have nothing to do with them. That and most of the prisoners are there. You said we have stuff putting people in jail there. These people are usually there on state charges, not federal charges. But aside from that, we have, I have nothing to do with prisons, whether it be the state prisons or federal prisons. We don't have anything to do with those. Okay. And I can't answer that. In other words, I can't answer that question in touch. Okay, I just would like if you would think about if I could get it. If you could see the future hazards in all these prisons that are being built and the factories that are being built inside of these prisons, I encourage you to think about this, what it may be like 10 years from now. I'll think about it. Well, no, I don't mean this the wrong way. I think many of these are really, really super valid questions. I just want people to remember here, this is a very special guest and a very rare opportunity, okay? Now, I have told him and I have told everybody, I don't want necessarily the focus of all his questions to be on Waco. I don't think so. But I would, I think it's important that when you have a rare opportunity like this, to stick with questions that either have to do with Waco or areas that he directly deals with. And sure, he has personal opinions on what happens with state prisons. Sure he does. But I'm just saying, you use this time however you want. But I personally would rather use it to ask him on areas that he's especially privy to. And that has to do with Waco and has to do with firearms laws, explosive laws, alcohol laws, tobacco laws, that sort of thing. But you use it as you say. Mr. Littleton, would you tell me again what is your position and your responsibility with the ATF so that I can properly explain my questions? Special agents. Senior special agents. Yeah, senior special agents means you have other agents underneath you. No, no. That just means I've been around a long time. Oh, okay. That's fine. I just wanted to get to get that. That's fine. I just wanted to understand that I have found that it astonishes me that back when George Washington gave us farewell as well as he acknowledged that he may have made some mistakes and he was sorry for that. But today we have within the United States government and its agencies including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms exemplary behavior from everybody. Nobody ever admits to doing anything wrong and I think we're very fortunate to have such good people. My kind of more serious point, I want to say it again at the outset. Okay. I do not recognize the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms on my person. I am a sovereign citizen. I live in this country by grace of God. My law is embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and my rights are guaranteed and protected by the organic Constitution for the United States. Now having said that, and I want you to understand, if an ATF agent came on my property without due process, he would take his life in his hands because he would become a criminal trespasser without due process and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that I may repel a criminal trespasser any time it happens with necessary force. Now my question to you, my comment to you is this. You have indicated today here that you do believe in and support the Constitution of the United States. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. Okay. I would like you to comment on the facts being a senior agent who has been around for a while that, and I'll just name a few names, Donald ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... These are all people who have their homes burst into by A.T.F. agents with absolutely no due process, no search warrant of any kind. Most of them were shot. Some of them were killed. All of them found themselves the victims of what could only be described to be uneducated observer as Nazi stormtrooper tactics. You speak about Waco and I'm sorry to bring it back in here but it needs to be said. The original two warrants were for $400 for $2297 handguns suspected of not having the excise tax paid on them. This justified, in the minds of the ATF, laying siege to a private residence for two months at a cost of a million dollars a day to taxpayers with no benefit of trial, no benefit of charges, the incarceration against their wealth of men, women, and children and the ultimate death of 86 people and four ATF troopers. I would like to know how you can possibly say that you believe in and support the Constitution for the United States, which prohibits illegal search and seizure, which invalidates House Resolution 666, the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995, which very simply says that you may not burst into private homes without a search warrant signed by a judge with a complaint and affidavit attached how can you reconcile the numerous, confirmed, knowledgeable sources of ATF raids without due process to your claim that, and I'm willing to, I'm willing to believe you, but I want to hear the reconciliation, your claim that you believe in and support the Constitution, and you still work for the ATF. as far as the search warrant in Waco, the search warrant was for machine guns and suspected machine guns and for explosive devices. Where the $400 exhaust tax that you're talking about came from, I have no idea. But Mr. Correste was living in a private residence, minding his own business. He was in a private residence minding his own business. He did not harm anybody. We had a search warrant for the location. And who signed the affidavit of complaint to capture the search warrant? The U.S. magistrate. Who was the damaged party? The what? Excuse me, if you would check your Constitution law, you will find a citizen damaged party must sign the complaint, not the U.S. magistrate. The U.S. magistrate. No, the U.S. magistrate signed the warrant. Not the complaint. The U.S. magistrate signed the warrant. But not the complaint. Who signed the complaint? The warrant was executed. Okay, not responsive. The question about Donald Carlson, Donald Scott, and the other half-dozen individuals who the ATF raided without search warrant. No. Comment? That would not have happened. It has happened. We know for a fact that it's happened. The Los Angeles District Attorney conducted an investigation on Donald Carlson and came to the absolute conclusion that yes, indeed, it did happen. We know for a fact it has happened. My question to you is how you reconcile that behavior with your support for the Constitution. I have not seen that. I've never known that to happen. You're saying it's going to happen. I have to say. If you knew it was true, if you knew it was true, would you do anything differently? If I knew... If you knew that this type of stuff was going on... It's going to happen because you're going to have to have a legal search warrant. I understand. What I'm saying is if you knew for a fact, if someone showed you evidence to prove that what I've just spoken has and does occur, what would you be prepared... If that is in fact happening, those officers need to be tried. And what would you be prepared to do? Do yourself. Yes. In your capacity, would you be... In your capacity as a senior agent, what influence or what statements or actions would you be prepared to do if this was to be brought to your attention as far? Again, you're talking stuff. You're saying California, Ohio, I'm here in Texas. I cannot go all to these places unless I'm sin. Okay? Let's be clear. I worked this up early. I mean, this is something... And keep in mind, I have my own opinions about what happened at Wagram, but I mean, I don't understand how you can really, truly... I mean, yes, you can ask him his personal opinion. That makes sense. But do you really expect an ATF agent in the middle of Texas to know all the goings-on of an ATF agent? Not at all. What I do expect is that he does have a personal opinion and I'm asking him whether or not he is willing to state for the record what he... See, if someone came to me and said... But I gave you the answer that that did not... That would not happen and I said if somebody did do something they are doing something illegally and those people need to go to jail. That's what I told you and you kept on and on. Okay, so... That wasn't clear and so you were still a little bit. You wouldn't want risks. Can you talk about actually two quick things. Number one, could you... Maybe take a moment and tell us why you accepted my invitation to come here today just on a personal note because I haven't asked you that yet. I was kind of... Actually, I was pleasantly surprised that you did accept the invitation and the second thing is could you maybe tell us... I've heard some people say this and I would be interested to say what would be your opinion on what would have happened if somebody within the ATF, not even yourself, just anybody, if they just said, excuse me, I think maybe what we're doing is unconstitutional here and I don't want to have any personal involvement. If somebody said that because you maybe speculate on what might have happened. As far as the reason I want to come here is the reason everybody, if you go, I'd like to set the record straight. I'd like to tell you what the truth is. I've told you what the truth is as I know it. If you do not like that, I'm sorry. If you do not like my answers, I'm sorry. What I am telling you is the truth as far as I know it and some things I'm absolutely positive about. I'm not going to lie to you with the type of question and request that I've gotten. I don't think some of you believe that, which I'm very sorry, but that's the reason I'm here is to try to tell you the truth. Now, if you don't want to believe it, if you don't want to look at it, then I cannot do anything about that. All I can do is to tell you what I'm trying to do. And answer to it, what was it saying? What would have happened? All right, that's the Constitution. All right. I have been involved in law enforcement for 28 years. Search laws, you have to have probable cause. If you do not have probable cause, that search warrant does not get signed. It does not get signed by the magistrate. It does not get signed by the judge. It doesn't get signed by a state judge. It does not get signed by a municipal judge. You have to understand that the magistrates in the federal system are lawyers. They are very cognizant of the law and we have to go a step further with them to make sure that because they're putting their signature on the plan. We have to be truthful. If we lie to them, we're liable. So, we have to be truthful. Yes, sir. What would happen if somebody had said within the ACL, hey, I think maybe what's occurring here might be unconstitutional. The blame was not on the line. The mayor said, no, but I'm just saying, can you speculate maybe on what the ramifications have been? I have no idea what we're talking about. Have you ever heard of the names of the mayor in there? No. I just want to know. Because we make an opinion and our opinion not to violate that. Now, again, other people have their opinions but according to the law that we operate under, we are not violating the Constitution. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am? Who did the cleanup at Wacom? Who did the cleanup? Who was responsible for the cleanup at Wacom? I have no idea. It wasn't the APF? I have no idea. I have no idea. Is that your right? Time. Time for that microphone. Do you have no idea what happened to the evidence that was never found like the front door and, you know, I know they put 24 inches in the top? The Texas Rangers, the people who actually did the crime scene was the Texas Rangers who were responsible for the cleanup after that because by, to try to make this look at, look at, to be as fair to everyone that you not want us to, see, there you go again. I'll tell you one thing and you, I'll tell you one thing and you take it the wrong way. I'm sorry I told you that. So, please, get off my back on that one, okay? If I don't speak out of your head as well, you know. It's what, that was one reason we, they, prior to any of this stuff, the Texas Rangers were going to be assigned the process of processing the scene and working the crime scene. We were not allowed on the crime scene at all until it was, the crime scene was worked. The FBI, FBI, crime of our people and the, and the Texas Department of Safety crime of our people came and worked the scene. The Texas Rangers worked the scene. The whole time we were not allowed on scene. The closest, an ATF agent could get to the scene is just inside the gate. We had a, a portable office set up. So you have no idea who stripped up that 24 inches of top where we were and started the document. No ma'am. No ma'am. If somebody did, I'm going to say it was going to be somebody like EPA or some, some, some, what's the, EPA is good. EPA is good. Huh? Yeah, somebody obviously is in charge with that type of stuff. I asked you. He doesn't know what happens with the front door, Mike. The second thing is, I assume that you, that you're regulated by the United States Code. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Time of 27? Time of 26. 26. 26 is IRS. 27 is there. 26 is where the fire laws come into a deal with machine guns and side-off shotguns is in Title 26 and Title 18. And Title 27, which is? I don't know what Title 27 is. See? What is Title 27? AKF. No? So there may be a regulation part. You could be talking about the regulations, but the laws that we enforce are in Title 18 and Title 26. Okay, so it's my understanding that in the table of parallel values, any federal code of regulations has to correspond to a title. Is that correct? So if it was in Title 26, the corresponding regulation, enforcement regulation would be in No, in this case, CFR 26? CFR 27 is what you're referring to. The regulations of CFR 27 are firearms. The criminal acts is in Title 26. Okay, my question is in Title 26, you have a section 6331, which is under, that's what they, What section? In Title 26, they send out a notice, 6331, to people, it's called a notice of levy. The corresponding regulation for that is in Title 27, which from my study of the code, I find that incompatible. Could you tell me why the corresponding enforcement regulation is in CFR 27? Yep. And how it can be enforced when the statute can't be? I have no clue. Does that also mean that ACF would go attack someone under? No. That notice? We don't attack anybody, we'll charge, close your order. Okay. Enforce? We'll charge, close your order. Okay, thank you. I have to, no, I have to admit a professional agent that's in practice. And I understand that you've been in the, in search, we'll take a moment to go ahead. Ladies and gentlemen, I have to interrupt right here because what you just heard is absolutely astounding. It's an admission of what we have been trying to tell you for an awful long time. Title 26, United States Code, and 26 Code of Federal Regulations are Internal Revenue Service. Title 27, United States Code, and 27 Code of Federal Regulations are Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. In our research, we have discovered that both of these organizations interchange hats, but that the Internal Revenue Service has no powers whatsoever to levy, seize, enforce, audit, inspect your records, books, or anything. All of those codes in Title 26 belong to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and have only to do with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms violations. And you just heard the admission here, and I have never heard that admission before from any government official in my whole life. And one of the things we've been trying to do is get the government to admit the truth about these things. Well, this agent just did. He doesn't know what he did, I can assure you, or he would not have done it. But anyway, we continue. And if you've been conditioned and trained by the government to do your job, you can follow the orders that are going down to you, even though they are constitutions, constitutions that you might not be aware of. That's right. That's what you think? That's what you think? Okay. All right. All right. And we do not deny if you believe in the Constitution and every man or person is charged to try and have the right to cover the jury. Correct. And if your agents were charged, they'd have a right to cover the jury too, right? Yes. But the bank civilians didn't have that option, did they? The ones that survived did, yes. The ones that were killed inside the building and didn't want to kill inside the building, stayed inside the building. The reason I know that, I was at the back of the property, I watched it burn. When I say back of the property, they were 1,100 yards away, and I watched them stay in the thing and not come out. So you can now do that for the trial that you're the bond? I didn't have it. I didn't, there was nothing I could do about it. I was standing back there watching all of what was going on. You were all awesome. You can't say, hey, wait a minute, they were messing up. You can't stop this? FBI was running the deal. I was there as a... It was ours to start with. But as soon as the next day or that afternoon, that's when FBI was ordered to take over Sunday afternoon. And after that, ATF had no further investigative aspect as far as what was going on at the compound after day one. Sir. No. Sir. Sir, okay. Sir. Sir. Sir. If I've got this correct, jail sergeant, they finished? Yes, sir. Okay. I'm not interested. If they were pointed out to you and we convinced you that the concentration and you're violating as an officer of the federal government, would you stop doing it? Yep. Okay. You don't know it. Thank you. Whatever. Thank you, Lillard. I'd like to know, 20 years ago when you took your oath of office and worked in the proper office, back on firearms and instructions in the agency. Who have you taken over to? To the Constitution of the United States. What do you do with President? Co-worker? I have no idea. I can't remember what the court has said at the time. Ladies and gentlemen, this is another incredible admission. He admits that he doesn't even know what the oath that he took is. He just said. He doesn't know. He can't remember what it was at the time. And he doesn't know where his loyalties lie. And when he originally said to the Constitution, that just came off the top of his head. He doesn't know that. And I'm going to play that back for you. I want you to listen to that. Listen carefully. I'd like to know, 28 years ago when you took your oath of office to work in the Alcoholics and Alcoholics and Firearms Administration, agency. Who did you take an oath to? To the Constitution of the United States. What did you do with President? Co-worker? I have no idea. I can't remember what it said at the time. Well, I just... There was part of something that the Constitution was part of it. I used to wear a bag. I didn't take an oath to a sheriff, politician, president, state senator, or anybody else in that regard. I took that oath to the Constitution. That meant that if I had to turn to a co-worker that is using deadly force illegally, I'm prepared to put a ram in his head. I'd like to know if that's the same kind of dedication to your oath that you might have. If Sarah is a report of thought to put a round in their head, they're going to have to turn their thoughts off. They're going to have to be involved in Desi Fork or doing something horrendous. Yes, sir. I'd like to know that there were a lot of reports that came out since that incident in Waco that said that David Corrish was seen in the Waco area and that he could have been bagged, stuffed, cut up two days, perhaps a few more days before and the whole incident there avoided at the home. Now, I'd like to know if you agree with that. Nope. Okay? I'd like to know if you agree with the fact that if you look out your window, what would be going to be a lesson for? He would have picked up for the firearms charges that were warranted by supposed to be. I didn't have a proper call. He cannot be. Proper calls does not get you arrested on the search warrant. I mean, the arrest warrant, we're going to have to have some evidence before we're going to get a search warrant, I mean, an arrest warrant to arrest you. Okay, let's just move on here. I'd like to know if you could not have been arrested before we ran the warrant because there was no evidence for a warrant to be issued. Wait a minute. You must have had intelligence reports. We had probable reports. I'm sorry. I'm not going to ask. You didn't have intelligence reports 48 hours or less before the incident started to get the warrant. You had intelligence reports that went back probably most on these people. Yes. Yeah. So that is your probable cause right there. Your probable cause, Ellen, you had them before Mr. Koresh was ever approached at his home in Waco. Why wasn't he picking up at his home in Waco? I had a dream the other night that, well, I didn't understand. A figure walked in through the mist with a flintlock in his hand. His clothes were torn and dirty as he stood there by my bed. He took off his three-cornered hat and, speaking low to me, he said, We fought a revolution to secure our liberty. We wrote the Constitution as a shield from tyranny. For future generations, this legacy we gave. In this, the land of the free and home of the brave. The freedoms we secured for you, we hoped you'd always keep. The tyrants labored endlessly while your parents were asleep. Your freedom's gone. Your courage lost. You're no more than a slave. In this, the land of the free and home of the brave. You buy permits to travel and permits to own a gun. Permits to start a business or to build a place for one. On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent. Although you have no voice in saying how the money's spent. Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate. And your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state. You read about the current news in a regulated press. And you pay a tax you do not owe to please the IRS. Your money is no longer made of silver nor of gold. You trade your wealth for paper so your life can be controlled. You pay for crimes that make our nation turn from God in shame. You've taken Satan's number. You've traded in your name. You've given government control to those who do you harm. So they can burn down churches and seize the family farm. And keep our country deep in debt. Put men of God in jail. Harash your fellow countrymen while corrupted courts prevail. Your public servants don't uphold the solemn oaths they've sworn. And your daughters visit doctors so their children will be born. Your leaders send artillery and guns to foreign shores. And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people's wars. Can you regain the freedoms for which we fought and died? Or don't you have the courage or the faith to stand with pride? And are there no more values for which you will fight to save? Or do you wish your children to live in fear? And be a slave? O sons of the republic, arise. Take a stand. Defend the constitution, the supreme law of the land. Preserve our great republic in each God-given right. And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom bright. As I awoke, he vanished in the mist from once he came. His words were true. We are not free, but we have ourselves to blame. For even now as parents trample each God-given right, We only watch him tremble, too afraid to stand and fight. If he stood by your bedside in a dream while you were asleep, And wondered what remains of the freedoms he fought to keep, What would be your answer if he called out from the grave? Is this still the land of the free and home of the brave? God bless you. And God bless this republic. Yes, Dave, up here on top of this hill, It's still the land of the free and the home of the brave. Ladies and gentlemen, this broadcast will be rebroadcast, or rerun, In the Round Valley of Arizona at 8 p.m. this evening. So if you have someone that you believe needs to hear it, Make sure to tell them to tune in to 101.1 FM at 8 p.m. tonight. Good night, folks. God bless each and every single one of you. God bless each and every single one of you. God bless each and every single one of you. God bless each and every single one of you. And by the way, folks, when I said that up on top of this hill, It's still the land of the free and the home of the brave. I meant it. But something else goes along with that. Right now, at this moment, in this country, We are the only truly free people that exist. The rest of you are enslaved in your own ignorance And your own cowardice. Don't you can't believe it. I know you. He's an innocent human being tiens. Service, who's histó You know you. The one carpenter, who's limited man, Who's almost anywhere I don't know, Who's Morrison? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.