Article Image


I Just Wanted to Remind Everyone that Terrorists Shop at Wal-Mart!

• .
I just wanted to remind everyone that Terrorists shop at Wal-Mart! Terry Nichols told the FBI he had not had any contact with Timothy McVeigh for one to two months prior to Easter Sunday, April 16, 1995. However, a Wal-Mart receipt dated April 13, 1995, was found in Terry Nichols' wallet. The receipt was for 4 quarts of oil and an oil filter. The filter fit Timothy McVeigh's Pontiac, J-2000, but not Terry Nichols' pick-up, a 1984 GMC. On April 15, 1995, Terry Nichols used the April 13, 1995, receipt in the Manhattan, Kansas, WalMart to return the oil filter. Timothy McVeigh had left his Pontiac at the Firestone Store in Junction City, Kansas, on April 14, 1995, when he purchased the 1977 Mercury. Both Terry Nichols' and Timothy McVeigh's fingerprints were found on the April 13, 1995, Wal-Mart receipt. And there is no mention of a Tea Party in The Grand Jury Report!

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ross Wolf
Entered on:

Perhaps coincidence, two of three-major U.S. Domestic Terrorist bills were introduced within three Months of two consecutive major U.S. Domestic Terrorists Attacks: the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and the Okalahoma Alfred P. Murrah Building April 19, 1995.

Two months prior to the 1993 bombing of the NY World Trade Center “The Crime Control Act of 1993” was introduced by Rep. Orrin Hatch (S.8) that included huge appropriations for hiring and paying police and government agencies to pursue, prosecute and preempt domestic terrorist Acts. At the time terrorism was not a problem in the U.S. Under S.8, labor and ordinary demonstrators could be charged as terrorists if police alleged they blocked public access, intimidated or coerced a civilian population or tried to influence a government under 18USC Sec. 2331. Both the Left and Right protested against S.8, something Rep. Hatch may not have expected. Despite the 1993 bombing of the NY Trade Center, S.8 did not pass.


Months before the bombing of the Federal Oklahoma building, the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act was introduced.” This act included many provisions found prior in “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” Then six weeks after the Oklahoma federal building was bombed, Congress passed the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act. The passed bill included provisions from in “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” For example: the section dealing with Secret Hearings and Secret Witnesses that a defendant could not cross-examine. Most other draconian provisions of “The Crime Control Act of 1993” were subsequently passed in the 2001 Patriot Act after the second bombing of the NY Trade Center.

U.S. Police routinely purchase court testimony to convict defendants. Under the passed 1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act, prosecutors can use secret paid informants, secret testimony, secret witnesses, and other hidden evidence to convict U.S. Citizens for terrorist acts. Defense against government terrorist charges that call for the death penalty are difficult if not possible when government uses even secret testimony defendants can’t challenge.


Horrors of “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have “redefined illegal Search and seizure” and eliminated injured citizen law suits against government officials and agents under United States Code Title VII Section 2337.


Also incorporated in S8 were provisions taken from proposed S.45 titled the "Terrorism Death Penalty Act of 1991" Both bills contained language that could charge “law abiding citizens” with being agents of or affording support to terrorist organizations.


Similar to the passed 2001 Patriot Act, “The Crime Control Act of 1993” intended to invoke government property forfeitures against persons’ that made speeches, writings and/or supported assemblies that government alleged supported an act of terrorism including non-violent acts of terrorism that intimidated, coerced or influenced a civilian population. Under S8: Any individual or organization in the United States who had or should have had knowledge that an associate might commit a terrorist act—may be arrested and/or have their property seized by government.

The Crime Control Act of 1993 was written like Federal Drug Forfeiture Laws. A citizen who allowed their home or other real property to be used for an assembly would start out guilty having to prove they did not have knowledge of the unlawful methods of the organization or individuals they allowed to use their property. See S.8 Definitions Title VII Section 2332

Politically active organizations and labor unions would have been especially vulnerable to broad provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 that defined bodily acts as "terrorist acts." A common fistfight at a demonstration or picket line could qualify as a terrorist act. The physical act need not cause bodily harm, as S.8 provisions referred to "involving any violent or bodily act" that may be a terrorist act.

S.8 The Crime Control Act of 1993 Asset Forfeiture Provisions appeared aimed at public dissent and were written like RICO laws taking on the prospect of Political Property Forfeitures. Broadly written—intent to commit terrorist acts was defined: "appear to be intended (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."


Under S.8: Any picket line that was alleged to have blocked public access could have qualified as a terrorist act to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Should violence have resulted for any reason at a public assembly, the Property Forfeiture Provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be triggered causing forfeiture of attending demonstrators' homes used for meetings and the vehicles they used for transportation to the event. Under S.8 Demonstrators that left messages on a member or
Organization computer BBS System could cause the forfeiture of the
system and seizure of its records: and forfeiture of the home where the system was located.


Under provisions of S.8 The Crime Control Act of 1993, Property Forfeiture, Arrest, Huge Fines, and Prison Sentences could result from "activities that appeared to be intended toward violence". For instance distributing political action flyers.


The Crime Control Act of 1993: The Terrorist Provisions when first examined were misleading for they gave the reader the impression the government was after agents of a foreign power wishing to do Americans harm. That was a "Trojan Horse. The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be used against most anyone in the United States committing an undefined bodily act or attending an assembly. S.8 Terrorism and Forfeiture provisions are nearly identical to provisions passed in the 2001 Patriot Act. Except the Patriot Act extended federal statute of limitations for prosecution of several crimes so government could retroactively go back years to arrest U.S. Citizens and or seize their property based on a low standard of civil evidence “a preponderance of evidence.”

The Crime Control Act of 1993: would have blocked discovery of Government Witnesses and Evidence being used against a defendant under Section 2333 of Title VII. Government could have objected on grounds that compliance with discovery would interfere with a criminal investigation or prosecution of the incident, or national security operation related to the incident, which is the subject of Civil Litigation. Example: Defending against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Defense against Government civil forfeiture of property would have been almost impossible if citizens were denied access to learning of the secret evidence being used against them. Citizens’ would have no right to cross-examine government secret witnesses in asset forfeiture proceedings. The passed 2001 Patriot Act in included all those horrific provisions allowing government to use secret witness testimony to seize and forfeit property. Secret witnesses under the Patriot Act can be paid by government part of the property their testimony caused to be forfeited.


The Crime Control Act of 1993 Terrorist Provisions:
Secret Witnesses - Secret Trials: Protection of jurors and witnesses
in Capital Cases.


The Crime Control Act of 1993:


Chapter 113B Section 138 stated that the list of jurors and witnesses (need not) be furnished to Capital Offense Defendants should the court find by a “preponderance of the evidence” that providing the list may jeopardize the life or safety of any person. Note: Only a preponderance of civil evidence…


Title VII Section 2337: The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have eliminated civil law suits against U.S. and Foreign Governments by innocent persons injured resulting from Government Agents in pursuit of terrorist acts.


Title VII Section 711: Sentencing Guidelines Increased for Terrorist Crimes:
The United States Sentencing Commission would have had the power to increase the” base offense level” for any felony committed in the United States that involved or was intended to promote international terrorism. Participation by political activists in Lawful Speeches, Writings and Public Assemblies could be used as evidence by Government to show that a political participant was aware of the unlawful methods of the individual or organization that they were alleged to have afforded support.

The Crime Control Act of 1993:


Note: One person's violent unlawful act at an assembly could be enough for the Government to allege an entire assembly “Appeared To Be Intended Toward Violence or Activities that Could Intimidate or Coerce a Civilian Population.”


Under current drug forfeiture laws, informants have testified to anything to mitigate their own arrest and or receive money from police/government to implicate innocent Americans. Police/government corruption can result in innocent citizens being arrested and killed by drug agents; forfeiture of their property, and financial ruination. Under the proposed provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 special breaks would have been given to informants, even against the death penalty. Obviously Government would have had no difficulty creating informants to cause the arrest and incarceration of any U.S. Citizen believed by government to be a political threat. Similar provisions were included in the 2001 Patriot Act.


The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have approved "illegal searches." Searches, wiretaps and seizures" that would result in obtaining evidence from an invalid warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate and found to be invalid based on misleading information or reckless disregard of the truth could "override Constitutional 4th Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure." The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have allowed government to use against its citizens illegally seized evidence.” Bush II included this provision in the first draft of the 2001 Patriot Act. It was not included in the final draft.


The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have amended the "Exclusionary Rule" to add Section 3509 Admissibility of Evidence Obtained By Search or Seizure (a) Evidence Obtained By Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure (b) Evidence Not Excludable By Statute or Rule. II included this provision in the first draft of the 2001 Patriot Act. It was not included in the final draft. Section 3509 would have set the groundwork for Government Forfeiture Squads to randomly invade innocent owners' homes and businesses with a minimum of probable cause. Government would only have to {assert)  “a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment." Bush II included this provision in the first draft of the 2001 Patriot Act. It was not included in the final draft.


Currently: On March 4, 2010, Sen. John McCain introduced S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” possibly the most anti-Free Speech Bill in Modern U.S. History. McCain’s S.3081 if passed, would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations; Government can charge that attending demonstrations "materially supported hostilities."


Under S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government will have the power to detain and interrogate any individual without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners; or U.S. civilians. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)


At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney.


See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 at: